Looking for Shelter
Few issues are more likely to incite the pent-up fury of middle England and the right-wing press than asylum and immigration in general: it is, and in all likelihood will continue to be, one of the defining issues of our time. The tabloids have predictably added fuel to the flames with their nationalistic rhetoric and images of Britain being swamped by hordes of scrounging, disease carrying, potential terrorists, but what is more surprising is that the government seems to have bowed under the pressure of the conservatives and announced that one of their aims is to cut the number of asylum seekers by half, withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights if needs be. For their part, the Tories have a cunning plan up their sleeve to lock up asylum seekers in pseudo-prisons until their claims have been processed.
Does the panic have any basis in fact? There may be some logic to the fear, but for the most part the UK needs more immigrants, not fewer, and also has a moral obligation to welcome those asylum seekers with genuine applications. First, the terrorist threat has been greatly overstated. Terrorist attacks have almost always been perpetrated by citizens or visitors to the country in question, as on September 11, and if asylum is such an easy way into the UK, why hasn't it been used as a conduit for terrorism before? Nevertheless, the potential risks are so huge that clearly the current system is inadequate. Asylum seekers are regularly 'lost', so underfunded and undermanned are the bureaucratic sections assigned to deal with them, and the various charities devoted to helping asylum seekers when they reach Britain are being stretched to breaking point. But the Conservative idea of detaining them is neither practical nor desirable: the time taken to process the applications is so long at present that the plan amounts to giving indefinite prison sentences even to those with a real case. On the other hand, such is the racial tension in areas housing asylum applicants, that detainment may actually be for their own protection: the method of integrating asylum seekers into the community needs a careful rethink.
Yes, point out the sceptics, aren't most of the applicants are not asylum seekers at all but rather migrants, come to bleed the public services (which our taxes support) bone dry? This argument indicates the true foundations of the public's fear over asylum. It is an argument which is often underpinned by a kind of racism, less subtle than 'Keep Britain White' but no less dangerous. The UK, along with Western countries, is in desperate need of more labour. As the proportion of pensioners in the population increases, those still working are unable to support either their pensions or the services they use: for example, about 60% of the Health Service's resources are directed at those over 65. The first signs of this problem have surfaced with the announcement that the retirement age will soon be either scrapped or raised. Japan, which did not heed these warnings and implemented extremely tough immigration controls, is now in dire economic trouble as a direct result. Do those on the political right really believe that someone who has travelled halfway round the world, on a tiny amount of money, and at great risk, is going to turn out to be a lazy freeloader? In that case, small-minded proto-fascists might say, why do many of them enter the country illegally, and how can these benefit the country in any way? First, our immigration controls are too strict for many of them to enter. Secondly, even illegal immigrants benefit the economy, by providing cheap labour, hence increasing the profits of those they work for (profits which are taxed) and lowering prices for consumers. It is no secret that the US's economy could not operate as efficiently without the millions of illegal immigrants working there.
Studies have also shown that, whilst immigrants themselves are not necessarily much more productive than their counterparts born in the UK, successive generations tend to be more entrepreneurial, more adaptive and more ambitious. This creates a virtuous cycle in which the native population is forced to raise its game in order to compete. So the evidence shows that a high level of immigration is overwhelmingly positive. The possible cultural gains are immense, as well: imagine a Britain with no Indian restaurants, no black music, and no French footballers. A lot of asylum seekers are economic migrants, undoubtedly: the solution to this 'problem' is to increase immigration. This in turn will make processing asylum applications easier and cheaper.
However, as any gawky little Oxford communist will enlighten you, it may be ethical to accept asylum seekers but not to drain developing countries of their best resource (cheap labour). But what, then, should we do? Stop them from choosing to move to a better life? Such an argument is more than a little undemocratic: freedom of movement is considered by many, including the UN, to be a basic human right. Besides, emigration not only forces wages, and general living standards, to rise in the country of origin, it also encourages democracy (it is difficult to control a population who can just pack their bags and leave) and reduces corruption (as this operates to the detriment of living standards).
So, once again, the tabloids (and some other elements in the media) have got it disastrously wrong. Immigration is essential for Britain's financial well-being, but more than this it is culturally and morally desirable. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that asylum seekers are just terrorists in drag. We should increase, not decrease, the numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers allowed into the country: if the Labour Party, or any other party in power, chooses not to, it will be committing a morally reprehensible and economically catastrophic mistake.
13th Feb 2003