Deportation As a Deterrent: A Comparative Analysis of the United Kingdom and Israel’S Punitive Policies

This article presents an argument that the deportation practices of the United Kingdom and
Israel, which involve relocating immigrants to third countries considered “safe,” are in violation
of the 1951 Refugee Convention. This convention explicitly prohibits the punishment of refugees
for unauthorized entry and the expulsion of refugees to unsafe areas. The detention and
deportation policies of other countries have received significant criticism during the global
refugee crisis, as they may potentially infringe upon human rights. Consequently, the paper
focusing on two countries examines the dehumanizing language used to describe refugees as
“illegal” or “infiltrators,” which portrays them as criminals and security threats, therefore
justifying their deportation. The article also uncovers racial and xenophobic aspects of migration
management by analyzing newspaper discourse and the underlying policies. Furthermore, it
asserts that deterrence measures are inherently punitive and more closely aligned with criminal
law than legitimate migration policies. By shedding light on these ethical complexities within
immigration frameworks, the article aims to deepen understanding of this issue.