Mass migration is a symptom, not a cause, of crisis
David
Goodhart's thesis about the left and migration doesn't hold water:
Labour policy wasn't driven by care for 'people in Burundi'
- guardian.co.uk,
Border control at the immigration desk at Heathrow airport. Photograph: Fiona Hanson/PA Archive/Press Association Images
David Goodhart's recent article,
"Why the left is wrong about immigration", promoting his new book, The
British Dream, begins with a swipe at the "idealistic young men and
women" working in NGOs and law firms who work "to usher into this
society as many people as possible from poor countries". Duped by our
secular faith in universalism and equality, immigration lawyers – and,
allegedly, our counterparts in the civil service – are foolishly working
to undermine the social democratic state that we hold dear.
We care "more about people in Burundi than Birmingham". We are widening the scope of human rights law to the detriment of the country. We naively believe borders should be abolished. We have no economic analysis of the situation (though we are supposed to be of the left), indeed, it "must seem like a crime" that more money is spent on the NHS than overseas development.
Taking Goodhart's thesis at its highest (there are many reasons not to, which have been discussed elsewhere) his point is that liberal intellectual elites have a worldview that prioritises universalist ethics above the needs of the communities that we actually live in. The upshot is that a truly progressive attitude would be one that limits migration into the UK, in order to preserve social cohesion here while stopping the brain-drain of productive persons from developing nations, to the detriment of their home country. We have, he claims, lost sight of our obligations to our immediate citizen neighbours in our clamour to help foreigners, to whom we properly owe much less.
This is based on a very selective reading of government policy on immigration under New Labour, which was in fact based on a broadly utilitarian approach to "managed migration" as a source of labour and short-term economic growth. Immigrants under this regime were commodified, and policy was led by expert opinions on the economic benefits that it would bring to the UK (an excellent history of immigration policy from 1997-2007, and the impact of expert knowledge on policy, is found in Alex Balch's article here.)
The government deliberately did not take a rights-based approach to migration, which is where Goodhart has confused matters. Growing numbers of people flowing over borders, legally endorsed by government, does not actually equate to "opening the doors". The opposite is the case, in the sense that as the immigration system expanded, the need for stronger and more restrictive approaches to those deemed to be here illegally grew alongside it. This is perhaps where the true motivations of idealistic young lawyers come in, and where the picture becomes more complex than Goodhart assumes.
Speaking for myself, rather than a whole profession, I didn't seek work in immigration law in order to flood the country with people from Burundi, or to undermine the people of Birmingham. It's simply that people need legal representation, and should have it in a system that affects life so fundamentally. For example, those who are at risk of persecution in their home country properly have a right to seek protection, a point that Goodhart does not seem to deny. That refugee law exists is not a causal factor in the economic immigration policy of the government, and the two things should not be conflated for political purposes.
Similarly, it is important that British families have the right not to be broken up by deportation law. That's what article 8 cases are about – not pet cats, but really existing British children living in our communities, dealt with on a case-by-case basis that looks at the real human lives involved. Then there is the unlawful use of immigration detention, often imposed on the mentally ill or vulnerable with devastating psychological effect. Immigration lawyers are, generally, concerned with rights, not macro-economic strategy, and in this regard they are upholding a proud aspect of Goodhart's cherished British culture – fairness, civil liberties, human rights, the rule of law.
Having said that, I do believe that there is an economic analysis of the ethics of fighting for migrant rights. Put simply, economic migration, legal or illegal, is now a permanent feature of the world in general. Britain's experience is hardly unique, in fact we have proportionately lower migration than France and Germany; let alone the exploding megacities of the global south. The rise of mass migration has happened in the context of "globalisation" – or, more accurately, neoliberalism. Globalisation does not describe a particular worldview, it is rather the context of contemporary economic life.
The IMF has systematically imposed neoliberal economic policies in countries around the world, forcing privatisation and liberalising domestic markets. The necessary corollary of eroding workers' rights and freeing up developing countries' labour and export markets for exploitation is a heavily restrictive and militarised immigration system.
Given that immigration, viewed globally, is not an issue for the wealthiest few of any nationality, we could suggest a possible recasting of the Burundi/Birmingham dichotomy: the wealthiest 1% of Britons have more in common with the wealthiest 1% of foreigners than they do with the 99% of Britons whose lives they govern.
In economic terms, there is no clear evidence that immigration into Britain is a threat to the welfare state, as Goodhart fears. There is, however, substantial evidence that the greater threat comes from the forced imposition of market fundamentalism by ruling elites, a policy that is alive and well in our present government. What we are experiencing at home, in the destruction of the welfare state and the mass privatisation of what public assets remain, is exactly the same economic shock treatment previously imposed on developing countries around the world. It is now our turn to "pay our debts". This is the real crisis, of which mass migration is a symptom, not a cause. The solution is not going to be found by turning against the victims.
We care "more about people in Burundi than Birmingham". We are widening the scope of human rights law to the detriment of the country. We naively believe borders should be abolished. We have no economic analysis of the situation (though we are supposed to be of the left), indeed, it "must seem like a crime" that more money is spent on the NHS than overseas development.
Taking Goodhart's thesis at its highest (there are many reasons not to, which have been discussed elsewhere) his point is that liberal intellectual elites have a worldview that prioritises universalist ethics above the needs of the communities that we actually live in. The upshot is that a truly progressive attitude would be one that limits migration into the UK, in order to preserve social cohesion here while stopping the brain-drain of productive persons from developing nations, to the detriment of their home country. We have, he claims, lost sight of our obligations to our immediate citizen neighbours in our clamour to help foreigners, to whom we properly owe much less.
This is based on a very selective reading of government policy on immigration under New Labour, which was in fact based on a broadly utilitarian approach to "managed migration" as a source of labour and short-term economic growth. Immigrants under this regime were commodified, and policy was led by expert opinions on the economic benefits that it would bring to the UK (an excellent history of immigration policy from 1997-2007, and the impact of expert knowledge on policy, is found in Alex Balch's article here.)
The government deliberately did not take a rights-based approach to migration, which is where Goodhart has confused matters. Growing numbers of people flowing over borders, legally endorsed by government, does not actually equate to "opening the doors". The opposite is the case, in the sense that as the immigration system expanded, the need for stronger and more restrictive approaches to those deemed to be here illegally grew alongside it. This is perhaps where the true motivations of idealistic young lawyers come in, and where the picture becomes more complex than Goodhart assumes.
Speaking for myself, rather than a whole profession, I didn't seek work in immigration law in order to flood the country with people from Burundi, or to undermine the people of Birmingham. It's simply that people need legal representation, and should have it in a system that affects life so fundamentally. For example, those who are at risk of persecution in their home country properly have a right to seek protection, a point that Goodhart does not seem to deny. That refugee law exists is not a causal factor in the economic immigration policy of the government, and the two things should not be conflated for political purposes.
Similarly, it is important that British families have the right not to be broken up by deportation law. That's what article 8 cases are about – not pet cats, but really existing British children living in our communities, dealt with on a case-by-case basis that looks at the real human lives involved. Then there is the unlawful use of immigration detention, often imposed on the mentally ill or vulnerable with devastating psychological effect. Immigration lawyers are, generally, concerned with rights, not macro-economic strategy, and in this regard they are upholding a proud aspect of Goodhart's cherished British culture – fairness, civil liberties, human rights, the rule of law.
Having said that, I do believe that there is an economic analysis of the ethics of fighting for migrant rights. Put simply, economic migration, legal or illegal, is now a permanent feature of the world in general. Britain's experience is hardly unique, in fact we have proportionately lower migration than France and Germany; let alone the exploding megacities of the global south. The rise of mass migration has happened in the context of "globalisation" – or, more accurately, neoliberalism. Globalisation does not describe a particular worldview, it is rather the context of contemporary economic life.
The IMF has systematically imposed neoliberal economic policies in countries around the world, forcing privatisation and liberalising domestic markets. The necessary corollary of eroding workers' rights and freeing up developing countries' labour and export markets for exploitation is a heavily restrictive and militarised immigration system.
Given that immigration, viewed globally, is not an issue for the wealthiest few of any nationality, we could suggest a possible recasting of the Burundi/Birmingham dichotomy: the wealthiest 1% of Britons have more in common with the wealthiest 1% of foreigners than they do with the 99% of Britons whose lives they govern.
In economic terms, there is no clear evidence that immigration into Britain is a threat to the welfare state, as Goodhart fears. There is, however, substantial evidence that the greater threat comes from the forced imposition of market fundamentalism by ruling elites, a policy that is alive and well in our present government. What we are experiencing at home, in the destruction of the welfare state and the mass privatisation of what public assets remain, is exactly the same economic shock treatment previously imposed on developing countries around the world. It is now our turn to "pay our debts". This is the real crisis, of which mass migration is a symptom, not a cause. The solution is not going to be found by turning against the victims.
0 comments:
Post a Comment