With tragic scenes of children fleeing Libya drowning in the Mediterranean, against a background of UKIP’s anti-immigration push, migration has become one of the defining issues of the UK election. But fear and misperception, rather than evidence and experience, have tended to drive the discussion, particularly when migration is discussed in relation to security.

Academics Stand Against Poverty has just launched an audit of the political parties’ manifestos. Within this, I have looked at migration, asking to what extent migration policies would contribute to sustainable security for people in Britain.

Most parties conflate migration with immigration: it is those coming into the UK rather than those who leave that provide the focus of attention. It is often addressed in isolation, without being connected to wider economic and social policy. It is also not linked enough to international efforts to target the pernicious forms of political and economic inequality that turn people into migrants on the borders of Europe in the first place.

This narrow focus on physical and territorial aspects of security, as represented by border control agencies, surveillance and response to threat, is unlikely to deliver the very goal of security that is being pursued. To be truly sustainable, security in the context of migration needs to address its underlying causes, rather than focusing on physical and territorial responses, as represented by border controls, surveillance, threat and containment.

So how do the main UK political parties stand up to scrutiny from this point of view?

Labour provides a mixed message to potential immigrants, claiming they are valued on the one hand but combining this with a raft of new restrictions. For example, their manifesto says that ‘Britain has seen historically high levels of immigration in recent years, including low-skilled migration, which has given rise to public anxiety about its effects on wages, on our public services, and on our shared way of life… the system needs to be controlled and managed so that it is fair’. Worryingly, the manifesto does not say what it means by low-skilled migration, or state what it sees as fair. Indeed, Labour fail even to state what levels of immigration – from the EU and beyond – they regard as being optimal for Britain. Beyond this, Labour draws an explicit connection between immigration, security and control mechanisms, within a context of a territorially defined containment strategy. They write that, ‘Labour’s plan starts with stronger borders. We will recruit an additional 1,000 borders staff… We will introduce stronger controls to prevent those who have committed serious crimes coming to Britain, and to deport those who commit crimes while they are here’.

The Conservative Party is more strident about immigration in tone but they differ from Labour only in scale of what they propose rather than in how migration and security are conceived. Together with UKIP they tend to conflate immigration, economic pressure (on the NHS and welfare budgets) and EU membership. They write that ‘we will negotiate new rules with the EU, so that people will have to be earning here for a number of years before they can claim benefits, including the tax credits that top up low wages.’ The background to all this, is the problematic idea that migration functions as a drain on UK economy, something that can be seen when they write ‘we have already banned housing benefit for EU jobseekers, and restricted other benefits, including Jobseeker’s Allowance. We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years.’

Perhaps unsurprisingly, UKIP does not look at sustainable security in any serious way. Their manifesto focuses heavily on the link between inward migration and security, although it frames the problem as being membership of the EU rather than migrants themselves- ultimately arguing that security over immigration is impossible while the UK continues its membership of the European Union. Thus, inward migration and security becomes a driver for withdrawal from EU membership. Beyond this, they connect inward migration to an imminent security threat writing that, ‘the sheer weight of numbers, combined with rising birth rates (particularly to immigrant mothers) and an ageing population, is pushing public services to breaking point. Immigration is understood to be a threat to jobs, and a source of pressure on welfare provision and the NHS, housing affordability and availability, the education system and more broadly to the quality of British life.

The Liberal Democrats are more progressive than both Labour and Conservatives. They concentrate on fairness and openness rather than safety and threat as their key operating principles. Unsurprisingly, their manifesto points out the positive side of inward migration for economic growth and the role of immigration as a driver of prosperity. They state that, ‘immigration procedures must be robust and fair, and the UK must remain open to visitors who boost our economy, and migrant workers who play a vital role in business and public services’. Drawing also upon the principle of individual liberty and rights, their approach takes sustainable security seriously.

But it is the Green Party which comes closest to tacking the themes of migration from a sustainable security point of view. There is an understanding of the links between violent extremism and the political structures within which it is created. They also acknowledge that strong borders, surveillance and militarisation will not be enough for real security over a longer timeframe. Indeed, the Greens draw an explicit connection between UK military intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya ‘and the increased terrorist threat closer to home’. The framing of migration is much more positive than that of the other parties. It is seen as a longstanding and natural fact of life that has enriched the UK in terms of language, culture and the British way of life over hundreds of years. The Greens write that ‘we live in an interconnected world, which brings huge benefits as well as drawbacks. Decisions that we make affect people in other countries and events in other countries affect us.’. Here, security is understood correctly as being a collective endeavour that can only be achieved by understanding and addressing its causes rather than focusing obsessively on its symptoms.

A major challenge for the next government will be to reframe the debate on migration and security, moving it away from the idea that migration is a matter of control, strong borders, and negative impact on national identity. This needs to challenge the fear and xenophobia that ultimately leads to negative outcomes for the collective security of people in the UK.

The Academics Stand Against Poverty audit can be found here.