International Socialists

Winston Peters' manipulation of racist anti-Asian rhetoric in the 1996 election campaign highlighted not only the ongoing existence of this kind of bigotry, but also the very divided responses to the whole idea of nationhood and immigration from the Left. Here John Ryan explores Marxist interpretations and opinions of immigration policy.

 

 

We live in an era in which global financial institutions and multinational corporations have an unprecedented ability to move capital around the world to seek the best return for it. Large corporations have become supranational entities unbounded by national laws or regulations.

 

Yet this freedom of movement across national boundaries does not extend to the vast majority, those whose work is necessary to give this capital any real value. On the contrary: immigration controls in New Zealand and around the world are becoming tighter.

 

Socialists oppose all immigration controls because they help prop up the system of nation states and national boundaries that keep workers around the world divided. Like racism, sexism and homophobia, nationalism serves to divide us and obscure our common interest in uniting to fight the system that oppresses us all.

 

Immigration policy and racism go hand in hand. The White Australia policy, abolished only in 1973, is a good example of this. New Zealand has followed a more covert course, but with the same intent. This has ranged from special, late night extensions of Parliament to push through anti-Boat People legislation to a "careful selection" (ie manifestly unjust) selection process that rejects some 500 of the 750 refugee applications received each year.

 

Despite this, many sincere anti-racists argue in favour of immigration controls. In both New Zealand and Australia these people have often followed the lead of the Labour Party and trade unionists who line up with conservative factions in supporting existing controls. A few of the arguments used to support immigration are worth considering:

 

"Immigration costs jobs" This idea has been around since the the nineteenth century. Historically there has usually been an explicitly racist element to this argument - the belief that migrants will work for a pittance, won't go on strike, and will thus undermine jobs and conditions for white New Zealanders. Even without this component, many anti-racists still believe there are only "so many jobs to go around." This is one reason why Australia's peak trade union organisation, the ACTU, calls for an increased intake of refugees, to be matched by a similar reduction in the "skilled worker" category.

 

The evidence reveals that this argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Australian studies show that immigration either creates jobs or has no detrimental influence - in 1991 the National Population Council concluded that "close statistical analysis tends to suggest that immigration has no significant aggregate impact on either wage changes, price inflation or unemployment... migrants in the past have usually created as many jobs as they have taken."

 

The trouble with the argument that immigration costs jobs is that it identifies foreign workers as the problem, rather than the government or Mobil, Carter Holt Harvey or ANZ Bank. It leads to the idea that the union movement should look to excluding foreign workers rather than fighting the job slashing activities of New Zealand business.

 

 

"Immigration worsens social problems" A consistent theme of the propaganda of those in power is that social problems such as poverty, unemployment and the housing shortage are caused by the existence of too many people. This is a convenient excuse for the system.

 

Every additional person entering the country is simultaneously an extra mouth to feed, person to be housed and so on - but also an extra worker to produce food, build the houses and so on.

 

If the system doesn't employ them to do the necessary work, it's not because there are "too many people" but because the employers - whose concern is profit rather than human need - can't make money out of their labour.

 

 

"Immigration weakens the position of indigenous people in society" This argument is based on the idea that the level of oppression of Maori in society us linked to the proportion they make up in the general population. This is as silly as it sounds - the real cause of the oppression of Maori is racism and governmental betrayals, not some numbers game.

 

 

Socialists approach the question of immigration from the standpoint of the vast majority of working people around the world, whose interests are best served by the free movement of workers around the world. Not only does this enable workers to gain the best price for their labour power, it also increases the international experience of our class, breaks down the false national barriers which divide us, and helps build unity in our common struggle.

 

For socialists, its simple - so-called foreigners are welcome here, and ruling class "Kiwi" racists are not.

 

I am grateful to Stewart Gardiner, whose work on immigration I have used extensively in this article.