Why we need a radically different approach to discussing immigration
By Dr Melanie Crofts, Senior Lecturer in Law
I was watching Newsnight a couple of weeks ago (27/7) and Kate Green MP, who had just resigned from the Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Minister for Equalities and Women, was speaking about her resignation and Brexit. It was no surprise that the issue of immigration came up. Kate Green was being asked why Owen Smith had not addressed immigration in his first policy speech after it was confirmed that he would be challenging Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader.
Kate Green’s response was to point out that, “Different communities have different experiences of immigration. …People in Burnley are feeling the pressure on their public services. They are worried about immigration! They are talking about immigration, but they are worried about a deeper sense of insecurity for themselves, about jobs not being available. So people do talk about immigration, but the deeper worry they feel is because of the inequality in this country, which leaves them feeling shut out of our prosperity. …Some communities are accustomed to many new arrivals coming in among them…. Others do not have that experience. It is very important that we listen to what people are saying…” http://subsaga.com/bbc/news/newsnight/2016/07/27.html Newsnight 27/7/16 (emphasis added)
In the week following the Newsnight item, I received an email update from the TUC (4/8). I receive these updates regularly as I subscribe to their mailing list. The headline and first paragraph of this particular update stated: “TUC calls for immediate action to manage migration better.The TUC has today (Thursday) published Managing migration better for Britain: what the government should be doing now, which proposes practical policies to address the concerns expressed by many voters before and during the EU referendum campaign.” https://www.tuc.org.uk/node/125394
Following the first item I was annoyed at the tone and approach of Kate Green to the issue of migration. Although she is not anti-immigration, I felt that the tone of her response could be interpreted as pandering to those who have been arguing that we should close out borders and that issues around immigration were not being taken seriously, particularly by the Labour Party. The TUC update angered me further. Phrases such as “managing migration”, “addressing the concerns expressed by many voters” have been used by the Right and anti-immigration groups, including UKIP. Although the TUC goes on to make reasonably progressive and sensible suggestions regarding migration, such as increasing wages for all workers, placing responsibilities for fair working practices on employers, for exploitation of migrants and trafficking to be robustly tackled and for public services to be properly funded to reduce pressures on local services, for me, using the language of the Right and anti-immigration groups indicates that they have a point.
They don’t. My worry is that suggesting we should “listen to the concerns of people/voters” assumes that their ‘concerns’ around immigration are well founded. They are not. And this, in my view, is the problem. Who is providing the counter discourse? Who is pointing out that the ‘concerns’ around migration are unfounded and actually based on racism and xenophobia? Who is presenting the alternative arguments based on fact? Time after time research suggests that migration is overwhelmingly positive and that migrants (EU and non EU) either have no negative impact or they contribute more to the economy than they take out in benefits and use of public services (http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/EA019.pdf).
Cuts to public services are having a disproportionate impact on the vulnerable, disabled, women, BME communities and the working classes. However, rather than placing the ‘blame’ for this impact on those with the power and influence, it is easier to scapegoat migrants. And this has been happening for decades and with every ‘new’ set of migrants, from the Jews in the 1900s, to Black and Asian migrants coming to help rebuild our economy after the wars, and beyond.
Rather than ‘pandering’ to those who consistently make the argument that migration needs to be ‘managed’ and that we should be ‘listening to voters’ there needs to be an alternative discourse which challenges perceptions and falsehoods around migration. The Left and Labour Party need to make it absolutely clear that migration is and always has been a benefit to the UK. They need to have clear, pro-migration policies. They need to robustly challenge lies and misconceptions around immigration. And they need to be honest about the reality that stopping or cutting migration is almost impossible. This has been shown by the fact that migration figures have not been dropping (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36382199), despite this and successive Governments’ best efforts to introduce ever more restrictive and punitive immigration controls.
Immigration controls since the 1960s have become more and more restrictive especially for non EU nationals. These controls have been introduced as a direct consequence of xenophobic and racist ‘cut/control immigration’ discourse. This has resulted in considerable harm to families (including families of British citizens), human rights abuses and deaths. Only the wealthy can afford the extortionate fees to sponsor spouses/partners, elderly relatives, visitors to the UK or pay people traffickers. People will always want to move to better their life chances, join their families, work, explore the world or to escape wars, famine and persecution. Introducing more restrictive immigration controls doesn’t stop migration, it merely forces people to take more drastic and illegal measures to enter a country.
Failing to tackle discourses around immigration which are essentially based on racism, xenophobia and scapegoating has other, predictable, consequences. By using the same language as UKIP and others, which became particularly pronounced during the Brexit campaign, the Left has tacitly endorsed (and still is) the view that such attitudes and discourses are justified. It is therefore no surprise that there has been a massive spike in hate crimes across the country (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/11/police-blame-worst-rise-in-recorded-hate-on-eu-referendum).
I make my final point with a different hat on. As Director of Northamptonshire Rights and Equality Council I am shocked at the suggestion that organisations like ours, which is one of, if not the only, organisation County wide which supports victims of discrimination and hate crimes and is able to offer advice and training around equality, human rights and discrimination, is once again facing massive funding cuts. Kettering Borough Council has announced that it will be cutting funding by 65% in the next financial year. I find it astounding that despite the current climate and the rise in discrimination and hate crimes, as well as the recognition that racism is still a major issue, that organisations supporting those who are vulnerable and discriminated against are going to struggle to exist. It is not enough to pay lip service to these issues and have ‘diversity days’ or one off training or passing motions at Council meetings condemning hate crimes. The challenge for funders like Kettering Borough Council, and others, is to put their money where their mouths are and to take firm action and ensure that organisations such as NREC are considered a priority and are properly supported and funded to carry out increasingly important work in the County.
Originally published at blogs.northampton.ac.uk on August 11, 2016.
