Re: [Marxism] Immigration in the....

["Calvin Broadbent" <calvinbroadbent@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

So they say, sometimes.

<http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/597/respect-sheffield.htm>

The SWP members who spoke opposed open borders as ?not being in the real
world?, while ?only the likes of the BNP? could possibly be against the
government?s ?incitement to religious hatred? legislation.

.......

Disappointing, but not unexpected, and I came away with the impression that
some of them now genuinely oppose the position they held regarding
immigration controls only a couple of years ago. After all, it soon becomes
impossible to argue with any conviction for principles that are vehemently
opposed within Respect. Eventually theory has to be brought into line with
practice.

<http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/596/Respect-immigration.htm>


Two members of Respect explain why they are backing the CPGB's motion on
immigration controls
click here to read all our motions
20 signed up Respect members can present a motion to conference. Send an
email to respect@xxxxxxxxxxx if you support one or all our motions.
Remember, the deadline is Friday, October 14.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eddie Barns is a member of Respect in Hackney. He will be seconding our
motion on open borders at the pre-conference meeting of the branch, as his
experience as a lawyer dealing with immigration cases has convinced him of
the need for a principled stand on this question
I have been mainly working with unaccompanied minors - young people who come
to Britain from Afghanistan, Iran and the like. These people haven?t been
able to get representation due to the cuts in legal aid. I have working in
this field with a group called Cayr - Community Action with Young Refugees.

Of course, the question of youth and children coming to this country is a
particularly emotive, high-profile one. But immigration controls in general
are a form of policing the working class. For instance, young migrants are
used as a source of cheap labour in factories, etc, but when they reach 18,
these kids are sent packing.

They are being used as fill-in labour, so when the economy no longer needs
them they are disregarded. And the way they are treated when they are over
here alienates so many of them that some get into substance and alcohol
abuse - it?s a bleak story.

But then the use of youth migrant labour has to be seen as part of a bigger
picture of abuse. At the root of the problem are immigration controls in
general. We need a general approach, not just a case-by-case method. Without
immigration controls, the problems disappear.

Human beings could then come and go when they want, how they want. People
have always sort to improve their lives, economically or socially, by
migration and what?s wrong with that? The principled position is opposition
to all immigration controls.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Landau is backing the motion on open borders proposed by the CPGB for
the November 19-20 annual conference of Respect. Over the years, comrade
Landau has been in a variety of anti-deportation campaigns and is currently
prominent in the No One Is Illegal group (for details of the campaign,
contact info@xxxxxxxxxxx). He is a member of Respect in Islington
People think of immigration controls as being ?normal? features on the
political landscape. But, of course, if you go back just 100 years ago or
so, such controls did not exist. The first controls, in the form of the
Aliens Action, was introduced in 1905 after a campaign that unfortunately
did include sections of the official labour movement, the TUC in particular.
These restrictions were aimed against Jews fleeing poverty and persecution
in eastern Europe and Russia.

There were sections of the labour movement then that talked of the
?dilution? of the conditions of indigenous workers, that the migrants would
undermine trade union organisation. The same sort of arguments used today.
The answer then was the same as the answer now: all workers, whatever they
country of origin, must be organised and represented by the movement here.

One of the problems we find in many immigration campaigns is that this
phrase about ?refugees and asylum-seekers? keeps cropping up as the focus of
our efforts. There are two criticisms of this. First, all asylum-seekers are
refugees. Second, it misses a whole group out. What about people who come -
legally or illegally - as economic migrants?

Without taking a position on migrants in general rather than concentrating
on special cases, Respect and others only look at half the story. Of course,
there is always a need to concentrate on particular campaigns and cases when
there is immediate danger. But if you make that your general approach, it is
extremely divisive.

People think of opposition to all immigration controls as an ?ultra-left?,
utopian position. George Galloway has said as much. Actually, it is the only
stance that can guard against divisions being fostered between different
groups of migrants and between some economic migrants and the working class
of the UK. When one particular group of migrant workers is illegal, it
becomes a potential weapon to undercut the conditions of all workers.

Instead of saying ?Keep them out?, we have to say ?Organise them?. The basic
trade union principle, ?Unity is strength?, in other words.

We unite with anyone on particular immigration campaigns: we do not make it
a condition that people agree with us on ?open borders?. But a political
party like Respect must fight for the principle. It must not attempt to
fudge the question by concentrating exclusively on ?refugees and
asylum-seekers?

<http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/565/galloway.htm>

Galloway joins in the numbers game
The SWP voted down the CPGB?s principled call for the scrapping of all
immigration controls at the October conference of Respect. Now we can see
the result, writes Tina Becker. George Galloway is free to ape the populist
calls of the Tories and Labour government for ?controlled immigration?

There is virtually no difference between Labour and the Tories on the
question of further restricting the right to asylum and immigration. Not a
day goes by without one side claiming, to the cheers of the tabloid press,
to be tougher than the other on would-be migrants. The election battle is in
full swing with immigration a key issue. And now Respect, it seems, has
bought into their arguments.

Incredibly, in an article in the Morning Star, Respect?s main figurehead,
George Galloway, puts forward his own version of Charles Clarke?s proposals
for ?controlled migration?.

Almost precisely a year after the Morecambe Bay tragedy, where 23 illegal
workers drowned on February 5 2004, comrade Galloway even takes on the
language of the Tories in calling for a ?points system? to determine which
migrants are to be deemed ?useful? to British society (and should therefore
be allowed in) and which are not.

Instead of fighting for the right of every person to settle and work where
they wish, Galloway thinks that ?we should publish an
economic-social-demographic plan for population growth based on a points
system and our own needs? (February 12). Our own needs? Whose needs exactly
does comrade Galloway mean? The needs of a classless Britain, presumably,
united in its fear that the country could be ?swamped? by those who have no
job, no skills and no visas - ie, those millions of people pushed to the
bottom of the heap by imperialist superexploitation.

Galloway unerringly steps into the trap of the gutter press when he writes
that ?the scrapping of immigration controls? would equate to ?urging all the
most accomplished and determined people to leave the poor countries of the
world and come to the richest - this would make the poor countries even
poorer and the rich countries richer.?

Quite the opposite. In some ways it is the current situation that results in
the ?most accomplished and determined?, together with the rich, finding
their way to these shores: work permits are already issued on the basis of a
specific job vacancy (ie, to an individual deemed ?accomplished? enough to
fill it), while it is certainly only the most ?determined? who are prepared
to place their lives in the hands of the people-traffickers and run the
immigration-police-gangmaster gauntlet.

In any case, who is talking about ?urging? people to leave their own
countries? That is like saying that if you advocate the right to divorce,
you are ?urging? the break-up of every couple?s happy marriage. Forcing
people to stay in the numerous destitute and corruption-ridden countries of
the undeveloped world is not only deeply anti-human - it is also not going
to work. Only a programme for democracy and self-liberation (of which the
abolition of all immigration controls is an integral part) can create the
conditions where people everywhere can actually take control of their own
life - be it in their home country or abroad.

Most people do not actually want to leave friends and family to move to a
country many hundred of miles away, but often see no other way out of their
misery. Neither Michael Howard, Tony Blair nor George Galloway should have
the right to tell people where they should live, work and settle -
especially when populistic electioneering determines their politics.

Colour-blind?
Instead of the current ?racist? immigration controls, Galloway wants them to
be ?colour-blind? and therefore presumably ?fairer?. So instead of allowing
every person to be made as welcome as ?rich US citizens?, he wants everybody
to be subjected to immigration controls - fair ones, naturally.
(Incidentally, I know quite a few ?blonde, blue-eyed Australians? - who
Galloway says are also let in on the nod - that have spent hours in airport
security, trying desperately to prove that they can sustain themselves in
Britain. Being issued with work permits for six months, with deportation
looming after that, is also not exactly what I would call a welcome with
open arms).

Islamophobia is of course a real phenomenon, particularly in the context of
the government?s newly revised proposals for anti-terror legislation. Many
of those who might soon be held indefinitely under house arrest without
trial and denied access to telephone and internet will undoubtedly be from a
muslim background - with a darker shade of skin.

But, in reality, much of the witch-hunting in the tabloid press has been
directed against ?white migrants? from eastern Europe. Despite their
countries joining the EU last year, people from the so-called ?A8 countries?
are subject to quite strict immigration rules: they are required to register
with the home office and are not allowed to claim benefits until they have
worked continuously for one year. If they want to change jobs, they risk
losing their work permit - and face deportation.

Quite clearly, immigration controls in 2005 are not racist - they
discriminate against people of all colours and particularly against the
poor. If anything, they are ?classist?. Those with money and connections
have no problem settling in Britain, no matter what colour their skin is. Of
course we do not believe that racism has been ?extinguished?. But such
openly expressed sentiment is increasingly consigned to the margins, for
Britain?s official ideology is today undoubtedly nationalist, or national
chauvinist, and this British nationalism is ?multiracial? and
?multi-ethnic?.

Amnesty
Somewhat in contradiction to comrade Galloway?s insistence on the right of
the state (in effect the right of capital) to vet incomers, he proposes an
amnesty for all ?existing asylum-seekers? and ?illegals?. It seems that only
future migrants, not current or past ones, will be a problem. Of course, the
scrapping of border controls would also logically require an amnesty for
those caught in the previous system, but on its own an amnesty might well be
highly problematic - as can be seen from the recent example of Spain.

The Spanish government has just announced a plan to introduce a ?partial
amnesty? for ?up to 300,000? of its estimated one million illegal
immigrants. But only those who in the next three months can come up with a
six-months work contract and who are also registered at the town hall and
social security office are eligible for Spanish residency. At the same time,
the government is already preparing to deport a group of 277 new
asylum-seekers found on a boat drifting off the Canary Islands last week.

George?s amnesty would also be ?partial? - the door would be slammed shut
once more after it ended.
British capital, too, has at various times been forced to ?regularise?
thousands of illegal immigrants - once the unofficial economy becomes too
large and unwieldy, its disadvantages outweigh the usefulness of having a
supply of worst paid labour ready to exploit (for capital it is a highly
desirable by-product of border controls that millions of illegals are
created - workers with no rights, used to further divide and undercut the
indigenous workforce).

The last time this occurred was in 1974, when the Labour government declared
a tightly defined amnesty. This gave the government access to millions of
pounds of additional income from tax - and it also had the welcome side
effect of trapping thousands of less ?useful? people who mistakenly thought
they fell within the definition. Instead, they were deported after many
years in Britain.

Such amnesties can of course lead to much improved working and living
conditions for many people already in the country. However, they carry with
them the inbuilt implication that there are those on the wrong side of the
border who must be kept out. In effect, they are an attempt of capital to
?rationalise? part of an increasingly irrational system.

Imperialist border controls
While capital is free to move across borders in the hunt for markets and
sources of profit, the representatives of capital insist on their god-given
right to tightly control the pool of labour they have available to exploit;
and to keep those same borders sealed off to surplus labour of the ?wrong?
type - whether that means workers with inadequate skills, unsuitable work
culture or too great an instinct for class solidarity.

Border controls go hand in hand with the development of imperialism. It was
not until the beginning of the 20th century that immigration controls were
introduced in most European countries and the United States. Previously,
whole peoples were expelled if considered undesirable, but there had been no
organised attempt to prevent immigration. England, for example, expelled all
Jews in the 13th century, but it was not until the 1905 Aliens Act that
measures were adopted to keep ?undesirables? out in the first place.

Capitalism is becoming more and more obsolete. Instead of massively cutting
working hours and generally introducing the latest labour-saving technology
- that would be humanly rational - capital does no such thing. It wants to
drive wages down and up the hours worked. To that end ever increasing
numbers of poor workers - skilled and unskilled - will be sucked into the
metropolitan countries.
Far from siding with ?our? state against the majority of our class, as
comrade Galloway suggests, we must first and foremost fight to organise all
workers. Crucially into trade unions and revolutionary political parties
which are as united as objective circumstances permit and increasingly act
as one. Only that way can competition between workers be limited and the
means forged to actually supersede the system of global capital.

Phil Kent is right to remind us that ?in the 19th century, when Irish labour
was undermining British working class living standards and being used to
break strikes, forward-looking leaders not only turned to organising all
workers, irrespective of where they came from: they also sought to organise
in Ireland? (Letters, February 10).

That is why it is essential for working class politicians to demand the
legalisation of all such workers, the abolition of the entire ?illegal?
category. That means open borders - the right for all to live, work and
settle in any country in the world with full citizenship rights. We say,
immigration is a progressive phenomenon which breaks down national
differences and national prejudices. It unites British workers with the
world working class.

SWP?s carte blanche
Unfortunately Respect has no such internationalist and democratic programme.
?Every country must have control of its own borders - no-one serious is
advocating the scrapping of immigration controls,? Galloway writes. I wonder
who he is referring to? But I can assure him that the CPGB is not the only
?unserious? group around. Another is his main partner in Respect, the
Socialist Workers Party (how ?serious? they are is of course debatable): ?We
oppose all immigration controls,? it still says in ?What the Socialist
Workers Party stands for?, published every week in Socialist Worker.

And on February 12, Socialist Worker attacked the ?points system? proposed
by Tories and New Labour alike. In reference to the home secretary it wrote:
?Clarke wants to make sure that everyone allowed to live here is
economically ?useful? - as defined by big business. Through ?managed
migration? the government hopes to minimise spending on education,
healthcare and pensions for migrant workers.?
Can we expect therefore the comrades to use their absolute majority in
Respect to tell George Galloway to disown his own version of ?managed
migration?? Unlikely. Because John Rees is wrong to write in the same issue
of Socialist Worker that ?in Respect we believe that immigrants have a right
to come to this country?. In fact, according to current Respect policy,
immigrants should have the right neither to come nor to stay.

At the October 30-31 2004 Respect conference, the comrades used their
majority to vote down the CPGB motion for open borders which called exactly
for such a policy. In arguing her party?s position, the SWP?s Elaine
Heffernan stated that such a principled stance would be ?a step backwards?.

Instead, her comrades voted to adopt a position that merely calls for the
?defence of the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers?. A wonderful carte
blanche for Galloway, who has now very vividly shown how inadequate this
position is and with what reactionary crap it can be filled.

This cannot have come as a surprise to SWP comrades: over the issue of
abortion, Galloway has already proved to be a less then reliable ally. By
publicly stating in an interview with The Independent on Sunday that he is
against a woman?s right to choose, he showed that he cares little about his
?comrades? in the SWP and their internal political problems (or for
international socialism, for that matter).

Since their Respect adventure started, the SWP has lost hundreds of its
members. Disappointment and disillusionment within the organisation is rife.
More and more members find it extremely painful to defend the ditching of
principle after principle - especially when the often-promised electoral
?breakthrough? has so far not materialised (and is not very likely to
materialise in the looming general election).

Quite clearly, with his latest musings, Galloway has put up two fingers to
the SWP - again.
He knows it is the SWP that is subordinating its programme to himself and
the largely phantom right wing around the Muslim Association of Britain. As
opposed to Galloway, who has no problem in stating his often less than
principled and confused views, the SWP has increasingly kept its
revolutionary politics under wraps.

The national executive of Respect must openly dissociate itself from
Galloway?s support for the Tory-Labour plans for state-controlled
immigration via ?points systems?. Galloway?s call for capped, controlled
migration is just as populist as the witch-hunt conducted by the bourgeois
parties and the gutter press.

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism