For Open Borders

"Our governments are trapped in a morally warped and ideologically unsustainable paradigm. They applaud the free movement of capital; they abhor the free movement of labour." (Gary Younge, Guardian, 19th March 2001).

Gary Younge has put his finger on the central contradiction in the way that migration is dealt with in the global capitalist system. Or, more precisely, how western states deal with migration from the regions of the globe commonly called the ‘third world’. We live in a world where freedom of movement is a right for capital but a privilege for labour and a privilege, if not a lottery, for refugees. A world where, on the one hand, government ministers in the shape of Claire Short and the Department for International Development tell us that free trade and opening up third world countries to the free movement of capital is vital to tackle poverty and debt. Yet, on the other hand, government ministers in the shape of Jack Straw and the Home Office tell us that we need to build up the walls, unleash the sniffer dogs and turn every citizen into a spy so as to hunt down ‘abusive’ asylum seekers and scrounging economic migrants.

As well as being morally warped and ideologically unsustainable this is also incoherent and irrational. Unfortunately that does not make immigration controls politically unsustainable.

Systematic immigration controls have only existed for a relatively short period of time — internationally since around the time of the First World War. When we remember that migration, in all its forms, has been central to human experience since the human race came out of Africa, the last century is a pinprick on the historical time scale. However, in that time the idea that immigration controls are necessary has sunk deep roots in our society.

There are several reasons for this, but I would suggest one major reason. ‘Racialised nationalism’ has become ingrained in governments, not least British governments. This presents certain ‘racial’ groups as a threat to the culture and finite resources of the nation. This idea is, of course, completely false but it is useful to certain social forces to have a set of laws and regulations — backed up by a set of widely believed myths — which encourage a second class status for immigrants. Sometimes a country leaves the door more open (a position Barbara Roche and the Labour government appear to be edging towards with talk of ‘managed migration’) and sometimes the door is left more closed. Either way, racism remains. So, to whom are immigration controls useful?

* They are useful to those who want to exploit immigrant labour. Immigration controls do not prevent immigration. They control the lives of certain immigrants in the interest of employers, from multinational corporations to back street sweatshops.

* They are useful to governments which set out to serve the rich and powerful, and undermine alternative visions and ways of organising society based on meeting human needs and international solidarity.

The experience of the last four years, especially the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act, has shown us that New Labour is that kind of government just as much as the Conservatives were. It has shown that New Labour is prepared to repeat the worst surrenders to racism associated with ‘old Labour’ — such as the 1968 Commonwealth Immigration Act which caved in to and encouraged Enoch Powell, and the virginity tests of the 1970s which were carried out on Asian women at Heathrow.

The conclusion I draw from this is that we must recognise that racism, injustice and discrimination are ingrained into immigration controls. They are not accidents of unfair implementation, they are the whole point. Having recognised this, we need to argue for it during our campaigns over immediate issues — rather than mounting a stand-alone single issue campaign against immigration controls. This is far more preferable than censoring ourselves in the interests of a futile strategy of trying to persuade governments to be a bit nicer — governments which have no intention of making any fundamental change and for the most part are not even listening.

Instead of wooing the people at the top we need to concentrate our efforts at persuasion of the people at the bottom. We need to encourage a different world view which promotes the free movement of people and has answers to people’s day to day concerns. This will include idealistic students who have not succumbed to cynicism; volunteers in the Oxfam shops, trying to do their bit to make the world a better place; the church-goers who are outraged by debt; rank and file trade unionists who know that an injury to one is an injury to all.

In this way we can build the movements which can make governments listen — or move over; which can stand up to the racists, on the streets and in the press, and turn the tide against them; which can send out a simple message to the migrants, the refugees and the asylum seekers:

"You are our brothers and sisters , you’re welcome here."

Ed Mynot, Manchester Committee to Defend Asylum Seekers