More people cross borders today than ever before. Historians,
archaeologists, biologists, and the tales that people tell all point to the
fact that around the world human beings have always moved and that they have
done so for reasons not dissimilar to the reasons people move today. To be
human is to be mobile. For us, to be
alive is to move. We are not plants,
rooted to a single place from which we grow and expand in more or less
constrained or restricted ways. Our
defining capacity as a species to creatively and purposefully transform our
surroundings and productively and consciously modify our circumstances -- our
existential vocation for labor, if you will -- is inseparable from our
fundamental freedom of movement. This
likewise means that our inherently social character as a species is also
contingent upon our mobility. Hence, the
freedom of movement of the human species is an absolutely basic and
non-negotiable aspect of our most general mode of life. This is not merely a philosophical
predilection or a theoretical conceit, much less a dogmatic political position
-- it is an indisputable and immutable objective fact. To be human and alive, under any semblance of
natural or normal or healthy circumstances, is to be mobile. Hence, our freedom
of movement as a species has ultimately manifested itself as a freedom to move
around the entire globe, (and even beyond). The free movement of people around
the world therefore would not be utopian; it is already a proven fact. What is
utopian is the statist delusion of border policing. The development of capitalism creates the conditions for the solidarity
and contact between workers to overcome the national boundaries established by
capital.
Borders are one of the great contradictions in the era of
capitalist globalisation. The world has become a much smaller place because of
advances in technology and transportation, global production chains and the
lightning-fast movement of capital around the planet. In this regard, the
globalized economy is borderless to those with billions of dollars or euros or
yen to invest. But borders are still there to keep the vast majority of us
apart. While borders are permeable to some privileged people, they are
impermeable to most others. Migrants who cross national borders without
permission are often criminalised and de-humanised, frequently lose their
social, economic and political rights and, as a consequence, experience
disproportionate exploitation and abuse. Capitalism has always needed workers
to migrate across borders. For example, tens of thousands of Irish workers were
central to England's Industrial Revolution. Once in England, the Irish got the
worst-paid jobs, lived in slums and were caricatured as slothful drunks. Borders
are designed to control workers in the interest of capitalist accumulation. The
most successful way to defeat low pay and conditions is to unite and organise
against exploitative employers. The demand for undocumented migrant workers is
greater as long as employers can get a higher return on investment through the
exploitation of a cheap labour force. If migrant workers are allowed to flow
freely between borders, with the same rights as indigenous workers, they would
be entitled to the same pay and conditions. As a result, we could strengthen
our organisations and unions, united in our struggle for just and fair
conditions in employment and education. It is easier for employers to undercut
wages if they have access to a cheap labour force, but equipped with the same
rights as the indigenous workforce, a migrant worker would no longer be
susceptible to exploitation because of their status. In Istanbul, employers are
already taking advantage of an educated Syrian working class, to provide high
standards of service in hospitality during the tourist season, whilst paying
them less than indigenous workers.
When workers unite for fair pay and conditions, it strengthens
the position of all workers.
There are no such matters as ‘national interests’ only the
interests of different classes. Borders are never natural, never a product of
nature. They are political. Capitalism views workers both as units of production
and as a market. Socialism, on the other hand sees us all as human beings. A
world without borders, without states, would clearly require a global
revolution. Abolition of immigration controls and the opening of present
borders even within one country such as the UK would also require a
revolution. The long-standing socialist
slogan ‘Workers of the world unite’ means what it says. It does not mean ‘Only
workers with the correct immigration status unite.’ Immigration controls are
inherently racist as they are premised on the grossest of all nationalisms –
the claim that one group of people has a franchise on a particular piece of the
world. All immigration controls however they are defined and to whoever they
‘allow’ free movement, inevitably result in the restriction of movement for
others. This is why they must be opposed in principle. Every struggle against
deportation is at its very basics a denial of the state to determine who can
cross borders.
A huge number of the world’s population are on the move and
are voting with their feet for no controls. Across the world, national states,
especially in the so-called “rich world,” are imposing ever more restrictive
immigration policies. Such state efforts are being enacted at precisely the
time when migration has become an increasingly important part of people’s
strategies for survival. These may be a new livelihood or escape from
untenable, even murderous, situations, such as persecution and war, as well as
the opportunity to experience new people, places, and situations.
Throughout the world those designated as ‘illegal’ – the unwanted,
the undocumented – are literally scaling fences in assertion of their right of
freedom of movement. More restrictions will never stop migration--the economic
imperative for workers struggling to feed themselves and their families will
force them to cross borders, no matter what the risks. But the restrictions can
make this much more dangerous and oppressive, by forcing the most vulnerable
people in society into relying on smugglers and human traffickers, not to
mention the exploitative businesses where they end up working. There can be no
question of socialists supporting anything that would make it impossible for
Polish, Romanian or any other workers to migrate to and remain in the UK. Nor
can we ignore the deployment of security forces, the use of courts and detention
centres to enforce immigration policies.
The idea that the acceptance of foreign workers would
threaten native workers' jobs is one dimensional. Of course, it can't be denied
that even in times of non-recession, the low wages of foreign workers appear to
Japanese workers as competitors. However, the position which opposes the
acceptance of low wage foreign workers based on the idea that they steal jobs
and cause the worsening of working conditions, dazzles the eyes with apparent
interests, but cannot understand the essence of things, and spreads xenophobia
and divisions among the workers. Capital introduces all sorts of discrimination
among the workers: main company and subcontractors, temporary and part time
workers, etc. Capital uses "disposable" part time and temporary
workers as a control valve for business fluctuations. When the business climate
worsens, the first ones to get the sack are these low level workers, and those
working for small subcontracting companies. It is the rule of capital that
makes the workers' lives unstable. This instability will not end if the rule of
capital continues, regardless of whether or not foreign workers are prevented
entry.
The same thing is true for the problem of increased crime or
the creation of slums or increased competition for social security and welfare.
The greatest responsibility for the occurrence of these problems lies with the
discriminative low wages and horrible working conditions capital imposes, and
is not the fault of foreign workers. The results of research by the French
researcher Gaspard clearly show the groundlessness of bourgeois "public
opinion" which scapegoats foreign workers by saying that they are a hotbed
of crime. According to her research, French people are the ones who commit the
vast majority of serious social crimes, whereas the overwhelming number of
crimes by foreign workers are petty crimes which come from unavoidable poverty
related to their terrible treatment by capital. ("The France of
Foreigners"). The xenophobic position deflects attention away from the
rule of capital as if the responsibility lies with the foreign workers, is a
reactionary stance which propagates prejudice against foreign workers.
Those on the left who call for "orderly” admittance
understand that these conditions of establishing presuppose a return to the
home country. This position is essentially the same as the capitalist’s which denies foreign workers the right to
permanent stay, and attempts to "use" foreign workers for the
convenience of capital, and avoid social problems from the permanent residence
of foreign workers. They want to thoroughly squeeze these foreign workers and then
send them back to their home country. In other words, they aim to introduce
freely disposable "labor power". The left nationalist standpoint is
the same as that of the ruling class. This regulated immigration policy reflects
the interests of medium and small capital which is suffering from a labour shortage.
In this way hundreds of thousands of workers move far away
from their hometowns. Against their will they are drawn into the orbit of
advanced capitalism. They are drawn out of their remote villages to become
participants in the movement of world history, and come face to face with a
powerfully united, international industrial class.
Certainly, only extreme poverty causes people to abandon
their homeland, and capitalism exploits migrant workers in a completely
shameless way. But only reactionaries can shut their eyes to the progressive
meaning of the modern national migration. Emancipation from the heavy pressure
of capital cannot occur apart from the increasing development of capitalism,
and the class struggles based on this development.
The bourgeoisie tries to incite the workers of one nation
against the workers of another nation, and cause splits between them. Class
conscious workers understand that it is inevitable and progressive to knock down
all of the capitalist walls between nations, and work in order to help the
organization and enlightenment of comrades from other countries."
("Capitalism and the Migration of Workers")
One of the things Lenin did get right was when he explained:
"Capitalism creates the particular form of national
migration. Countries in which industry is rapidly developing introduce more
machinery, drive other countries out of the market, and attract wage workers
from foreign countries through their above average wages.
Workers must recognise the progressive meaning of the
movement of workers, and strive for solidarity with the workers of other
countries from an internationalist standpoint.
The government spreads the anti-migrant ideas that the
admission of "unskilled workers" would widen discriminatory
consciousness, and lead to the breakdown of the social order. But the evidence
is that it is the government and capital who are inciting discrimination and
prejudice against foreign workers, with fears that the entrance of unskilled
foreign workers will enlarge the slums and increase crime.
Workers support the freedom of foreign workers' employment.
The illegal conditions of the employment of foreign workers means that capital can
impose horrendous working conditions, brokers are active and in-between
exploitation takes place. Of course, as long as the rule of capital continues
this would not end even with the legal employment. But the legality of
employment would at least ease these conditions somewhat. Furthermore, workers
must oppose all discrimination, and demand equality for foreign workers and their
rights as workers. Only supporting the legality of employment, is no different
from the bourgeois desire for cheap labour. For foreign workers to defend their
own lives, they must secure their rights as workers. Workers as workers must oppose discrimination by capital against foreign workers, and
struggle in solidarity to support their rights and lives.
However, the international solidarity of workers is not
merely limited to supporting the demands for their rights. Above all, workers
must develop the class struggle against the system of capital, and overthrow
this system. What must be sought is the overthrow of the rule of capital and the realisation of socialism established on the power of the
workers.
THE EARTH FLAG |
Our solidarity recognises no borders. We must do everything
we can to support the right of workers to live and work where they so wish.
Socialists want world where borders have become a relic of the past. The world
that the Socialist Party envision is one in which national boundaries no longer
exist, in which you can move from one country to another with the same ease in
which we can move from Newcastle to Newquay, a world without passports or visas
or immigration quotas. True globalisation in the human sense, in which we
recognise that the world is one and that human beings everywhere are the same.
It would be a world in which the boundaries of race and religion and nation
would not become causes for antagonism. Even though there would still be
cultural differences and still be language differences, there would not be
causes for violent action of one against the other. In a world like that you
could not make war because it is your family. It would be a world in which the
riches of the planet would be according to human need. True community can only
be established with the abolition of classes and the state. If we are to fight
world capitalism, then we cannot resort to nationalism. The only way forward
for working people is the struggle for class solidarity and world socialism. Class unity is about solidarity, which
recognises no borders. The workers' cause and the Revolution knows no borders.