Across Europe and the Anglosphere governments are getting tough
on immigration, ramping up border security and making it harder for people to
enter countries by legal means.
Such has been the shift in discourse on the subject, that
traditionally left-wing parties are adopting immigration policies that would sit
comfortably inside right-wing party manifestos.
For some, this has been a genuine attempt to quell growing public
concern about the flow of migration and what it means for social cohesion and social
welfare in host countries.
For others, the left’s tacking right on immigration has been
a pragmatic – if somewhat cynical - ploy to gain, or remain, in power, while
keeping populist right-wing parties at bay.
Denmark’s Social Democrats are an exemplar of the
trend, with the party’s adoption of tough immigration policies coinciding with
a plunge in support for the hard-right, nationalist DDP.
In the UK, Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer came to power
promising to ‘take back control’, arguing that ‘without strong migration
rules we risk becoming an island of strangers.’
Elsewhere centrist governments in France and Germany have pledged
to toughen up immigration rules. Spain’s socialist government stands alone in
seeking more immigration.
So far, nothing proposed by European governments has compared
to President Trump’s supercharged immigration crackdown in the US – which includes
a complete travel ban on visitors from 12 countries. But, from Australia
to Canada, the trend for tighter immigration controls is making borders less permeable.
There’s been a vibe shift, and it’s not very Kumbaya.
For organisers of international conferences this is likely
to exacerbate an existing problem.
International meetings are held up as paragons of cooperation
— where scientists, policymakers, activists, and innovators can share ideas in ‘borderless
spaces.’
This has always been something of a fiction for delegates
from the Global South who are routinely denied visas to attend events intended to foster international collaboration.
Only last week, seven delegates - from Kenya, Uganda, India,
Pakistan - were refused visas to attend
the International Bat Research Conference in Cairns, Australia.
Organisers - who wrote to Australia’s Immigration Minister
Tony Burke expressing their ‘deep concern and disappointment’ - said it was a
move that ‘undermines global collaboration.’
But it wasn’t an isolated case.
In one
Reddit account, a PhD student invited to present in Australia was denied a
visa and told they lacked ‘incentive’ to return home — despite having attended
the same event before without incident. He said he felt 'insulted'. And who can blame him?
The 2022 International AIDS Conference in Montreal faced
significant issues with visa denials for registered delegates, causing
widespread criticism and prompting the International AIDS Society (IAS) to re-evaluate future
conference venues. Many activists and experts from the Global South were
unable to attend due to visa rejections or lengthy delays in processing.
Similar stories have emerged from climate
talks in Bonn, academic gatherings in the UK, scientific conferences on AI in
Canada,
and so on, and so on.
Governments shield their decisions behind privacy and
security justifications. This opacity makes it difficult for individuals to
challenge a denial, even when the refusal appears arbitrary.
In any event, the rationale for denying entry to conference delegates
seems dubious. There is little public evidence that people attending conferences contribute significantly
to visa overstay rates.
The problem is not confined to Global South participants,
either. Israeli delegates are routinely denied entry to conferences in
countries that do not recognise Israel. The result is the same: ideas are
stifled, networks are fractured, and fields of scientific enquiry lose valuable contributions.
Association leaders are used to dealing with these issues,
but today they are caught in a pincer movement of conflicting social-political
trends that makes navigating them especially tricky.
On the one hand, a focus on DEI in recent years has brought
issues of inclusivity at meetings and events into the spotlight, while, at the
same time, the political climate - shaped by a groundswell of anti-immigrant
sentiment - has incentivised countries to appear ‘tough’ at the border, even if
that toughness undermines international collaboration and knowledge exchange.
Building an international membership base is hard enough
without factoring in the risk that your conference hosts might put you in an
awkward spot by detaining your keynote speaker. Associations must now weigh not just venue capacity or
accessibility, but the stringency of the host country’s visa regime.
The sad irony here is that international conferences are
often about tackling shared problems: pandemics, climate change,
technological ethics. These challenges require as many perspectives as possible,
especially from the regions most affected. When visa barriers silence voices,
the result is poorer science, weaker policy, and a shallower understanding of
the world.
If governments are serious about leading on international
issues, they must treat conference delegates not as potential overstayers but
as collaborators. Until then, the 'borderless space' for seeking shared solutions will continue to shrink — and we will all be the poorer for it.
Written By
James Lancaster
AMI editor James
Lancaster is a familiar face in the meetings industry and international
association community. Since joining AMI in 2010, he has gained a reputation
for asking difficult questions and getting lost in convention centres. Proofer, podcaster, and panellist - in his spare time, James likes to walk,
read, listen to music, and drink beer.
