I'm writing to invite Socialist Resistance readers to help build the national trade union conterence acast meration controls initiated by No One Is Illegal, to be held in Liverpool in March 2007. The recent series of articles in Resistance is to be welcomed as part of a much-needed debate which the conference hopes to develop.
However I'd like to make sone critical observations about Sarah Parker's contribution ("Demand regularisation now") in your October issue.
The substance of her argument is that "Neither the abstract call for 'open borders' nor a call for open borders made only by campaigners around detention and deportation can do this (ie build a movement of resistance)since these voices cannot reach or convince a wide enough audience to substantially effect the overall situation".
Sarah proposes that the most effective way to build an alliance of the undocumented and trade unionists is through campaigning for an amnestv/regularisation of those here without status.
This underestimates the power and consequences of the struggles against deportations detentions. These have nOW persisted for three decades (starting in the late 19/Us with Anwar Ditta's campaign for unity with her children and it is only because of this self-organisation of the undocumented that we are having the present
Moreover I don't think the demand for open borders is abstract. It is highly political and challenges all notions that there can be "fair or "reasonable" or "non racist" controls.
Of course the realisation of such a demand, given the huge ideological acceptance of controls and the way the state defines itself in terms of controls, may literally require a revolution to achieve.
This though does not mean we have to wait until the day of deliverance before fighting on issues directly linked to no borders. This is particularly the case within the trade union movement. Here are just a few examples - with which I'm sure Sarah will agree.
Since 1996, immigration controls have been brought directly onto the shop floor by employer sanctions - this is the criminalisation of bosses for employing labour without the "correct" documentation. This transforms all bosses into Unions should ensure that y Office spies. personnel departments do not g co-operate in this at the point of recruitment.
Secondly thousands, tens of thousands, of trade unionists within the welfare sector daily operate as de facto immigration officers in demanding proof of immigration status.
This is because virtually all aspects of welfare provision -non contributory benefits, hospital treatment. community care, social housing - are dependent on immigration status.
should be discussing the whole issue of defiance not compliance and supporting members who reluse to collude in unis.
Thirdly there is what has become a taboo matter namely the unionisation of immigration officers by the PCS. This means that it is often trade union members who are conducting the dawn raids, breaking down the doors and hauling families into detention centres prior to deportation.
It would not surprise me if these PCS members have been involved in the deportation of other PCS members. In any event this intolerable situation should be brought out into the open and discussed.
Instead of looking at these issues, Sarah emphasises the need to fight for an amnesty. Since Jack Dromey first raised this question it has obviously become a live issue and there needs to be a full debate over the content of such an amnesty and what it would mean in practice.
However I think Sarah perhaps underestimates the danger of an amnesty. First it does not require a campaign to force the government into instituting amnesties. BRITAIN RUNNING Legal Chinese immigrants marched to Parliament in June in protest against Home office extension of the qualifying period for settlement in the UK from 4 to 5 years
Both in the 1970's and under the present Labour government amnesties have been introduced for those they want here (or rather those whose cheap labour they require here.
However the consequences for the unwanted have been horrific - with a further and disproportionate increase in controls.
Second most non-government amnesty proposals con tain limits - and limits which seem quite arbitrary.
So the JCWI (to which Sarah refers to approvingly) is proposing an amnesty only for those here seven years and refers to this as a "one off amnesty" - that is never to be repeated.
One way of testing an amnesty is not to see who it includes but rather who it excludes
And who are we to exclude anyone? What are Sarah's proposals and who would they exclude?
Even an amnesty for everyone presently here would be useless for those who come or want to come in the future.
Maybe the best way of determining whether to support any particular amnesty is to see on whose terms and within what context it is being introduced. Is it on the terms of support for all the undocumented, opposition to all controls and accompanied by mass mobilisations?
Or is it on the terms of the state and its drive to further divide the "legal" ane the "illegal"?
None of these maters are raised to score points but in the spirit of open discussion to take the debate forward.. They are elaborated on in the No One Is Illegal pamphlet "Workers Control Immigration Controls" which has been sponsored by trade union bodies and Can be found the website www.noii.org.uk.
It is this pamphlet which forms the basis of next year's conference. I hope we can work together in this irrespective of differences, if indeed tele are allences, and build a movement against controls within trades unions.