ManagedMigration
From Noborders Network Wiki
Managed Migration: history and developments - a rejoinder from Eddie D’ Sa [Confluence December 2nd, 2008]
Introduction
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s paper in Confluence (July 2008) covers current policies and proposals on Managed Migration – a saga that began about seven years ago. A whole gamut of laws on immigration and asylum have been enacted over the years, often accompanied by inflammatory pronouncements from politicians and the media. Her neutral, matter of fact tone belies the harshness of the laws and their implementation, drawing rebuke and criticism from Church leaders and human rights groups. Jacqui Smith also makes no direct reference to the racial minorities (Blacks, Asians, Middle Easterners) who have borne the full force of the legislation.
In the 1980s, EU leaders had decided to halt Third World immigration permanently but had to make a U-turn. In the 1990s, the UN warned that western Europe was suffering from a growing demographic deficit. There were not enough native workers to keep the working age population stable and support the ageing population. An intake of some 1.6 million new migrants per year was needed to redress the balance. At the Tampere Summit (Oct 1999) in Finland, EU leaders decided on a switch from a zero migration policy to managed migration. This allows business to exploit cheap non-EU migrant labour while the state can save on health care and pensions. Jacqui Smith admits in her speech that migrants contribute financially more than the local born. “Last year (2007), immigration contributed roughly £6 bn (0.5%) to GDP growth.”
But there is a downside. While business and the state gain, the staid native Brits feel sidelined by the new, vibrant cultures around them and also face more competition from overstretched social services (housing, welfare).
Let us respond to some of the themes from Jacqui Smith’s speech.
THEME 1: Immigration and politicians
Jacqui Smith said that the migration issue is “vulnerable to exploitation for political ends”. That’s understating it. If there is any issue that can get the British people’s attention (apart from football and pop stars), it is immigration and asylum. The politicians have capitalised on this fear and pandered generously to bigotry.
Way back at the General Election (1964), Peter Griffiths (Conservative) campaigned in Smethwick on the slogan: “If you want a nigger neighbour, vote Labour.” The sitting Labour MP, Gordon-Walker, reassured the voters: “Labour favours continued control of immigration, stricter health checks and deportation of those convicted of criminal offences….” But Griffiths won.
This was a turning point in British politics – playing the race card to win votes.
The Tories passed the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 disallowing Commonwealth immigrants from entering Britain freely. Minister William Deedes admitted: “The Bill’s real purpose was to restrict the influx of coloured immigrants from the Caribbean and Indian subcontinent…”
When Labour came into power in 1965, PM Harold Wilson did not repeal the Immigration Act but in fact reduced voucher numbers available for migrants. Said Richard Crossman: “Politically, fear of immigration is the most powerful force today. If we hadn’t done this, we would have faced certain electoral defeat in the West Midlands & South East.”
“Restricting numbers is good for race relations” became the guiding principle for Labour’s policies.
In 1968, Enoch Powell, former Conservative Minister, warned in an apocalyptic speech: “We must be mad, literally mad as a nation, to permit the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents…” Opinion polls showed that up to 75% supported what Powell had said. His popularity drove the Labour government to rush through the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 regulating the entry of Asian British passport holders from Kenya by a strict quota system. Nevertheless, Labour lost the 1970 elections
The new Tory PM, Edward Heath passed the Immigration Act 1971, removing the right of non-white Commonwealth citizens from settling in Britain. In 1972, Asians expelled from Uganda were reluctantly allowed in and in 1976 some 250 Asians from Malawi.
Enoch Powell (1976) raged again about “the limitless increase in the coloured population in English cities.”
Margaret Thatcher (1978), then opposition leader, warned that “the British people feared that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture.” Thatcher was ousted in 1990 but the Tories went on to win the 1992 elections.
Five years later, New Labour triumphed under Tony Blair after he reassured media mogul Rupert Murdoch that he would promote pro-market policies. In 1999, Blair came down heavily on the asylum seekers. As the Jewish Chronicle (4 June1999) put it: “Asylum seekers will not only lose social security, but also access to community care, housing and disability benefits…They are not entitled to work and their children will not be protected under the Children Act… They will have to live under a cashless voucher system and be dispersed to different parts of Britain, isolated from their families and community… These proposals will deliver a crushing blow to asylum seekers’ dignity…” But Tony Blair was not moved. In a leaked memo, he wrote: “Asylum and crime - these may appear unlinked to patriotism but they are: they are toughness issues and they reach deep into British instincts…We are perceived to be soft… we need to highlight removals.” (Independent, 31 July 2000).
As Election 2005 drew near, Labour added a sixth pledge to the usual five—“Your country’s borders protected”, with promises on “ID cards and strict controls that work to combat asylum abuse and illegal immigration”. The move came in direct response to Tory promises of a “crackdown” on immigration.
Piers Morgan, former editor of the Daily Mirror, wrote (Evening Standard 08Feb05) “The (coming) election is shaping up to be the most repulsive I can remember; an election is being fought on who can be the most racist. We have hordes of lazy, dole-scrounging, ignorant, foul-mouthed, cheating, violent white English yobs without whom the country would be better off. But a campaign against “white trash wrecking their own country” would not win many votes I am thoroughly embarrassed and ashamed of what passes for political debate. “
THEME 2: Asylum and the media
Jacqui Smith put it mildly: “Media accounts can sometimes reinforce anxieties” she must be well aware of the horror stories spun by the tabloids on refugees. A casual visitor might be forgiven for thinking that the Brits are living in terror of foreign hordes forcing their way here or determined asylum seekers stalking the land. The word ‘immigrant’ is code for Third World people, not those from Australia, Canada or USA. The tabloids (like the Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express) have long demonised the non-white asylum seekers (especially if they are Muslim), stoking up fear and hatred in the native millions who feed on these tabloids.
Nick Davies wrote that “the Daily Mail is the most powerful paper in Britain. The government pays attention to it. PM Gordon Brown sent a special video message to Paul Dacre on his 10th anniversary as editor…”(New Statesman, 28Jan08) Home Secretary Blunkett was sent to greet him in person. Nick Davies added that the Mail distorts and fabricates the news and the Home Office is known to leak it items to prepare the public for forthcoming announcements.
Blair commented in 2004: “The Daily Mail is an extraordinary product…Paul Dacre (editor) is accountable to no one. He has absolute and unaccountable power.” (Independent 17June07)
It’s only the former London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, who had the guts to condemn the Daily Mail: “The Mail had continued to discriminate against minorities since the war, demonising first Irish immigrants and now asylum seekers.” (Guardian 15 Feb 05).
Other tabloids are no better. Here are two examples:
Daily Mail (10 Oct 1991) published an article: How can we stem the tide? “It is now abundantly clear that Western Europe faces the threat of a tidal wave of immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Third World… These invaders having entered the EC by false pretences, seek to remain by claiming they are political refugees who deserve asylum. We must face the fact that they will lie, cheat, flout the law and pay criminal organizations to smuggle them into our countries, abusing the tradition of western liberalism.”
Dover Express fulminated in an editorial: “Illegal immigration, asylum seekers, scum of the earth drug smugglers have targeted our beloved coastline. We are left with a nation’s human sewage and no cash to wash it down the drain”. (quoted by Socialist Worker 21 Aug 1999)
For more examples of media smears, see Appendix.
The awe in which the tabloids are held may explain why the Home Office will not rebuke them for their scare stories or the police charge them for telling lies and stirring up hate. Sir Herman Ouseley (CRE chair 1993-2000) raised this issue in the Guardian 10 April 04 “The home secretary, the opposition parties and the CRE have not challenged the tone set by newspapers, which daily describe people as “scroungers” and “scum”, “pouring in”, “flooding” and “swamping” a “Britain under siege”? Why have those who are responsible in law for promoting good race relations remained silent?”
THEME 3: Tougher legislation on immigration & asylum
Let’s set the scene with earlier reports on ethnic relations:. The Macpherson Report (1999) In 1993, black teenager Stephen Lawrence was murdered by racists in South London and this led to a public inquiry led by Sir William Macpherson. His report declared that “Racism exists within all organisations and institutions. It infiltrates the community and starts among the very young…” But the rightwing press and politicians were furious about the charge of institutional racism and succeeded in getting most of Macpherson’s 70 recommendations shelved.
The Parekh Report (2000) on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain This seminal report affirmed that a multicultural society cannot be based on the history and achievements of one race (whites), one language group (English speakers), one ethnicity (Anglo-Saxon) or only one religion (Christianity). The state must treat all equally but with due recognition of cultural differences.
It proposed three models to balance cohesion, equality & diversity.
Again the rightwing media was up in arms, led by the Daily Telegraph which had also opposed the Macpherson Report. They fumed at the idea that Britishness had racist connotations, leading Home Secretary Jack Straw to disown the report, which he had sponsored in the first place.
The Cantle Report (2001) The year 2001 was critically eventful: Blair’s New Labour won a second term in May 2001 and David Blunkett succeeded Jack Straw as Home Secretary a month later. There were two policy-shifting events: civil disturbances by Asian youth in the English northern towns and the terror attacks on Sept 11 on the US.
In the summer of 2001, Asian youths took to the streets of Oldham, Leeds, Burnley, Bradford and Stoke to defend their communities from racist violence. For example, in BRADFORD (7 July), fighting broke out between the racists, police and Asians. Rioting continued through the night resulting in 200 police officers being injured, two men stabbed and 36 arrested. The Home Office asked Professor Ted Cantle to make an official response.
The Cantle Report (Dec 2001) was no doubt influenced by the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Instead of addressing the root cause of the unrest - institutional racism - the state introduced a distraction called community cohesion, whereby multiculturism and cultural diversity had to be contained and Muslims forcibly integrated into British values, taking language and citizenship tests and taking an oath of allegiance.
Meanwhile US President Bush threatened that “anyone not for us is against us” and launched his ‘War on Terror’. A culture of fear and suspicion was imposed on Britain and the EU, with constant warnings issued about security threats.
- Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act (2002)
Government began legislative action with the publication of the White paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven: integration with diversity in Britain in Feb 2002. Institutional racism, anti-racism and multiculturism were all taken off the agenda while integration and community cohesion became the new policy framework for minorities and migrants.
A grim bill followed the White Paper with little discussion and only 74 MPs voting against it. Jacqui Smith had said that after the 1971 Immigration Act, “10 more Acts have been necessary”. The NIA Act was the fourth in 10 years. Here are its draconian provisions: - Citizenship Applicants (including spouses of British citizens) for citizenship are to face English language tests, have ‘sufficient knowledge about life in the UK’ and take an oath of allegiance. - Removal of Citizenship A citizen, including one born British, can be deprived of citizenship (unless this makes one stateless) if the person ‘has done anything seriously prejudicial to the wider interests of the UK’. Clearly the intended targets are British-born Muslim youth moved to violence by imperialist interventions. - Checks before travelling Airlines and carriers have to check details of passengers travelling to Britain to confirm they pose no security risk. There is no right of appeal for anyone refused boarding on the basis of an airline’s check. - Internal controls Anyone applying for a visa will be required to provide biometric data with their application, which will be stored on a central database. Detention escort officers (mostly from private security firms) will be empowered to enter premises and search detainees before removal. Local authorities, Inland Revenue, Employers, Banks and building societies will all be obliged to assist the Home Office with information and checks. - Restrictions on asylum seekers All asylum seekers will start in an induction centre for up to two weeks. Those not detained will be subject to strict reporting and residence conditions. Destitute asylum seekers will not be allowed to stay with relatives or friends and receive a cash allowance as at present. Children will not be allowed to attend mainstream schools.
Church leaders and other groups promptly attacked the harsh clauses, especially segregated education for refugee children. Dr Rowan Williams demanded an end to the detention without charge of 14 foreign nationals but Home Secretary Blunkett refused to back down.
An anti-terror bill was also passed in 2003, approving suspects to be detained without trial for up to 14 days. According to the Guardian (Feb 3, 2004), the Labour peer Helena Kennedy QC described Mr Blunkett as a “shameless authoritarian” and compared him to Zimbabwe’s dictator, Robert Mugabe
THEME 4: Managed migration: Border controls & a Points Based System
Charles Clark became Home Secretary in Dec 2004 and in Feb 2005 (Election year) unveiled Labour’s 5-year strategy under the title: Controlling our borders: making migration work for Britain. The highly respected Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) commented: ”The main thrust of the strategy is a multi-pronged drive to ‘crack down’ on illegal entry and unlawful working; step up fast-tracking of asylum claims and detention; toughen removals policy and enhance surveillance before, on and after entry…Ever more intrusive systems of surveillance are being built into the existing databases.
To ‘secure borders’, the strategy proposes to finger-print all visa applicants by 2008, to screen those travellers coming from ‘high risk’ areas for TB and to continue to deploy immigration officers in France and Belgium.
New legislation is expected to abolish appeal rights for students; to demand financial bonds which can be forfeited; fixed penalty employer fines; and to extend carriers’ liability penalties.” Jacqui Smith said: “We’ve signed the e-borders contract – a robust system that will count everyone in and out of Britain, so we know who is here, who should be allowed in and who refused… Now anyone applying for a visa will have their fingerprints taken…” It all smacks of the workings of a police state.
Ms Smith also explained the Points Based System (PBS) set up for all economic migrants in five categories or tiers. It was first introduced in the 5-year strategy (2005), followed by a consultation and elaborated in the paper. “Making migration work for Britain” (March 2006). The PBS seems biased in favour of skilled workers and unskilled workers would only be allowed in from the expanded EU.
Jacqui Smith explained the 5 tiers but made no mention of a vulnerable group - Migrant domestic workers (MDWs) - who fall outside the PBS categories. Current rules allow them to enter the UK and switch employers to prevent abusive practices. Now the Home Office intends to treat MDWs as business visitors – their stay will be restricted to six months with no right to change employers or to settlement. Many of these MDWs are poor women from South Asia and the Philippines working for the families of rich foreign nationals. Many of these non-EEA MDWs undertake caring tasks which cannot just be switched off at the end of six months because it would mean severing relationships built with members of their employers’ family such as children. Labour seems only interested in the economically “useful” to live here — as defined by big business.
Concluding remarks
All Home Secretaries ritually offer vapid reassurances: “we will remain a haven for the oppressed and those legitimately seeking asylum…” and well worn platitudes like: “We can continue to celebrate difference - with tolerance, fairness and broadmindedness that is uniquely British.” But doesn’t it all sound contradictory and hypocritical, in the light of the harsh treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers over the years, and the failure to confront institutional racism, promote multiculturism and discipline the media?
Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North & Stoke Newington, wrote in the Guardian (Feb 18, 2005) ”Immigration has always been synonymous with race in British political discourse. Likewise, asylum has been conflated with immigration. The asylum seeker has been transformed from a person deserving of pity into a tabloid hate figure.”
For a supposedly Christian nation, it is sad that so little compassion and moral restraint has been exercised in dealing with intending migrants, especially from poor countries fleeing from poverty and repression. The JCWI noted that “the new Points-Based System (PBS) wishing to immigrate for work and study, is in danger of replicating the racial injustice which is a feature of our unjust society with its huge gaps in wealth and development. In this way the PBS is in danger of both defeating the UK Government’s objective of Making Poverty History and undermining a culture of non-discrimination and equality in the UK.” (Ref 4 below).
Many of the poorer countries are former colonies which Britain and the EU have exploited for their resources and labour over some centuries. Shouldn’t therefore the EU feel morally obliged to make some reparations via a more flexible migration policy? Instead the EU seems solely driven by the goal for economic dominance - if necessary, by making war and propping up client regimes, while claiming to champion democracy.
Statewatch.org noted (Ref 5): “When the west (USA & EU) stops exploiting Third World resources and markets, many people will not have to flee from poverty or seek work. And when they stop supporting pro-western authoritarian regimes, many fewer will have to flee from persecution.”
Of course, it is true that Britain does not unilaterally make policies on managed migration, but rather has to submit to the decisions taken at EU Summits. For example, the e-borders that Jacqui Smith spoke of is an EU idea. The EU plans to go much further. It is currently developing a new 5-year strategy for justice, home affairs and security for 2009-2014. The proposals include the latest technologies of surveillance and closer cooperation with the US. In the words of the EU Council presidency: “Every object the individual uses, every transaction they make and almost everywhere they go will create a detailed digital record. This will generate a wealth of information for public security organisations, and create huge opportunities for more effective and productive public security efforts.” (Ref 5)
References
1. CARF Bulletin Summer 2002
2. JCWI Bulletin, Spring/Summer 2002
3. JCWI 5-year plan on immigration, June 2005
4. JCWI critique of the Points based system, Nov 2006
5. Tony Bunyan: The Shape of Things to Come, www.statewatch.org, 10 Sept 2008
APPENDIX
The media and asylum seekers
The overwhelming majority of applicants are bogus. Most have entered this country illegally and only when arrested, they pose as terrified fugitives from tyranny… (Daily Mail 12 Dec 95)
“Clamp them at Calais” (Sunday People, 24 Jan 1999)
“Some supposed asylum seekers repay our generosity by cheating the benefit system … begging and thieving in town & city centres; and even setting up criminal networks” (Daily Mail, Mar 00)
“Handouts to refugees are robbing the British poor” (Evening Standard, April 00)
“We need deportations on a huge scale” (Sun, 9 Mar 00)
“Beggars build mansions with OUR handouts” (Sun, 14 Mar 00)
“Time to kick the scroungers out” (Sun, 17 Mar 00)
“Refugees get flats with Jacuzzi, sunbeds and… a sauna” (Daily Star, 25 March 00)
“Asylum seekers eat our donkeys” (D Star, 21Aug03)
“Asylum seekers steal the Queen’s birds for barbecues” (Sun 4 July 03):
The Daily Express in 2001, ran front page headlines for seven issues in a row:
We can’t take anymore asylum seeker; Asylum: we’re being invaded; Refugees: run for your life; Labour U-turn to stop asylum mayhem; Asylum invasion reaches 12,000 a month; Asylum seekers: give us the true figures; Asylum invasion: judges to rule.
Mail on Sunday (26 Jan 03) announced that disease is ‘the new asylum peril that we cannot ignore… ‘We live in fear of foreigners bringing death to our land… It is not by allowing in terrorists that the Government’s policy of mass immigration, especially from the Third World, will claim most lives. It is through letting in too many germs.”
The Sun (27 Jan 03) warned that immigrants had brought “alarming levels of infectious TB, Hepatitis B [and] incurable Aids’ to Britain.” It was running a petition calling on Tony Blair to ’stop Britain becoming a soft touch for illegal asylum seekers’. With over 300,000 signatories, it claimed to be the biggest newspaper petition in history.
Eddie D’Sa, a former academic, is a social activist and Secretary, Goan Welfare Association, UK
from: http://www.confluence.org.uk/2008/12/02/managed-migration-history-and-developments/