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

154 Open Borders
migrate from other areas at such high rates. Much of the Caribbean
emigration took place in years when unemployment was high in the
Caribbean and much lower in the countries of destination than it is now.
Migration from the small islands of the Caribbean, where opportunities are
relatively few, was facilitated by the existence of communities in the recipient
countries and common languages and education systems. In many areas
which do not have these characteristics there has been virtually no
emigration. During the postwar period of free entry for Commonwealth
citizens, which was also a period of job abundance in Britain, migration was
only from a small number of areas. It also rose and fell in relation to the
numbers of job vacancies, in response to information from already
established communities.
On the whole most people do not want to uproot themselves, abandon
their families, and suffer the hardships and risks of migration to a strange
and possibly hostile place in order to do the dirty work of the natives. And,
surprising though it may seem to racists quaking at the prospect of invading
hordes, they like their own countries and cultures. In Journey Without a
Destination Rohini Hensman quotes the Tamil refugees she interviewed
giving depressing descriptions of their experiences of deprivation and racism
in Britain, and expressing their wish to go back to Sri Lanka as soon as it was
safe to do so. Even those who had found conditions in Britain more bearable
still wanted to return to their families, the climate, the social warmth and
neighbourliness, and perhaps their jobs, land and properties in Sri Lanka.
‘The overwhelming majority’ of her interviewees, she says, ‘expressed a
desire to go back if peace was restored.’ Many others did not leave at all,
saying they would prefer to die in their own country rather than flee to a
strange and hostile land.
If migration for unskilled work was no longer illegalised, it is true that the
costs of migration would go down because it would no longer be necessary
to pay agents and buy false papers. But the costs would still be high. Most
people cannot afford the fares, the loss of earnings when moving, and the
expense of settling in a new country. Others might prefer to migrate for short
periods, while they are young and strong, and to return when they have
saved enough or learnt enough without losing the possibility of migrating
again and without being forced to settle and to move their families. The
migrants’ lack of rights, and the existence of immigration controls, makes
such flexibility more or less impossible. In Britain (see Chapter 2) most
immigration occurred after and just before controls were introduced, because
migrant workers were forced to settle and bring in their families. The
Financial Times of 23 February 2000, describing Mexican seasonal migrants
and ‘the aspirations, humanity, sacrifices and courage of those daring to run
the wire’, says that ‘More seasoned travellers now tend to stay longer, in part
because tighter border controls increase the likelihood of being caught.’
Abdul Onibiyo’s troubles (see p. 134) started when he spent too long in
Nigeria and so lost his right to stay with his family in Britain. And as Rohini