TO FENCE OR NOT TO FENCE?


USA: 1904

The first border control is established to stop Asian workers from entering the US through Mexico.

UK: 1905

Aliens Act. The first immigration law. Designed to prevent the immigration of poor Jews fleeing pogroms in eastern Europe.

USA: 1942

Bracero programme allows Mexicans to work in US in response to labour shortages.

USA: 1953

The US Immigration Service deports more than 3.8 million people of Mexican heritage.

UK: 1962

Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Designed to control the flow of skilled and semi-skilled migrants from the Caribbean.

USA: 1965

Nationality quotas abolished, inaugurating a new era of mass Immigration, particularly from Mexico and Latin America.

UK: Mid 1980’s

Single European Act allows freedom of movement within EU to all EU citizens. Process of harmonization of EU immigration policy begins in order to tighten Europe’s borders.

USA: 1994

NAFTA – The North American Free Trade Agreement – comes into effect, stimulating US – Mexican trade. Massive increases in border populations occur. Operation Gatekeeper begins in San Ysidro / Tijuana, the beginning of Border Patrol’s national deterrence strategy.

UK: 1996

EU Visa Policy is officially harmonized. 10 years of UK visa restrictions has seen the number of countries whose nationals require visas reach 105. UK introduces draconian immigration law

USA: 1996

Tough new immigration law introduced focusing on criminalisation, detention and deportation.

UK: 1999

Further hard – line immigration law passed.

UK: 2004

Stringent, wide – ranging immigration act expanding the range of criminal offences of asylum seekers.

USA: 2005

House Bill calling for 700 miles of wall along the US – Mexico border and criminalizing illegal crossing into the US, is passed.

USA: 2006

Senate Bill calling for 370 miles of fencing, 500 miles of vehicle barriers and 2400 more border patrol agents, is passed.


The above snapshot of US and UK immigration act history serves to illustrate the parallels between the two countries policies towards asylum seekers and refugees. Happy to allow workers in when it suits them and to sign regional agreements that are perceived to be in the national interest. But there are no scruples when it comes to cracking down on immigrants when domestic political considerations are to the fore.

In the States, the debate over the last few years has centred around government proposals to construct a fence covering hundreds of miles of the 2000 mile US – Mexican border. A border which is crossed more often that any other international border in the world. Some 350 million people crossing legally every year and up to half a million are thought to cross into the US illegally.

Physical fencing would be accompanied by a ‘virtual’ fence of cameras, sensors, aerial drones and other satellite technology, in addition to thousands more border agents. It will all cost billions of dollars.

Geographical, cultural, environmental and economic considerations are all pertinent when assessing the viability of such a huge undertaking. Much of the border territory is comprised of rugged mountains, sand dunes, canyons and rivers. Hardly conducive to fencing.

Environmentalists are gravely concerned that the fence will cause havoc. For example, the fragile wetland ecosystem of California’s Tijuana estuary, home to over 370 migratory and native bird species, would, they say, be irreparably damaged. The migratory patterns of animals such as jaguars, wolves and bobcats would also be affected.

It is true to say, however, that there is already a significant degree of environmentally damaging human detritus caused by the thousands of immigrants in the border region.

Investigations have shown that, as with the Israeli wall in Palestine, the fence would permanently divide communities and tribes whose cross-border ties are integral to their identities.

Economically, border businesses are heavily reliant on the 960,000 people who cross from one country to the other every day. In the Rio Grande Valley area of South Texas, Mexican visitors contribute about $3 billion a year to the economy, spending which supports more than 64,000 jobs. In California, the equivalent figures are $4.5 billion and 67,000 jobs.

The economic arguments for and against immigration in the US pretty much mirror those in the UK. Proponents argue that foreign born workers do the jobs in the farming, cleaning, construction and food sectors that many American workers refuse to do. They point out that, in any event, foreign workers only account for about 5% of the country’s workforce and that they contribute far more to the economy in taxes etc. than they take out in benefits.

Opponents claim that unskilled foreign workers take jobs away from the locals and drive down wages. Illegal immigration, they say, places a heavy burden on local services and contributes to rising crime rates.

Oddly enough, Bush, who supports a guest worker programme and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, finds himself on the more moderate wing of the Republican Party. The hard - liners simply want to criminalize and deport illegal entrants.

As is always the case with immigration, it creates some strange political bedfellows. Those on the humanitarian left side with free – market industrialists who want cheap labour, whilst many trade unionists and social authoritarians on the right want to close the borders.

It has surprised me that some so-called liberals here are vehemently opposed to a guest worker programme. They say that it gives carte blanche to business to exploit vulnerable and compliant Latino workers. They point to examples where the deportation of illegal Hispanic workers has forced the employers to advertise for indigenous workers at higher wage levels.

I don’t doubt that there’s a lot of truth in that but surely, if there’s a decent minimum wage (without exemptions in any sector) which is properly enforced, and proper working conditions, there doesn’t have to be exploitation at all.

Some commentators in the US call for the Mexican government to do more to enact economic reforms and create jobs for their citizens. That’s all well and good but what about the destructive affect of NAFTA on Mexican workers? In the 10 years or so following its introduction in 1994, 6 million tons of American maize was dumped on the Mexican market. The affect of this was to bring the price of maize down from 2.5 pesos a kilo to 1 peso. NAFTA is estimated to have put up to 2 million Mexican workers out of work.

Wouldn’t it be infinitely more productive for the American government to cooperate with the Mexican government and invest money in developing the Mexican economy rather than spending billions on building a fence? There can rarely have been a more futile, one – dimensional policy proposal.



AT THE CAR WASH


There are some things you just wouldn’t see in England. Not least the young woman I saw at a car wash the other day. She came in with a kid on each arm and a gun tucked into her jeans, at the back. I thought only black – eyed mafia killers tucked their weapons into their trousers like that. She saw me do the mother of all double takes and laughed. ‘Don’t worry’, she said, ‘I’ve got a license for it.’
‘Are you just sending out a message that you’re not be messed with?’ I asked
‘Yeh, that’s it Mister, right first time……..You’re not from these parts are you?’
We had a brief chat and off she went, confident that her space was not about to be invaded any time soon.

The attractive, extrovert, African - American girl on the cash register was a bundle of energy. She liked my accent and found it very funny when I said ‘Spot on’. She was a perfect example of how it’s hard to pigeonhole anyone around here. She was living with her same sex partner and 2 children from her previous heterosexual relationship. She was a creationist, who believed that God created the world 6,000 years ago, but smoked copious amounts of dope. And I found all that out in the space of 20 minutes whilst I waited for the car. What can I say? I like to get down to the nitty – gritty. No idle banter for me.