Key Takeaways
- Shabana Mahmood, the UK’s Home Secretary, has launched a new asylum crackdown policy and simultaneously shared her personal story to justify and moralize the policy.
- Mahmood’s story is being used to silence criticism of the crackdown and to imbue her politics with authenticity and credibility.
- The policy proposes to deport UK-born children who have known no life anywhere else, leave refugees homeless and without support, and punish those legally in the country for claiming benefits.
- Mahmood’s use of her immigrant background and personal experience of racism is a form of late-stage identity politics, where the victim narrative is used to uphold authority rather than challenge it.
- The policy and Mahmood’s story are being used to distract from the real issues of economic failure, cultural capitulation, and cowardice that have enabled the rise of the far right.
Introduction to the Issue
The recent launch of Shabana Mahmood’s new asylum crackdown policy has been accompanied by the sharing of her personal story, which is being used to justify and moralize the policy. Mahmood’s story is one of being the child of immigrants who came to the UK legally, and she uses this narrative to propose policies that will hurt and punish immigrants and asylum seekers. The policy includes deporting UK-born children who have known no life anywhere else, leaving refugees homeless and without support, and punishing those legally in the country for claiming benefits. Mahmood claims that this is a "moral mission" for her, and that she is protecting immigrants by hurting them.
The Use of Personal Story
Mahmood’s use of her personal story is a clever and effective way to silence criticism of the crackdown. By sharing her experience of being called a "fucking Paki" and being told to "go back home", Mahmood is able to claim that she knows what it’s like to be a victim of racism and xenophobia. However, this narrative is also being used to justify policies that will perpetuate racism and xenophobia. Mahmood’s story is being used to create a false dichotomy between "good" immigrants who came to the UK legally and "bad" immigrants who are seeking asylum. This dichotomy is not only false but also harmful, as it ignores the complexity of the issue and the many reasons why people seek asylum.
Late-Stage Identity Politics
Mahmood’s use of her immigrant background and personal experience of racism is a form of late-stage identity politics. This is where the victim narrative is used to uphold authority rather than challenge it. By using her identity as a shield, Mahmood is able to silence criticism and justify policies that will hurt and punish immigrants and asylum seekers. This is a cynical and disgraceful use of identity politics, and it ignores the fact that people of color and immigrants can also be perpetrators of racism and xenophobia. As seen in the cases of Suella Braverman, Kemi Badenoch, Priti Patel, and Rishi Sunak, who have all used their identities to justify anti-immigration policies.
The Structural Problem
The fact that Mahmood is able to use her identity to justify anti-immigration policies reveals a structural problem in the UK’s immigration discourse. The country is "banjaxed" by immigration discourse, and being a politician of immigrant background is a powerful thing. This is because it allows politicians to claim authenticity and credibility on issues related to immigration and race. However, this also means that politicians like Mahmood are able to use their identity to silence criticism and justify policies that will hurt and punish immigrants and asylum seekers. Furthermore, this structural problem is exacerbated by the fact that the UK’s immigration system is complex and often inhumane, leading to a lack of understanding and empathy for those seeking asylum.
The Gamification of Politics
The reaction to Mahmood’s policy and personal story has been one of excitement and gamification. The media has hailed her as the "new hard woman of British politics" and the "proponent of Mahmoodism". This excitement is not only misplaced but also distracting. It distracts from the real issues of economic failure, cultural capitulation, and cowardice that have enabled the rise of the far right. The gamification of politics is a phenomenon where politicians are treated like characters in a game, and their policies are seen as moves in a game rather than as serious proposals that will affect people’s lives. This gamification is particularly problematic when it comes to issues like immigration and asylum, where the stakes are high and the consequences of policies can be devastating.
The Seductive Nature of Mahmood’s Story
Mahmood’s story is seductive because it allows us to believe that the problem of immigration and asylum is not a bigger one about a country where dark nativism lurks unchecked, and where scarcity and inequality are endemic. Instead, it allows us to believe that the problem is simply one of too many foreign bodies that need feeding, watering, and housing. This narrative is not only false but also comforting, as it allows us to avoid confronting the real issues that have led to the rise of the far right. Furthermore, this narrative is also used to justify policies that will further marginalize and exclude already vulnerable groups, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and inequality.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Shabana Mahmood’s new asylum crackdown policy and personal story are a cynical and disgraceful use of identity politics. The policy will hurt and punish immigrants and asylum seekers, and Mahmood’s story is being used to justify and moralize it. The reaction to the policy and story has been one of excitement and gamification, which distracts from the real issues that have enabled the rise of the far right. It is essential to recognize the structural problem in the UK’s immigration discourse and to challenge the false narrative that Mahmood is using to justify her policies. By doing so, we can work towards creating a more just and equitable society for all, rather than perpetuating a system that prioritizes the interests of the powerful over the vulnerable. Ultimately, it is crucial to approach issues like immigration and asylum with nuance and empathy, rather than relying on simplistic and harmful narratives that only serve to further marginalize and exclude already vulnerable groups.