It’s understandable that non-US residents may desire to distance themselves from former President Donald Trump’s legacy. The tumultuous nature of his administration, particularly since January 20, is challenging to track and comprehend. Labeling Trump’s approach as akin to a bull in a china shop seems almost kind to bulls. Indeed, his style is even more extreme. Unfortunately, Trump’s patterns seem to be sparking imitation around the globe. This looming trend is especially concerning when we consider his vehement stance on immigration.
Trump didn’t give birth to the global immigration crisis. His existence didn’t coincide with the invasions of Europe by the Huns, Goths, or Vandals, which marked the first significant migration movement and transformed the demographic landscape of Europe. Different types of migration have always been spurred by various factors, including conquest, geographical circumstances, oppression, warfare, or simply the human yearning for exploration. The ongoing increase in migration has no direct ties to Trump as well.
Prominent triggers of migration in the last two decades, such as the Syrian Civil War, the destabilization of Central Asia, and escalations in Sudan and Central Africa, occurred independently of Trump’s influence. Yet, his method of addressing migration has stood out for its severity, a trait that has inexplicably captivated even traditionally civilized nations, such as the United Kingdom.
His strategy—detaining undocumented migrants in military aircraft and issuing executive orders targeting them as if they were under martial law—is unambiguously oppressive. Even though we witnessed shades of this during his first term, Congressional limits somewhat contained him. Now, with little opposition besides perhaps the courts, his actions might start to redefine how other countries, particularly in Europe, react to migration.
On January 22, a report in The Telegraph coincided with the first batch of Mexican immigrants being forcibly loaded onto a military plane at the US border. The title read, ‘Up to one in 12 in London is an illegal migrant.’ It further suggests that government ‘should increase deportations’, citing an estimated over one million illegal immigrants in the UK, with London hosting the majority.
The article argues that these numbers could be an underestimate, holding illegal immigrants responsible for straining the health service, public utilities, and infrastructure. Insisting that the Labour government must intensify its crackdown on illegal immigrants to prevent the UK’s impending dissolution is the predominant recommendation.
The character assassination of immigrants isn’t a recent phenomenon in Britain. Exploiting fear of immigrants played a significant role in the Brexit outcome. Politicians like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage propagated numbers that implied both foreigners from distant places and Eastern Europeans posed threats to British jobs, despite the fact that many immigrants were doing work the British wouldn’t.
Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party capitalized on this wave of nationalist sentiment. Farage continues to stoke these fires and fuel discontent. A similar strategy was applied by Conservatives in the UK, with a deal that would allow for more than 50,000 asylum seekers to be relocated to Rwanda over the coming years, modeled somewhat off of what Abraham Lincoln did with Liberia in the 19th century. This caused controversy, and as bad as the plan may seem, it remains more agreeable than the inhumane conditions under which migrants were previously detained.
However, if the prevailing Trump-style model permeates Britain or other European nations, even detention facilities may soon become likened to sanctuaries. Detaining individuals found in random locations, placing them in handcuffs, and deporting them on military aircraft like criminals might satisfy right-wing sentiment in the short-term. Still, it neglects the root cause of the crisis: people tend to migrate towards where they perceive they might have better lives if they can afford the cost.
There’s also another perspective that governments need to act to protect their citizens and countries. Civilized nations recognize that there are international treaties, like the Geneva Convention on Refugees, designed to safeguard migrants’ rights, especially those escaping dangerous situations. However, this unconventional approach that’s emerging, which treats potential deportees like animals, is something that the UK and the rest of Europe need to push back against. While Trump may be seen as a deviation from the norm, the next four years could still feel considerably extensive.
Nevertheless, it’s unlikely that the US, a nation composed predominantly of immigrants, will completely change its narrative in a period of four chaotic years. Notable Republican leader Ronald Reagan once proclaimed, ‘Our nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands.’ The Schengen countries, especially Greece, Italy, France, Spain, and Belgium, have more significant pressure due to geographic and historical ties with non-European territories. This underlines Europe’s need to avoid mimicking Trump’s approach since xenophobia can lead to far more destructive outcomes in these societies compared to the US.
It is fair to say that the rise of violent extremism, narcotics trade, and other forms of criminal enterprises have blurred differentiation between genuine migrants and refugees, exposing host countries to great risk. Populist politicians tend to exacerbate this problem by amplifying these fears and distorting the issue’s size. The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks led to a negative portrayal of migrants, especially those from predominantly Muslim nations. This reinforced the narrative of cultural and civilizational threats among western politicians.
For instance, in France, home to a considerable Muslim population, surveys reveal that the public believe the Muslim population size is a fourfold overestimate. Additionally, in the UK, the perceived presence of Muslims is triple the actual figure. Migration, historically, has not been unidirectional. However, Trump’s recent conduct echoes past instances such as Idi Amin’s brutal expulsion of Indians and Pakistanis from Uganda, where they were deemed the root cause of the nation’s woes, only for Nigerians to realize later that the fault lay with inept political leadership.
Any nation contemplating on following Trump’s questionable approach must remember the migration process. While some migrants never depart from their host nation, others keep moving, and some return to their countries of birth against all odds, just as Trump’s paternal grandfather returned to Germany from the U.S. These migrations can be both harmful and beneficial. Nevertheless, simplistic narratives that portray migration as the root cause of the majority of contemporary societal issues only serve to perpetuate populist rhetoric, conveniently dismissing the individual paths of those who propagate them.