nonTROPPO.org

Beautiful. More than half a million people demonstrated against H.R. 4437 in Los Angeles recently. H.R. 4437, aka “The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005”, is a sadly hysterical bigoted bill that makes small immigration offenses “federal crimes”. And most shockingly, that applies to people who know of others who may not have ‘legal’ status. Thus non-governmental organizations and support groups become accessories to commiting federal crime. The US, above all, was and is built on the vibrant incessant motor of immigration, it is the essential heft of its being. Sadly bigotry and hatred is an ingrained crease on our human being, and politicians play brutally callous games, using fear of the “other” to win support as tough do’ers. Facist Germany knew this well, playing on anti-semitism to unify society using hysterical fear of the other.

Remember , remember always, that all of us… are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

For me, the current abuse of fear to gain favour with voters, both in the US and here in the UK, is a pathetically brutal tragedy. The human cost is hidden by flag waving and unfounded fear of alien invasion.

Alien: An American sovereign in his probationary state.
Ambrose Bierce

Immigration has been shown time and time again to be beneficial. Financially it hugely stimulates the economy; immigrants use less public funds and pay more tax. Western companies drop their costs drastically using ‘illegal’ labour and thus further stimulate the economy.

Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life.
John F. Kennedy

Vastly more important for me (the clear economic advantages frankly disturb me; manipulation of human misfortune to further profit) are the cultural benefits. It is wonderful to live in a community where you can share human experience, no matter where it came from. It is challenging and rewarding to live amongst the huge diverse plethora of fellow humans. Music, food, art and experience all melt in the fermenting stew of our culture. My culture is partly Indian, Caribbean, African, Persian, Latin American, East European, Arab and Asian.

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
Emma Larzarus

I am happy to see current American immigrants organising and working to get their voice heard; a voice calling for humanity, compassion and fairness. I wish them all the best in their struggle.

Here is not merely a nation, but a teeming nation of nations.
Walt Whitman

More Than 500,000 Rally in L.A. for Immigrants’ Rights - Los Angeles Times

Yes, months have passed, and many things have happened, but I have had to stop writing here for a while. The following article so enraged me that i had to add it to my other asylum / immigration links:

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Four out of 10 whites do not want black neighbours(s)

This is a vindication of my sentiments that the UK has become mindlessly hysterical and overtly racistto immigration / asylum seekers. The massive ignorance among the British is succinctly highlighted by those polled thinking Britain had 23% first generation immigrants within its borders, when that actual value is 6%!!!. This fantasy that Britain is ‘overrun’ leads those polled to rank immigration as the most important issue facing Britain after Education and Heath. An issue that is basically over-inflated in their minds by a factor of 4!

Some 4 out of 10 white respondents did not want to live next to an ‘immigrant’ neighbour (though to be fair older people were more likely [60%] to hold these racist views than younger people [36%]).

After the rage I feel at this situation, comes an aching sadness. How can my fellow humans be so ignorant, so arrogant. I suppose people want to believe in some scapegoat, some group to blame for any injustices they feel. Sadly, this is what enabled persecution of Jews, Gypsies, Gays, ‘Blacks’ and an endless line of such scapegoats. When the Daily Mail runs such inflammatory anti-immigrant stories, it is merely following a tradition, most clearly exemplified by the Nazis, of stirring up hatred through racial stereotyping. I abhor this, I abhor those papers that, instead of trying hard to balance the media (mis)representation of this issue, continue to perpetrate myths and fantasies. I wish this poll was the fantasy, but this simply is not the case.

AMAZING! With a lack of understanding that beggars belief, the BBC is floating plans to make a show in which real cases of asylum seekers (played by actors), will be ‘interviewed’ on TV and then viewers can vote on whether to kick them out of the country or not. A great addition would be if those asylum seekers who were refused entry could be projected on exploding jet chairs and guided by satellite by celebrities back to their countries of origin. Those who hit their targets could win prizes for the charity of their choice. I’m sure the Daily Mail / Telegraph reading ignorant masses would love watching immigrants being blasted out of the country.

How low can television really get? This is an issue that desperately need attention. Intelligent planning, and making a season of programs for prime time TV, featuring documentaries and satire on issues surrounding immigration and asylum would be sorely needed. I saw an advert that Eddie Izzard is presenting a program on the mongrel blood of the English (which xenophobic Daily Mail readers often fail to realise), we need more of this sort of programming (breaking down already muddy racial boundaries). But instead, we get game shows where the public can click out asylum seekers…

As I have sadly and angrily written about many times before - I am always so saddened when I see people failing to link the figure of the ‘asylum seeker’ to the political turbulence in the world. People confidently assert Saddam hussein was a torturing monster, a human-rights-abusing psycho, and then moan at how there are too many asylum seekers coming into Britain. Why are people so blind that these two features are linked?

Obviously (my pet hobby-horse) the hysterical press coverage exacerbates the latent xenophobia present, but why can’t readers tease out the wheat from the chaff (stupidity, laziness or both?) Even sadder, the Government is running scared against losing the support of these Sun/Daily Mail/Telegraph readers, and running like headless chickens trying to placate them. That is not how to shape a comprehensive and effective strategy.

A recent report from the Institute for Public Policy Research highlights exactly this point. The Government has a responsibility which it has wholly ignored, to try to bring facts rather than hysteria to the public.

“…the point of the IPPR’s report is to highlight the contradictions between current policy approaches for dealing with the so-called “asylum crisis” and the evidence which exists about why people become refugees in the first place. The tone of the debate in the UK over recent months is indicative of an unwillingness on the part of government - at least publicly - to make the connection between what is going on in the world and those who turn up at our borders seeking protection. Iraqis have been one of the largest group of asylum applicants in this country over the last three years, but very few have been recognised as Convention refugees. Yet the experience of the Iraqi “exiles” - as they have become known - was widely cited as a justification for the decision to go to war. The problem is that the public’s understanding of the factors driving migration is not assisted by this approach. They are not helped to make the connections, and therefore the connections remain unmade.

It is in everyone’s interests that the public debate on asylum is based on evidence rather than assumption and that it steps back from the day-to-day political rhetoric and public angst that surrounds the issue. Identifying the root causes of forced migration is an important first step in this process.”

The UK Government, along with foreign ministers in Europe, are soon to discuss a policy in which asylum seekers will be sent to EU run detention ‘camps’ in a country outside of the EU (somewhere like Albania) for their claims to be processed. Such ‘camps’ have failed miserably before - most noticeably for the Vietnamese - and such a ‘pawning off’ of our responsibilities and moral obligations (as a supposed ‘civilised’ and rich society) to detention camps in third-world countries is simply outrageous. As Bill Morris commented:

“At this time, when all eyes and minds are trained on the Gulf, the people of this country are entitled to ask why our government feels it has the moral duty to drop bombs on Baghdad yet is absolved of any responsibility to look after those left homeless, destitute or in danger as a result.”

This possible solution has been strongly condemned by Amnesty International, who are worried that it will be difficult to monitor and guarantee the treatment of refugees in such external countries. The UK has been the scene of a rising tide of violent crimes against asylum seekers, and as I have written before, most of it has been stoked up by hugely irresponsible press hysteria by gutter papers like the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail. People are scared of asylum seekers even in British counties where there are no refugees, crystal clear evidence that it is xenophobia plain and simple. This is mainly the reason that the Government is so desperate to offload refugees out of the country, a British xenophobia that is wholly wrong. The home secretary, David Blunkett, transparently confirms his desperation to be liked by xenophobic Daily Mail/Telegraph readers, because he wants to show:

“our citizens at home that European asylum policy is not simply a gateway for uncontrolled migration, but rather a firm and fair procedure for those who genuinely need protection.”

This is all about placating those stupid and ignorant enough to be scared of refugees (sadly a significant number), and has nothing to do with building the best system we can to help victims of tyranny Tony Blair spends so much of his time pontificating about.

Nice article in the Guardian, outlining the double-standards of the British Government in regards to Iraqi asylum-seekers: A Cold Shoulder for Saddam’s Victims See here for my previous post

My horror stands unabated at the misrepresentation and reprehensible xenophobia rampant in Britain today. Of course, the story is an ancient one, playing on the fear that human stupidity has of ‘the other’. The misrepresentation of asylum seekers, and the ease with which politicians desperate for appeal of any sort (i.e. the Tory party leader and Tony Blair) and intellectual-gutter papers like the Daily Mail have in perpetrating ignorance and fear disgusts me to my core. Day after day we have shrill and hysterical announcements about this massive ‘wave’ of liars and potential terrorists that will engulf the ‘culture’[1] of Britain. So major a threat is this onslaught of lying dangerous ‘others’, that our wise Leader, Tony Blair, has warned that we may have to withdraw from our obligations under the European convention on human rights. The arguments against such empty hysteria are many.

The statements of doom based on economic reasons are highly contentious and
improbable; many economists are very clear that immigration can be, and is, a positive factor in economic development (walk through London at 5am to see the thousands of invisible cleaners and workers, almost exclusively composed of the ‘other’[2]).

The suggestions of loss of ‘culture’ seems weak at best, to quote David Aaronovitch:

“Rowthorn’s definition of nation is just piety masquerading as analysis (has he even read Linda Colley?), and his suggestion that mass immigration necessarily undermines a sense of nationhood is completely contradicted by the experience of the United States and Australia. If nationhood is just a series of particularities (eating fish and chips, taking the dog for a walk, knowing who is tenth in line to the throne), then Rowthorn may be right. If it is embodied in values, then he may well be wrong. Let us say that the things that we most value about Britishness are tolerance, free speech, non-violence, a vibrant popular culture, comedy, a belief in fairness, representative democracy and complaining to anyone except the person who has given you offence. Are these necessarily put at risk by high levels of immigration?[3]”

It seems clear that if Britain’s ‘culture’ is so fragile that it will break under what is still a vast minority of diverse ‘others’, then are those supposed core values worth keeping?

Finally, I find it hypocrisy of the highest order that politicians and the press can, in one single breath, talk about brutal dictators and regimes like Iraq and Zimbabwe, and then not recognize most asylum seekers come from these very countries. Tony Blair loves to play the game of demonisation, yet he cannot back up his attack that Hussain and Mugabe torture and starve their people when asylum laws are cracking down on those very same people escaping from those tyrants?

see also: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the Independant

[1] Whatever that ‘culture’ may be.
[2] Those invisible ‘others’ that are responsible for ‘waking’ the city up, and keeping it running, who are paid next-to-nothing and who have no working rights because of their status (thus maintaining the low running costs of innumerable businesses). I would love for one of the ‘anti-immigrants’ to spend 6 months working with the status of one of those invisible ‘others’, and then try to reflect on their xenophobic ignorance and misrepresentation.
[3] Not that I agree with his list of ‘Britishness’! Just with the sentiment that it is probably only the superficiality of a ‘culture’ that may be challenged by the ‘other’. In fact, Britain is an [albeit imperfect] example of enrichment of those superficial aspects of the ‘culture’, as attested to by the great contributions in art, music, food and other aspects of daily life that have made Britain simply much better to live in.

The sangat camp has closed, and refugees are heading to England. The radio gives this wooly affirmation that these refugees are coming on ‘economic’ visas. The press does likewise. No one really tries to understand why 1200 Iraqi Kurds and Afghans were sat in a camp in France desperate for asylum. ‘Refugee’ often has this subliminal streotype - dependant, desperate, and, reading the trash-press like the Daily Mail/Telegraph, calculating to leech money from the government. These stereotypes are reinforced by the same papers that ‘simply’ assert that Saddam is ‘evil’ and that he must be tackled. The same papers that blindly supported the ‘simple’ war in Afghanistan against the ‘evil’ Taliban. If ‘they’ are really ‘evil’, by implication of theduality of such speak, it means that ‘we’ are somehow ‘just’, and therefore by taking the moral high-ground ‘we’ should at least be consistent.
It is utterly repugnant therefore that ‘we’ can criticise and restrict the flow of asylum seekers while blatantly claiming a ‘simple’ moral superiority over thoses asylum seekers ‘oppressors’. How can one strike at such ‘criminals’ while at the same time failing to support their ‘victims’. The countries with such clear excesses of economic wealth (and easily spouted moralilty) have a clear self-imposed responsibility to provide support for all thoses who are ‘victims’. More critically, they have an absolute duty when it was their misguided intervention in the first place that exaggerated the power of such oppressors (through for example, direct support of Saddam Hussain and the Taliban).

An issue which always makes my blood boil quickly is that surrounding asylum seekers. It infuriates me when I see inflammatory articles in newspapers that suggest that England is being overrun by illegal
immigrants and asylum seekers (particularly by papers such as the Daily Mail, see here for a nice comparison article on press atitudes to immigration). Such articles hugely inflate the importance of the issue, and leads to ignorant intolerance and hatred among people. This has been confirmed by new evidence showing violent attacks on refugees in England has reached an all time high.
Of course tax evasion by the rich “(see example here)”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,682292,00.html rarely gets such tabloid treatment (do you really see the Daily Mail screaming headline after headline about unfair tax breaks???, or do Tax evaders ever get their head kicked in by brain-dead thugs???). However, by my estimation, general tax evasion by the super-rich would pay for 30’000 refugees to stay in England. I’m sorry, but even if 10% of the refugees are ‘truly’ escaping life-threatening persecution (and I hate playing such silly numbers games with human lives…), then that is money
well spent. How can I accept our Governments spending such vast amounts on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for example when it then treats Afghan and Iraqi refugees with such contempt (refugees partially through previous and current foreign policies). It is easy to play the moral high ground when comparing oneself to the Taliban, but much harder to carry through on your promises to support those affected by such regimes. And the media frenzy over immigrants seriously compounds an already difficult situation. I won’t discuss the fact that many local industries depend critically on black-labour, allowing western companies to be more competitive at home (not that I agree with it). This aspect of immigration is very rarely discussed, only exacerbating peoples ignorance in assuming immigrants only take from a country.