The Class Politics of Points-Based Immigration
JVL Introduction
The short, sharp intervention by A Very Public Sociologist shows the real drive behind the Tories’ immigration controls. We’re not moving to a high-wage high-productivity economy any time soon.
Rather, the crushing unemployment brought about by Covid-19 is to be used to force British workers into low-paid jobs that foreigners won’t now be allowed to take, if Patel has her way.
And Labour? Yvette Cooper committed Labour to pandering to the Tories, by agreeing to scrutinise their plans instead of having the guts and principle to reject them outright as the miserable, anti-immigrant, anti-worker policies that they are.
This article was originally published by A Very Public Sociologist on Mon 13 Jul 2020. Read the original here.
The Class Politics of Points-Based Immigration
Loading article text…
The emerging position of Starmer’s Labour on immigration was one of the key reasons I resigned my membership. It is evidence of a fundamental shift to the right and is incompatible with democratic socialism.
The statement on the back of the Labour membership card is once again fast becoming a lie.
Back to that thorny issue of Brexit on which the left were so hopelessly divided. I agree with the author that the issue of immigration is what swung it for the Brexiteers. They successfully tapped into a reservoir of anti immigrant sentiment which was heightened by the refugee crisis. Membership of the EU was portrayed as an existential threat to the “British way of life” because it facilitated a growth in migration of Muslims and Eastern Europeans into the UK. The sad fact is that some people on the left failed to grasp this. If only the vote for Brexit was based on a vote against neo liberalism and EU austerity. I also think the vote was an expression of British exceptionalism. A sense that Britain has stood alone before. Why do we need to be part of a declining Europe. A sense of pleasure in any misfortune experienced across the Channel. After all we are bigger than Europe because of our economic strength built on empire. Rule Brittania and we beat the Germans so why should be ruled by them. I think you get the drift. Socialists have ducked this deep seated sense of British superiority for too long!
A recent article in the Washington Post argues that the international capitalist class is becoming increasingly vexed and frustrated by the severe constraints on global trade and travel caused by the current pandemic. It goes on to point out that the populist / nationalist leaders worldwide are mostly in rapid political decline, whereas leaders such as Angela Merkel, who was recently written off, has made a dramatic comeback in public esteem, not least because her administration has successfully brought coronavirus under control. Laisser faire capitalism requires unobstructed movement of labour as well as capital. This may provide opportunities to thwart any inclination on the part of the Labour Party incumbency to a supine acceptance of the prevalent “English Nationalist” tendency in the Tory party, as reflected in its current policies on immigration.
Having read this article over and over again I”m still unclear as to what the author”s position is on immigration. We all know how adept the Tories are using anti migrant sentiment to pursue their agenda. The question is, are we for any immigration control or not? Wishing the issue away by talking about “class politics” without addressing something which divides people seems to be a”cop out”.
I agree with DJ’s response. I can see no real point to this blog piece by
Phil Burton-Cartledge. Does socialist intetnationalism mean that all control over large scale international population movements should be dropped? If so what should be the rights of new arrivals in a country and when should the kick in? Has the fact that “international” means “between nations” been lost sight of? The “no borders” argument wishes national juridictions, and therefore nations away. But (1) the reality of nation states and national democracy is not likely to be wished away so easily and (2) we need to ask who has the most to gain from the weakening of the political powers of national democracies. Just think about the way trade deals circumvent democracy.
Phil B-Cs piece looks to me like just another example of left-wing sniping at Govetnment policy without being able to propose anything clear to put in its place.
There is so much that is unclear in this piece that it is difficult to know where to begin. For example, is it “racist” to require those to coming to live/work in the UK to have a reasonable standard of English?
Left thinking on this issue is all over the place as was shown by the division between the floor and the platform over “free movement” at the 2018 Labour Annual Conference.
I couldn’t see that Phil BC clarified any issues or offered any solutions to the problems dealt with.