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

168 Open Borders
not up to the governments of rich countries to make the decision that they
should not migrate. People have many reasons for doing so and, in addition,
their migration may make a contribution to the development and well-being
of their own countries, for example if they remit their savings, or if they return
home with additional skills and experience, or if they help to increase opportunities
for those who remain, or perhaps if they help to organise political
opposition to their governments while they are in exile. Immigration controls
make it less likely that the skills and experience of those who emigrate can be
used to benefit their countries of origin, since they tend to force people to stay
in the countries they have migrated to rather than risk leaving them and not
being able to return if necessary. The alternatives to migration may be death,
torture and long imprisonment, as well as frustration, blocked opportunities,
unemployment and greater poverty. The arguments put the supposed, but
largely unproven, interests of Third World nations above those of the
individuals who live in them. Above all, it is clear that the authorities’ reasons
for denying freedom of movement have nothing to do in reality with any
concern about the well-being of the inhabitants of the Third World. It will
not do to argue, as some do, for immigration controls on the grounds of
opposition to the so-called ‘brain drain’.
Opponents of immigration sometimes place their hopes for stopping or
reducing it on the promotion of development in the Third World. There are
at least two problems with this argument. One is that its adoption can be
politically and morally dubious, since it implies acceptance of the notion that
migration and an increased diversity of peoples are evils rather than a sign
of human progress. Le Pen, leader of the fascist National Front in France, is
in favour of development aid. Recently attempts have been made to make
EU aid to associated countries conditional on their governments controlling
emigration: ‘co-development’ was adopted as EU policy at the Tampere
summit in October 1999. Trade access to the EU has been made conditional
on governments agreeing to take back ‘illegal’ immigrants. The French
Socialist government has been negotiating bilateral co-development deals
with African governments. The February/March 1999 issue of La Voix des
sans-papiers carries an article headed ‘Co-development, aid for repatriation:
Who are they trying to fool? Are immigrants just a currency?’, in which
Prime Minister Jospin is quoted as constantly repeating on his tour of Africa
that ‘co-development is one of the means which the government will use to
control migratory flows’. The article comments that while Jospin was
assuring the Malien government that he would no longer use charter planes
to deport its citizens,
he was asking the African governments to help him to control immigration. To put
it more clearly, aid money was to be conditional on the willingness of the countries
of origin to exercise tight control over emigration to France.
African governments were in a sense being called upon to sell their nationals: to
stop those who wished to leave without the unattainable visa, and to accept the
enforced return of irregular migrants.