Workers' control not immigration controls

Submitted by Sofie Buckland on 12 July, 2006 - 1:34

“Workers control not immigration controls” is the main title of a “programme for trades unions” produced by the campaign group, No One Is Illegal (NOII). NOII is an explicitly political campaign, which while it supports people in detention or facing deportations, is mainly concerned to deconstruct the system erected around immigration controls, to combat nationalism and exploitation. These explicitly socialistic concerns are reflected in the pamphlet. NOII believes that, especially because of the internationalisation of immigration controls, the debate on this issue is beginning to open up on the labour movement.
NOII oppose immigration controls “in principle”. They demand an end to immigration controls. “All criticisms of control, all demands made against particular controls, should be on the basis of opposition to restrictions in principle — on the basis that No One Is Illegal!”
Immigration controls are rooted in nationalism and racism, (the anti-semitic Aliens Act first introduced immigration controls in 1905 to exclude Jews fleeing Tsarist Russia). Against the idea — which many in the labour movement do adhere to — that there can be fair, benign or compassionate controls — NOII say, “The idea that a political construct such as immigration restrictions which are a product of fascistic activity can somehow be sanitized and rendered harmless simply does not make sense”.
NOII reject the premise that legislation can declare people illegal simply for existing on the wrong side of an imagined border. “In all other areas of law, it is the activity that is unlawful. Under immigration controls it is humanity that is reduced to being unlawful”.
NOII look to “the self-organisation of those threatened by controls — organising within unions or through anti-deportation campaigns”. And in fact they see unions as central to fighting immigration controls, by fighting for “unionisation and equality of wages for all”. The labour movement still has enough power to close down immigration controls — if there the right political will, especially as the sectors that implement controls to one degree or another are highly unionized. However, as the authors say, it will take a big political upheaval to achieve this.

The proposed program:

1. Defiance not compliance
Immigration controls are implemented by public sector workers, a lot of whom are trade unionists (e.g. housing workers). Unions should adopt a policy of non-cooperation with controls by supporting members who refuse to ask questions about immigration status and refuse to relay this information to the Home Office.

2. No workplace raids!
Factories, hotels and other workplaces face raids by the police and immigration service. Trade Unions should demand that these authorities are banned from entering premises for this purpose.

3. No employer sanctions
Employer sanctions fine bosses for employing workers without the correct immigration status. These laws turn employers into immigration spies and divide workers into “lawful” and “unlawful” categories and they require workers to disclose their immigration status to their employer. The TUC opposed the introduction of employer sanctions in 1996, a policy all trade unions should implement. The small percentage of employers prosecuted under this law indicates that the intended target of employer sanctions is migrants, not employers (only 8 prosecuted employers from 1098 workplace raids in 2004, while 3332 workers were arrested). Employer sanctions are not a way to “protect” undocumented workers from exploitation— they do nothing about that for anybody. They are only there to monitor and deport illegal workers.

4. Solidarity not sanctions! Better pay and conditions for all!
Trade union strength rests on solidarity between workers. No workers should be artificially excluded from the concern of a union. So unions should campaign under the slogan “No Worker Is Illegal”. Unions should not seek to protect their members’ pay by excluding low waged, illegal workers from organizing or being organised. Union members should campaign collectively to limit exploitation for all.

5. Control of gangmasters not undocumented workers
Gangmasters are employment gangsters who hire or contract out workers, such as the employers involved in the death of 19 Chinese cocklepickers in 2004.
The Gangmasters Licensing Act which followed is used to monitor undocumented workers, but leaves the employers unpunished. Trade unionists should be aware of this. ‘The only principled and effective trade union position is for gangmasters to be regulated within the context of the right to remain — the regularisation of all those workers without status’

6. No slave labour! For the right to work!
Asylum seekers awaiting status are denied the right to work, pushing them into illegal exploitation. That is why unions should fight for the right to work for all; pay should be set at the rate for the job. Those refused asylum, but who cannot “return” safely or for any other reason, could currently be press ganged into slave labour! Section 10 of the 2004 Asylum and Immigration Act makes housing and other services for ‘illegal’ migrants pending return conditional on carrying out compulsory “community services”.

7. No employment restrictions based on nationality!
Unions should oppose the law that makes eligibility for employment within some civil service branches dependent on having British citizenship.

8. No to traffickers! Yes to rescuers!
Trafficking is not just about the sex trade, it also provides cheap labour to a range of sectors. 2004 legislation defined it as ‘“exploitation” including the provision of any service through “force, threats or deception”’. NOII rightly sees “trafficking” as “trans-national kidnapping”, involving trickery, violence and no consent. They support legislation penalising traffickers, within the framework that the “rescued victims” should be given the absolute right to remain, which of course is not how the current legislation stands. The UK does not even back EU proposals for trafficked sex workers to be given temporary residence. Ultimately, immigration controls directly result in the exploitation, threats and violence faced by trafficked workers, so unions should continue to demand the end of controls.
“Smuggling” people for profit say NOII is a disgusting trade, but one which provides consenting people with freedom of movement. Trade unions should actively oppose the criminalisation of “rescuers” — friends or family members — who provide entry and refuge to the undocumented.

9. No deportations or intimidation of trade union activists through controls!
Laws from the early twentieth century made it illegal for people who had lived in Britain less than two years to be trade union activists. Conviction could lead to deportation. (This law still exists and was last used in 1974). Today, it is controls which intimidate migrant workers from being active in their unions. However, the TUC and other unions have run successful anti-deportation campaigns for members, securing their right to remain as residents and union activists and they should continue to see this as central.

10. Unionise the undocumented – rethink the unionization of immigration officials!
Trade unions should organise undocumented workers to alleviate their vulnerability to exploitation and potential deportation. This work should be done sensitively — for instance, unions should not compete for recruits. They should also fight for the regularisation of all members without status, in defiance of immigration controls. It is interesting that NOII use the term “regularization”. What do they mean by this. Is it a “transitional demand, a staging post on the road to automatic right to full citizenship, or an end in itself?
What about unionising immigration officials? Many are in a “scab outfit”, the Immigration Service Union, not affiliated to the TUC, which exists to boost the status and job culture of the Immigration Service. But other IS workers are in the PCS. Isn’t the PCS lending legitimacy to the “profession” by organising there? The PCS do seem to have a “members first” attitude which is directly at odds with or ignores the humanitarian response to asylum seekers, for instance it criticized the government’s deportation targets on the grounds that these would put a deep strain on its members.
One of the conclusions NOII draws is that all public sector unions — whose members are to one degree or another involved in implementing immigration controls — should recruit on the basis of opposition to and non-cooperation with immigration controls. But what does that mean in practice? Does it mean that the trade unions should actively campaign on this issue? Or does it mean that workers have say they agree with the policy before they can join? The approach seems to exclude workers who may not have drawn all the right conclusions about immigration control — difficult enough to do when we are all bombarded with propaganda about how Britain cannot “take anymore”, is “overloaded” and at “crisis point.”

For full civic rights! For the right to vote!
Unions should campaign for the right to vote in all elections for everyone living in the UK, irrespective of immigration status.

Today more than at any time, it is utopian for socialists and serious labour movement activists not to oppose immigration controls. In a world of globalised capitalism and many regional wars, people fleeing the effects of mass world wide urban unemployment, brutality and tyranny will end up trying to make a new life for themselves in Britain. They are in any case a tiny percentage of the people effected by these conditions. No government can keep people out without erecting the trappings of a fully-fledged police state. We need to debate for ourselves and explain to British workers what is wrong with the immigration system. This pamphlet will help us do that… labour movement not very confident.
However, as well as expressing the problem negatively and opposing the immigration system is it not more productive — especially if we are to convince those workers who support some immigration control, or feel insecure about their own job, or are not sure — to emphasise positive, unifying demands. Demands such as “Jobs for all”, “decent wages for all”, “Organise to end exploitation for all” and so on.
To gain wide support for — especially if we want to convince workers no to co-operate with immigration control — arguments for workers’ solidarity need to be made effectively. It is not enough to reject immigration controls “in principle”, full stop. We need to continue the debate about how best to do present our arguments.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.