How to avoid slipping into mainstream narratives : Why closing borders isn't the answer to the COVID-19 crisis
Credit: (The Intercept/Google Images)
Written by: Daniel Xie
A change of heart
On Mar. 20, this site published an article by this contributor titled “A lack of leadership in times of crisis: Trudeau's (in)decision around closing the Canada-US border”. In it, I criticized Trudeau for seeking Trump’s approval before closing the border, arguing that Trudeau’s supposed inaction demonstrated a lack of leadership because of how he did not close the border to all non-essentials as soon as possible.
That article has proven to be quite controversial, and I have received a number of strong responses criticizing it’s argument, ranging from responses stating that it was politically prudent for Trudeau to wait rather than act unilaterally, to ensure no major economic upset occurs that would have ensured from closing the borders on his own, to the fact that by advocating the closing of the borders at all, I am ultimately inflaming right wing xenophobic ideas. When I wrote that article, it was not my intention to inflame right-wing xenophobic ideas. Rather I wrote that article from the perspective of implementing policies to keep the nation safe during a global pandemic and was somewhat uninformed of the xenophobic implications of border control during a pandemic.
Since the weekend of Mar. 21-22, following my participation in Spring Magazine’s webinar highlighting a Socialist response to the pandemic, I have changed my opinion considerably, and no longer espouse the views in the article above. And now, my view is much more in line with the critics of the above-mentioned article.
Part of the reason that I have changed my viewpoint is because over the past few days, I have been made aware-through the Spring Magazine webinar and my own family’s fear of xenophobia directed against the Chinese-that in this time of crisis, putting up borders does not solve the Coronavirus problem, and with far-right populists such as Donald Trump, Doug Ford, Jair Bolsonaro and Boris Johnson in power around the world, entrenching border control may give a “medical justification” to existing far-right xenophobia.
As Jesse McLaren eloquently argued on Spring Magazine and during Spring Magazine’s webinar on a socialist response to the outbreak, previous precedents of border control being deployed during a pandemic to alleviate it’s problems, such as during the H1N1 crisis, demonstrates that closing borders does nothing to solve the problem, especially if someone has no choice but to flee from an area that is infected by a pandemic.
Rights over restrictions
Proponents of border control during a time of crisis might point to how the Coronavirus was successfully contained in China, as a counterargument in favor of borders. Yet in truth, border control directed at Wuhan did the least to contain the virus. According to Science Magazine, the quarantine in Wuhan came too late to stop the spread of the virus, with many infected out of Wuhan by the time of its imposition and consequently only delayed the spread of the pandemic in China by 3-5 days. It was first responders, medical staff, and the expansion of makeshift hospitals that all helped contain the disease in China, not the quarantine.
By laser-focusing on quarantines, people may overlook measures that actually need to be taken to fight the virus such as providing incentives for self-isolation, in favor of border restrictions and travel bans that ultimately prove ineffective. For instance, in Italy, travel bans were implemented, but the death toll continued to rise regardless; a consequence of Italy’s lack of hospitals and a ready healthcare system in contrast to South Korea. And as I myself have argued, Canada has no way of dealing with the escalation of the Coronavirus pandemic without a strong paid sick leave program implemented on the national level. Not only that, Canada also needs to:
implement both mortgage and rent freezes
create new shelters for homeless peoples, using vacant buildings if necessary
expand the amount of testing done and make them as accessible to the population as possible
create means for indigenous communities-whom suffer from continued settler colonialism manifesting in the context of this situation through a lack of housing and clean water-to fight the pandemic
Of course, proponents of closing borders would argue that we can do both; close the borders to ensure safety, while building up a strong support net for people to go into voluntary isolation without the threat of homelessness or economic precarity. However, by establishing border controls and mandatory quarantines, we fuel xenophobia that the far-right can take advantage of to scapegoat entire populations.
As the pandemic escalates, my own parents now live in fear, fear at how xenophobia directed against Chinese communities will escalate due to the virus, especially with Trump calling the virus the “Chinese virus”; pinning the blame for the virus solely on the Chinese population. The closing of borders would allow far-right populist governments such as Trump in America and Johnson in the United Kingdom to target certain countries that may have a large quantity of infected people, and scapegoat Chinese or Italians as the carriers of the virus that should be avoided by all of society; ignoring that the virus ultimately infects everyone regardless of race or ethnicity.
My own parents’ constantly living in fear of xenophobia, along with greater awareness of how “border discourse” can be used to fuel xenophobia in a pandemic through the scapegoating of ethnic groups from areas where the virus has taken a huge toll, has gone a great deal in significantly changing my view on the matter. Why should we, as Chinese immigrants that have lived here for almost twenty years, face a society that seeks to remove us simply because of a virus that infects everyone, just because said virus emerged in China? Already we are seeing the impact of xenophobic discourse on the Chinese and Asians in Canada over COVID-19.
On Jan. 28, a petition circulated calling on the York Region District School Board to keep students whose family have visited China home from school for 17 days, while businesses in Vancouver owned by the Chinese saw less people calling on their services. They were being unfairly targeted for the virus by xenophobic sentiments in Vancouver that only remained dormant, despite our history books painting mass racism against the Chinese as a thing of the past. Xenophobia has also hit Korean communities as well, with stabbing attempts on Koreans in Montreal carried out that were suspected to be racially motivated.
The Chinese in Wuhan were the first to be impacted by the virus, and they were also the first to discover the virus and take action through the immediate response of doctors and health workers, and yet their efforts are met with xenophobia from xenophobic elements of the population and far-right politicians and movements willing to take advantage of said xenophobia to expand their own political power. And this is something we are already seeing happening in Italy, the country hit the hardest by the Coronavirus. In Italy, the far-right Northern League has used the Coronavirus to justify Italy’s ongoing quarantine of Africans rescued from the Mediterranean by linking sightings of the Coronavirus in Africa to push for ramping up draconian quarantines imposed against African migrants. In Canada, the Conservative party has, in response to the quarantine, only sought the imposition of mandatory quarantine and the closing of borders.
The damaging impact of border discourse
Border discourse also creates pressure on immigrants and ethnic minorities to self-isolate, pressure that ultimately results in xenophobia. When HIV emerged, it was blamed on perceived “risk groups” such as the LGBTQ community, drug users, sex workers, along with Haitians. This consequently led to both racist anti-Haitian and homophobic discourse being levied at the groups deemed to be a risk. There were calls to isolate “at risk groups” from society through the shutdown of gay villages and detain Haitian refugees; all of which did nothing to solve the HIV crisis and only made things worse. By contrast, according to Jesse McLaren, through fighting for migrant rights, LGBTQ rights, drug decriminalization, we were able to gain the tools to address HIV such as sex education, along with greater access to clean needles and the medicine that can more effectively fight HIV.
Discrimination against “at risk groups” over HIV, along with discrimination against China were not the only times that xenophobic responses arose regarding a pandemic. The SARS pandemic saw an earlier scapegoating of Chinese-Canadians, and the Ebola outbreak saw racist scapegoating of Africans. In times of crisis, there will be those that point their fingers and engage in the “othering” of entire groups. They will call for draconian measures directed against said groups that ultimately do little to resolve the original crisis. The need to deal with the Coronavirus has once again brought these tensions to the surface, and we must not fall for the deception that xenophobic rhetoric brings no matter how innocent it may sound.
The Coronavirus, and the lack of a social support system to effectively handle the disease has created opportunities for the left and the working class to demand wide-reaching programs. This includes rent and mortgage freezes, a longer sick leave, an extensive program of housing for the homeless, and more. It has also made Medicare for All appealing for many people, and a policy to be considered. Yet, it also has created opportunities for the right to demand stricter border controls and policies directed against immigrant communities and marginalized populations.
If measures such as extensive social programs and Medicare for All is imposed during an crisis such as an epidemic to maintain the stability of capitalism, just as the 1930s saw the implementation of various social democracy and Keynesian reforms across Europe, when the crisis is resolved the sociopolitical elite will seek to reverse these gains while keeping the draconian policies suggested by the right. It falls to us to resist the exclusionary policies suggested by the right, and to defend the progressive social policies that may be enacted during this time to fight the virus.
The personal connection
As I write this piece, thinking of how my views have changed since my last piece on the topic of borders, I have come to ask myself, “Why are policies that ultimately prove ineffectual and reinforce xenophobia so subsumed in society, and accepted by even people who are not xenophobic?” Indeed, when I made my case for immediate closing, I framed it solely in the context of safety for Canadians, with little awareness of the xenophoic aspects of my examination of Trudeau’s policies. Ultimately, I believe that the policies that reinforce xenophobia are framed through the lens of safety and security. If the population believes that measures taken are needed to ensure safety, or are manipulated into doing so, they will be in a position where they are more accepting of xenophobic discourse and rhetoric, and the policies associated with said rhetoric becomes accepted and normalized within society.
My own parents have constantly accepted ableist and islamophobic rhetoric to the point where I can consider them, unfortunately, subsumed under this discourse. The success of ableist and islamophobic discourse has much to do with how the discourse is embedded into society--in the form of “adapting” to social acceptance and in the form of the need for “safety against terrorism” respectively.
Through our respective political journeys to the left, we often have to confront and overcome the discourse that we once accepted as “normal” and “correct”, which we now see as tools for capitalism to maintain itself globally. Over the years, I transitioned from a libertarian with socially progressive leanings, to a liberal progressive, to a social democrat, and now finally to a socialist. During this transition, I often had to confront and reject views that I once thought to be normal because of how they were embedded in society, but now find problematic and even deeply reactionary. This was one such instance where I had to confront my previous views and challenge them. For all of us, these tests where we are confronted with our previously held views will come again and again as we awaken politically, and it falls onto us with regards to how we are to confront them.
More Articles