Saying “people smugglers” or “smuggling gangs” justifies harsh anti-migrant policies. This language reaffirms the idea of movement as a crime. From discussions with people seeking asylum, we’ve moved to saying “intermediaries” or “facilitators” in order to describe people who facilitate the travel of criminalised migrants. 

Demonisation of intermediaries

The word “smuggler” or “gang” is deliberately designed to inspire fear. Over the last few years, the image of a migrant “invasion”, facilitated by the mysterious, ominous “smuggler”, has been manufactured to reinforce the idea that migration through criminalised routes is something to be feared. 

Instead of using such demonising language, we should be examining why people are forced to turn to intermediaries in the first place. An important part of using the language of intermediaries instead of ‘people smugglers’ is to emphasise that criminalisation is a policy decision, as is the choice by the Government to refer to people who facilitate Channel crossings as ‘people smugglers’. It is a policy decision to force people to use intermediaries to migrate to the UK by criminalising and reducing alternative, safer routes. ‘Smuggling gangs’ also enables the Government to frame punitive, anti-migrant policies as safeguarding measures, even though the danger has been enabled by the Home Office’s refusal to create routes for people from the Global South.

Calling intermediaries ‘smuggling gangs’ is beneficial to the Government in order to create a ‘national security’ crisis out of (undocumented) immigration. This gives public support for increasing the criminalisation of migrants, which obscures the conditions which force people into using these routes. 

The word ‘gang’ is also heavily racialised – it is usually associated with Black and Brown people and reinforces stereotypes against them. Just Google the word and the majority of images are of racialised people. The construction of these communities as having greater proximity to crime is reflected in policing, specifically in the now-scrapped Gangs’ Matrix where 78% of people on the Matrix were young Black men. Oftentimes, Black and Brown people seeking sanctuary are themselves lumped in with intermediaries under the label of “smugglers”, and criminalised, such as in the case of Ibrahim Bah. Bah, a survivor of a collapsing dinghy, was convicted of manslaughter for the deaths of fellow passengers, and sentenced to over 9 years imprisonment, despite his heroic efforts in steering the dinghy and saving lives following the shipwreck. 

Intermediaries as survival

“For many people, crossing borders, whether to flee conflict, persecution or for economic survival, necessitates assistance from people who act as drivers, as guides, as document dispatchers and who help navigate complicated bureaucracy.” – Katharine Jones and Heila Sha

It is also worth mentioning that many of those who have made the journey to their destination country with the help of an intermediary do not view them as cruel, greedy and immoral. In fact, many migrants appreciate and value the help of intermediaries, especially in offering information, advice and support, and in helping them to flee and survive situations of grave danger and to reach safety. Those who are fleeing for their lives have to put their lives into the hands of those that can save their lives, even if the intermediaries may be immoral or money-driven.

By placing blame on “smuggling gangs” or “smugglers” as the problem, the Government is able to divert focus away from its own responsibility in causing anti-migrant harm, and justify passing harsher anti-migrant legislation under the guise of ‘safeguarding’. Let’s ensure we’re not echoing their harmful language because migration is not a crime.