‘Race’, Difference, and the Inclusive Society

‘Race’, Difference, and the Inclusive Society Teresa Staniewicz Office: R2.33 Email: T.Staniewicz@Warwick.ac.uk Office Hours in Term 1 Wednesdays 11.15am-12.15pm Thursdays 12.15pm-1.30pm Please email me before so that we can arrange a suitable (free) timeslot! Thank you! Centre for Rights, Equality and Diversity

Transnational Migration,Immigration Control, and the Treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers Why is studying ‘migration’ crucial to this course: • because it is about ‘literal’ exclusion, and the exclusion of some, impacts, on those who have already been admitted • it ‘defines the nation’ (Britain) • It is often ‘racialised’ • it creates transnational, or diasporic, communities Accession A8/A2 migrants’ experiences – a case in point

Transnational Migration, Immigration Control, and the Treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers Firstly, we need to distinguish, between, forced and involuntary migration (slavery, indenture and refugee movements), from, ‘voluntary’ migration. So, in this lecture, we are concerned with the ‘voluntary’ movement of people. This lecture looked at the various types of main post WWII migrations, and the ways in which these ‘voluntary’ groups of migrants (and later their families) were accommodated by the host country (both in the public &private spheres).

Explanations for Migrations (1) There are, broadly speaking, 3 theories to explain migratory processes. • The subjectivist model: Those who adhere to this model say that the only way to understand migration is to listen to the stories of those involved. It therefore puts the major, if not sole, emphasis on social agency and would appeal to the postmodernist in that it implicitly says that no grand narrative can ‘explain’ population movements. [Often a position adopted by oral historians, social anthropologists, and cultural theorists].

Explanations for Migrations (2) 2) Rational Political/Economic model: The most common variant of this is known as the ‘push-pull’ theory. It’s essentially based on the ‘supply-demand’ model, borrowed from economic theory. Basically, it says that if labour is required in one place (at a sufficiently high price) and there is an excess of labour elsewhere, the latter will tend to flow to the former. Similarly, if there is high unemployment and/or low pay on one area, these may constitute ‘push’ factors.

Explanations for Migrations (3) 3) Marxian and Neo-Marxian models: The underlying argument is that population movements in the form of labour migration are an inherent feature of capitalism. Furthermore, (economic) migration is seen as a form of development aid given by poor countries to rich countries!It’s argued that migrants tend to be more skilled, enterprising than those who stay. The metropolitan economy benefits by the importation of a ready-made workforce, without the costs of reproduction of labour.

Migration theories, cont. Important footnote: Many of the accounts which emerge from the last two models are deficient in respect of their treatment of female migrants. The excellent piece by Marijana Morokvasic, makes the point very effectively. She argues that women’s experiences are either ignored or are systematically distorted. [echoes of Stella Dadzie’s work………]

Which model explains it best? Synthesis works here, utilizing more than one: Probably the best synthesis would come from a recognition that there are clearly structural and historical forces at work in any given context, therefore to ignore them in favour of individual accounts would be a mistake. On the other hand, to deny the efficacy of social agency would prevent us from understanding why some people migrate and other ostensibly in the same position, do not. Scientific models have their limitations; especially when one is attempting to account for the many forms of human behaviour, the essence of which is ‘difference’.

Case Study: Britain. There have various ‘migrations’ to Britain, Vikings, Goths, Normans, etc. All of these have influenced the ethnic mix of the British population. There has been a Black presence dating back to the fifteenth century at least (a by-product of slave trade). More recently, many Commonwealth citizens fought alongside the British in both World Wars (this meant a build up of minority populations especially in British ports). Also, small numbers of Sikh door-to-door traders and sailors migrated to the UK prior to WWII.The main increase in the population occurred in the post-WWII period from the late-1940s onwards. (WAR = an immediate need for more labour, & given era, male labour)

Case Study: Britain. (cont.) How did the ‘need for labour’ discourse play out: In fact political debates in the immediate post-war period were already in the sense ‘racialised’. Politicians, especially those on the Right, expressed concern about the potential influx of ‘coloured immigrants’ from the Commonwealth. Alienness was seen as reflected in skin colour rather than language or even culture. Migrants from the Caribbean for the most part spoke English, and had grown up in a British colony. So linguistically and culturally they were rather closer to the British, than to the Polish or Slavic peoples.S.S. Empire Windrush in 1948, and the EVW – south and east Europeans, post WWII.

Case Study: Britain. (cont.) Why did they come Why at that particular time, and Why only from certain (quite specific) locations? [The fact that jobs were available in Britain is not enough in itself to explain it: this is merely a ‘permissive’ factor] Most, fit into the ‘push-pull’ model noted earlier. We need to separate the two major sources of migrant labour: the Caribbean (principally Jamaica), and, the Indian subcontinent. The answers to the points raised above, in some ways, lie in the history of their relations with the British (hence the focus on them).

Migration sources to the UK The (Anglophone) Caribbean: Slavery had a major long-term impact on the economy of the Caribbean (resulting in high unemployment, no education system, mono crop economy offered no alternative opportunities for job differentiation to develop). This led to a ‘tradition of migration’ (US was the popular destination – for low skilled work such as construction, etc). However, the McCarran Walter Act 1952, stemmed such flows to the US. Migration flows turned to the UK. Recruitment campaigns – heavily media generated (London Transport, the NHS - professionals, semi-skilled, etc..) NOTE: females were primary migrants for the latter jobs.

Migration sources to the UK South Asians/Indian sub-continent:Once again we have a country whose economy had been fundamentally distorted by the historical role of Britain. Major ‘push factors’ at work here. The hasty departure of the British in the late-forties and the problematic partition of India had a significant role to play. Massive bloodletting between Muslim and Hindu communities led to large numbers of displaced persons. Also, major construction jobs such as the Mangla Dam project, which flooded 250 Mirpuri villages formerly containing around 70,000 people, created its own enforced migration.

Migration sources to the UKMore recent migrations to the UK, are of course migrants from the Accession states, May 2004, and January 2007.Given the expanded mandate of the EU, which now recognises the fundamental rights of all individuals, I use the following themes when looking at this migratory wave:1) Multiple discriminations2) Barriers to civil society (see my ongoing work), such as housing, education, health care provision, and other sub-themes within these.

Early experiences of migrant workers(1) The migrant flows were ultimately controlled by UK immigration policy, which had a significant impact on the type of worker who came here. It was not easy to gain work despite job vacancies, because of a combination of hostility from white workers (& their trade unions), and discrimination on the part of employers. In times of economic ‘lows’ (esp. 1980s onwards) they tended to be the first to lose their jobs. Many of the older migrants found it impossible to get alternative work – except by resorting to taxi work or some other form of self-employment. [We will revisit this when we cover the ‘labour market’.]

Early experiences of migrant workers (2) The key issue for us here, is that many found it really quite difficult to raise the amount of money to return home, especially when the family joined them, and children were born. They were very successful from the State’s perspective in that they kept the economy running to full capacity. However, the migrants’ presence was once again seen as a threat, in the ‘negative impact’ of continued Black immigration on Britain’s towns and cities, especially after the ‘riots’ in Nottingham and Notting Hill in 1958. These ‘concerns’ resulted in the implementation of government policy placing a halt on immigration, as well as in support of other claims, that the economy was saturated. Namely, labour no longer required.

Early experiences of migrant workers (3) The Tories government proposed a Bill, which eventually became the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. [The Labour Party leader was adamantly against the implementation of controls being introduced which targeted specific groups (e.g. New Commonwealth]. It was claimed that the Bill: • ..was to make temporary provision for controlling the immigration in the UK of Commonwealth citizens: to authorize the deportation from the UK of certain Commonwealth citizens convicted of offences and recommended by a court for deportation… It may have been seen as temporary, but it renewed every year until the 1971 Act superceded it. There was no limit on numbers at this stage, but it introduced a three voucher system.

The Three Voucher System • Category A for citizens with a specific job to come to (and the invitation for issuing the voucher had to come from an employer). • Category B issued by British High Commissions overseas to people with recognised skills or qualifications in short supply in Britain. • Category C were free for all on a first come first served basis (with special priority for those with war service). [this category was abolished in 1965] This provided both a way of tailoring entry to the needs of the British economy, and a way of controlling numbers.

Transnational Migrations……. - part 2 As mentioned before, a main impact of the 1971 Act (the last measure of control for 10 yrs), was that it effectively ushered in a contract labour system. ‘Contracts’ were for 12 months (renewable) and hold out the chance of British citizenship after 4 years (subject to good behaviour). In the meantime, migrants can be deported for a whole host of reasons and, crucially, they were dependent on their employer for a good reference (thus giving the latter an even greater level of power).

Changes (by the Tories) to the 1971 Act (1) 1981- Thatcher argued that rather than introduce a new piece of immigration control legislation, what was really required was a new (modernised) Nationality Act. In the event, the proposed Bill (1981) was seen by many as the former passing off as the latter. But it did so by dividing the existing notion of Citizen of the UK and Commonwealth into three new categories: • British Citizens • British Dependent Citizens, • British Overseas Citizens

Changes (by the Tories) to the 1971 Act (2) • The academic literature of the time concluded that far from making immigration control less arbitrary (as the Tories claimed), the Bill simply reinforced its ‘racially discriminatory’ nature. Only British Citizens have the automatic right to entry, and the rights of British citizens of (e.g.) Asian origin were effectively removed (given they fall in the category of BOC). The situation become more problematic by a variety of measures in the 1980s, (the Immigration Act 1988). This was described by the Tory government as a ‘closing of loopholes’.

Changes (by the Tories) to the 1971 Act (3)The Impact On Female Migrants Often overlooked, the position / treatment of female migrants caused some concerns after these latest Bills, for the following reasons (e.g. see the Morokvasic and WING papers): a main point made is that women should have independent status under immigration law. They argue that women have always been seen as the dependents of men and should be where their men are. Although the 1971 Act put a virtual stop on primary immigration, the anti-immigration lobby were still not satisfied, they wanted women to be discouraged from coming. The Tory’s family ideal seemed not to apply to Black migrants.

Changes (by the Tories) to the 1971 Act (4)The Impact On Female Migrants, (cont.) WING’s overall argument is that there needed to be a two-stage political struggle: • Against women’s status under Immigration Law, and then • Against racist laws. This more realistically reflected the reality of the many females who (continued to) come as independent workers. The crucial point being made here is that it’s not just the law (i.e. policy) that’s the problem: there have been major abuses in practice. Immigration officials have a great deal of leeway in how they interpret that role.

The Impact On Female Migrants, (cont.) The Labour government in 1977 than said that this right could be refused if the husband/fiance was believed to be engaged in a ‘marriage of convenience’. The incoming Tory government in 1979 introduced a total ban once again. Since then, the system was opened up again if the wife was born in the UK. Later, a partner would be permitted to enter the UK if at least one parent of the wife had been born in the UK.The Tories also added an extremely significant condition: that the couple must have met beforehand (and, using South Asian customs against women, whilst at the same time claiming to defend their interests).

Refugees and Asylum Seekers 1 This part of the discussion is set in the context of the European policy debates. ‘Fortress Europe’: This is the idea that as internal borders are lowered (theoretically at least), external borders are strengthened / fortified. Seen by some, (Sivanandan, 1990) as a move from ‘ethnocentric racism to an Eurocentric racism’. Who then was to be excluded from the ‘fortress’? Black (3rd World) workers certainly, but also, as we now know very well, with the rise of Islamophobia through the 80s and 90s, Muslims irrespective of origin (but especially from the Middle East). This process is now, much escalated following the events of September 11th 2001. Plus, it is important to remember in the wake of events such as 7/7 and 21/7, how those from such areas are now viewed.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers 2 The idea of ‘fortress Europe’ is often associated with suggestion that the development of an authoritarian state is underway. There are the formal visible institutions of the EC, the Council of Ministers, the Commission and Parliament. But there’s another Europe which is not so visible. This is concerned with ‘terrorism’, drugs, law and order, etc.: • TREVI Group of Ministers (1976) – Terrorism, Radicalism, Extremism, Violence • Ad Hoc Group on Immigration (1986), and • SCHENGEN Accord (1985 & 1990) The first two were formed at the behest of Britain with the original remit to combat terrorism.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers 3 The SCHENGEN Accord/Agreement, (first formed in 1985), has sought to: • harmonise’ policies on visas • coordinate crime prevention and search operations (especially in relation to drugs and weapons), • aid in the regulation of hotel guests This was strengthened by SCHENGEN II in 1990, which was tasked with developing counter measures to close ‘security loopholes’ (esp. post-1992). They have since developed a list of over 100 countries whole citizens need visas, which are for a maximum of three months and are not normally renewable.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers 4 SCHENGEN involves the exchange of information between member states, and people may be held and tried in one country as a result of ‘intelligence’ from another – which could quite possibly be little more than hearsay. Criticisms of the Accord have sometimes come from quite unexpected sources. On the 5th October 1992, a European Pariamentary Committee report had this to say: We condemn the Schengen Information System (SIS) as ‘happening without one iota of democratic control, and before all the parliaments of the Schengen member states have ratified the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement.

Asylum Legislation in the 1990s The essential aim of the 1993 Asylum Act was to deal with the burgeoning number of applications, the difficulties in arriving at firm decisions, the long delays in processing claims and the large number of applicants who were granted exceptional leave to remain in Britain while their cases were processed. It was also the Tories who systematically undermined the citizenship, especially welfare, rights of asylum seekers. Liz Fekete argues, that argues that in the early 90s they had essentially the same rights as all Britons. This was first undermined by the 1993 Act and continued by the 1996 Immigration and Asylum Act. They were therefore only entitled to receive benefits reserved for the most destitute.

Asylum Legislation in the 1990s (2) London authorities started decanting / relocating asylum seekers to B&Bs outside the capital, for example in the less fashionable seaside resorts. New Labour’s strategy, expressed in its 1998 White Paper (labelled Fairer, faster, firmer), was to ‘minimise the attraction of the UK to economic migrants’ by removing access to social benefits and making cash benefits as small as possible. This is what was behind the introduction of vouchers. The funding for asylum seekers was now to be the responsibility of the Home Office, with the welfare focus replaced by administration, now placed with the body concerned with immigration control.

The Administration of Immigration Control: refugees and asylum seekers Under the UN Convention on Human Rights 1951, those who have a ‘well founded fear of persecution’ must be given asylum. The Oakington Reception Centre is one of the places where ‘fast track’ asylum seekers are sent whilst their cases are decided. Ninety-nine per cent of these applications are refused. These cases are considered ‘easy’ in that applicants are persons from countries on the ‘Oakington list’, meaning that they are considered stable and ‘safe’.Applicants are told that their case is easy to decide and that their placement in Oakington is simply so that (1) they can be accessed easily when they are required for interview, and (2) they can be provided with legal advice and support. Conditions are likened to a holiday camp, in that they have free movement and leisure facilities.

The Administration of Immigration Control: refugees and asylum seekers (2) The Tories in the last election suggested, of course, that all asylum seekers should be housed in secure accommodation via detention centres. In the case of those given ‘leave to remain’, there are a series of concerns to be addressed. The rights of the new citizens are to a reasonable standard of living, respect and a secure and stable environment (i.e. the total negation of their recent past). For a variety of reasons this does not confirm to their actual experiences:

The Administration of Immigration Control: refugees and asylum seekers (3) • The voucher system:asylum seekers have been stigmatised by the fact that they have to by food and clothing with vouchers rather than money. • Forced dispersal: the wishes of asylum seekers have been denied by the government. It is defended on the grounds of reducing pressure on housing in certain areas, principally London, and as a way of minimising the likelihood of local hostility. In fact, it has often failed on both counts. • Poor housing: many see themselves as having been ‘dumped’ in housing not wanted by anyone else (cf. Sighthill, in Glasgow).

Current issues: asylum seekers and combating terrorism (1) As I have maintained, the policies of the two major parties have, for all their differences in emphasis, been remarkably similar, with both trying to outdo one another on the issue of been seen to be ‘tough’ on immigration. New Labour, and Labour before it, have exhibited an almost obsessive fear of being undone by appearing to be ‘soft’ on ‘race’.Although they have recently announced a termination of the voucher system and a review of the resettlement system, these are merely sweeteners. The real change in policy, especially in the wake of the events of September 11th, has been to re-centre the debate as essentially concerned with the issue of ‘terrorism’. Thus the bogus asylum seeker has become the dangerous asylum seeker.

Current issues: asylum seekers and combating terrorism (2) Whereas previous legislation on terrorism such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act was geared to tackling the ‘Irish problem’, or rather the activities of what are now called dissident Republican/Nationalist groups, the emphasis has shifted towards refugess and asylum seekers who may constitute a threat to Britain’s interests. Last year, the New Labour government passed the Terrorism Act 2000. The purpose of this was to authorise the Home Secretary to form a list of proscribed organisations, whose members would thereby constitute a target for surveillance and possible deportation.

Current issues: asylum seekers and combating terrorism (3) Since September 11th, of course, they have announced the intention to increase the Home Secretary’s powers to deport suspected dissidents, without the need for lengthy legal proceedings, and to detain/imprison without trial (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001).This is acknowledged as conflicting with various aspects of the Human Rights Act which passed into law only a few years ago. Once again, it is insisted that this is only a temporary, emergency measure. More recently, we have seen the how rights and freedoms of the Other are integral in securing our borders (Terrorism Bill)

Concluding points: Multiple discriminations are everywhere (look in the papers!) 1) Rise in immigration fees (April 2007) The new fees are set out in full on the Home Office website, • Indefinite Leave to Remain postal application: £775 (was £335) • Indefinite Leave to Remain on the day app.: £950 (was £500) • British nationality application: £575 (was £200) 2) Daniel Kawczynski, MP for Shrewsbury (23 April, 2008) It is worrying to note the anecdotal evidence suggesting that there has been a rise in the number of racist attacks against Poles in the past year. From Question Time to Panorama, these attacks on the Polish community in the UK have been particularly prevalent on the BBC. For the liberal elite who now realise that immigration is an issue which must be discussed, Poles are a soft target. Were the Pakistani or Chinese communities to be attacked in this way, accusations about racism would be levelled from bodies representing these communities. However, with no high-profile, national organisation to represent their interests, white Poles are constantly the target of reports about the problems of immigration.

‘Race’, Difference, and the Inclusive Society