**Apologies for cross-posting**

Dear friends and colleagues,

We plan to submit the letter below for publication in the Guardian, if you would like to add your name please email me by 4pm on Monday 10 March at [log in to unmask] (if you've already sent your name to Hannah Lewis or Gabriela Alberti there is no need to send it to me as well).

Best wishes,

Tom


--

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