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

Border Controls 33
MP for Dover had ‘said he was concerned about the creation of a “ghetto” of
1,000–2,000 asylum seekers, mainly from Eastern Europe and the Balkans,
in a small town unused to ethnic minorities’. Ann Widdecombe, shadow
Home Secretary, was quoted by the Daily Express as saying that ‘more than
5,000 asylum seekers are thought to be living in the area, with more arriving
each week’, creating ‘a tinder box atmosphere’. According to the Daily
Telegraph, Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, the Conservative leader of Kent County
Council, ‘put the influx at around 1,000 a month’, supposedly outnumbering
holidaymakers and driving them out of bed and breakfast hotels.
Both Tory and Labour politicians have nevertheless at times taken strong
stands against immigration controls, in particular in the periods before they
were introduced and, in Labour’s case, in opposition. The Labour Party’s
internationalist origins predisposed it to oppose controls. In opposition in
1905, 1919 and 1961–62, the Labour Party vehemently opposed them as
a ‘fraudulent remedy’ for social ills, and in the 1980s it advocated the repeal
of immigration laws. Some Labour and Liberal politicians recognised that
the problem was not immigration itself, but the failure to provide adequate
services and housing, at first for the growing workforce required for
expanding industry, and later to deal with the consequences of capitalist
slump and unemployment. On the few occasions when Labour attempted to
counter the prejudices against immigrants and refugees, it had some success.
When in 1999 the Labour government accepted some Kosovan refugees,
they were made welcome in the areas they were sent to. This may have had
something to do with the nature of the publicity put out by the government.
The Guardian of 18 May 1999 quotes ‘confidential minutes of the home office
strategy group handling the crisis’ of Balkan refugees, and said that:
The document also reveals that the government has drawn up plans for publicity
which will ‘focus on the human interests of asylum seekers’ in order to ‘avoid scare
stories’ about the arrival of the refugees.
Similarly, Labour’s strong opposition to the introduction of controls on Commonwealth
immigration in 1962 was followed by a sharp reduction in the
majorities supporting controls in national opinion polls.
But in general Labour, like the Tories, has done little to counter irrational
xenophobic pressures. Racism seems to be a powerful force, difficult to
counter with rational argument. More inexcusably, the Labour Party, in its
eagerness to beat the Tories at what is perceived to be their game, panders to
racism. For much of its history and especially when it has been in
government, Labour has appeared to believe that electoral advantage is to be
gained by claiming to be tough on immigrants, and now on asylum seekers.
Labour politicians clearly fear that any ‘softness’ on their part will be
exploited by the Tories. Thus the major political parties compete with one
another to demonstrate their commitment to the idea that the problem is not
the racism of white people, but how best to ‘crack down’ on migrants and
refugees. The response of both Tory and Labour governments has, on the