:: 1/19/2004 ::

The case for more liberal immigration policies; why does Britain have such restrictive immigration controls?

This paper argues strongly that policies on immigration are too restrictive and will attempt to analyse why they are so restrictive. It will not be an argument for open borders as it is clear that absolutes are not the solution to this complex debate. I will attempt to outline some of the philosophical or ethical debate on immigration policies and give a summary of the economic arguments for more migration and immigration. Based on these arguments there seems no logical reason for such restrictive immigration policies. I will then give some possible explanations why, in the light of this evidence, Britain has increasingly restrictive immigration policies. I will initially follow Joseph Carens’ division of the debate on immigration as a structure for my arguments. Carens divides the debate into ‘special claims’ (i.e. asylum and family reunification), culture and economics (Carens, 1995:2). This paper will attempt to cover them all but will concentrate on the debate over culture which seems the most controversial and complex.

Special claims

There seems to be a general consensus amongst scholars, politicians and the public that in theory refugees should be let in and cared for. This is backed up by wide international ratification of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Convention sets out general guidelines for refugee policies which are reasonable and generous. However, it is regarded as not being comprehensive enough (Joly, 1996:9, and Carens 1995:2) and is open to interpretation by governments seeking to serve their own ends (Joly, 1996:18). The Convention does not afford protection to some people who need it and some asylum seekers whose cases have been judged strictly on the basis of the convention have been returned to their country of origin to death or persecution (Joly, Nettleton and Poulton, cited in ibid:12). Levels of acceptance and refusal vary enormously over time and in different countries. From a position of natural law or ‘black letter’ law, this situation is entirely unsatisfactory, as people should either be treated equally based on their humanity or by equal application of the law. Racially specific immigration policies have been removed from the law books but still persist implicitly (Naess, 1989, cited in ibid:24), political and economic factors also play important roles in refugee policies.

It is clear that morally we have a duty to protect those who have a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” (UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 1A (2)). With respect for The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, acknowledging the errors of the past and that many of today’s problems may be due to past actions of present day rich countries (Hayter, 2000:6, Black 1996:70). The reality is that this moral obligation is ignored or undermined by rich countries today. European Governments try to restrict numbers of asylum seekers by all means available to them (Joly, 1996:11). All western governments use strategies of ‘humane deterrence’ for asylum seekers which inevitably keep out people with strong claims as well as weak ones (Carens, 1995:2). National interest and economic reasons are still important factors in determining refugee policy (Joly, 1996:21). There is a clear conflict between a human rights approach to refugee issues and a state interest approach, which Kjaerum highlights in his article (Kjaerum, 2002:513). The argument over refugees and asylum seekers is a moral one and governments are not doing enough to satisfy their international obligations (Perry, 1995, in Schwartz, ed. 1995:120). It also seems that in some cases they seek to bypass or pervert the spirit of the 1951 convention through new policies which are not legislated against in the out- dated convention drawn up to deal with the aftermath of the second world war (Kjaerum, 2002:515). The issue of refugee policies is one where we can apply absolutes. Refugees should morally and legally be allowed asylum and not hindered from seeking it. In this sense it is clear that refugee policies are far too restrictive and should not be ‘restrictive’ at all.

Culture

Culture is perhaps the most controversial area of argument of the issues surrounding immigration. It is more difficult to bring data and ‘hard’ evidence to bear in debate. There are no international agreements on culture and immigration, apart from declarations on human rights, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, which condemn discrimination on the basis of race. Nevertheless, cultural reasons have been used by many countries to decide who can and cannot enter, based on ideas of ‘cultural affinity’ or ‘cultural differences’ (Carens, 1995:5).

There is an argument that cultural homogeneity is necessary for the stability of a liberal democracy because the democracy relies on people feeling ties based on a shared culture (Perry, 1995, in Schwartz ed. 1995:113). There are good examples which support this argument, and good ones which do not. Perry questions whether ‘cultural stability’ equates to political stability (ibid.). This does not seem to be universally true, and we must ask ourselves if political stability is always desirable. Perry also asks whether the rate of cultural change is more important than the preservation of an existing culture, and that cultural change must be gradual to ensure social and political stability (ibid:114). This idea is convincing but unattractive and also contradicted by evidence. The UK, for example, has experienced radical social and cultural changes in the last fifty years, through immigration but mainly through protest and reform, all the time maintaining a stable moderate democracy with two main parties competing endlessly over the same issues. Perry suggests that we challenge intolerance and not give in to it, we should not, he states, be trapped into a restrictive immigration policy by a homogenous population who don’t like foreigners (ibid:115). He argues that the ‘cultural stability’ he seeks may not require cultural homogeneity or the preservation of substantive aspects of the dominant culture but only a measure of ‘cultural continuity’. On this basis he concludes that immigration policies of liberal states should not forbid entry to people on cultural or racial grounds, but he concedes that they may impose limits to ensure ‘cultural continuity’ (ibid.).

Perry, Trebilcock and Carens reveal one of the key debates about culture and immigration, between the values of community and the values of liberty (Carens, 1995;15).

Community
Habermas asserts that immigrants should adapt to the culture of the society to which migrate as “liberal democratic institutions depend upon and presuppose certain cultural commitments” (Carens, 1995:6). This type of argument has been furthered by Michael Walzer who states that the production of a complex unique culture is a fundamental part of a liberal democratic state, and that it is legitimate for a state to protect its culture by restricting immigration (ibid.). The ability to control entry is an expression of a nation’s identity and autonomy- its sovereignty. Walzer argues that autonomous states are free, like autonomous individuals to do what they want and often pursue self serving policies. He goes on to say that an admissions policy is one of the most basic policies as it affects the nature of the very community. “Admission and exclusion are at the core of communal independence, without them nations would not exist as we know them”. (Walzer, cited by Trebilcock, 1995:222). Walzer uses the analogy of elite universities which he says are like affluent rich countries; besieged by applicants, and who must decide on their size and character (Black, 1995:68).

Walzer maintains that communities will form without international boundaries (Perry, 1995:118), a statement that rings true in the modern world of states with many cultural communities within their borders (India, USA) and cultural communities that cross many borders (Arabs, Chinese). Walzer’s claims that cultural communities have the right to their own distinct culture (ibid.), seem naive in the light of historical processes that have brought a huge mixing of cultures, constant creation and merging of cultural communities, mimicry and hybridity amongst cultural communities. Walzer's theories permit any limitations on immigration including racial ones (Trebilcock, 1995:222). Perry does not agree that Walzer’s arguments justify action by the state to protect cultural communities, but he maintains that ‘cultural communities’ have the right to control their membership and not be coerced into change (Perry, 1995:120).

Walzer’s theories assume that political sovereignty is a nearly absolute value (Trebilcock, 1995:223) which is clearly false in today’s world of international organisations, conventions, treaties, and the power of international corporations over national governments. National sovereignty is further undermined by unilateral actions of powerful countries interfering in weak countries affairs for their own benefit, which has been a recurring feature of twentieth and twenty-first century international relations. Walzer's notion of ‘cultural communities of character’ only including those communities that reflect ethnic, religious or ideological commonalities has been criticised by many liberals on the basis that common commitment to liberal civic institutions and neutrality towards sub communities can sustain ‘communities of character’ (ibid:223). Walzer’s arguments are unrealistic in the modern context, simplistic in his analysis of culture and dangerous in their potential for and history of use by far right/racist groups.
Most European countries seem to follow Walzer’s ideas on immigration, as a justification for their restrictive policies. Even Walzer’s ideas, however can provide us with a framework for a less restrictive immigration policy. Walzer would argue for better application of the international laws and treaties signed by governments, such as honouring the spirit as well as the letter of the 1951 Convention. Also, responding more positively and less Eurocentrically to family reunification programmes. Equality of treatment for migrants across Europe. Walzer’s argument for the equal treatment of those admitted to residence can be used against the different ‘statuses’ of refugees and migrants across Europe (Black, 1996:69). Walzer’s arguments provide a case for less restrictions to family reunification programmes and refugee policies (ibid:71).

Liberty
Rawls and Dworkin disagree with Habermas and Walzer, in their extrapolation of the “commitment to individual autonomy” which “requires liberal states to be neutral with respect to different cultures.” (Carens. 1995:6). Trebilcock’s paper sums up some of the key arguments for the importance of liberty in immigration. The ‘libertarian perspective’, sees the state as only justified in it’s role to protect property rights and facilitate voluntary exchange. On this basis people should be free to move as long as they do not violate anybody else’s rights by imposing involuntary burdens on them (Trebilcock, 1995:220). This laissez-faire approach, is the one used by those free trade disciples who actually believe in applying the principles of free trade.

A ‘Rawlsian’, ‘social contractarian perspective’ maintains that justice is based on an unwritten ‘contract’ between members of society seeking mutual benefit for all and protecting certain rights of members (Black, 1995:66). For this approach we should take a global, not national perspective. The equal value of all human beings means that a fair procedure for deciding principles of justice would ignore all issues of citizenship or non-citizenship, race, class, sex or social group. The principles of justice should also adopt the perspective of those most disadvantaged by restrictions on immigration (for example). “From this perspective” says Trebilcock, “very few restrictions on immigration can be justified.” (Trebilcock, 1995:221). Rawls does recognise however, that some liberties may be restricted for the sake of protecting wider liberty. Liberty, after all, depends on public order and security being maintained, which may have limiting implications on personal liberties (ibid.). Carens interprets Rawlsian ideas as a call for open borders. Galloway on the other hand maintains that control is still necessary; as people in a society cannot be expected to compromise their autonomy in order to promote the autonomy of immigrants (ibid).

The ‘utilitarian’ or ‘consequential’ approach puts emphasis on the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number (Black, 1995:66). The application of this principle would involve weighing up the costs and benefits of immigration to all involved (Trebilcock, 1995:221). This is obviously enormously complex and difficult but we can simplify it for the purposes of debate. It is agreed that in general the citizens of the host country benefit at least moderately from immigration (see the economics section). There may be some citizens who gain and some who lose, so it is difficult to come to a clear answer to this part. The immigrants themselves are seen as benefiting, otherwise, presumably they would not have moved (ibid.). The other difficult part of the ‘utilitarian calculus’ for immigration is the effect on the country of origin, this is enormously complex and controversial. Many studies have found conflicting evidence. Is the effect positive, providing remittances and lowering unemployment? Or is it negative, depriving a society of it’s most able and dynamic members? Utilitarian perspectives thus provide more scope for restrictions on immigration than the other approaches, but the emphasis is still on relatively more open borders (Trebilcock, 1995:221).

Economy

Economic costs or benefits are often used as an argument for and against immigration (Carens, 1995:6). Trebilcock’s excellent article analyses the “empirical evidence on the welfare effects of immigration”. He opens this section by stating that open or free immigration is without doubt the “optimal global strategy”. This would encourage human resources to move where they will be most productively employed (Trebilcock, 1995:232). This is the essence of the neo liberal, free trade arguments. Hamilton and Whaley estimated that for 1977 the gain from removing all restrictions on migration would exceed worldwide GNP that year. This estimate has been questioned but more qualified estimates of the benefits are still enormous (ibid.). The positive economic effects of immigration work in two main ways, The ‘scale effect’, where a bigger population generates economies of scale, and the ‘dependency effect’, where immigrants are working age, contributing members of society (ibid:233). Trebilcock identifies three influential studies of the economic effects of immigration.

The Economic Council of Canada’s 1991 study of the possible effects of massive immigration to Canada estimated significant but relatively modest economic benefits to the native born population (ibid.). This is the view that Carens seems to support (Carens, 1995:16). The report also concluded that adding new labour immigrants did not increase unemployment (Coyne, 2002).

Julian Simon’s work (1989 and 1993) on the economic effects of immigration, based on the experience of the US, predicts bigger returns. He concludes that, “additional immigrants raise the standard of living of native born persons in western countries and have little or no negative effect upon any occupation or income class” (Simon, 1993:10). Simon asserts that all the economic objections to immigration have been falsified in the last few decades. He covers the scale effect and the dependency effect; stating that immigrants pay more in taxes than the cost of the welfare they receive. They do not displace host country citizens from jobs, raise productivity and make a country more competitive internationally (ibid.). Trebilcock does not accept Simons’ assertions on the scale effect of immigration, as international finance, he says, can provide large markets regardless of borders (Trebilcock, 1995:233). This has some truth to it in the era of globalisation and multinational corporations. However, the dreams of free trade are still just dreams and protectionist tariff systems mean a big population and internal market are still important for a strong economy. The strong economies of the USA and China and the way in which these countries are pandered to in the international political economy are examples of this.

Borjas argues that recent immigrant groups to the USA and Canada are of ‘lower quality’ than previous ones (Borjas, 1985:463). Their increase in earning as they assimilate is slower and they do not, as had been assumed before, overtake native born incomes in 10-15 years (ibid:484). This pattern has coincided with a shift in the ethnic makeup of immigrants to the US and Canada, from mainly European to mainly Asian (Trebilcock, 1995:236). Borjas states that family reunification programmes may be responsible for the fall in earnings (ibid:235). Borjas also provides rather confusing contradictory evidence when he states that these ‘family class’ immigrants and their children often outperform independent immigrants (ibid:235). Perhaps the rate of assimilation of Asians is slower than Europeans, perhaps the economic situation in the last 20 years has not been as easy for immigrants as it was before, and perhaps family reunification programmes do not provide the most economically productive immigrants. None of these factors, however, constitute a reasonable argument against immigration.

It is clear that the economic arguments for less restricted immigration are compelling and powerful. Many articles in the Economist and Financial Times have argued in favour of immigration. Economists usually cite non-economic reasons for the restriction of immigration. In terms of economic justice it does seem incongruous that free trade means free movement of goods and capital but not of workers. Fielding (1993), sums up succinctly the injustice of this situation where, “those who own capital can make a living by using that capital almost anywhere in the world; however, those who do not own capital must make a living by selling their labour power ... only in ‘their’ country” (Fielding, 1993:41, cited in Black 1996:72).

Size and Composition of Intake

It seems clear that less restrictive immigration policies make sense. It is also clear that a massive sudden intake of immigrants will be problematic (Trebilcock, 1995:224), economically and culturally. Carens makes the analogy of a lifeboat carrying survivors away from a sinking ship, it makes no sense for so many people to crowd on to the lifeboat that it sinks, or none will be saved (ibid.). Trebilcock also suggests that some level of natural equilibrium or positive checks may set in before the boat analogy needs to be used (ibid.). In any case a sudden massive flows of immigrants are unusual, and are more associated with refugee movements in the developing world. For Carens, restrictions on immigration in a just state are only morally justified when the immigration is considered a threat, by it’s size or nature (Black 1995:67).

So if we are to control immigration to some extent we have to make some choices about who we let in and who we exclude. How should this be decided? On the basis of benefit to the host society based on their potential economic contribution (Carens, 1995:7), or by a random value free method such as a lottery or queue system which ignores the relative merits of different immigrants (Trebilcock, 1995:225)? There are some more straightforward points, people who pose a threat to out society should be excluded, but what will we define as a threat? What of people who pose a threat to our liberty or liberalness? Should we, as Carens asks, be tolerant of the intolerant; to the extent that our society becomes less tolerant and liberal (ibid)?

These questions cannot be answered here, but demonstrate that once we have agreed on a level of control there are a huge number of possible debates surrounding how we decide who can enter and who cannot. Most approaches agree on some levels of control of immigration, (much below the current ones), but all of the above theories stress our moral responsibilities towards refugees (ibid:226).

Why does Britain have such restrictive policies?

With overwhelming evidence that restrictive immigration policies are not justified, morally, legally or economically, we must ask why Britain has such restrictive policies? Why do governments not take a ‘positive law view’ and strive to comply with existing laws and treaties, which would bring an improvement in the situation? (Black 1995:66) Why have successive governments ignored mainstream academic thought that argues for more liberal policies for many reasons and from many perspectives? Who stands to gain from this situation? and who is responsible for the huge level of misinformation and propaganda spread about immigration and refugee issues?

There are several reasons for this situation, they are interconnected and are made particularly powerful by their vote winning potential. Some argue that creating a situation of ‘illegal’ or undocumented migration is in the interests of governments and big business. It ensures a supply of illegal or semi-legal cheap labour needed for some industries (Teitelbaum, 1984, cited in Joly, 1996:22). This type of situation brings labour costs down for big business, weakens the power of labour unions and contributes positively to the economy in general. The increase in ad-hoc policies, temporary permits and exceptional or compassionate leave to remain is a further symptom of this. By denying full status to immigrants but allowing them to remain, governments do not have to fulfil their responsibilities and can change these special statuses quickly to regain control or expel immigrants when they want. Keeping immigrants illegal or in some semi-formal status also stops them from gaining voting rights and upsetting the status quo through democratic reform.

Many argue that UK Immigration policy is racist, or designed to achieve racist principles (Prashar, 1986:107, Joly, 1996:24, Hayter, 2000:4, Randall, 2003). Successive government policies have succeeded in keeping black citizens of Commonwealth countries out of Britain whilst allowing white Commonwealth citizens easier access. The 1993 Maastricht Treaty gave 200 million Europeans the right to move to Britain, and the government does not seem concerned about this, nor the lesson that not many have actually moved here. Hayter cites Ian Spencer’s (1997) book on British immigration policy which has excerpts from government documents in which civil servants in the 1950s, 60s and 70s discuss trying to make policies which achieve racist aims but are not openly racist (Hayter, 2000:46). Hayter argues that ‘immigration problems’ are problems of the racism of Europeans and North Americans (Hayter, 2000:4). Prevention of ‘racial problems’ is often cited as a reason for restrictive immigration policies (Carens, 1996:160) It seems ridiculous to believe that preventing immigrants from coming will make attitudes towards other races better. Indeed, the media and government presentation of refugees as undesirables to be kept out has quite the opposite effect (Hayter, 2000:164). Hayter puts forward a clear and damning account of British immigration history and policy. She highlights the crude analysis in 1920’s discourse about assimilation problems, and the different ability to assimilate of different races, that is still used today (ibid:23). The role of public opinion is also highlighted, the rumours and false accusations levied at immigrants from the blood drinking Jews of the 19th century (ibid:29) to the ‘terrorist’ Algerians (all nine since released without charges after a year in prison and on bail) of 2003 (Clennel, 2003). This type of public opinion does not form naturally however, and does not form overnight. It is the effect of a sustained onslaught of media attention, in the news, on TV, in the newspapers and in films (Choudry, 2001, Randall, 2003).

An analysis of the role of the media in the creation of the current ‘immigration crisis’, public opinion on immigration and policy formulation is frankly scary. It quickly assumes the features of a conspiracy, making Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s propaganda model look ever more accurate. The mainstream media in Britain have been complicit in spreading lies and racist attitudes about immigrants (Hayter, 2000:30) to the extent that even the Police have been concerned at some points about the effects of this press coverage (ibid:31). Police figures show that ‘ethnic minorities’ have about the same or lower crime levels that white British people, the media portrays exactly the opposite image (ibid.). Numbers of ‘ethnic minority groups’, immigrants and refugees are regularly exaggerated by the press; statistics which are taken up by politicians and the public (ibid:33). Hayter also cites statistics from Zig Layton Henry’s book ‘The Politics of Immigration’, on migration in Britain, showing that in every decade from 1871 to 1991 apart from the 1930s and 1950s there was net emigration from Britain. The immigration in the 1930s was largely returnees from the depression in the USA. Robin Cohen sets the record straight when he states, “Many of the population invasions of the last 250 years started, not ended, in Britain”. The media, present the opposite situation; one of Britain ‘under siege’ being ‘swamped’ or ‘invaded’ by immigrants (Hayter, 2000:20). It is also important to recognise the historical context, neglected by the media, of many migration patterns and how Western European countries have been deeply implicated in the creation of economic and political situations which create migration flows (Black, 1996:70, Hayter, 2000:6).

Matthew Randall’s (2003) study of three British newspapers on asylum and immigration makes equally shocking reading. He analyses the themes mentioned in connection with refugee or immigration issues in 90 recent articles from the Guardian, Independent and Telegraph. The themes that attracted the vast majority of the attention were all relatively micro level, negative issues such as: Exclusion policies aimed at ‘bogus’ asylum seekers, Crime/terrorism by asylum seekers, and accommodation/detention of asylum seekers. Themes that failed to attract any attention whatsoever were macro level issues: The effect of immigration on UK population figures, poverty in sending countries, effects of the arms trade (the fact for example that the UK exports arms to all the top five countries of origin for asylum seekers), effects of western economic policies in sending countries and comparison of UK refugee intake with that of developing countries. The further results of Randall’s study are a serious endightment of three of Britain’s supposedly most intelligent newspapers (Randall, 2003).

Randall applies Noam Chomsky and Herman’s propaganda model of media control to his findings and finds that they fit very well. Macro issues that are embarrassing to powerful state corporate interests, such as the arms trade and the effects of economic trade liberalisation are ignored or neglected. There was also a strong conformity found in which topics were discussed even though the newspapers have supposedly different political stances. The dominance of party political opinion over NGO, refugee or academic voices fits exactly with the propaganda model’s third ‘filter’ of news. The filters which Chomsky and Herman outline, “narrow the range of news” that the public has access to, blocking the aspirations of the poor and encouraging the views of big business (Chomsky and Herman, 1994:2). The third of these filters refers to the control of news by government or big business sources ( Chomsky and Herman, 1994:18, Smith, 1999:200). Randall concludes “The results of this case study indicate a consistent tendency amongst ideologically distinct newspapers to focus on aspects of immigration and asylum that concur with the priorities of the political elite.” (Randall, 2003)

Ronald Kaye’s larger 2001 study, came to similar disturbing findings about press representation of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK in the 1990s. His analysis covers the types of language used, frequency of use, number exaggeration, racism and sensationalism. He concludes darkly that these trends will lead to the continued blaming of the powerless victims of international politics for the problems caused by the most powerful actors (Kaye, 2001).

The Refugee Council also attempt to show some of the misinformation and propaganda spread by the mainstream media, in their fact sheet ‘Nailing Press Myths About Refugees’. They quote newspapers and then set the record straight; this for example from The Sun, 14 September 2002: "Britain the No.1 refugee magnet". Produced this response: “No. 1? Even within the EU, the UK ranked 10th in terms of asylum applications in relation to the overall population in 2001. The truth about refugee movements is the world's poorest countries both produce and bear responsibility for most refugees. During 1992-2001, 86 per cent of the world's estimated 12 million refugees originated from developing countries, whilst such countries provided asylum to 72 per cent of the global population (source: UNHCR)” (Refugee Council, 2002).

Hayter argues that the racism and misinformation has some economic basis. It suits employers and the state, she says, to make immigrants into scapegoats to divert attention from the ‘deficiencies of capitalism’. It also divides the workforce to provide exploitable labour, both in the developed countries and in the world as a whole (Hayter, 2000:163). Objections to immigration she maintains are also based on irrational ideas that cultural mixing is undesirable and that cultural homogeneity is the goal. This, she says is what drives the far right, and what has been the major force in the introduction of restrictive immigration controls (ibid). That restrictive immigration policies are based on racism alone, seems unrealistic. Big business and governments may be racist, but surely are more concerned with economic issues that will over ride or suppress racism.

The issue of blaming the victim is one which Kaye and Randall picked up on. Randall suggests in his press analysis that attention was being diverted from issues such as global inequality and the arms trade to the details of the refugees themselves. Putting the blame on the refugees and hiding from the real, larger issues that have serious implications. This seems a plausible theory, the use of this vulnerable group who are denied many rights due to their status as undesirable non citizens, as a diversion from the real issues.

Scapegoating is useful for power retention and the continuation of the status quo (i.e. inequality and elite dominance). The promotion of irrational fears and beliefs in order to retain respect and control amongst the public can also be described as political scapegoating, recognized as a common political strategy. It can involve the deliberate use of foreign labour as an excuse or reason for a growth in unemployment or other social problems and avoiding a more critical serious look at government policies (Randall, 2003b). Nora Rathzel has explored this concept, linking it with notions of control. She sees the success of scapegoating as primarily due to its ability to enable the victim (of unemployment for example) to become a conscious social actor rather than a passive victim, a transformation she calls “the externalisation of internal conflicts”. In western societies this changes the negative perception of control and exclusion that go with restrictions on the movements of immigrants and asylum seekers and transform them into positive personal aspects of control:

”control of the Other enables the majority to feel in control of their own fate: internal conflicts like unemployment, housing problems, cultural conflicts, etc., can be externalised, that is projected on ‘outsiders’ and thus made the object of political and economic measures and convey the idea that things are under control.” (Rathzel, cited by Randall 2003b)

Societies apparently, often need someone to blame, and blaming asylum seekers is easy and still apparently politically correct. Moreover, by focusing so narrowly on those asylum seekers who somehow managed to get here, their conditions, habits, etc. (which somehow makes good news) we can ignore the wider more important issues. Following the ideas of Chomsky and Herman in the propaganda model, this analysis seems convincing. By creating an image of immigrants as negative scroungers coming to take our jobs, the government can then control immigration at whatever level suits it’s interests best at that moment. It can justify policies which keep them out using prejudices and fears constructed and nurtured through the media and justify letting them in as being in line with the well reported ‘British tradition’ of tolerance and giving asylum.

Conclusion

In the sections of ‘special claims’ and ‘economics’ it was broadly clear that restrictive policies on immigration are unjust and unsound. More difficult to analyse was the sphere of culture, cultural mixing and homogeneity. There are many philosophical approaches to this. It does seem to eventually boil down to a political question about culturally homogenous societies. Personally, I see no extra value in a culturally homogenous society and think Britain’s multicultural society is one of it’s greatest attributes. Nevertheless, more objectively, all the above theories on culture and immigration do seem to agree that immigration controls are too restrictive. The question of why then, we have restrictive policies, still seems concerned with this debate over culture. Racism and xenophobia in the media, policies and public opinion, appear to have created a racist anti-immigration public opinion which leads to stricter policies. Restrictive anti-immigration policies feed and confirm public opinion, and so the vicious cycle continues. But are we really a nation of bigots? Or are there powerful interests at stake that are hidden by the mainstream media, because of its control by government and big business? The big debate over culture and racism may be a populist smokescreen to hide the activities of governments and big corporations, in particular the arms industry. Both these lines of argument hold some truth, but it still remains somewhat unclear as to why the economic goldmine that is increased immigration is restricted by the very people who could gain the most from it.

Bibliography (I have only included the electronic references)

Choudry, A., 2001, ‘Suspicious Minds’, http://www.zmag.org/choudrycalam2.htm

Clennel, A, 2003, ‘Charges Dropped in Algerian Terror Case’, The Independent, 10.12.1003

Coyne, A, 2002, ‘Immigration Debate Unstifled’, National Post, 28 Sept, 2002, http://www.urbanrenaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=5553#Welcome

Economist Website: http://www.economist.com/

European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms:
http://www.pfc.org.uk/legal/echrtext.htm

Financial Times Website: http://news.ft.com/home/uk

Randall, M., 2003, ‘The Media on Asylum and Immigration’, Media Lens, December 9, 2003, http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=4646§ionID=21

Randall, M., 2003, correspondence (below)

Refugee Council, 2002, ‘Nailing press Myths About Refugees’, http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/news/myths/myth001.htm

United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Utilitarianism.org, article on utilitarianism from The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Thomas Mautner http://www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarian.htm

:: Tony 16:23 [link] ::

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~