02 June 2011


The link between immigration and drug trafficking is a real one in two cases:


·         One: the immigrants are poor, “ghettoised”, and generally excluded from mainstream society and economic advancement (some French “banlieues” are well known examples but there are plenty more in other EU countries). The trade in drugs – mainly cannabis – is then part of a counter-culture with its own rules and hierarchies. Violence and gang formation are often features of daily life and the rule of law is largely irrelevant. Such areas are “ethnic” in so far as the rules and culture of the host country are seen as inaccessible and forms of social control from the culture of origin apply to a greater or lesser extent. This in turn gives rise to resentment in the native population and the rest is all too familiar.

·         The second link between immigration and drug trafficking is when people move country for the purpose of committing crimes. This category is of limited interest to us as it is not part of the immigration issue overall but basically a form of cross-border crime.


Many countries are coy about publishing prison population statistics broken down by country of origin but there are strong indications that immigrants are generally over-represented in many European prisons. It is equally true to say that lack of education, social exclusion, dysfunctional home backgrounds, etc. determine the origin of prisoners in general. Immigrants often fall into all of these categories. It says more about the host country’s policies of dealing with immigration than about the immigrants.


So what is the relevance of immigration policy to drug policy?


Both policies now have a considerable body of data and analysis at their disposal yet remain trapped in sensational media reporting and irresponsible political statements and gestures, especially during election time.

Just like drugs have been called a “plague” and a “scourge” even in legal documents, immigration is always “massive” and likely to “overwhelm” our societies. So, as with drugs, the response is to play on the fear thus created and to “combat” the “ruthless gangs” of people smugglers. This involves the deployment of semi-military assets, building of fences (in Eastern Greece, with help from Frontex), etc.


The unintended consequences (sic) of EU immigration policies - and the pressures they put on North African countries to cooperate in return for aid - include growing xenophobia in North Africa with regard to sub-Saharan migrants, arbitrary arrests and forced return, also of political fugitives. Until the present uprising,Libya was both a major transit and final destination country. It should be noted that before the Arab Spring began Italy andLibya had agreements wherebyItaly trained Libyan police and allowed it to import military hardware officially destined to improve border controls. In return Libya made life harder for sub-Saharan migrants.


As with drug policy, these and other measures led to pop-up effects: crossing points in the Mediterranean diversified and multiplied. As with drugs, most immigrants come toEurope by fairly mundane means (hiding in trucks, or just taking a ferry) rather than being smuggled across the sea in ways that grab the headlines.


The final shame is that Europe, with its ageing population, low birth rate, and under increasing pressure to keep its labour costs down, is in real need of the cheap labour that immigrants provide (particularly illegal immigrants). In areas like construction, care services and agriculture there is a growing acceptance by domestic trade unions and public authorities that the demand for immigrant labour will go up rather than down. For politicians in some countries to continue to ignore the need for regular immigration leads to a toxic mix: immigrant communities are “ghettoized” or “negrofied” while the domestic populations that depend on them to maintain their standard of living resent the presence of people who “don’t belong here”. As with drug policy, the evidence to change the policy is there. The political will is not.


Europe is the product of centuries of immigration. Each wave brought new blood and new energy. To go against the current of history is a dead end. It is a sad comment on Europe’s state today that a country like the Netherlands, an historical safe haven if ever there was one, is turning away from evidence-based drug policy at the same time as it makes deals with the most right wing and xenophobic political party it has known in more than 50 years.    


I dedicate this post to Mohamed El Baktet, my Brussels pharmacist, a professional man.



17:45 Posted by Carel Edwards in Drugs and politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | Tags: drug and immigration policies |  Facebook


I think that is fair to say that a percentage of a country's population is taking drugs. If some of those people immigrate to another country they will continue with their addiction. That is why in some European countries, immigrants represent an important number of the drug users in a specific region.

Posted by: drug rehab Texas | 09 July 2011

Respond to this comment

Thanks for your comment, which is true in itself, but the point I'm making is somewhat different. Europe's failed immigration policies - or at least the failure of most European societies to integrate their immigrants - have pushed many youngsters from immigrant backgrounds into the arms of illicit drug traders. Since prohibition has failed as much in Europe as it has in the US - and since our governments are as much in denial about it as yours - young immigrants tend to get themselves a bad name that way, hence the success of populist and racist parties in some EU countries, like Holland and Hungary.

The bottom line is that bad drug policies and bad immigration/social policies tend to lead to crime, full prisons, a lot of waste, and a lot of human suffering.

Posted by: carel Edwards | 10 July 2011

The comments are closed.