NEW LABOUR and the Tories are at war, each fighting to prove that they are
the "toughest" party on migration to the UK. Desperate for votes, both seem
oblivious to the dangers of whipping up prejudice and tension.
Naomi Byron
Home Secretary Charles Clarke’s talk of driving out "people who are a
burden" on society is clearly aimed at whipping up prejudice against
asylum-seekers, who are banned from working while their claims are processed.
He completely ignores evidence which his own department published in 2001.
This estimated that refugees and other immigrants to Britain pay around 10%
more per year in taxes than they receive in spending from the government.
During 1998/99 this amounted to £2.6 billion, before any other economic
contributions are counted. (Migration: an economic and social analysis).
Clarke is deliberately trying to confuse the issues, mixing up refugees and
asylum-seekers and scapegoating both for the shortage of public services
created by his own government’s pro-big business policies.
Yet who is really a burden on British society? New Labour ministers have
pursued the incredible waste of privatisation, giving firms like Jarvis record
profits at the expense of public services and public safety.
Since New Labour came to power, the super-rich have doubled their wealth.
Between 1996 and 2002, the assets of the poorest 50% dropped from 7% to 5%
while the assets of the richest 1% of Britain’s population (almost 600,000
people) jumped from £355 to £797 billion.
Meanwhile, many of the lowest-paid lowest-status jobs which are essential
to the public sector are done by migrants. Last year 42,000 nurses working in
the NHS were born abroad. 31% of doctors are foreign-born, while many schools
could not function without the teachers who have travelled to the UK to work.
Horrific consequences
THE REAL problem is that instead of investing properly in public services
and education, including paying public sector workers a wage reflecting the
real value to society of the job they do, the government is using migration as
a stop-gap.
By encouraging cheap labour from migrant workers who often don’t know their
rights or are prepared to put up with worse conditions than the existing
workforce, industry can squeeze more profit out of the labour force and also
try to force down other workers’ conditions.
The aim of tripling deportations in five years might make good headlines in
the right-wing press, but will have horrific consequences for those who are
targeted. Already pressure to increase the rate of deportations has led to a
rise in violence and abuse of deportees during attempts to remove them from
the UK.
Harm on removal, a report by the Medical Foundation for the care of victims
of torture, documents the illegal force used against a number of people during
deportation attempts. This includes being kicked in the abdomen, legs, chest
and mouth while lying handcuffed on the ground, as well as pressure being
applied to the neck – which can result in serious injury or even death.
This is happening to refugees who suffered torture in their home countries,
but have been refused the right of asylum in the UK. Another Medical
Foundation report, Right First Time?, documents how 46 Cameroonians who had
been tortured before fleeing their country had had their asylum claims refused
with "little attempt… to address the particular facts or features of an
individual’s case", often "ignoring or effectively overruling expert evidence
[of torture]".
New Labour and the Tories care no more for us than they did for the 21
cockle-pickers they left at the mercy of the gangmasters to drown in Morecambe
Bay. The only difference is that their political careers depend on our votes.
The fight we have on our hands is not against migrants, refugees or
asylum-seekers: it is against the corrupt politicians and corporations who put
an intolerable burden on our society.
