Britons Organize Against Anti-Immigrant Hysteria

David Bacon

On April 6 this
year, Perry Wacker, a Dutch truck driver, was found guilty in a British court
for causing the deaths of 58 Chinese immigrants. They perished after he closed
the air vent on his truck trailer, as he loaded it onto a ferry crossing the
English Channel on a hot summer day. Wacker meant to keep any sound from
alerting British customs agents who might suspect him of smuggling human
cargo. His subterfuge was discovered nonetheless. When the trailer was opened,
all but two of the people crammed inside, with room enough only to stand, had
died from heat, thirst, and lack of oxygen.

It was not hard
for the court to reach its decision. Wacker was just a driver, the low person
on the totem pole. Ying Guo, residing in the town of South Woodford, Essex,
was also convicted—she had lined up jobs for the border-crossers. But who else
was really responsible? The gangs of smugglers (“snakeheads”) who charged
thousands of dollars to those who sought jobs and a future with their families
in Britain? Political leaders who have closed European doors on immigration,
while whipping up anti-immigrant sentiment to win elections and divert popular
discontent over economic hardship? Or those who benefit from the existing
world economy, where privatization and debt in developing countries make
migration a preferable, and sometimes only, option for those seeking economic

The 58 deaths
provoked outrage throughout the UK. They became a potent reminder of the
extreme dangers and sacrifices suffered by those who seek asylum and legal
residence. But they also highlighted the poisonous political atmosphere, in
which asylum-seekers are treated as people cheating the system, who deserve to
be kept out. On the day the verdict was announced, I interviewed two
campaigners in London for the National Assembly Against Racism—Jude Woodward
and Sabi Dalu—key organizers in the effort to defend the rights of

Britain immigration policy seeks to exclude as many people as possible. Was
the immigrant rights movement here in London able to use the public outcry
over the 58 deaths in the truck trailer to focus on this policy, and to what
degree do you hold it responsible for the deaths?

think it was completely shocking for everybody in this country, including
people who had been very hostile to asylum seekers and new migrants. The
deaths of these 58 Chinese people took place at the end of a nine-month,
sustained hostile press and media campaign against new migrants, asylum
seekers. Although these terrible deaths didn’t stop that completely, they did
change the public mood. People began to think that perhaps this hostility had
gone too far—that the sense of persecution was actually driving people to
their deaths.

This hysteria
has been politician-led. It’s been quite cynical. European policy on
immigration has changed since the 1980s, and now almost all legal ways of
coming to Europe have been closed off in line with protocols agreed on at a
European level. In the UK, for example, it’s been virtually impossible to come
legally except on grounds of family reunion and marriage since the early
1990s. Even that’s very difficult.

People who
might have come to the UK or Europe in past years on grounds other than asylum
are being shifted by the law into the asylum system. As this has happened,
politicians on the right built campaigns by saying that the asylum system was
being misused. Unfortunately, the center left in British politics, like the
labor party and the labor government, has tended to buy into this argument
rather then stand up to it. That’s what’s fed the public mood.

How did the
immigrant community in Britain feel about it?

DALU: There was
tremendous concern among Black people. There had been relentless attacks on
asylum seekers and immigrants in the six months prior. The sort of attacks
that we’ve witnessed on asylum seekers and immigrants are the biggest since
the 1960s and 1970s when you had waves of immigrants come in from the former
colonies like India and Uganda. It’s because this issue was put on the
political agenda as part of the current election campaign.

The deaths of
the 58 Chinese immigrants did humanize the debate. The media and politicians
toned down their attacks on asylum seekers and immigration. Ordinary people
realized that immigrants had to make huge sacrifices. However, for example, on
a TV program called “Question Time” the asylum issue came up and people in the
audience asked, “Can’t these people just seek asylum in the first country that
they arrive in? Why do they have to come to Britain?” That argument needs to
be countered, but the only people who responded were Black people in the

When you use
the word Black, you refer to more than just people of African ancestry?

DALU: Black is
a political term, and refers to people of African, Caribbean, and Asian
origin. People unite politically around the term Black, because they are
visibly different than the White majority. These are the people who suffer the
brunt of racism in this country. For instance, Shibley Ramen, an Asian man,
was murdered in a racist attack. His murder was similar to that of Steven
Lawrence, an Afro-Caribbean teenager killed in 1993. While people may come
from different continents—Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean—the treatment they
receive in Britain is exactly the same.

term I’ve heard in the States is people of color, talking about people subject
to white supremacy. Black people are confronted with institutionalized racism
in western, white-dominated countries. This racism doesn’t exist just within
those societies, but in the relationship between those countries and the rest
of the world—the Black majority of the human race—people of African, Asian,
and Caribbean origin. People who are visibly different from white Europeans
have been subjected to the most grotesque genocide and discrimination. The
impact of racism, which is rooted in the idea of white supremacy, is a basic
part of the way our societies function and operate, including attitudes toward
new immigrants today.

Are those
attitudes changing?

Politicians are looking for a way to divert attention from their own
mismanagement of economic problems and resources. They scapegoat asylum
seekers. For example, again on “Question Time,” a woman living in South London
said asylum seekers are being prioritized over her for housing. Both residents
and immigrants need housing and this competition stems from the government’s
failure to put resources into the housing sector. To avoid responsibility for
this, asylum seekers are scapegoated.

How do you
think the European immigration system should be changed to make it less
racist, and to avoid this kind of jobs competition?

present system makes it very difficult for people when they get here. If
you’ve come here to claim asylum, you have to have these special vouchers,
almost like being forced to wear a badge saying “asylum seeker.” People aren’t
allowed to work, so they’re put into designated accommodations around the
country. Many are in detention centers and can be held in detention
indefinitely without any right of habeas corpus. These abuses need to be

Even more
broadly, the circumstances that caused the deaths of those 58 Chinese people
will only be changed when the whole framework for migration to Europe and to
the UK in particular is changed. At present it is virtually impossible to
apply legally to come here. If you’re in China, you can’t walk into the
British embassy and say, “I would like a visa to come to Britain to claim
asylum.” No such visa exists. You can get a visitor’s visa if you’re very
lucky and if you’ve got a relative here and can prove it. You can get a
student visa if you can show that you have a college to come to, a means of
supporting yourself, and a sponsor here who will support your application. You
can get a visa to marry somebody here, but that is extremely difficult and can
take several years. If you’re coming for any other reason, including fleeing
the most direct political persecution, the only way to get here is illegally.

A high
proportion of the people who come in illegally then go to the immigration
authorities and say they want asylum. But you can’t get in here to claim
asylum directly. So that’s the fundamental change that has to take place.
There have to be legal means by which people can come to Europe and the UK and
then apply for the right to stay here indefinitely. That’s the only way to
stop people coming on false papers, hidden in the back of lorries or even on
the undercarriage of aircraft.

businesses in many parts of the European Union are complaining of labor
shortages and asking for programs for bringing in immigrants as guest workers.

DALU: Some
people are allowed to come in on work permits already, because employers claim
a serious skill shortage in Britain. We certainly believe people should be
allowed to come as economic migrants, looking for work. But there aren’t many
concrete proposals yet.

The problem is
the unequal distribution of wealth globally, which is clearly linked with the
Third World debt to the west. This causes many of the harsh conditions and
lack of economic opportunity in those countries that send migrants. At the
same time, though, the history of immigration legislation in Britain is quite
racist. The vast majority of migrants can’t legally come into this country.
Thirty or forty years ago, when Britain needed labor, people could come here
legally. So when we want Black people to come into our country to work, then
it’s okay. But afterwards the attitude is—sorry, we don’t need you now.

the use of the term illegal immigrants reflects that racism. Many people here
are overstayers, who have come here on a short-term visa and then stay after
it expires. The largest group like this is Australians, including many who’ve
come on student visas. But there’s no great outrage about the large number of
Australians flooding the UK because they’re white. The real discussion is not
about how many people this little country can hold. It’s about what kind and
what color of people they want to let in.

There’s a
mantra in establishment circles that says that good race relations depend on
immigration policies. The only way to guarantee good race relations, they say,
is to keep more Black people from coming in, so that you have a sort of
acceptable balance. This argument turns reality upside down. The most positive
thing for race relations is to have more Black people here, because the more
integrated society becomes, the less space there is for racism.  Studies have
shown that even if you liberalize immigration laws dramatically, there would
be an immediate rush of people coming here, but then it would fall off. You
would have much the same level of migration that exists now. Immigration law
doesn’t really have a very big affect on migration levels, but on the status
of people once they’re here.

What does
the National Assembly Against Racism do to counteract this anti-immigrant

assembly consists of trade unions, grass roots Black and Jewish organizations,
and a number of MP’s. Our biggest campaign is called Speak Out Against
Racism-Defend Asylum Seekers. The campaign’s goal is to abolish the voucher
scheme and the dispersal system contained in the 1999 Asylum Immigration Bill
specifically and to generally stop the racist scapegoating of asylum seekers.
We also try to make people who work in the media legally responsible for the
consequences of the hysteria they often create.

Some people in
Britain advocate a policy of open borders, and in principle I agree. But in
terms of the reality of the present political atmosphere, that’s not where
we’re at right now. In order to progress you need to make the broadest
possible alliances, and you can only do that by having a specific campaign
around a specific issue, like that of the Bill. So that is the first step.

It seems
that all European countries are involved in the same debate over the impact of
immigration, and the rise in anti-immigrant hysteria. What relationship do you
have to these debates?

Things have developed in Europe from different historical situations. Britain
was a big imperial power and, until the middle of this century, had a huge
number of colonies. That empire disintegrated under the impact of movements
for colonial freedom after the Second World War. But Britain had a particular
relationship with those ex-colonies, and attracted and had joint citizenship
arrangements with residents of those ex-colonial countries. So until the
immigration law in the UK began to tighten from the early 1970s onward, there
was quite a large flow of people into the UK.

That wasn’t
quite the same elsewhere in Europe. Germany had a guest worker system until
the early 1980s. France had a temporary permit system, in which Algerian and
North African workers came in on short-term visas. Those visas, for five or
ten years, were renewable, but people weren’t given permanent residence.
Eventually people wound up living in France for decades, had their visas
renewed, their kids born there, but had no permanent residence rights. That
system never existed in the UK because people who were allowed in got
permanent residence.

Since the
1980s, the EU has tried to harmonize these different immigration policies. As
a result, all countries have tightened immigration policies till virtually no
one is allowed in. Now, in the very last few years, those policies are being
questioned. Demographically and economically, Europe needs a renewal of its
labor force, which can only come about through new migration. Some countries,
like Italy, have been behind other European countries in tightening up
borders, and have been overtaken by this new discussion. I wouldn’t hold Italy
up as a great example because it’s generally had a huge number of illegal
workers. On the one hand you could say Italy is great because it doesn’t have
much in the way of border control—it’s relatively easy to get in. On the other
hand, Italy has never looked properly at regularizing and integrating the
people who do immigrate into the country. There’s still a great deal of
racism. Even the Pope says he’s very worried about the number of Islamic
people living in Italy.

How do you
look at the immigration debate going on in the U.S.?

DALU: What
happens here is primarily determined by discussions on a European level. But
we’re interested in what happens in the States because the UK governments see
themselves, and indeed do have, this special relationship to the United
States. It’s a somewhat subordinate relationship, rather then a relationship
of equals, in which UK governments are particularly sensitive to policies
developed in the Untied States. That includes immigration policy. For example,
when the United States began to loosen up on migration and started its quota
system, then we had the same sort of discussion here. The same is true about
guest worker proposals. Even though the UK’s policies are determined in a
European framework, it’s very sensitive to the United States.

David Bacon is a freelance journalist and photographer.