King’s College London

Faculty of Arts & Humanities

Coversheet for submission of coursework
(Undergraduate & Taught Postgraduate)

Complete all sections of this form and ensure it is the first page of the document you submit.
Failure to attach the coversheet as required may result in your work not being accepted for
assessment.

Word count, which should be calculated electronically, must be stated accurately below.
For details of what is included in the word count, and penalties incurred by exceeding the word
count limit, please consult the coursework submission policy in the Faculty handbook.

DECLARATION BY STUDENT

This assignment is entirely my own work. Quotations from secondary literature are indicated by the
use of inverted commas around ALL such quotations AND by reference in the text or notes to the
author concerned. ALL primary and secondary literature used in this piece of work is indicated in
the bibliography placed at the end, and dependence upon ANY source used is indicated at the
appropriate point in the text. I confirm that no sources have been used other than those stated.
I understand what is meant by plagiarism and have signed at enrolment the declaration
concerning the avoidance of plagiarism.
I understand that plagiarism is a serious academic offence that may result in disciplinary
action being taken.
I understand that I must submit work BEFORE the deadline, and that failure to do so will
result in capped marks.

(This is a letter followed by five digits,

Candidate no. Z 0 9 5 3 0
and can be found on Student Records)

Module Title: Topics in Political Philosophy: The Ethics of Migration

Module Code:
6AANA046
(e.g. 5AABC123 )

Assignment: Under what circumstances (if any) may people resist immigration
law, and what form may that resistance take?
(may be abbreviated)

Assignment tutor/group: Dr Fine

Deadline: 15.05.2019

Date Submitted: 15.05.2019

Word Count: 2468

Your assignment may be used as an example of good practice for other students to refer to in
future. If selected, your assignment will be presented anonymously and may include feedback
comments or the specific grade awarded. Participation is optional and will not affect your grade.
Do you consent to your assignment being used in this way? Please tick the appropriate box below.

YES NO
Under what circumstances (if any) may people resist immigration law, and what form may that
resistance take?

Members of our society feel compelled to join movements of resistance due the unjust laws often
found in our society. However, the question that is not asked enough is, is it our place to challenge
authority, and if so, how far is it permissible to go? If, as I will argue, non-violence resistance is
permissible, the question stands on if we also have a duty to protect the rights of minority groups from
injustice, and if we have the right to challenge authority, then why limit resistance simply as non-
violent protests when we allow for proportionate and just war. I will argue that although resistance is
permissible, violent action should be refrained from at all costs, and on a whole resistance should not
be encouraged as it runs the risk of co-option and escalating violence. While the government's
authority should be challenged and controlled, there are checks and balances which allow this, and the
modern democracy has no place for violence; even that which is proportionate.  

Resistance to immigration law should only be permissible in the case of injustice in relation to
immigration laws. If injustice exists, then proportionate resistance that is non-threatening to the just
institution in society should be permissible. An action is “proportionate only if the good that this force
brings about outweighs the bad that this force causes”. 1 It is undeniable that the current government
has sparked a politics of hate with draconian laws causing a hostile environment for immigrants.
Resistance to such an environment can be seen as much needed support for those threatened by
current legislation, ranging from the ability for the Home Office to hold people in detention centres
indefinitely, the practices of deportation and detention centres alone should be deemed as not having
place in a legitimate and just immigration policy considering “that ambulances are being called to
detention centres in England 10 times a week, often for problems such as overdoses, suicide attempts,
fainting and chest pain. This figure has risen over the last three years despite there being fewer people
held in detention”.2 The methods of deportation employed by the UK Home office are brutal to say,
with both members of the EEA and outside the EEA being wrongfully deported (the latter being
exemplified by the Windrush scandal), those deported rarely have enough time to defend themselves
and appeal their deportation. Those forcibly removed before their appeal has processed therefore have
to apply from outside the UK where their chances of coming back are slim to none, and no one is
there to pay them reparations for what they endure. While the overall numbers of deportations are
reported to continue to fall, with 10,892 reported for the year ending in June 2018, the rest are pushed
into “voluntary” departures, with numbers rising as high as to 16,854. 3 While it is undeniable that
many of the immigration laws that are made by the government are justified through the threat of
1
Javier Hidalgo, 'Resistance to Unjust Immigration Restrictions', Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 23, no. 4
(2015), pp. 457
2
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/26/ten-ambulance-callouts-a-week-to-detention-
centres
safety, the inhumane treatment that is faced by those facing immigration laws isn’t, thereby making
these laws unjust. While safety should remain a government's priority, so should the protection of
human rights. Furthermore, it can be seen that although the Home Office justifies it’s immigration
tactics as part of anti-terrorism laws to protect the population, it can be seen that the countries the
countries receiving the largest numbers of returned migrants are Albania, Romania and Poland, three
EEA countries which are notably not known to be heavily affected by terrorism.

There are also far more physical injustices against migrants, where border agents use a
disproportionate amount of force to restrict immigration, including but not limited to “tasers to
incapacitate migrants, pepper spray them, shoot them with rubber bullets, and, less frequently, beat
migrants with batons, and even fire live ammunition at them”. 4 Sufficient to say such an abuse of
power which results in the deaths of thousands of migrants is more than merely unjust; it is a crime
against humanity.

Civil disobedience and nonviolent action is sometimes necessary to fight the injustice in the name of
the minority groups who face the results of unjust immigration laws. I will assume that the aim of all
resistance, both civil disobedience and non-violent action is to encourage dialogue and change the
system. If a certain form of resistance is not sufficient in doing this, then it should not be considered
as an effective mode of resistance, and it should not be employed. Non-violent resistance may be seen
as part of the checks and balances against the government, and a large part of a working democracy is
challenging the authority and voicing one’s opinions with the government to ensure progress and
change in the policies where necessary or unjust. It is clear that these checks and resistance is
necessary through the view that cases of wrongful deportation persist, and as with the Stansted 15
case, if not for their actions, the 11 migrants would have been wrongfully deported.

There are however other forms of resistance than civil disobedience and there is a very fine line
between a protest involving civil disobedience and violent resistance, especially in heated and
passionate protests (which is the case where the issues surround human life) where violence has a
history of escalating. In order to separate violent protests from civil disobedience, violent protests
must be defined. I will define violent protests as those which use physical force to achieve an aim;
bringing about either bodily harm, property damage, and/or mental trauma and psychological distress
through verbal abuse.

3
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-year-ending-june-2018/how-
many-people-are-detained-or-returned
4
Javier Hidalgo, 'Resistance to Unjust Immigration Restrictions', Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 23, no. 4
(2015), pp. 450
In practice, it may be incredibly hard to judge the difference between a violent and nonviolent protest,
and this strict definition limits my theory in that it rejects movements I may be swayed and willing to
accept. One such movement is the Stansted 15 activist movement. In their mission to protect those
being wrongfully deported, they broke into the airport and chained themselves to the airplane, sopping
the deportation flight in the name of intervening to prevent harm as clearly the governmental system
was not taking the correct measures. The fact that with the extra time provided by the Stanstead 15, 11
migrants were found to be wrongfully deported shows there was dire need for such action.
Nonetheless, the property damaged involved in breaking into the airport results in the fact that I
cannot commend the actions of the Stansted 15 activists. Convicted of a terror crime, the Stansted 15
described themselves as nonetheless a “peaceful” protest responding to “the real crime [which] is the
government’s cowardly, inhumane and barely legal deportation flights and the unprecedented use of
terror law to crack down on peaceful protest”.
(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stansted-15-deportation-stop-london-airport-guilty-
verdict-terror-a8675966.html) It is however highly doubted whether this can be seen as a peaceful
protest. The Stansted 15’s fight against unjust immigration law resulted in the same type of property
damage that was seen citizens broke into shops during the London riots, simply relatively on a
microscopic scale. The small scale of property damage does not however take away from the fact that
it remains property damage which entails the use of physical force, making the protest a violent
protest and thus not one I can support.

There should be a further clarification between resistance and defence. While forceful defence is
permissible and justifiable (for example migrants using force to defends themselves against violent
border agents), forceful resistance is neither constructive nor permissible. To see the difference
between them, one may consider a protest which begins as peaceful, but turns violent due to policy
brutality (without instigation), causing the members of the protest to defend themselves with
proportionate force to that of the police. Contrastingly, protests that begin with the intention to be
violent do not receive the same leniency.

One of the most common arguments in support of violent protests is the argument that the context is
already violent though it may not seem so. Riots and violent protests always have a cause, usually
they are caused by a build-up of aggravating factors which can include but are not limited to racism,
terrible living conditions, lack of opportunities. In such cases, violent protests are reacting to and
retaliating to violent living conditions and dehumanization. Such cases may include the London riots,
which caused thousands of pounds of property damage. The argument is thus, that violent protests
respond in a justified and proportionate way to political violence with an attempt to violently
restructure society as property is treated as morally more significant than human beings.
I believe however that although this argument may have some merit - though it is debate if using
different modes of violence really makes violence proportionate the political hate crimes, we
shouldn’t tolerate violence because it is not only a slippery slope to more grotesque modes of violence
for which democracy has no place, but also it doesn’t bring about constructive consequences. Let us
imagine that the problem raised by a violent protest is the inhumane treatment at detention centres.
Undoubtedly, violent protests gather attention and mass media coverage. The attention that violent
protests gather however are often unfavourable and negative. Anger and emotions presented by
demonstrators are used to present them as unstable and not someone to engage with in constructive
communications to make a difference so therefore while attention is built towards the cause that is
fought for in violent protests, there is also a build-up of animosity which often pushes the two parties
at odds further away from each other and a possible compromise and agreement. Furthermore, it can
be seen, as with the recent Extinction Rebellion Protests in London, that peaceful protests can gather
just as much support and attention towards an issue as violent protests - and the coverage is far more
favourable. The Extinction Rebellion Protests show how understanding and support can be gathered
through peaceful and creative protests and can be highly successful. The Extinction Rebellion Protest
caused momentous change, debates in government and policy change as a climate emergency was
announced, with ways to reduce carbon emission to net zero policies now being considered as a
priority.

In fact, there have been many cases within history which showcase the harmful nature of violent
protest to societal attitudes, resulting in the hindering of progress as opposed to their advancement.
One of the most common examples is the suffragette movement which is generally considered to have
thwarted advancement of the suffragists fighting for the women's votes. Due to the actions of the
suffragettes, they were painted as emotional animals, hysterical women not worth discussing with nor
deserving of the vote unlike the suffragists who made far more progress, were listened to in
parliament and had the backing of key speakers. It is undoubtedly that their work would possibly not
be as successful without the context of the time; women working and proving themselves in the war
effort, however it is clear that comparatively to the suffragettes, they were far more effective in
bringing about results.

I believe that citizens should avoid the possibility of aggravating attitudes towards migrants as far as
possible and therefore, there is no place for violent protests within our society as it poses too much of
a risk for the image of migrants and refugees considering the already hostile environment that the
government has built. In 2012, the then Home Secretary Theresa May stated that the aim of the hostile
environment created by the government “is to create here in Britain a really hostile environment for
illegal migration... What we don't want is a situation where people think that they can come here and
overstay because they're able to access everything they need”. 5 In reality, a hostile environment does
not keep anyone away, migrants who move to the UK often move for economic reason and hardships
face in their countries, and refugees do not consider the hostility of the environment when they are
fleeing to protect their rights and lives. Instead, the hostile environment is aimed to increase the
number of “voluntary” returns for cost reasons, as they are more cost efficient then forced deportation.
It should be noted that the hostile environment has not been successful in raising the numbers of
voluntary returns, in fact, since the introduction of these measures, voluntary returns have been
dwindling.

The reason why the hostile environment is so effective, is because it is introduced outside of the
legislative sphere, and into the public sector, with school and universities encouraged to report illegal
immigrants or migrants extending their visas, businesses threatened with fines for employed
undocumented individuals and citizens persuaded to report immigration or border crime to border
enforcement. This erodes at the sense of community and paints migrants as criminals, affecting both
legal and illegal migrants alike, after all, when one is treated like a criminal, one often feels like a
criminal. This is why I conclude that the involvement of citizens into cases involving social justice
can be harmful and detrimental. If it is agreed that citizens shouldn’t be involved in creating a hostile
environment, then what gives them the moral ground and position to become involved in the battle for
rights for migrants?

Conclusively, non-violent resistance, whether about immigration law or other issues is permissible in
the case of unjust laws. This is not to say that it is one’s duty to resist unjust immigration laws as
generally I believe that the involvement of the ordinary citizen into governmental affairs may be
detrimental in the same way that it is detrimental for the government to use its citizens to further its
politics of hate and hostile environment. I have also argued against violent civil disobedience in all
cases, nonetheless I maintain that in many cases the line between non-violent resistance and violent
resistance is very fine, and in practice very hard to judge. Violent resistance is detrimental to the
possibility of a constructive discussion to facilitate change and builds animosity on both sides.
Violence is used as a hate tactic, and hate does not breed agreement. Thereby, violent civil
disobedience is both harmful to society and to the cause it is trying to defend. Non-violent resistance
also has the potential to be harmful in such a way and therefore, when heeded, should proceed with
caution. The most effective forms of resistance in a democracy is political action, and this is the
course that should be pursued if possible, in any given scenario, save for cases of defence from harm
in which evasion, deception and defensive force may not only be permissible but also necessary.

5
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9291483/Theresa-May-interview-Were-going-to-
give-illegal-migrants-a-really-hostile-reception.html
Bibliography

Javier Hidalgo, 'Resistance to Unjust Immigration Restrictions', Journal of Political Philosophy, vol.
23, no. 4 (2015), pp. 450 - 470
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-year-ending-june-2018/how-
many-people-are-detained-or-returned
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9291483/Theresa-May-interview-Were-
going-to-give-illegal-migrants-a-really-hostile-reception.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/26/ten-ambulance-callouts-a-week-to-detention-
centres