 |
 |
Dear Gabriella,
please add my signature to the petition.
I think it is a great shame that the report that Theresa May is fond of quoting finding that for every 100 migrants who enter the country 23 British workers lose their jobs, was unfortunately written by academics (the Migration Advisory Committee https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/migration-advisory-committee). Whilst the critical report that shows this to be a gross exaggeration and that immigration has had hardly any impact on unemployment, buried by the Government until shamed into releasing it, was written by civil servants.
Best,
Hazel
Dear all
together with colleagues from migration and race studies I have been involved in drafting the letter below that we would like to publish in the Guardian to express our opposition to the Immigration Bill, which will be most probably approved by this June.
I have already sent some documentation and exchanged views on the idea of a letter with some on this list in November-now is really time to take action, however symbolic
it may be. It is encouraging to see that also the TUC has taken a very critical position on this.http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2013/10/the-immigration-bill-hostility-wont-tackle-austerity
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2013/05/queens-speech-immigration-measures-objectionable-and-unworkable
I think it is of crucial importance that critical labour scholars take a stance on this issue so I invite as many of you in this list to add your signature to the letter below.
Please email me by 4pm on Monday 10 March at [log in to unmask]com (if
you've already sent your name to Hannah Lewis or Tom Vickers there is no need to send it to me as well).
Best wishes,
Gabriella
Lecturer in Work and Employment Relations
Leeds University Business School
31 Lyddon Terrace, Room 1.04
Telephone: 0113 343 0204 (office)
Dear Editor
We are writing regarding the UK Immigration Bill 2013-14 ('Immigration: The Wrong Fight' 10 February 2014). We feel compelled to speak out against the Bill: as researchers who dispute the assumptions that underlie the Bill;
as educators concerned about the impact on our international students and colleagues, who form a substantial presence in our programmes and critically contribute to academic life; and as members of society concerned by the likely human and social impacts of
the Bill (See Migrants Rights Network briefing).
The underlying discourse of the Immigration Bill blames immigration for the intense insecurity and fear for the future that so many of us face, and pits the interests of migrants against the interests of 'British workers'. It
is based on the false division between 'us and them' – and the assumption that if migrants are not excluded then they will take British workers' jobs and place an unbearable strain on state finances and services. These ideas are not backed by research, and
we suggest that they are false (for instance on the myth of migrants being a burden on the NHS see http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/jul/03/health-tourism-cost-nhs-jeremy-hunt).
The government's agendas for immigration, austerity and welfare reform are increasingly intertwined in politicians' speeches and the media. All are based on the principle that for most of us, access to necessities should be
dependent solely on our usefulness to employers. Increased conditionality in the provision of welfare support goes together with the co-option of a range of professionals to act as border guards, policing access to resources on the basis of immigration status.
This normalises the idea of the 'deserving' and the 'undeserving' poor, which creates pressure for all workers to accept lower wages and poorer conditions of employment.
The government states that the measures in the Immigration Bill will tackle irregular migration by creating a 'hostile environment', but this is far more likely to increase irregular migration by driving large numbers of migrants
underground. There is a significant body of research showing that immigration restrictions leave many migrants vulnerable to exploitation (see research by the ILO and the IOM), with negative consequences for everyone. This is why trade unions in the UK have
taken a clear stance against the Immigration Bill as workers and their organisations realise that, as long as migrants are treated unequally and do not join the same struggles for better conditions, they are all going to be weaker. It is time to change the
terms of the debate, to build an alternative to the politics of austerity and exclusion through solidarity and cooperation instead of division.
Tom Vickers, Northumbria University
Gabriella Alberti, University of Leeds
Hannah Lewis, University of Leeds
Kirsten Forkert, Birmingham City University
Max Farrar, Leeds Metropolitan University