24.02.2005
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.
Worker