Memo to Keir Starmer:  Now is NOT the time to insist that an end to free movement is an essential part of a Brexit deal.

Memo to Keir Starmer: Now is NOT the time to insist that an end to free movement is an essential part of a Brexit deal.

I’ve just been listening to Keir Starmer on BBC World At One talking about Labour’s position on Brexit. It seems that he is clinging to the view that an end to freedom of movement must be part of that package. It is ironic that this view is being maintained in the face of the fact that Labour’s advance was secured by young voters who think that the right to move freely across borders is a very good thing.

It would be helpful if Labour reviewed the new facts that form the political landscape as of this moment in time. I think there are three elements to this:

1. The polls are showing that anti-immigrant standpoints are ceasing to have a role in mobilising opposition moods in the way they had been at other times during the past decade. This is not to say that racism/xenophobia has retired from the scene; rather that the national political mood no longer pivots around these attitudes in quite the same way as it has been doing in the recent past.

2. The long, hard look at the UK economy made necessary after the Brexit vote has helped make the case that workers exercising free movement rights have have helped the sustain a degree of buoyancy as well as the viability of crucial public services. Media reports have been full of stories about threats to UK-based companies, the NHS, the education sector, social care, construction, food industries, hospitality, creative industries, etc, etc if freedom of movement is allowed to go down the pan. Labour ought to be a part of the learning curve which the rest of British society is clearly on, and not stand out against it.

3. Nobody in politics or around the social policy industry has the faintest idea on how a UK immigration policy which meets the needs of the UK economy (to say nothing of being all-square with human rights obligations) would operate. The Home Office continues to operate well below par in terms of functional efficiency even in terms of current responsibilities which are limited to the control of so-called third country nationals. Extending its remit to the millions of EU nationals who cross UK borders promises administrative chaos that would feed into the way our labour and housing markets operate – already burdened with the task of checking immigration status – and also important public services like health and education. Whoever speaks for the Labour home affairs brief in the next Parliament should be asking the most searching questions as to whether an efficient system of control over migration which excludes the principle of a right of free movement is even theoretically possible.

These are powerful arguments for the Labour Party to fundamentally review its current stance, and start finding more opportunities to say that the loss of free movements rights would make it harder to achieve its principal requirement from Brexit – which is that it should be ‘jobs friendly’. It should look to the moods that are dominant among the millennials to amplify this message and work to strengthen the message that a rights-based freedom of movement can continue to exist even after the UK has left the EU.

Labour’s advance: New opportunities for rights-based policies on migration?

Labour’s advance: New opportunities for rights-based policies on migration?

Here are some thoughts on the remarkable advance made by the Labour Party under in the general election and what opportunities might be opening up for rights-based immigration policies.

This usually commanding and highly-vexed issue has played only a small part in the debates and manifestos published by the parties, with a generally uniform clinging to positions reiterated at other elections over the last couple of decades.  The odd frisson of interest showed itself at specific moments, such as when Theresa May re-committed herself to achieve a net migration target of below 100,000, or UKIP proclaiming a preference for a policy limiting the movement of people to one-in/one-out.  But, by and large, the real flashpoints of concern for voters were the state of the NHS, student indebtedness, the housing crisis, and who could be trusted to get the best Brexit deal.

The huge trend which secured for Labour a swing of 9.5%, and gained the party 3.5 million more votes over and above its tally in 2015 swamped most efforts to make control of people movement a vote-determining issue. According to Lord Ashcroft’s post-poll analysis, immigration was not listed amongst the five main issue of concern for Labour voters, and even for those who preferred the Tories as a worry it was so for just 9% of respondents.

Of course there is always the ‘elephant in the room’ argument, which likes to tell us that anxieties about newcomers are bound up in expressions of concern for the state of the NHS or the housing market and only rarely manifest itself as outright migrantophobic comment.  But the tone of public debate in recent times has scarcely encouraged inhibition amongst people who might believe that the reason why they can’t get an appointment to see a GP in under a week is down to all the ‘health tourists’ who are flooding the country.  For the moment it seems plausible to suppose that if people say they are concerned about the state of public services and then go on to vote Labour it is because they have inclined towards that party’s central narrative about austerity rather than wanting to blame migrants.

Bye-bye net migration targets

There has been much proclaiming that the Labour Party’s advance, and the Tory Party’s miserable condition, has meant that a ‘hard Brexit’ has been ditched, or that austerity has been brought to a crashing end.  Let’s hope so.  I’d also like to propose that all talk of pushing down net migration to meaningless figures that have no relation to the state of the economy is also declared a victim of the Labour surge.  Perhaps we will also see an end to the efforts of the university lobby to split what ought to be a united front in support of migrants by claiming that international students should be taken out the totals because they are not really migrants.  This was always a weak argument (they certainly do add to aggregate demand for accommodation, health services, public transport and other infrastructure costs) and those standing up for the rights of refugees, family and economic migrants should have been prepared to say so.

The Labour opposition* is now in a good position to push back against many aspects of the Conservative programme for government across a whole range of issues – from the inane Brexit mantra of ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ right the way to the Naylor Review’s plan to flog off large chucks of the NHS, and the stupid scheme to lumber the education system with a new generation of extravagantly wasteful grammar schools.  Is there a place for a radical stance on the rights of migrants in this project?  Here’s my take on how that might happen.

Firstly, there is the question of securing the bottom line for the rights of migrants.  We know what the that involves – the demands have been spelt out by the solidarity groups on many occasions.  In this category the following issues are to the forefront:

  • Ending indefinite detention of people alleged to be in breach of immigration regulations.
  • Allow asylum seekers to take work earlier in the application process.
  • Permit access to public funds benefits for all migrants in categories that lead to permanent settlement, especially those with responsibility as carers of children.
  • Scrap the excessively high income requirement for the sponsorship of family members.
  • Grant secure residence status to all migrants who have been victims of exploitation and abuse.

Labour has committed itself to versions of all these ‘asks’ during the course of its work in Parliament or in the text of its election manifesto in any event and there should be no obstacle to their rapid adoption as a plank in the platform of the re-invigorated Parliamentary opposition.

A second category forms around challenges to the pernicious effect of the clauses of the last two Immigration Acts, of 2014 and 2016.  Labour should call for the return of an effective right of appeal against all decisions of immigration enforcement officials that have the effect of refusing entry to would-be migrants or visitors, or curtailing the right of residence of people already in the country.  A national, publicly-funded appeal representation service should be re-established to assist people wishing to challenge negative decisions with the process.

In addition, challenging the Tory flagship legislation on immigration control will also mean ditching all its efforts to turn civil society agents – employers, landlords, banks, etc – into immigration officials.  Local authorities, GPs, hospitals and schools and universities should likewise relieved of their current obligations to report to the Home Office on whatever immigrants they come into contact with in their provision of public services.

Brexit:  Re-state the case for free movement

Lastly, there is the immigration agenda that revolves around the Brexit process. Labour is already committed to providing a secure residence status to all EU nationals already in the country and it doubtless continue to press the government on this issue.  But the party did disappoint many people by its opaque perspective on the future of free movement rights in general which have been spelt out over the period since the June referendum and which were reiterated in its election manifesto.

Contrary to what was stated there, it is not obvious that the right of free movement comes to an end as soon as the UK leaves the EU.  A ‘soft’ Brexit, which would involve retaining a link to the single market through membership of the European Economic Area, would also require maintaining a right to freedom of movement.  Even a loser association agreement along the lines to the arrangements with Switzerland still requires the right of citizens to movement across borders to remain in place.

From its new vantage point of being an opposition with the momentum of public popularity behind it Labour should be planning to hang like a hawk over the Article 50 Brexit negotiations, ready to swoop against any demand coming from any side which is not in the interests of the millions of voters who are now aligning themselves with its pro-people, pro-human rights cause.  That must include resisting any retreat from the current position whereby any British citizen has the right to live, work and study on any other EU state, and any EU citizen have the same right in the UK.

Speaking up for the rights of people to move freely no longer looks like a cause for losers, as might have been thought when the Remain side lost the referendum last year.  Thinking voters have been obliged to confront the implications of the loss of these rights since then, in the form of British young people saying goodbye to the opportunities to live abroad which they appear to value, and also with the exodus of valued workers from important public services like healthcare and education, right through to those in less prestigious occupations which nevertheless have helped maintain some level of prosperity across Britain in what have otherwise been very lean years.

The case is there to be made that the swirl of people crossing frontiers to improve job prospects, advance careers, and generally have a better life is something that happens when people feel empowered, viewing themselves as having positive assets in the form of their willingness to work, pay taxes, and generally contribute to the new communities they want to join.  The use of visa and border controls to counter this wish to be a part of the modern world in which people move between countries runs against this sense of what it means to be free in the twenty-first century.  No party that claims to represent the interests of ordinary people should willingly go in that direction.

These are exciting times as far as politics and the potential for change are concerned.  If Labour plays its hand right we can bring an end to decades of efforts to implement ill-considered, inept immigration control policies and widen the space in which all people can act on the assurance they have secure rights.  Further, Jeremy Corbyn has the chance to advance this progressive, pro-working class programme in the context of a broader assault on austerity and the long, weary dominance of neoliberal economic policies.  Let’s hope he and his comrades in Parliament seize the opportunity and make every use of it.

———————————————————————————————————————-

* I have to say that I am no enthusiast for the idea that Jeremy Corbyn should accept any invitation by the Queen to form a minority government on the basis of this election result.  Still scores of seats short of a majority and with a Parliamentary party that still harbours too many who resent the idea of leadership from the left, Corbyn would be prey to ambushes and intrigues which would risk bringing his project for a revival of radical democratic socialism to a crashing end, producing mass disillusion amongst those who have been recruited to the cause.  Better to let a shattered and demoralised Tory government twist in the wind for a short while longer, whilst discipline and order is reintroduced into party ranks, and momentum built up for a fresh election campaign aimed at securing a clear majority.

The revenge of the bushfaller – why so much of the global visa system deserves to fail

The revenge of the bushfaller – why so much of the global visa system deserves to fail

The recent work of the economist Branko Milanovic, on the extent of inequality across the world has gone a long way to explaining people of meagre means in the poorer countries are prepared to risk so much in the great gamble of migration.[*]

Challenging the naïve optimism of the progressives who became hooked on neoliberalism at the turn of the millennium, expecting as they did to see a convergence in relative levels of wealth across all the nations of the planet, Millanovic sets out the evidence which shows that is just not happening.  Whilst Asia has made significant progress to report on this matter, currently on course to fill the gap by 2044, elsewhere the picture is grimmer. Starting from an already low level, African GDP per capital in 2013 was a mere 1.9 times higher than its 1970 level.  Growth across Latin American has been similarly weak.

In such a world, where inequalities based on geographical place are much greater than those of class in the country of birth, then migration is often the best plan for improving living standards.  In concrete terms, a wage earner in the Democratic Republic of Congo could reasonably hope for an income 93 times higher if she could make the move to the United States.  In contrast, an advance into the status of middle class in her own country would result in a gain of only a tiny fraction of that amount.

For politicians and policy-makers in the developed world these stark facts are justification for harsh, restrictive immigration controls.  The poor must be held at bay to prevent the current sfraction of global migration (around 3% of the world’s population) from becoming a tsunami of people movement.  Plenty of liberals of the stamp of the American political theorists John Rawls and Michael Walzer see no problems with this, arguing that, since the would-be migrants have not contributed to the prosperity which exists in the rich countries, then no issue of injustice arises if they are excluded.  Plenty of exponents of the discipline of development economics, led by Oxford professor Paul Collier, similarly argue that the world is best served by keeping the migrant poor out of the lands of the rich.[†]

But then there is the rather large problem of keeping the idea of the wealthy and fortunate nations of the world out of the heads of the wretched of the Earth. The supposed sophistication of glittering, high-tech cities seems to have become something that is mulled over and preoccupies the minds of subsistence farmers as the tend to their fields and animals in regions which are far removed from Europe or North America.

These notions got there are by the obvious route of the colonialism that brought western civilisation to the villages and towns of the ‘dark’ continents. They continue to be fanned by the ubiquity of the consumer capitalism which has prevailed during the recent decades of so-called independence, and which dictates the idea of what everyone should be aspiring to as the good life.  In the 1970s and 80s the institutions that sustained the economic system at the global level set about eliminating all the home-grown options to this market-driven modernisation and development through structural adjustment programmes which pushed people off the land, closed the industries governments had been nurturing behind protectionist policies, and sacked hundreds of thousands of the educated workers who had been labouring in the public services.  The promised bonanza of speeded up growth rates and break-through into higher performing economies was seldom realised in any country outside Asia.  But the hopes of a distinctively Latin American or African route to progress were ruthlessly extinguished at the behest of the IMF and the World Bank, and the dream of a Global North-style prosperity rooted itself even more deeply in place.

Trek to cities

If the escape from poverty remained elusive, other aspects of the social and cultural life of the only slowly developing countries did not stagnate.   As peasant farmers were uprooted from their fields and began the trek to the slums and shanties of the burgeoning cities they were obliged to find lives for themselves based on casual employment and petty trading.  The quickened pace of the exchange of commodities and services encouraged a commitment to literacy and numeracy, and a high valuation on education in general.  Even though the rewards of extended years of schooling remained modest, parents made sacrifices to ensure that their children were equipped with the skills that helped them to hustle in the informal markets that prevailed across the poorest countries.

From the standpoint of the developmental economist, these people were doing all the right thing by in investing in their own human capital and strengthening the skill base of the economy.  Supply side economic theory, in the spirit of ‘build it and they will come’, continued to believe that as people became better skilled and more educated, investment would pour in to build the industries which would give everyone decent employment.

The wait is still on.  In Ghana, a country with the apparently excellent record of GDP growth rates in the order of 7% per annum across the period 2000-16, sees 250,000 well-educated children coming out of its secondary schools every year.  However, out of this number, only 10% will be able to lay down a future for themselves in good jobs in the formal sector of the economy.  Young Ghanaians are a prime example of a group of people who have been reading all the signs and indicators that as to what is expected from them in order to function as productive members of their society, but somehow, for the vast majority, that decent job which would allow them to live that life remains far beyond the immediate horizon.

Into this world of frustrated endeavour comes the immigration control systems that are imposed on the peoples of the poorer countries by the countries of the developed world.  The message they are supposed to take from the vastly difficult demands of visa regulations is, don’t even bother unless you really are one of your country’s top few percent, with the money and the willingness to splash out that makes you a candidate for inclusion in the ‘brightest and best’ category. The merely smart, hopeful and ambitious are supposed to hunker down and take consolation from the fact that convergence will eventually happen, sometime around the middle of the twenty-second century.

Brokering migration

Understandably this is not a happy thing to be told.  But does it at least do what it is supposed to do – namely deter the young, agile, discontented masses from starting out on the path of migration?  An answer to this question is to be found in a recent book by the Dutch researcher, Maybritt Jill Alpes. Brokering High-Risk Migration and Illegality in West Africa: Abroad at Any Cost is based on her ethnographic work in the Anglophone regions of Cameroon.  It is not one that will be welcome to the architects of immigration policy in the destination countries, picking about as it does the claims of such authorities to be the sole arbitrators of what constitutes legitimate immigration, Alpes looks at things from the point of view of the people who are the subject of controls which the authorities of the Global North believe are transparently clear, totally rational, and a necessary part of the administrative furniture of a globalised modern century.  From this imperious standpoint, only criminals could want to work against a scheme which is intended to bring order into the chaos that would otherwise reign.

Alpes’s informants might well be characterised as chancers, opportunists, or whatever – but criminals seems a step too far.  It is interesting that they divide along gender lines between would-be migrants – almost all female – and the exclusively male brokers.  Their chosen routes are not intended to take the dangerous turns of sea crossings or midnight smuggling across razor-wire fenced borders, though an unexpected landing at a Balkans airport might undo the best laid of their plans.  The basic strategy is that of working hard -very hard – to get the immigration regulations to bend and eventually open a rift through which you might be able to slip.  For this to stand a chance of success the applicant must of necessity employ the services of a broker who has the knowledge of how the rules operate and the experience of being able to pick away through them.  The difficulty for the aspiring ‘bushfaller’ – the local term for migrant – is being able to identify a genuine ‘big man’ broker, who might be able to deliver on his promises, and the ‘feyman’, who will just take your money and run.

In this world the claims made by officials of the destination states to the sole judge of forms of migration that will bring greatest benefit is challenged by multiple other authorities who stand at key points within the immigration control systems.  To the forefront of this group is the free-lance broker who holds in his head the arcane knowledge of how it all operates and who will share this with suitable paying customers.  Alpes explains how the successful broker builds the image of being a trustworthy agent who has the power to transform what might be a poor initial visa application into something more compelling.  Certificates will adorn his office testifying to the strength of contacts amongst others in authority out in ‘bush’ (the place to which the bushfaller dreams of going).  Business organisations, universities, testimonials from officials in public office in Gulf states are all authorities which accrue to the authority of the broker, and which tip the balance against the authority which the applicant wants to overcome – namely the visa officials representing the destination state.

She spends time in descriptions of the physical space in which the claimants to authority locate themselves.  The broker operates from an office with a receptionist and possibly a secretary in attendance.  The walls show posters of places which can be recognised as being out in bush, even though the persons in scrutinising the vision might be vague as to whether they are looking at a scene in Paris or Istanbul.  Phones and laptops are on display which reassure the client that the information provided is current and the way is open to communication with the partners who might be needed to facilitate a journey.

The visa department at the embassy of the destination country has its own version of this stage craft.  Television screens show video films on continuous loop pointing to the penalty for the presentation of fraudulent documents and warnings about the risks of exploitation and misery for those whose immigration doesn’t follow the correct paths.  The suggestion is that the messages conveyed by in these two locations, whilst apparently pointing in opposite directions, are in reality mutually reinforcing.  The visa office says that immigration is a very hard thing to accomplish:  the broker says, yes, it is hard, but that is why you need a big man like me to get you across the obstacles.

Brokers, even when they genuinely are ‘big men’, have a high rate of failure and many people lay out sums the equivalent of thousands of dollars in futile efforts to get abroad.  What gives them resilience is the fact that they are providing their services to people who know that life is always hard and that most of the plans that people have for a better life will end up in disappointment.  When efforts to set up a business fail nine out of ten times, wiping out hard-to-come-by capital in the process, then no one surprised that a similar proportion of visa applications will go down the drain. Surviving in such an environment is a matter of luck, and whether one’s luck is good or bad is influenced by everything from the spiritual effects of a priests blessing or a witch’s curse, though to the more material matter of making the right impression during an interview. In other words, even luck is not random in the sense that it is thought of in the West.  Action can be taken, resources drawn upon which are supposed to help the bushfaller to take on and defeat bad luck.

Indeed, succumbing to bad luck tends to be seen as a sign of weakness on the part of the individual, rather than the outcome of the random why in which fate stacks its cards up against you.  The person who gets as far as an interview for a visa sees the outcome turning on whether they wore the right colour tie, or their demeanour was appropriate for such an important occasion.  Worse, the person who gets so far as to make it out into bush, but then returns as a deportee has revealed a weakness of character which will not deter others from trying, but merely reinforce the idea that they will have to be stronger.

In the consulate

In a fascinating chapter Alpes sits in on and dissects the work of the visa official as he or she works their way through the 150 files that typically make up their daily workload.  During interview with applicants a face appears on the other side of the glass screens in the consular offices.  The visa officer has at most two minutes to make up her mind as to whether the individual who appears before her has met the requirements of complex sets of rules which consist of a dozen or more clauses and sub-clauses and which have to be met for the application to be successful. At this point Alpes’s description recalls to mind the novel published several years ago the UK, in which the author, himself an ex-immigration official, explains that often the decision of whether to admit or not devolves around such issues as whether the applicant has his ‘refusal shoes’ on that day.[‡]  What constitutes a refusal shoe at any time might very – brown brogues on a Monday, open-toe sandal on Tuesday, elastic-side boot on a Wednesday, etc.  But if the African lives in a world where cosmic powers will decide her fate, the westerner makes a joke in poor taste as to how random and comic everything is.

If the broker fails to deliver the opportunity to bushfall, and costs the applicant thousands of dollars as a consequence, that is not so different from the policies which the visa officials enact of charging the applicant large fees to process an application, but then retaining all this money when the hoped-for permission is denied.  It needs to be pointed out to the politicians who thought this practice was a good idea because it would deter even more hopeless cases, that its main achievement is to put their embassy officials on the same moral standing as the ‘feyman’, who never intended anything more that the straight swindling of the hapless victim.  Having sunk to this level in the eyes of the aspirant bushfaller, the visa official is thought of as being at one with those who are out to exploit her vulnerability and poverty, and as such merits all the action that needs to be taken to counter this maliciousness.

The destination country authorities intend that their policies and regulations will ‘send the message’ to would-be migrants that only an exceptional few will ever be allowed to cross the hallowed threshold of the destination country.  But this is a task that produces a constant need for the revision and redrafting of regulations to update and plug all the holes that immediately appear as soon as they become operational. The shifting and conditional status of the rules does not convey the impression of a wise and rational authority which aims for universal reach across all humanity., On the contrary, it goes a long way to affirming what applicants feel about the immorality of the system, having its origins in a rich world is prepared to go to cheat them of all the things that had been promised for bringing themselves into line with the world of global capitalism.  Alpes’s informants are hardly paragons of virtue – they are far too interesting to be that – but they have not deserved the fate of being subject to a regulatory system which, on the occasion of each and refusal of a visa, signals the judgment that they are part of a rubbish segment of humanity, there to be rode over roughshod.  They are pushing back against this verdict, and we should be doing more to tip the balance in their favour.

——————————————

[*] Branko Milanovic, Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization, 2016.

[†] Paul Collier, Exodus: Immigration and Multiculturalism in the 21st Century, 2014.

[‡][‡] Tony Saint, Refusal Shoes, 2003.

Refugee Week and the ‘Living Library’ project

Refugee Week and the ‘Living Library’ project

I’m very pleased to be backing the Migration Collective and its work in organising a “Living Library”, to be hosted by the Victoria & Albert Museum during Refugee Week. A Living Library is a dynamic storytelling project, where people become books and have a chance in interacting with individual/small group of “readers” as they tell their own stories (you can find out more about this project on the Collective’s website, https://www.migrationcollective.com/living-library)

Refugee Week (19th-25th June) theme for 2017 is ‘Our Shared Future’. The Migration Collective is looking for people whose lives have been touched, or completely changed, by issues of forced migration: refugees, asylum seekers, people whose parents were/are refugees, migration practitioners, migration lawyers, interpreters,… . If you know anyone who you think might be interested in taking part in this project to tell their story, please send to the the project’s organisers at the email address themigrationcollective@gmail.com

If you feel you have a story to tell about your experience working in forced migration issues you might want to get on board for the book project as well – though you if you’d like to be involved in just the Living Library you can opt-out of this part:)

Anarchism and migration: Lessons in getting a social struggle wrong

Anarchism and migration: Lessons in getting a social struggle wrong

A review of No Borders: The Politics if Immigration Control and Resistance by Natasha King, Zed Books, 2016

This book is quite some way off the account of the dynamics of migrant resistance to border control that I thought it would be. It is built around reflections on struggles taking place in Athens and Calais in which the author participated, but migrants only figure in this as rather vague sketches intended to illustrate some point about anarchist theory. We get no sense of the reasons why the people in these situations are on the move and why they seem to be willing to risk everything to get to some final destination. Instead we are offered a high-blown theory about ‘the autonomy of migration’, as though those on the move are motivated by an existential desire for freedom for its own sake.

In my view if you get the reason why people migrate wrong then everything else you say about the issue is likely to be a bunch of hooey. Making the search for ‘autonomy’ the critical issue generates the delusion that the activist and the migrant are some sort of soulmates on the same road to absolute freedom, King goes on to spin a theory of solidarity which binds people together with the tenuous threads of mutual regard for each other’s projects. Some anthropological notions about equality are prayed in aid for this argument and the strategic problems which the book seems to think are central are how it is possible to live out the experience of non-hierarchical, mutually-reinforcing action without doing deals with the state.

This ranks high amongst all the examples of privileged activists imposing their agendas on the struggles of people who exist many rungs lower down the social ladder than themselves. The dilemmas of being an anarchist and the opportunities that might exist for creating non-hierarchical spaces displaces the actual essential task of reducing the power of the capitalist state in determining the lives of people whose very existence requires forcing a break with its processes and controls. The world of the anarchist activist is one of a constant flurry of social experiments in communality and efforts at the pre-figuration of a social order in which external coercion has ceased to exist. But in the case of the type of egoistical anarchism which King seems to favour, even this takes place in a Foucauldian universe where repression is a permanent condition for the human soul and where the state itself is raised a bleak authority in which its capitalist features are only a peripheral issue.

This is a current which lost any connection with the profound critique of capitalism that brought other versions of the anarchist creed to a point of influence amongst a swathe of the European and American subaltern classes a few generations back. There is a world of difference between a starting point which says that the state takes the form that it does because of the capitalism interests that lie at its heart, and one that assumes that it is merely another manifestation of authority and its desire to oppress. This book makes no more than a few scattered references to capitalism as such, and when they occur they subsume the notion to just one of several different species of deplorable activity that anarchists tend to be against.

The result is an account of collaborations between ‘activists’ and migrants which are always disappointing. The disappointment is all the greater because the anarchist invests so much hope in the migrant being the hero of her fantasy of a group of human beings who are intent on living ‘autonomous’ lives. They are ‘refusing the state’ and the challenge for the activist is to make sure that they do not backslide into compromises that might bring about only partial gains. King makes it clear that she appreciates that a conundrum exists here and she calls on her comrades to be more understanding that ‘engagement’ with the forces that are denying you the right to cross a border is pretty well the inevitable consequence of fighting them in the first place. The thing to strive for from this perspective is a set of institutions – safe houses, communal kitchens, community centres and the like – which embody anarchist ethics and which might be the basis for an investment in a future, alternative, way of existence.

Unfortunately the examples she offers from her experiences in working with migrants in Athens and Calais show just how vulnerable these experiments are to be washed away by a turbulent political and economic environment. If what we want from our activism is lessons well learnt about the nature of the power we are up against that haven’t come from this experience. Despondency, if not outright despair, seems to be the legacy of jungle camps that are raided by police, migrant personal belongings wrecked, and people scattered to the wind. The brief experience of communal living ends up as not much more than a wistful memory after the evictions have taken place and the authorities cease control of the property.

Yet there is a rock which is capable of breaking the force of the current that would sweep people on the move on to defeat. It is a type of organisation which, maybe existing as nothing much more than an ephemeral network of collaborating organisations and individuals, nevertheless has learning about the ways in which the enemy can be taken on and defeated at its core. The task that lies at the heart of this collaboration is understanding how capitalism structures the state and the ways that this configures the controls that exist at borders. This process brings us face-to-face with a vast range of tensions as the interests of different stakeholders within the system of power clash and begin to reveal the extent of the contradictions that exist at every level of the social system. A strategy which aims to maximise opportunities for escape from the control of the state when it comes to exercising a right to move freely needs to be more cognisant of what the nature of these conflicts are and how they can be used to the advantage of the subject group.

When the various collectives and networks whose work King reviews are really doing a useful job (and, if this review seems rather negative in assessing their role, let me say that I think they do a lot of really important work) then they will be alongside migrants in accomplishing this task of probing and pushing back at the structures of power. This, after all, is what migrants who are on the move do all the time in any event. Grandiose ideas about exercising an autonomous right to migrant seldom figure in the plans of a Filipina social care worker looking to evade the onerous obligations of being ‘self-sufficient’ as she pursues her profession, or the Eritrean refugee stopped by border controls from reaching the networks that would provide support and a degree of security.

What they want are tactics which will push back and paralyse the efforts of immigration controllers to harass, imprison and deport them. A movement which builds on the capacity of the working class to resist the oppression and exploitation endemic to the capitalist system ought to be able to play a role in helping migrants in achieving that end. What a shame that anarchist theory, which once helped workers and peasants organise a practical fightback against capitalism has, in the egoistical version presented in this book, got so little to say about how those battles might be resumed..

Trump’s USA: Global capitalism is in retreat and migrant workers’ rights are on the line

Trump’s USA: Global capitalism is in retreat and migrant workers’ rights are on the line

President Trump’s cabinet looks pretty much as many predicted at a time when it seemed unlikely that the billionaire reality host would ever make it to be the Republican Party candidate for the post, let alone the nation’s chief executive. Packed with business types rather than politicians, and with a good smattering of generals prominent on the most hawkish side of the military elite, the US executive looks like the sort of place that billionaires and their pals go to when their dreams of world domination by other means crumble into dust. Crumble into dust is the appropriate way to talk about the economic side of capitalism as the failure to restart growth after the Great Recession of 2007/9.

As The Economist reported in its January 28th edition, the engines of the global economy – great transnational companies (TNCs) – have been afflicted with a grievous crisis of stagnant and falling profits for most of the last decade. The retreat of the global company over this period has been marked by a staggering decline in the rates of return on equity invested in international business, with 40% of the world’s biggest firms now failing to make even 10% profits on the stocks under their control – as The Economist puts it, a yardstick for underperformance.

Loss of confidence

The loss of confidence and belief in the idea that the future was global on a mega scale is a big part of the reasons why the business practices of the TNCs have fallen so sharply out of favour with the wing of capitalism that Trump and his allies represent. The long-marginalised advocates of such dusty and unfashionable sectors as coal and steel manufacturing, based in ‘the homeland’ and vying for a place in markets that are decidedly national, are once again finding their place in the sun, and President Trump’s inner-circles. This explains the enthusiasm for scrapping the rules and dispensations which had favoured international business, which have included complex regulatory regimes designed to track the movements of flows of capital and protect property rights across the globe, and tax regimes which are most efficient for those with the mobility to bank their profits in remote island havens.

Trump-Ban

Under Trump there will be a penalty inflicted on those who move assets across frontiers – excepting of course, businesses which want to repatriate the one trillion US dollars they have accumulated outside the country during the heyday of their offshore and outsourced operations. Trump’s ultra-hard line on immigration policy, which has so scandalised liberals in recent weeks, is part of the very same process which is seeing protectionist measures being brought in across the board to replace the regime which had favoured the TNCs in the recent past. Much of the discussion – and the public protests – has concentrated on the ban on admission to the US for citizens of seven mainly Muslim countries, introduced by presidential executive order at the end of January. Harsh as this has proved to be it is only one aspect of a raft of immigration control measures which will have a drastic effect on the country’s large population of settled foreign nationals. The extension of the categories of undocumented migrants who are to be considered priorities for deportation includes anyone who has broken the law by either entering or staying on in the country without permission. According to the independent Pew Research Centre, this lines up around 11 million people for removal.

Major threat

Other measures will allow the federal authorities to go after the so-called ‘sanctuary cities’, where local government has pledged a degree of support and protection to people who seek to regularise their residence status in the US. Taken together, the travel bans and the pumped up deportation measures, not to mention the claims being made for a ‘great wall’ along the southern border with Mexico, represent a major threat to the USA’s historical status as a major destination for migration. Despite what is claimed by the ‘America First’ nationalists who are the dominant influence in Trump’s administration, immigration cannot be branded as a feature of the globalisation of the TNCs which they so revile. The success they have had in confabulating the movement of people with the flows of capital around the world in the search for profits is one of the reasons why Trump’s eccentric brand of politics has made inroads into the country’s working class communities.

But the United States – a country so fundamentally forged by migration over the course of its history since the days of European colonialism – cannot so easily dismiss the movement of people as a mistaken policy pursued in recent times by a now discredited section of its ruling elite.

US working class divided

It is far more accurate to describe the anti-immigrantism which Trump is now promoting as a determined effort to drive forward a policy that will keep the US working class divided during a period of capital restructuring; a period that will require the levels of exploitation of workers in the homeland which is currently required from the people labouring in Asia and elsewhere in its outsourced business supply chains. The world watches the brave protests which have erupted across the whole of the US in the past weeks in solidarity with the excluded citizens of the seven Muslim countries, and hopes that this is just the starting point for a militant defence of the rights of all migrants in the country, including the 11 million now threatened by their inclusion in the priority categories for deportation.

This is republished from the March/April 2017 edition of Chartist

 

If we want to campaign for free movement we must break out of our comfort zones

If we want to campaign for free movement we must break out of our comfort zones

The launch of the Alliance for Free Movement (AFM) last month provided the opportunity for people involved in post-referendum initiatives to explain their campaigning work so far.

The Alliance itself has come about on the initiative of people with a lengthy history of trade union activity. They were frustrated with the fact that so much of the political establishment – both left and right – has given up on arguments about the positive role free movement of people in the EU has played over forty years.

Chairing, former deputy general secretary of the PCS, Hugh Lanning[i] opened the session by setting out how people who favour internationalism can be rallied to try to win the argument in favour of open borders while the UK negotiates Brexit in the next few years.

Experience

Green MP Caroline Lucas best summed up the challenges when she pointed out that, from the standpoint of the mass of public opinion, we have spent the last few years losing most of the crucial arguments in favour of the free movement of people. Unless we get a better sense of why this is, we will continue to be on the losing side.

For some in the audience the reason we are on the back foot is because the EU referendum mobilised nationalist and racist sentiment and this was reflected in the vote in favour of Brexit. Winning the argument on free movement was therefore completely bound up with a campaign to thwart the Article 50 process and keep Britain in the EU.

Subordinate?

Whatever the merits of doing it this way, it also poses the danger that the arguments the newly-founded AFM wants to push about the importance of free movement will be stuck as a subordinate element in a re-run referendum campaign in which the dominate issues hinge on whether or not membership of the EU means rule by an anti-democratic, spendthrift clique of Brussels-based bureaucrats.

Many on the progressive wing will feel entirely comfortable about this, seeing that, when all is said and done 48% voted to stay in the EU in the referendum. And, they might say, it is not entirely impossible that next time round this might grow by the few extra percentage points needed.

But is difficult to feel confident that another campaign that centres on the ‘in’ or ‘out’ question will really give the AFM the space that it needed to make a radical and thoroughly progressive case for free movement. Efforts to engineer a reversal of last year’s vote will give supporters of the rights of migrants a secondary role in a new Bremain campaign at best. The likelihood is even then the leaders of such a movement would be prepared to back scrapping free movement in its current form in order to keep a toe-hold in the single market.

In or Out

This task ought to be framed as ‘In or Out the EU, we call for the right of free movement.’ Winning that argument would require the AFM to break out of the comfort zone of pro-EU politics, which is currently dominated by mainstream politicians who have been quite happy to chip away at the rights of migrants of all types for years.

It would mean getting out to all the regions where dismay about migration contributed to the Brexit vote, but whose economically depressed situation has nothing to do with the arrival of new workers.

This argument needs to find allies amongst trade unionists, the people running our public services, schools and universities, and even employers who are prepared to go public and say that the most valuable asset their businesses have are its workers.

It must be developed by campaigns that have their roots in the towns and cities across the UK. And it must aim to win arguments that centre on jobs and working conditions locally, and what needs to be done to defend the NHS and other public services. The aim would be to bring together migrant community groups with representatives of all these other interests and start to make the case for an approach to migration that really benefits everyone.

Starting to win these arguments will need a willingness to move out of our comfort zones which have limited the appeal of open borders and free movement, and which has still shown little progress in breaking through to the wider population.

[i] The other platform speakers were Colin Yeo, the lawyer who runs the Free Movement legal website, the co-leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas, MP, Matt Carr, journalist and One Day Without Us campaigner, Christina McAnea, head of health service workers at the trade union UNISON, Roger Casale of New Europeans, and Jo Pons Laplana, an NHS trade unionist and migrant activist.

(The original version of this blog appeared on the website of the Migrants’ Rights Network)