Why do migration policies fail?

Migration policy has been at the centre of public debate in recent decades in particular, post-911, whereby conversations transitioned from a largely economic or social topic into a central pillar of national security and border control.

For example, post 911 the USA pushed for two new acts: the USA Patriot Act (2001), allowing for greater government surveillance and investigative powers for law enforcement and the USA Real ID Act (2005).

Therefore, with greater border focus, especially in countries like the UK where debates around “stopping the boats” have dominated political rhetoric, policies shape not only who can cross borders, but who is welcomed, who is feared, and who is left in limbo.

The IOM (International Organisation for Migration) states Migration Policy is ‘A government’s problem-solving efforts to reach a desired state of affairs with regard to migration through comprehensive and coherent interventions, anchored in regulation, including legal frameworks, and delivered through programmes of activity’.

The IOM has offered a degree of scope through further suggestions for migration policy suggesting policy should: facilitate migration, regulate migration, manage border and optimise migration outcomes.

For those less familiar with migration policy, the above doesn’t place clear importance on migrant dignity, desires or a government’s relation to a sending country. Instead, it is extremely vague and subjective to governments’ agendas.

The phrasing ‘desired state of affairs’ reaffirms the fragility of policy that can sway with changes in national agendas, offering a potential weigh up of the rights and agendas of native citizens vs holding a responsibility to people in general.

I would like to clarify that migration policy and refugee policy is different and therefore international standards/requirements vary. But let's look at some policies to build a better understanding.

In recent years, the UK’s most talked-about migration policy has been the Rwanda deportation plan. Introduced under the Conservative government in 2022, it attempted to send asylum seekers who arrived in the UK irregularly (especially by small boat) to Rwanda for their asylum claims to be processed.

The governments stated Rwanda policy aim was to deter dangerous Channel crossings, disrupt smuggling networks, and reduce irregular migration in order to ‘save lives’ and secure the UK’s borders.

However, I’d argue that the policy also functioned as a symbolic measure to demonstrate an Iron fist on immigration and respond to nationalist and anti-immigration public pressures.

But here’s where the unsettling policy and reality parted ways:

• The first planned deportation flight in 2022 was cancelled after a European court injunction and subsequent legal obstacles that stalled implementation.
• Even in later iterations, the practical scope of Rwanda’s asylum system was absurd compared with the number of Channel crossings, meaning the technicalities made implementation impossible.
• Crossings by small boats have continued to rise despite the policy’s existence, unsurprisingly because vulnerable people will always seek safety even if risky.
• Many critics now describe it as legally and morally questionable, and, crucially, ineffective as a solution on its own.

But I believe the above was already known by policy officials, yet their attempts continued. Why? Because asylum seekers are scapegoated and attacking those unable to change narratives is the perfect policy distraction from other failings of governments.

With a struggling economy, increasing wealth inequalities and crawling social mobility, the Rwanda policy was an attempt to assert control. Attempting to convince the UK population (in particular the working-class right-wing population) that the UK will keep itself safe from foreigners and magically the money problem will go away. Order will be allowed to follow once the gates are closed.

An embarrassing human rights low for the UK but a true glimpse into the government's instability.

This week's lecture covered scholars like Steven J. Hollifield and others who study the political economy of migration policy.

Hollifield has long pointed out that migration policies fail not because governments are incompetent per se (this depends in my opinion), but because they are increasingly asked to solve contradictory objectives for various populations: for example, honouring humanitarian obligations while maintaining sovereignty without fully cooperating with neighbouring states. Or preventing irregular (illegal) crossings while leaving few pathways open.

This produces what Hollifield and co-authors describe as competing interests within policy design: humanitarian, economic, security, and political goals that pull in different directions. Creating a policy that satisfies all these aims is almost impossible without acknowledging that trade-offs are made, often at the expense of migrants themselves.

In practice governments focus on border enforcement and deterrence because these are visible and politically salient. Yet privately relying on economic migration to fill labour shortages and drive growth. Ironic.

However, even the best-intended policy will have limits if it fails to speak to the conditions that cause migration, economic inequality, conflict, climate shocks, and global systems of opportunity and constraint.

An approach encompassing the former requires receiving countries acknowledging personal geopolitical failings and taking responsibility. Which unfortunately is painfully unlikely.

1. Migration policy is the collision of vulnerable lives and political ambitions placed in the hands of governments or coalition agreements.
   
2. Policies that are inhumane and discriminatory, like deport to Rwanda or stop the boats, often obscure a deeper fact: migration is shaped by forces far larger than a single crossing or courtroom decision. And until policies reflect the complexity of those forces, we will keep circling the same debates and feeling frustrated.

UK Parliament Committees, LSE Blogs, Migration Observatory

You can find more of Davina’s (Co-Chair of the Anti-Racism Network) MSc files on Substack:

https://davinasnotes.substack.com