When we talk about rights and justice for migrants, something that often comes up is the idea that our advocacy comes at the expense of other marginalised groups in society. It insinuates that we are only supposed to care about one group, and is a clear misunderstanding of what intersectionality is. ‘Whataboutism’ or ‘what-about-ism’ basically aims to deflect from actually helping either group.

Retorts of “what about X?” divide us by pitting marginalised groups against each other. This false binary treats policy decisions as a trade off between groups, e.g. the false claim that housing people seeking asylum and giving them a weekly stipend is at the expense of assistance for low-income citizens or unhoused people.

Whataboutism is deflection from one social justice issue to another. It is a tactic of derailment that demonstrates not only a lack of solidarity and a misunderstanding of a key element of social justice: shared struggle. Essentially in a debate, one issue is weaponised, and is brought up to detract or minimise the struggle of one group in comparison to another. It is never brought up by the detractors in its own right, because the detractors simply do not care about it. They only bring it up to dismiss the first issue. 

We need to recognise that it is not migrants who are oppressing unhoused people, low income people and veterans. It is the Government that oppresses all these groups, including migrants, and then uses migrants as a scapegoat to distract from the fact that its own austerity policies are responsible for UK-wide poverty.

Read more:

• Whataboutism doesn’t help anyone