Immigration: Facts and Phobias

Usually, nationalists are concerned about the plight of their fellow citizens living abroad. One might think this would be particularly the case in the UK, given the large number of British citizens living abroad. While much of the debate about the UK’s EU membership focuses upon the 2.3 million citizens of other EU countries living in the UK, a nearly identical number of UK citizens live in other EU Member States. There has been surprisingly little discussion about what would happen to them.  In principle, according to the EU’s Returns Directive, British citizens who did not, or no longer, had a right to stay in the EU would have to be expelled from the territory, by force if they did not go voluntarily. To facilitate their departure, they could be detained for up to six months, or up to 18 months if there were complications with their removal. Various other restrictive EU laws would also apply to UK citizens in the EU. So there would be sanctions against employers of irregular British migrants, as well as prosecution of those friends or family who assisted with their unauthorised stay. Those UK citizens who were long-term residents in a Member State (legal residence for more than five years) could apply for long-term resident status under EU law. But as compared to obtaining permanent residence status as an EU citizen, there are more conditions attached to obtaining such status, and fewer benefits. For instance, according to EU immigration law, a long-term resident of a Member State can move to another Member State, but this is subject to much stricter rules than those applying to EU citizens. Also, British citizens would often be subject to ‘integration’ rules, such a requirement to speak the language of the host country, before getting such status. For British pensioners living in the EU, the EU rules which guarantee the receipt (and upgrading) of their British pensions would no longer apply. For those with holiday homes on the Costas there's also a substantial point regards the property laws, which in a number of states distinguish between EU nationals and others. So all those houses in Spain, Portugal, France, Italy could all of sudden be a bit different investment that people thought of.

There is few estimates on the financial cost that would be concurred by welfare agencies and social services by the mass return of those expelled ex-pats being offered up by nationalists if the very likely tit-for-tat immigration policies were adopted.  

Is immigration a problem? According to the media and certain political groups it is. In fact, in most of the rich countries of the world there are lobbies and parties that oppose immigration on various grounds, in some cases going to great lengths to curtail it. No sooner had the Berlin Wall fallen than the European Union was erecting another one between the EU and Africa and Asia, building Fortress Europe to keep people out. Anti-immigration, pro-nationalist parties encourage the notion that foreigners are coming in to take advantage of generous government hand-outs in their respective countries meanwhile ruining the lives of the native population. This, they claim, can and must be stopped. They are being successful in mobilising their supporters electorally. It is an inescapable fact, that has to be admitted, that many are increasingly resentful of immigration and of the European Union’s rules that make it unavoidable. Disillusioned people all over want fewer foreigners and are at war over the free movement of labour. Not just in the UK but elsewhere in Europe the same complaint is raised; local workers protest that they cannot compete with foreigners willing to accept low wages. But as in the UK the reality is just as skewed and fails to reflect the truth. The Ministry of Social Affairs show that most east European immigrants take jobs that no Dutch worker would accept, such as picking vegetables in greenhouses. They pay more in taxes than they claim in benefits. France too are also joining the anti-migrants charade, with laws curbing migrant workers rights, particularly legislation aimed against the Roma.

Go back a generation and we find in the anti-immigration argument strong echoes of male-dominated labour movement opposition to women’s entry into the workforce. Exactly the same arguments were used against young workers, condemning them to exceptional long low-paid apprenticeships.

What is obscured by all this are certain facts. Immigration is increasing on a global scale, and it is fueled by the demands of capital. The fact that problems arise in countries of destination is no surprise. Whenever people with different languages, customs and histories arrive in large numbers in another country there will be misunderstandings, conflicts, even violence. But the fact that they are there is because their labor is required by employers in that country. In the fastest-growing economies of the word, such as China and India, workers frequently migrate internally over vastly greater distances than is required in a move from one small corner of Europe to another that also has the implication of cultural and language barriers.  Imagine if in the United States of America moving from the Eastern Sea-board to the West Coast in search of employment was banned? 

People might bemoan the loss of their traditions and blame foreigners for eroding them. But they are  overlooking the penetration of the city centres by real estate speculators and rural beauty spots exploited by tourist industry over-development Nor do they express outrage by the Americanisation of culture that contains more consumer decadence with its McDonalds or Starbucks than anybody coming from Bulgaria or Romania. There is far greater damage caused to tradition and culture by financial speculation and capitalist globalisation than by migrant groups insulating themselves in their little own communities. History shows that language and religion are not insurmountable obstacles to social integration. The conflicts fought between protestants and catholics were, in most of Britain, long and bloody (Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland are still dealing with this) but for most part, whether a person is a Church of England, Welsh chapel or Church of Rome is an irrelevance.

The only effective way to reduce immigration in Britain is to lower living standards, reduce real pay and increase poverty. This has now been shown to be the Cameron’s immigration policy and do not be fooled that it will only apply to incoming migrant workers. Simply look at the vast numbers of benefit claimants sanctioned for declining low-paying or even no-pay employment. Anti-immigrant rhetoric is employed only as a means of preparing the way for attacks against the entire working class. If the government really wanted to limit migration from Romania and Bulgaria it could do more to train UK nationals. It should also be remembered this government abolished the Migration Impacts Fund, a grant of £50 million paid for out of visa fees (not from general taxation), which channelled money to local authorities to pay for additional local costs incurred as a result of immigration. 

Cameron has very little to say about the global movement of capital. This has always and everywhere led to a destabilisation of local economies and social life such as when Nestlés came into African villages and convinced mothers that breast feeding is dangerous and that, therefore, they’d be better off nursing their children on a Nestlés formula baby-milk product. When the IMF or World Bank demands that, in return for capital investment, a country privatise its education, transportation and communications Cameron stays silent. Today a grasping oligarchy decide all aspects of social, economic and political life: the dictatorship of capital. The price is being paid by every European worker, as every government imposes savage cuts in jobs, wages, and essential social services.

Ultimately, the immigration controversy is a snare and a delusion designed to subvert unified opposition to the effects of capitalism. To garner votes, politicians are willing to create an atmosphere of fear than one of mutual respect and solidarity. Let us halt this new spectre haunting Europe: the spectre of xenophobia. 

Our aim in the Socialist Party is nothing less than the establishment of world socialism. We oppose every form of anti-immigrant chauvinism, racism and nationalism, including the advocacy of separatism in Scotland, Catalonia, Belgium, Northern Italy and Northern Ireland, that only sows further divisions between workers at a time when united struggle against the common enemy, capitalism, is essential. The scapegoating of immigrants is especially grotesque when we consider the tens of thousands who have died since 1990 to reach European shores and once on European soil are then denied basic human rights, and interned in detention camps. Public concerns about immigration are, but they stem from concerns about jobs and pay and living conditions, problems caused by capitalism, not immigrants and which can only be effectively addressed by socialism.