Open%20borders%20The%20case%20against%20immigration%20controls%20-%20Teresa%20Hayter

xii Open Borders
to convince the opponents of immigration that it is keeping people out of Britain.
On 18 September 2003 The Times reported as follows:
A ‘short, sharp Bill’ to curtail the appeals process for asylum-seekers and deter the growing
number of people who destroy their papers in transit will be announced in the Queen’s
Speech.
The Times has learnt that the Bill will be rushed through Parliament early in the
next session to make sure that it can have an impact on the number of asylum-seekers
arriving in Britain before the next general election.
Tony Blair hinted at the measures in a meeting with his MPs yesterday, warning
them that ‘some people will not like it’. However, he said that he was aware that it
was an issue in many constituencies and could cost Labour votes if more progress was
not made.
Polling research suggests that many voters do not believe government statistics which
show that applications have fallen, and need more reassurance. ‘The Bill will certainly
cut down on the legal gravy train and stop people playing the system,’ a Whitehall
source said.
Governments are constantly introducing changes in immigration laws. The
changes are themselves a reflection of their inability to control the movement
of people. The Tories’ Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act of 1993 and its
Asylum and Immigration Act of 1996 were followed by Labour’s Immigration
and Asylum Act of 1999 (which is described in some detail in this book). In
November 2002 Labour passed another act, the Nationality, Immigration
and Asylum Act. Yet another is apparently due in 2004.
The 2002 Act was preceded by a White Paper entitled ‘Secure Borders, Safe
Haven: Integration with Diversity’, published in February 2002. This is a
curious document. Its first half is devoted to arguing that immigrants make
a large contribution to British prosperity and to meeting shortages of skills,
and that Britain needs more of them. The second half is about how the
government will stop them coming. The explanation, it seems, is that the
government wants ‘managed’ immigration. By this it means that it hopes to
be able to select the immigrants it wants, in the numbers and types that it
wants, and to bar entry to anybody else. This is an idea that is becoming quite
widespread, including among those who believe that immigration controls
can somehow be made more humane and fair. The argument is that if legal
channels of entry are broadened, then there will be less incentive for people,
including asylum seekers who are supposedly not really asylum seekers, to
come to Britain without permission. But of course such a policy leaves the
whole repressive apparatus of immigration controls intact, and there is no
sign that they will do anything other than continue to become more vicious.
If the government’s renewed interest in attracting immigrants satisfied the
demand for asylum or work in Britain, there would be no need for immigration
controls. The reality is that, while the government sends out recruiting
teams to pillage the skills of trained Third World professionals, it simultaneously
spends millions on making skilled people suffer, and perhaps deporting
them, if they come to this country on their own initiative to seek asylum or