

































Fulghum

38

My Neighbor is Lesser: A Look at Xenophobic 
Social Borders That Would Lead to Brexit

Natalie Fulghum, Ball State University

When thinking about Brexit, it is When thinking about Brexit, it is 
important to dive into the preexisting important to dive into the preexisting 
social borders among those who lived in social borders among those who lived in 
pre-Brexit Britain. These social borders pre-Brexit Britain. These social borders 
are represented in Kazuo Ishiguro’s are represented in Kazuo Ishiguro’s 
Never Let Me GoNever Let Me Go and Stephen Frears’s  and Stephen Frears’s 
Dirty Pretty Things.Dirty Pretty Things. These works not only  These works not only 
convey these social divisions between convey these social divisions between 
neighbors, but also reveal the cultural neighbors, but also reveal the cultural 
circumstances that led up to the vote circumstances that led up to the vote 
for Brexit. In this essay, I highlight for Brexit. In this essay, I highlight 
how these texts work to do just that. how these texts work to do just that. 

To this day, people argue whether Britain 
leaving the EU in 2016 was a fix for the 
greater commonwealth or if  it was a power 
grab for white British citizens. Brexit 
started with debates about taxes, trade, 
and how there was a need for more jobs. 
In 2016, British parliament argued that 
Britain leaving the EU would allow more 
control of  their country and over the 
people allowed to live in it. This concept 
would later be known as “Brexit.” With the 
decision to leave, Britain was faced with 
angry residents who felt this was a racist 

and prejudiced bias toward the working class. At the time, most immigrants were motivated 
to move to the UK because of  a need for work (“Migrants in the UK” ). This working class 
felt that Brexit was unfair to those who moved to Britain from other countries in the EU 
and saw it as an attack on those who already experienced the unimaginable trials of  working 
life. Many argue that this passing of  Brexit justifies the xenophobic social structures that 
white British citizens envisioned. However, there were already xenophobic prejudices in 
pre-Brexit Britain. Authors like Kazuo Ishiguro and filmmakers like Steven Frears have 
used their platforms to depict this brutal treatment of  immigrants in pre-Brexit Britain. 
Borders between neighbors were emphasized in Ishiguro’s novel, Never Let Me Go as the 
main character, Kathy, comes to terms with the dehumanizing treatment clones like herself  
endure from naturally born humans. In her world, she is an organic resource that is destined 
to have her organs donated to British citizens. Based on the clones’s treatment, Kathy knows 



no other way to live her short life other than to prepare for her donations. Steven Frears’s 
film, Dirty Pretty Things, depicts immigrants in pre-Brexit Britain in the same dehumanizing 
way. The main character, Okwe, observes the way immigrants are expected to either work 
difficult conditions or sell their organs to the black market. These characters, much like those 
in Ishiguro’s novel, are seen as organic bodies who serve no purpose beyond being organ 
donations. British texts, like Steven Frears’s Dirty Pretty Things and Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let 

Me Go, showed how pre-Brexit xenophobic attitudes and social borders towards immigrants 
contributed to Brexit. 
 In Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel, Never Let Me Go, he uses his characters poor living 
situations to convey the way immigrants and non-white citizens faced ignorant prejudice 
in Britain. Ishiguro’s main character, Kathy, grows up at a special school with other clones 
called Hailsham. Kathy and the other students are kept away from naturally born children in 
Britain; therefore, the world outside of  their school is a scary yet exciting new world. When 
an immigrant moves, there is a similar excitement to what the clones felt when it comes to 
living in a new country. However, this excitement can turn to fear when confronted with 
the dehumanizing living conditions immigrants face when they must live in what white 
Europeans leave for them. These living conditions are represented in Ishiguro’s novel. Once 
the kids are old enough to leave Hailsham, they are sent to a place called the Cottages. Here, 
the clones have “big boxy heaters” and houses with “trails of  mud” everywhere (Ishiguro 
117). These houses are then left to the students’ care, thus leaving these children to care and 
provide for themselves without support during their first time in a foreign place. Although 
Kathy claims “I’m making it sound pretty bad...none of  us minded the discomforts,” she 
still admits to her worry and feelings of  abandonment (Ishiguro 117). Even the old man, 
Keffers, who has been sent monitor the clones, is described as “sighing and shaking his 
head disgustedly” when seeing their lives at the Cottages (Ishiguro 116). Keffers isn’t just 
disgusted with how the clones live, but with the clones in general. He never once questions 
his own part at the Cottages and how these students were simply dropped off  to figure 
things out on their own. The clones represent immigrants in Britain by living in those 
familiar dehumanizing circumstances and being judged for it. The clones, like immigrants, 
have been left to fend for themselves in trying times. And the relationship that Keffers and 
the clones have represents that ignorant prejudice that citizens convey and Brexit would 
soon justify. 
 Josie Gill’s article “Written on the Fact: Race and Expression in Kazuo Ishiguro’s 
Never Let Me Go,” also talks about the way the clones represent immigrants and the 
predetermined attitudes citizens have toward them. Gill’s article focuses on the way the 
clones’ lives are similar to the mistreatment immigrants encounter. Whether it is their living 

Fulghum

39



conditions, their jobs, or the lack of  respect they get from their neighbors, Gill pinpoints 
these connections. She points out that the clones’ lives reflect, “the gap between expectation 
and reality that has often characterized the immigrant” (Gill 850). The aspirations Ishiguro’s 
clones have when dreaming of  jobs and families in the “real world” is just like the idea 
that immigrants have had when believing they will live “better lives” in Britain. However, 
Ishiguro’s idea to use clones instead of  immigrants is to show that the removal of  race “does 
not remove the material conditions of  race or racism” (Gill 850). Instead, the “denial of  race 
results in “racism without race,” making racism and the social inequalities that feed into it 
more difficult to identify” (Gill 850). In other words, Gill believes that Ishiguro purposefully 
chose to not bring race into the novel so that he could emphasize the racist idea that 
immigrants are uncivilized or dirty. When in fact, it is simply the poor living conditions that 
have been left to them that causes such stereotypes. As white Europeans began to believe 
this stereotype, the social barrier between citizens and non- citizens in Britain grew. Thus, 
when looking at the characters of  Ishiguro’s novel, one can pinpoint a similar and symbolic 
social border characters have between the clones and those who are naturally born.
 Clones in Ishiguro’s novel are also depicted as biological resources to convey the way 
treatment of  non-citizens has always been to benefit the British population. When the clones 
of  Ishiguro’s novel find out they were made to donate their organs for others, they aren’t 
surprised. In fact, their teacher, Miss Lucy, seems more disturbed by the idea than they are. 
She explains to Kathy and her classmates that, “your lives are set out for you” (Ishiguro 81). 
This indicates that the world outside of  Hailsham is aware of  their existence, but chooses 
to ignore the students. Miss Lucy, unlike the rest of  the world, finds herself  getting to 
know these students. Therefore, she is able to think of  her students as more than biological 
resources. However, these interactions make her regret the treatment her students must 
endure. Another time that a teacher from Hailsham can be seen regretting the treatment of  
these students is when Kathy and Tommy go to see Miss Emily. She reveals to her students 
that Hailsham was a school created to prove the existence of  souls in clones. However, 
despite the proof  collected and the evident natural, emotional lives these students have lived, 
they are still told they must donate their organs. Miss Emily regrettably tells them, “I can 
see...that it might look as though you were simply pawns in a game” (Ishiguro 266). This 
comment is a reflection on the lives immigrants faced in pre-Brexit British society. They 
were not welcomed by their neighbors and often ignored. However, they were still expected 
to work those poorly paid jobs for the benefit of  white British citizens and to pretend the 
border between them was not because one is human and the other considered a tool. 
 Josie Gill’s article also talks about the way the clones are supposed to represent 
immigrants as nothing more than able and abusable bodies. She explains how the clones 

Fulghum

40



of  Ishiguro’s novel are created to “serve the needs of  the ‘normal’ population…” to reflect 
the “exploitation of  nonwhite workers, who are often reduced simply to bodies that carry 
out various forms of  undesirable and poorly paid labor” (848). Just like a sweatshop might 
abuse the use of  immigrant workers, the clones are reduced to nothing more than a resource. 
And the lack of  the characters’ races being mentioned only shows the way race is a social 
construct and not a biological one. Gill mentions this by explaining, “bodies do not provide 
or add to an understanding of  character” (854). Instead, the clone’s bodies, no matter the 
color or biology, are able enough to give their organs. Immigrants, who are looked down 
upon because they look like immigrants, still possess able and worthy bodies, just like the 
clones. They can work hard jobs and do anything that white citizens can. It is simply that fact 
that immigrants are immigrants that bring about a question of  value on those lives in pre-
Brexit Britain. Hence, we have yet another example of  how a social barrier has been created 
to not only make citizens feel superior to immigrants, but for citizens to take advantage of  
those who have no choice but to do the hard work.
 Similarly, Stephen Frears’s film, Dirty Pretty Things, also conveys his characters as 
biological resources for British citizens. Much like Never Let Me Go, Frears’s film addresses 
how illegal immigrants in Britain function to support the social structures of  Britain. In the 
film, Okwe, the main protagonist, is trying to live an unnoticeable life in London. However, 
throughout the film, his position as an immigrant becomes an issue for his plan. The first 
time we are introduced to anything from his past is when Okwe is asked by his boss to 
examine him for a sexually-transmitted disease. Okwe, who doesn’t even want to address his 
past for the audience, protests doing this. His boss exclaims, “but you’re a doctor!” Okwe 
responds, “I’m a driver,” as he gives in to his boss’s wishes (Frears). 

Fulghum

41
Okwe is asked by his boss to examine him for STDs.



 Not long after this, Okwe finds himself  having to examine three more men in the 
same situation for his boss. This goes to show how Okwe’s skills are to be exploited more 
and more for British society if  he wants to stay hidden. This same situation is paralleled 
when Okwe finds and helps the infected immigrant in his hotel manager’s office. When the 
man refuses to go to the hospital, Okwe helps treat him and impresses his boss, Sneaky 
Juan. However, this one act of  kindness leads to Juan asking questions for his own benefit. 
He prods Okwe for information on his past, saying, “you never told me where you’re from. 
Or even, how come you’re in this beautiful country”(Frears). This sentence, though worded 
innocently, is spoken with a threatening tone. Juan knows Okwe is an immigrant, and uses 
his morals to convince him to do illegal surgeries for him. Okwe, refusing at first to agree, 
only finds himself  trapped and tempted to do as Juan pleases in order to keep his friends 
and himself  safe. Thus, this shows how the abuse of  immigrant bodies was prominent and 
expected even before Brexit was introduced and depicts a moral border that Okwe struggles 
to cross. 

Fulghum

42

Okwe is confronted by Sneaky Juan, who tells him about the illegal 

surgeries that take place in the hotel at night.

 Vincent Rodrigez Ortega’s criticism of  the film, “Surgical Passports, the EU and 
Dirty Pretty Things: Rethinking European Identity Through Popular Cinema,” also address 
the use of  immigrant bodies for the benefit of  British society leading to the perceived social 
superiority of  British citizens and their vote for Brexit. Ortega begins by talking about the 
opening scene of  the film where Okwe is working as a cab driver from those at the airport. 



One of  Okwe’s first comments in the film is, “I’m here to pick up people who have been 
let down by the system” (Frears). This comment sets up the subject of  the film. Ortega 
describes Okwe’s actions in this scene as representing how “illegal social bodies function as 
necessary support mechanisms for the social structures that deem their status as unlawful. In 
other words, they are an institutionally repressed and yet practically indispensable component 
of  the EU” (Ortega 23). Ortega claims that immigrants are needed in British society. 
However, immigrants are on the side of  the social border that are to be perceived as abused 
tools that can be discarded when no longer needed. Not only is this situation depicted in 
Okwe’s experiences, but it is also depicted through Okwe’s love interest Senay’s own as 
she experiences the trials that immigrants must face to live in Britain. The first time we see 
Senay being abused is when, in order to keep herself  hidden, she must give her boss oral sex. 
Although this goes against her religion and morals, she feels, unlike Okwe, that she has no 
choice and obeys. Later, when she claims she is willing to do anything to obtain citizenship, 
she finds herself  blackmailed and forced into having sex with Sneaky Juan. Ortega claims 

Fulghum

43

Okwe and Senay walk out of  the hotel together having shared their 

traumatic experiences with Sneaky Juan.

that to obtain any form of  legitimacy in British society, Senay had to “uncover the multi-
layered social and economic networks immigrants must negotiate and subvert to achieve 
their purposes” (Ortega 24). Just like Okwe, Senay finds herself  trapped in a dehumanizing 
situation that forces her to work for British society. Not only is she used as cheap work, 



but she is abused in the way that she is a woman and an immigrant. In the end, whether it 
is Okwe, Senay, or some other immigrant, “their existence becomes intimately linked to the 
profit-driven networks” (Ortega 24). Thus, immigrants are left with little self-worth other 
than as a resource for legal citizens. This film depicts a border between citizens and non-
citizens in the EU. This border between people would solidify the superiority felt by citizens 
over immigrants and would eventually lead to the belief  that Brexit was needed to keep these 
people separate.
 Many British writers have noticed the dehumanization of  immigrants even before 
Brexit was introduced. Whether it is depicted through a sci-fi novel, or an uncomfortable 
film, these writers have been attempting to spread their concern. Britain leaving the EU 
was something that could be predicted when looking at these works of  literature because 
the social borders were already there. There was already discrimination among races and 
complaints about a lack of  jobs. And yet, there was still an abuse of  immigrants in order to 
continue cheap and fast profits. The treatment of  non-citizens has, and continues to, involve 
prejudice, hatred, and a lack of  compassion. To look at your neighbor and feel a superiority 
because of  your looks has only threatened to further the divide among people. Xenophobic 
attitudes continue to drive people away form one another. Ishiguro and Frears’s works help 
to show the denying audience that there is a social barrier that immigrants cannot ignore. 
There has been, and still is, a border between neighbors that exists because of  a reach for 
power. Brexit was simply the consequence of  when this social hierarchy became prominent 
enough to believe in the U.K’s superiority over the rest of  the EU.

Fulghum

44



Works Cited

Frears, Stephen, director. Dirty Pretty Things. Miramax, 2002. 

Gill, Josie. “Written on the Face: Race and Expression in Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go.” 
MFS Modern Fiction Studies, vol. 60 no. 4, 2014, p. 844-862. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/
mfs.2014.0056.

Ishiguro, Kazuo. Never Let Me Go. Vintage International, 2005.

“Migrants in the UK: An Overview.” Migration Observatory, University of  Oxford, 6 Novem-
ber 2020. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-
the-uk-an-overview.

Ortega, Vincente Rodriguez. “Surgical Passports, the EU and Dirty Pretty Things: Rethink-
ing European Identity through Popular Cinema.” Studies in European Cinema, vol. 8, no. 
1, August 2011, pp. 21-30. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1386/seci.8.1.21_1.

Fulghum

45


