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

160 Open Borders
employers and capitalism as a whole for high unemployment and worsening
conditions in a period of recession. It may even cause them to identify with
their employers, as they obtain relatively higher status and promotion from
the worst jobs which come to be filled by immigrants, and may thus weaken
their will to engage in collective struggles for the interests of the working
class as a whole. Some have argued that this is a reason why governments
have deliberately created, through immigration controls, an illegal
workforce. Marx, writing in 1870, commented as follows on the hostility of
English workers towards Irish immigrants:
Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class
divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The
ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his
standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he feels himself a member of the ruling
nation and so turns himself into a tool of the aristocrats and capitalists of his country
against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes
religious, social and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards
him is much the same as that of the ‘poor whites’ to the ‘niggers’ in the former slave
states of the USA. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He
sees in the English worker at once the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English
rule in Ireland.
This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the
comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This
antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization.
It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And that
class is fully aware of it. (Marx 1970)
The opportunity to work in industrialised countries is clearly seen as a benefit
by immigrants themselves, harsh though the exploitation they are subjected
to sometimes is. Even if their ability to migrate caused some redistribution of
wealth in their favour, this should be welcomed rather than condemned.
Alan Thornett, former TGWU deputy convenor at the British Leyland car
plant in Oxford and a Trotskyist, said at a meeting in Oxford that he would
favour the abolition of immigration controls even supposing its effect on
wages and conditions in Britain was negative: ‘British workers have no Godgiven
right to special privileges.’ Nevertheless, the likelihood is that migrants
increase, rather than diminish, the economic well-being of the native
inhabitants of the countries they migrate to. It has generally been the case
that the incomes and jobs of the mass of the people depend on an expanding
labour supply. In a rare example of the consistent application of the neoclassical
competitive paradigm, B. Hamilton and J. Whalley in 1984 in the
Journal of Development Economics estimate that, because migration of labour
is potentially a means of increasing the productivity of labour, an international
free market in labour and the abolition of all immigration controls
would cause a doubling in world incomes.