The Financial Times* gave Dave™ a bit of a lecture on the politics and economics of migration yesterday, pointing out his erroneous logic and arguments but also unfortunately slipping into lazy solipcisms themselves.
"David Cameron, the Conservative leader, is wrong to back calls for capping the UK population at 70m over the next 20 years through immigration controls. The target and time frame are arbitrary. And it would be dangerously frustrating to try to limit population size by managing immigration when bigger forces are at work, notably a rising birth rate." So far, so good.
"That said, Mr Cameron is right to put immigration on his agenda. The issue matters to voters" Roughly on the par with the restoration of capital punishment, but we haven't heard him talking much about that recently (to be honest we hadn't heard him talking much about immigration recently but then again the yellow press haven't been trying to set the agenda on that recently, so we can't expect him to have thought about it).
"It also matters hugely to Britain’s future social and economic well-being." Why has no one mentioned the age-time bomb recently? All the Tory press go on about the 'problem' of the high numbers of children being born to 'immigrant' mothers (relative to the 'native-born' population), except of course when it doesn't fit their arguments about immigration cuts. Yet they fail to realise that someone is going to need to be around to care for them (or their children) in their old age, either through their taxes or as employees of the care industry. And given the rate at which the 'grey' population is swamping the country, they should be encouraging young migrants to come hither and multiply.
"While the country has seen many migrants over the centuries, recent immigration levels are unprecedented. About 10 per cent of Britons are now foreign-born, and about 30 per cent of Londoners." Unprecedented since when? Roman times? The end of the last Ice Age?
"Immigration is mostly an economic benefit, providing the UK with workers, diversifying skills (eg in languages) and expanding global contacts. Claims that immigrants as a whole are a burden on the state are wrong: the young people who predominate contribute more as taxpayers than they absorb in welfare. Moreover, the flows tend to be self-regulating, dropping in economic downturns and growing in boom years." Sound stuff.
"But there are serious social costs." Sounds ominous. "First, local authorities in high-immigration areas are swamped (sic)" - why do they always resort to the use of the pejorative phrase, why not say 'becoming overstretched' or 'oversubscribed' - "with demand for public services and housing. Next, some immigrant groups have integrated poorly (i.e. not been assimilated) into British society, notably Pakistani Muslims. Finally, some native-born (sic) groups feel swamped by the speed of recent inflows." Very Mail/Express?Telegraph-lite.
The FT's answer? "Increasing cash support for high-immigration areas (even at the expense of other localities); extending powers to inspect housing to cut over-crowding" - bit of social engineering there! - "liberalising antiquated planning laws to allow more house-building" - deregulation, ra ra! - "and tightening up on welfare fraud" - good old standby, and of course its always those pesky foreigners who are carrying out all the welfare fraud.
Then comes an argument for "stronger (targeted) immigration control policies" rather than quotas, tougher rules on the ability to speak English before entry, student visas, arranged marriage, etc.
To round it all off, the FT throw in something that no No Borderer would argue with, "In principle, migration is good. People should have the right to move around our globalising world." However, they go and spoil it all by stating, "But these rights have to be balanced against the rights of those choosing to stay put." How exactly does one balance the rights of people to totaly change their lives by moving to a completely new country with those who wish to stay where they are in a country where they wish things had never changed from when they grew up?
* Beware, the FT now have a subscription only on-line service and you will only be able to view the one article for the next 30 days without subscribing or paying for the privilege of reading their collective thought's.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Suckered
The veneer is peeling off Dave™ and the brand-spanking-apparently-new version of a very modern post-Major Tory (it should really be post-Thatcher, but the pun wouldn't work) to reveal the same old tired reactionary party pandering to the prejudices of mittle England. Yes, Dave™ has bowed to the pressure in recent days from the Tory yellow press and swallowed the myth of the 70 million, dodgy statistics and all.
And just like the yellow press, he does not know what he is talking about. For a start he can't even get the terminology right: “In the past decade, net immigration (sic) in some years has been sort of 200,000, so implying a two million increase over a decade, which I think is too much." The correct term is net migration (immigration - emigration = net migration). As this figure can be both positive (immigration > emigration) or negative (immigration < emigration), the term net immigration makes no sense whatsoever. Also his facts are WRONG. In the past decade net migration has been approximately 1.75m, not 2m.
The above quote continues: "I don't think that's unrealistic; that's the sort of figure there was in the 1990s and I think we should see that again." Or as the Express helpfully puts it, "He wants annual net immigration to return to the “tens of thousands” seen under the Thatcher and Major governments. Between 1991 and 1995 – when John Major was prime minister – it was 37,000 compared to 163,000 in 2008." In fact the total net migration for the 90's was 645,000, about 37% of the rate during the past decade. Also, the figures for the Thatcher and Major years were: '91- 43,000. '92 - 10,000, '93 - -1,200 (i.e. emigration exceeded immigration), 94 - 76,800 and 95 - 75,400. And the figures for the first full year of Nu Labour, 60,000.
Cameron also gets it wrong in a number of other ways. For example, he completely ignores the fact that the figure for the net natural population change (births - deaths) now exceeds the figure for net migration. The figures show that a similar situation existed throughout the Tory years of the 90's but the change to a Nu Labour government also saw the net natural population change exceeded by net migration. This situation reversed again last year.
Other things likely to put a spoke in the wheels of Cameron's anti-immigration policy. For a start he cannot limit the number of EU nationals that come to live and work in the UK without wrecking the basic commitment to the free movement of labour and jeopardising the UK's EU membership. He could of course restrict access for nationals from any new EU member countries (Iceland, Macedonia, Croatia, and Turkey are currently prospective members), as Nu Labour did recently.
Then there are all the many UK citizens living abroad who might just suddenly develope a sudden urge to avail themselves of the National Health Service that the Nu Tories' have recently pledged to protect. Prospective employers are also very worried about the potential effects on the ability to move workers around their multi-national empires and to be able to recruit from abroad. The there are the 39,000 people a year who come to the UK on spousal visas after marrying British citizens abroad. The list goes on...
All this is of course predicated by the Office for National Statistics projections of a UK population of 70m by 2029, which itself was based on a net migration figure peak between 2005-08. The only way this could be sustained for the next 20 years is if a country the size of Poland joined every 3 years AND Cameron did not avail himself of the 7 year restriction of movement derogation.
Naturally, Cameron also sought to try and protect his 'nice chap' image, after all he couldn't be seen to be too racist. "I'm in favour of immigration – we've benefited from immigration – but I think the pressures, particularly on our public services, have been very great. I think we should be focusing on the pressure on our public services, on health and education and housing." So why was he focusing so much on the distant sepia tones of the Thatcher and Major eras?
That's what Cameron actually had to say, what about how the papers covered it?
Almost all fell in line with Cameron's misuse of the term net (im)migration. The Guardian also managed to screw-up the ONS figures: "Office of National Statistics figures suggest that the population will rise by 9 million to reach 70 million by 2028." That was the projection released in 2008, the latest figure put back hitting the magic 70m mark to 2029.
The Times appeared to be the only paper to pick up on the net natural population change issue, except the do not know what they are talking about too. "The overwhelming majority of this growth will be driven by rising fertility — partly linked to immigrant mothers being younger and having larger families — and immigration." Come again? What else is the growth going to be driven by but immigration and the birth rate. Emigration and deaths can only decrease to population. They also fail to show that natural growth would exceed migration in the projections, but they could hardly do that considering the in a companion opinion piece from MigrationBotch's Alan Green (a conceit considering that effectively Alan Green = MigrationWatch) that contained a whopping great lie.
The piece, entitled ‘If the Tories are serious about immigration it will be in the manifesto’, replete with a Daily Mail-style photo of a Calais migrant, was a giant piece of wish fulfilment on Green's part. "This is a significant development. He does not make stray remarks on this subject. Indeed, he has hardly mentioned it since a major speech on population two years ago." "He has definitely moved the debate forwards. Instead of the usual accusations of racism* there is now a more reasoned acceptance by the political class that current rates of immigration into Britain are unsustainable." Says who?
The lie: "The latest population projections from the Office for National Statistics show that the United Kingdom’s population will reach 70 million in 20 years’ time and that just over two thirds of this increase will be because of immigration." There is absolutely no way, even with MigrationBotch's usual 'flair' for manipulation/selective use of statistics, that this is true. To directly quote the ONS' National Population Projection 2008-Based, "Of the 4.3 million projected increase in the UK population over the next 10 years, some 2.4 million (56 per cent) is a result of projected natural increase (more births than deaths) while the remaining 1.9 million (44 per cent) is the assumed net number of migrants. Similarly, of the 10.2 million projected increase in the population by 2033, 5.6 million (55 per cent) is due to projected natural increase and 4.6 million (45 per cent) is due to projected net migration."
This is a lie he has peddled before, back in October last year when the ONS released its statistics, and one which the Mail swallowed wholesale. What he is conflating here is the population growth due to net migration AND the projected natural increase by births to those people he labels as immigrants i.e. not what he would label as 'British by birth'. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.
The one other thing that the Times did, which the other dailies didn't, was to quote Alan Johnson's spokesman. "David Cameron cannot meaningfully commit to keeping Britain’s population below 70 million. Chinese-style family controls don’t exactly fit with his stated aim of rolling back the influence of the State.” Precisely, for someone who aims for a minimal state and constantly espouses delegation of central powers to local government, he is talking about an awful lot of micro-management that begins to butt up against the margins of eugenics here.
The Telegraph was of course in seventh heaven, with a slight warning note attached: "Mr Cameron is right to recognise that immigration levels should be sensitive to the requirements of a free market. Indeed, he must be careful that he does not put a cap on net inflow that stops British industry responding quickly to a sudden need for skilled workers."
"It is a shame that Mr Cameron did not discuss Europe yesterday. Our control over immigration is enormously limited by the law of the European Union, leading to scandalous abuses," referring to Pakistani men are "contracting marriages with European women they barely know." Aaargh!
Today's prize (actually yesterday's, but we had an awful lot to do yesterday) goes to the Star (Simply the best what 7 days a week?) for its coverage of events. In 'David Cameron: I Will Stem Tide Of Migrants', not only do they put words into his mouth but they can't even get the 'myth' right. "The Daily Star has already revealed the Office For National Statistics predicts the total could hit 74 million by 2029", except that they didn't. "The UK population is projected to increase from an estimated 61.4 million in 2008 to 71.6 million in 2033", it's 70m by 2029 you idiots. However, the piece de resistance was their comment 'Cameron Talks Immigration Sense'. A pity they don't.
"Hundreds of thousands of foreigners have been flooding to Britain every year. Public services like the NHS and council housing cannot cope. The whole national infrastructure could collapse. We need to close our doors. That’s what the nation wants. And that’s the pledge we’ll expect from ALL party leaders come election time." Nuff said.
* On a recent Radio 4 program Iconoclasts, he threatened to sue Philippe Legrain if he did not withdraw the comment that he (Green) was a racist. Unfortunately Legrain did. Greens argument was that because he has spent most of his life abroad living and working amongst foreigners. Surely that is exactly what all those bureaucrats and army officers did during the British Empire and no one would seriously argue that they weren't racist?
And just like the yellow press, he does not know what he is talking about. For a start he can't even get the terminology right: “In the past decade, net immigration (sic) in some years has been sort of 200,000, so implying a two million increase over a decade, which I think is too much." The correct term is net migration (immigration - emigration = net migration). As this figure can be both positive (immigration > emigration) or negative (immigration < emigration), the term net immigration makes no sense whatsoever. Also his facts are WRONG. In the past decade net migration has been approximately 1.75m, not 2m.
The above quote continues: "I don't think that's unrealistic; that's the sort of figure there was in the 1990s and I think we should see that again." Or as the Express helpfully puts it, "He wants annual net immigration to return to the “tens of thousands” seen under the Thatcher and Major governments. Between 1991 and 1995 – when John Major was prime minister – it was 37,000 compared to 163,000 in 2008." In fact the total net migration for the 90's was 645,000, about 37% of the rate during the past decade. Also, the figures for the Thatcher and Major years were: '91- 43,000. '92 - 10,000, '93 - -1,200 (i.e. emigration exceeded immigration), 94 - 76,800 and 95 - 75,400. And the figures for the first full year of Nu Labour, 60,000.
Cameron also gets it wrong in a number of other ways. For example, he completely ignores the fact that the figure for the net natural population change (births - deaths) now exceeds the figure for net migration. The figures show that a similar situation existed throughout the Tory years of the 90's but the change to a Nu Labour government also saw the net natural population change exceeded by net migration. This situation reversed again last year.
Other things likely to put a spoke in the wheels of Cameron's anti-immigration policy. For a start he cannot limit the number of EU nationals that come to live and work in the UK without wrecking the basic commitment to the free movement of labour and jeopardising the UK's EU membership. He could of course restrict access for nationals from any new EU member countries (Iceland, Macedonia, Croatia, and Turkey are currently prospective members), as Nu Labour did recently.
Then there are all the many UK citizens living abroad who might just suddenly develope a sudden urge to avail themselves of the National Health Service that the Nu Tories' have recently pledged to protect. Prospective employers are also very worried about the potential effects on the ability to move workers around their multi-national empires and to be able to recruit from abroad. The there are the 39,000 people a year who come to the UK on spousal visas after marrying British citizens abroad. The list goes on...
All this is of course predicated by the Office for National Statistics projections of a UK population of 70m by 2029, which itself was based on a net migration figure peak between 2005-08. The only way this could be sustained for the next 20 years is if a country the size of Poland joined every 3 years AND Cameron did not avail himself of the 7 year restriction of movement derogation.
Naturally, Cameron also sought to try and protect his 'nice chap' image, after all he couldn't be seen to be too racist. "I'm in favour of immigration – we've benefited from immigration – but I think the pressures, particularly on our public services, have been very great. I think we should be focusing on the pressure on our public services, on health and education and housing." So why was he focusing so much on the distant sepia tones of the Thatcher and Major eras?
That's what Cameron actually had to say, what about how the papers covered it?
Almost all fell in line with Cameron's misuse of the term net (im)migration. The Guardian also managed to screw-up the ONS figures: "Office of National Statistics figures suggest that the population will rise by 9 million to reach 70 million by 2028." That was the projection released in 2008, the latest figure put back hitting the magic 70m mark to 2029.
The Times appeared to be the only paper to pick up on the net natural population change issue, except the do not know what they are talking about too. "The overwhelming majority of this growth will be driven by rising fertility — partly linked to immigrant mothers being younger and having larger families — and immigration." Come again? What else is the growth going to be driven by but immigration and the birth rate. Emigration and deaths can only decrease to population. They also fail to show that natural growth would exceed migration in the projections, but they could hardly do that considering the in a companion opinion piece from MigrationBotch's Alan Green (a conceit considering that effectively Alan Green = MigrationWatch) that contained a whopping great lie.
The piece, entitled ‘If the Tories are serious about immigration it will be in the manifesto’, replete with a Daily Mail-style photo of a Calais migrant, was a giant piece of wish fulfilment on Green's part. "This is a significant development. He does not make stray remarks on this subject. Indeed, he has hardly mentioned it since a major speech on population two years ago." "He has definitely moved the debate forwards. Instead of the usual accusations of racism* there is now a more reasoned acceptance by the political class that current rates of immigration into Britain are unsustainable." Says who?
The lie: "The latest population projections from the Office for National Statistics show that the United Kingdom’s population will reach 70 million in 20 years’ time and that just over two thirds of this increase will be because of immigration." There is absolutely no way, even with MigrationBotch's usual 'flair' for manipulation/selective use of statistics, that this is true. To directly quote the ONS' National Population Projection 2008-Based, "Of the 4.3 million projected increase in the UK population over the next 10 years, some 2.4 million (56 per cent) is a result of projected natural increase (more births than deaths) while the remaining 1.9 million (44 per cent) is the assumed net number of migrants. Similarly, of the 10.2 million projected increase in the population by 2033, 5.6 million (55 per cent) is due to projected natural increase and 4.6 million (45 per cent) is due to projected net migration."
This is a lie he has peddled before, back in October last year when the ONS released its statistics, and one which the Mail swallowed wholesale. What he is conflating here is the population growth due to net migration AND the projected natural increase by births to those people he labels as immigrants i.e. not what he would label as 'British by birth'. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.
The one other thing that the Times did, which the other dailies didn't, was to quote Alan Johnson's spokesman. "David Cameron cannot meaningfully commit to keeping Britain’s population below 70 million. Chinese-style family controls don’t exactly fit with his stated aim of rolling back the influence of the State.” Precisely, for someone who aims for a minimal state and constantly espouses delegation of central powers to local government, he is talking about an awful lot of micro-management that begins to butt up against the margins of eugenics here.
The Telegraph was of course in seventh heaven, with a slight warning note attached: "Mr Cameron is right to recognise that immigration levels should be sensitive to the requirements of a free market. Indeed, he must be careful that he does not put a cap on net inflow that stops British industry responding quickly to a sudden need for skilled workers."
"It is a shame that Mr Cameron did not discuss Europe yesterday. Our control over immigration is enormously limited by the law of the European Union, leading to scandalous abuses," referring to Pakistani men are "contracting marriages with European women they barely know." Aaargh!
Today's prize (actually yesterday's, but we had an awful lot to do yesterday) goes to the Star (Simply the best what 7 days a week?) for its coverage of events. In 'David Cameron: I Will Stem Tide Of Migrants', not only do they put words into his mouth but they can't even get the 'myth' right. "The Daily Star has already revealed the Office For National Statistics predicts the total could hit 74 million by 2029", except that they didn't. "The UK population is projected to increase from an estimated 61.4 million in 2008 to 71.6 million in 2033", it's 70m by 2029 you idiots. However, the piece de resistance was their comment 'Cameron Talks Immigration Sense'. A pity they don't.
"Hundreds of thousands of foreigners have been flooding to Britain every year. Public services like the NHS and council housing cannot cope. The whole national infrastructure could collapse. We need to close our doors. That’s what the nation wants. And that’s the pledge we’ll expect from ALL party leaders come election time." Nuff said.
* On a recent Radio 4 program Iconoclasts, he threatened to sue Philippe Legrain if he did not withdraw the comment that he (Green) was a racist. Unfortunately Legrain did. Greens argument was that because he has spent most of his life abroad living and working amongst foreigners. Surely that is exactly what all those bureaucrats and army officers did during the British Empire and no one would seriously argue that they weren't racist?
Monday, 11 January 2010
Mercure Hotel Protest - Statement By Participants
Today a group of 10 people from Brighton No Borders took part in a peaceful protest at the Mercure Hotel, Povey Cross Road, Crawley, demonstrating against Arora Hotels International Ltd.’s plans to turn the 254-bed four-star Mercure hotel into the third immigration detention centre in the Gatwick area.
The anti-detention campaigners unfurled banners calling for an end to detention and deportation inside the hotel’s main lobby and distributed leaflets to both staff and customers explaining their reasons for opposing the application. On arrival, the demonstrators asked to speak to the Manager, who arrived quickly but refused to give any comment. Most staff seemed surprised to hear of the proposals and both customers and some staff were initially willing to listen to the demonstrators. However, the management quickly adopted heavy handed and threatening behaviour, attempting to seize banners, leaflets and cameras and on at least three occasions pushing the demonstrators. They repeated demands to leave and then called the police. The demonstrators remained in the lobby, although senior staff became increasingly abusive and began to escort passing customers out through a side door to prevent demonstrators from engaging with them or handing out leaflets.
After about 30 minutes three police vehicles arrived, at which point the demonstrators calmly left the building. They were then detained by police, while the manager made false accusations of damage to property and anti-social behaviour. The police tried to force the demonstrators to give their personal details, threatening arrest, but after a brief stand-off seemed to realise the disproportionate nature of their response and let them leave.
This demonstration was successful in drawing the hotel management’s proposals to the attention of customers and staff. Following a similar demonstration outside the Manchester branch of the hotel chain last week, it showed the company management that there is considerable opposition to the application and to their disgusting attempt to profit from the detention of children and families, the harmful impact of which has been widely reported. As the first application of this kind, we also wanted to send a clear message to the hotel industry more widely that this type of proposal will be met with strong opposition.
The application is due to be considered by Crawley Borough Council on 25 January and there will be a larger demonstration on this day.
The anti-detention campaigners unfurled banners calling for an end to detention and deportation inside the hotel’s main lobby and distributed leaflets to both staff and customers explaining their reasons for opposing the application. On arrival, the demonstrators asked to speak to the Manager, who arrived quickly but refused to give any comment. Most staff seemed surprised to hear of the proposals and both customers and some staff were initially willing to listen to the demonstrators. However, the management quickly adopted heavy handed and threatening behaviour, attempting to seize banners, leaflets and cameras and on at least three occasions pushing the demonstrators. They repeated demands to leave and then called the police. The demonstrators remained in the lobby, although senior staff became increasingly abusive and began to escort passing customers out through a side door to prevent demonstrators from engaging with them or handing out leaflets.
After about 30 minutes three police vehicles arrived, at which point the demonstrators calmly left the building. They were then detained by police, while the manager made false accusations of damage to property and anti-social behaviour. The police tried to force the demonstrators to give their personal details, threatening arrest, but after a brief stand-off seemed to realise the disproportionate nature of their response and let them leave.
This demonstration was successful in drawing the hotel management’s proposals to the attention of customers and staff. Following a similar demonstration outside the Manchester branch of the hotel chain last week, it showed the company management that there is considerable opposition to the application and to their disgusting attempt to profit from the detention of children and families, the harmful impact of which has been widely reported. As the first application of this kind, we also wanted to send a clear message to the hotel industry more widely that this type of proposal will be met with strong opposition.
The application is due to be considered by Crawley Borough Council on 25 January and there will be a larger demonstration on this day.
'Mafia' Provocation Behind 'Race Riots' In Southern Italy
More details have emerged since the 'riots' in Rosarno at the end of last week and it now appears that the attack by local youths on Friday was the final insult in a long line of provocations.
The migrants from sub-Saharan Africa have been a common site in Italy for decades. In southern Italy they move en masse from the grape harvest in Sicily, via the orange, tangerine and kiwi harvests in Calabria and the olive picking in Apulia. Local farmers have relied on them since the 'native' agricultural workforce evaporated. Instead, the 8000 or so 'clandestini' in Calabria pick fruit and vegetables for 12 to 14 hours a day for 20 to 25 euros and many are regularly forced to pay kickback of up to a quarter of their wages to local gangsters in the 'Ndrangheta, the regional version of the mafia.
They also have to pay for the squalid abandoned building that they are forced to sleep in. In Rosarno, for example, about 1,000 were living in a disused food warehouse with 8 chemical toilets, 3 showers, no electricity and, until last year, no running water. Many are paperless, are therefore illegally employed and therefore easy targets for exploitation by farmers and gangster alike. In the words of the anti-mafia priest Luigi Ciotti, "The mafia cynically exploits the immigrants. The criminal masterminds know that clandestine immigrants will not even try to revolt because they have no ID and no state protection." Robberies and beatings at gun-point are also common.
In December 2008, during the citrus harvest, an unidentified gunman walked into a factory where hundreds of the migrants were sleeping and shot 2 of them. One, a 21-year-old from the Ivory Coast, was seriously injured. As part of a peaceful protest in Rosarno, the 'clandestini' reported the attack to the police and complained about the routine robberies and shootings by 'Ndrangheta gangs they have to endure. Interestingly, one of the building they visited in that protest was the house of an old boss in the Pesce-Bellocco clan, a powerful local 'Ndrangheta, something the Calabrians would never do according to anti-mafia experts.
Now it appears that the local residents, who have for years lived peacefully alongside the seasonal migrants, turned to the 'Ndrangheta to try and drive the 'clandestini' out because of the lack of local field work. The violent reaction by the migrants to the provocation on Thursday allowed the towns people, who included a number of local 'Ndrangheta clan members according to the police, to exploit the situation and according to Luigi Manconi, a senator in the last Prodi government, turn Rosarno into "the only wholly white town in the world. Not even South African apartheid obtained such a result."
On Friday, ostensibly in response to the sit down protest by the migrants in the town square and to the cars damaged and the smashed windows, Rosarno residents occupied the town hall demanding the migrants be removed. Others armed with metal bars, wooden clubs and shotguns set up barricades and clashed with the police. Many conducted 'manhunts', beating up stray migrants. Two Africans were shot in the legs and 3 others ended up in hospital with serious injuries, one undergoing emergency brain surgery. In other incidents police arrested people for trying to run over migrants with cars and, in one case, even a bulldozer. All told, 67 people were injured: 31 immigrants, 19 police and 17 residents.
On Saturday townspeople cheered as the migrants left in buses laid on by the police, voluntarily at first but later police forcibly removed the remainder "for their own protection". Others left by train, many without collecting their pay. More than 800 were transferred to reception centres in Crotone and Bari. In Crotone, 170km away, more than half of those whose cases had been examined had temporary residence permits and will be released. The others however are destined for internment in CIEs and deportation. In scenes reminiscent of the 'Jungle' clearences in Northern France, the local Fire Brigade bulldozed the migrants' shacks and tents in the derelict factory, destroying the meagre possessions they had been forced to leave behind.
The locals were clearly happy to see the back of the 'clandestini', "We don't want them back," claimed one local landowner. "We gave the negroes clothes and food, we even gave them meals for Christmas." No one should "take us for racists" he added without recognising the irony of his comments. Also not recognising the irony of its comments, Il Giornale, the newspaper owned by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, asked on Saturday, "Rather than shooting negroes, shoot the mafia. Why won't Calabrians shoot the mafia? Immigrants are poor and weak, ugly and dirty, perfect targets ... Organised crime which keeps security forces in check is powerful, violent, revengeful and therefore must not be bothered." Clearly the Italian sense of humour does not translatte well.
Finally, on Saturday in nearby Gioia Tauro, a few miles from Rosarno, a group of men in a car shot another African man with an air rifle, showing that the 'problem' will not be solved by merely busing out the 'clandestini'. The locals may have wanted them gone but who will pick next year's harvest? Roberto Calderoli, a leading member of the Northern League suggests that with unemployment at 18% in the south, jobs should go to Italian citizens. Agricultural sector wages should be increased so that Italians would accept this type of work. Yet currently there is fruit rotting on the trees, fruit that the local farmers claim that they cannot afford to pay anyone to pick, even at slave-wage levels.
The migrants from sub-Saharan Africa have been a common site in Italy for decades. In southern Italy they move en masse from the grape harvest in Sicily, via the orange, tangerine and kiwi harvests in Calabria and the olive picking in Apulia. Local farmers have relied on them since the 'native' agricultural workforce evaporated. Instead, the 8000 or so 'clandestini' in Calabria pick fruit and vegetables for 12 to 14 hours a day for 20 to 25 euros and many are regularly forced to pay kickback of up to a quarter of their wages to local gangsters in the 'Ndrangheta, the regional version of the mafia.
They also have to pay for the squalid abandoned building that they are forced to sleep in. In Rosarno, for example, about 1,000 were living in a disused food warehouse with 8 chemical toilets, 3 showers, no electricity and, until last year, no running water. Many are paperless, are therefore illegally employed and therefore easy targets for exploitation by farmers and gangster alike. In the words of the anti-mafia priest Luigi Ciotti, "The mafia cynically exploits the immigrants. The criminal masterminds know that clandestine immigrants will not even try to revolt because they have no ID and no state protection." Robberies and beatings at gun-point are also common.
In December 2008, during the citrus harvest, an unidentified gunman walked into a factory where hundreds of the migrants were sleeping and shot 2 of them. One, a 21-year-old from the Ivory Coast, was seriously injured. As part of a peaceful protest in Rosarno, the 'clandestini' reported the attack to the police and complained about the routine robberies and shootings by 'Ndrangheta gangs they have to endure. Interestingly, one of the building they visited in that protest was the house of an old boss in the Pesce-Bellocco clan, a powerful local 'Ndrangheta, something the Calabrians would never do according to anti-mafia experts.
Now it appears that the local residents, who have for years lived peacefully alongside the seasonal migrants, turned to the 'Ndrangheta to try and drive the 'clandestini' out because of the lack of local field work. The violent reaction by the migrants to the provocation on Thursday allowed the towns people, who included a number of local 'Ndrangheta clan members according to the police, to exploit the situation and according to Luigi Manconi, a senator in the last Prodi government, turn Rosarno into "the only wholly white town in the world. Not even South African apartheid obtained such a result."
On Friday, ostensibly in response to the sit down protest by the migrants in the town square and to the cars damaged and the smashed windows, Rosarno residents occupied the town hall demanding the migrants be removed. Others armed with metal bars, wooden clubs and shotguns set up barricades and clashed with the police. Many conducted 'manhunts', beating up stray migrants. Two Africans were shot in the legs and 3 others ended up in hospital with serious injuries, one undergoing emergency brain surgery. In other incidents police arrested people for trying to run over migrants with cars and, in one case, even a bulldozer. All told, 67 people were injured: 31 immigrants, 19 police and 17 residents.
On Saturday townspeople cheered as the migrants left in buses laid on by the police, voluntarily at first but later police forcibly removed the remainder "for their own protection". Others left by train, many without collecting their pay. More than 800 were transferred to reception centres in Crotone and Bari. In Crotone, 170km away, more than half of those whose cases had been examined had temporary residence permits and will be released. The others however are destined for internment in CIEs and deportation. In scenes reminiscent of the 'Jungle' clearences in Northern France, the local Fire Brigade bulldozed the migrants' shacks and tents in the derelict factory, destroying the meagre possessions they had been forced to leave behind.
The locals were clearly happy to see the back of the 'clandestini', "We don't want them back," claimed one local landowner. "We gave the negroes clothes and food, we even gave them meals for Christmas." No one should "take us for racists" he added without recognising the irony of his comments. Also not recognising the irony of its comments, Il Giornale, the newspaper owned by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, asked on Saturday, "Rather than shooting negroes, shoot the mafia. Why won't Calabrians shoot the mafia? Immigrants are poor and weak, ugly and dirty, perfect targets ... Organised crime which keeps security forces in check is powerful, violent, revengeful and therefore must not be bothered." Clearly the Italian sense of humour does not translatte well.
Finally, on Saturday in nearby Gioia Tauro, a few miles from Rosarno, a group of men in a car shot another African man with an air rifle, showing that the 'problem' will not be solved by merely busing out the 'clandestini'. The locals may have wanted them gone but who will pick next year's harvest? Roberto Calderoli, a leading member of the Northern League suggests that with unemployment at 18% in the south, jobs should go to Italian citizens. Agricultural sector wages should be increased so that Italians would accept this type of work. Yet currently there is fruit rotting on the trees, fruit that the local farmers claim that they cannot afford to pay anyone to pick, even at slave-wage levels.
Mercure Hotel Demonstration Press Release
BECAUSE THERE IS MORE PROFIT IN HAVING GUESTS WHO CANNOT LEAVE!
The Mercure Hotel, Povey Cross Road, Crawley is currently the scene of a peaceful protest by anti-detention campaigners, demonstrating against Arora Hotels International Ltd.’s plans to turn the 254-bed four-star Mercure hotel into the third immigration detention centre in the Gatwick area. They are distributing leaflets to staff and guests, demanding that Arora drops its plans to turn one of its hotels into an immigration prison, plans that they have labelled as "just another example of cynical, profit-driven opportunism of big companies wanting a slice of the lucrative detention market."
This picket is part of an on-going campaign to pressure Arora Hotels International to drop their plans to try and profit from the imprisonment of women and children. Other Arora Hotels in London and Manchester have also been the target for protests in recent months, including the hotel chain's headquarters at Heathrow Airport.
One of the protesters, Alice Cladellas, said: "It is a disgrace that Arora are trying to profit from the misery of the women and children who are locked up in immigration prisons across the country for long periods of time. They are treated like criminals when their only 'crime' is try and find safety and a better life. Many of these children are born here and do not understand what is happening to them and many suffer permanent damage because of being locked up like this. That Crawley Council is even considering this application amazes me. They should throw it out straight away."
The plans, which include an external 5.2m high wire mesh and razor wire fence and extensive floodlighting and cctv camera system on 6m high posts, were submitted last September, are due for consideration at a Crawley Borough Council Planning Committee meeting scheduled for 25 January.
Note for Editors:
[1] The planning application and relevant details can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/AroraApp
[2] Established in 1999, Arora International Hotels is one of the UK's fastest growing privately owned hotel companies, with six luxury hotels in and around Heathrow and Gatwick airports and one in Manchester city centre. For details of the Mercure, see: http://www.mercure.com/gb/hotel-7059-mercure-london-gatwick-airport/index.shtml
[3] For more background on the application, see: http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3432
[4] Details of other actions against Arora Hotels International see: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/10/439285.html, http://london.noborders.org.uk/node/232, http://london.noborders.org.uk/node/240, http://nobordersmanchester.blogspot.com/2009/11/arora-hotels-one-for-city-of-shame.html,
http://nobordersmanchester.blogspot.com/2010/01/continued-opposition-to-arora-hotels.html
[5] The medical effects of imprisoning children are well documented and were recently highlighted in a briefing paper 'Significant Harm - the effects of administrative detention on the health of children, young people and their families' published jointly by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Royal College of General Practitioners and the Faculty of Public Health (also endorsed by the Royal College of Nursing). See: http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/texts/significant%20harm%20intercollegiate%20statement%20dec09.pdf
[6] No Borders Brighton, part of the No Borders UK network, struggles against all immigration controls and for the freedom of movement and equal rights for all. In September 2007, the No Borders UK network organised a No Border Camp near Gatwick airport in protest at plans to open a new detention centre there. Brook House was subsequently opened in March 2009, joining Tinsley House, a dedicated families and children facility, as the second detention centre in the local area.
The Mercure Hotel, Povey Cross Road, Crawley is currently the scene of a peaceful protest by anti-detention campaigners, demonstrating against Arora Hotels International Ltd.’s plans to turn the 254-bed four-star Mercure hotel into the third immigration detention centre in the Gatwick area. They are distributing leaflets to staff and guests, demanding that Arora drops its plans to turn one of its hotels into an immigration prison, plans that they have labelled as "just another example of cynical, profit-driven opportunism of big companies wanting a slice of the lucrative detention market."
This picket is part of an on-going campaign to pressure Arora Hotels International to drop their plans to try and profit from the imprisonment of women and children. Other Arora Hotels in London and Manchester have also been the target for protests in recent months, including the hotel chain's headquarters at Heathrow Airport.
One of the protesters, Alice Cladellas, said: "It is a disgrace that Arora are trying to profit from the misery of the women and children who are locked up in immigration prisons across the country for long periods of time. They are treated like criminals when their only 'crime' is try and find safety and a better life. Many of these children are born here and do not understand what is happening to them and many suffer permanent damage because of being locked up like this. That Crawley Council is even considering this application amazes me. They should throw it out straight away."
The plans, which include an external 5.2m high wire mesh and razor wire fence and extensive floodlighting and cctv camera system on 6m high posts, were submitted last September, are due for consideration at a Crawley Borough Council Planning Committee meeting scheduled for 25 January.
Note for Editors:
[1] The planning application and relevant details can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/AroraApp
[2] Established in 1999, Arora International Hotels is one of the UK's fastest growing privately owned hotel companies, with six luxury hotels in and around Heathrow and Gatwick airports and one in Manchester city centre. For details of the Mercure, see: http://www.mercure.com/gb/hotel-7059-mercure-london-gatwick-airport/index.shtml
[3] For more background on the application, see: http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3432
[4] Details of other actions against Arora Hotels International see: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/10/439285.html, http://london.noborders.org.uk/node/232, http://london.noborders.org.uk/node/240, http://nobordersmanchester.blogspot.com/2009/11/arora-hotels-one-for-city-of-shame.html,
http://nobordersmanchester.blogspot.com/2010/01/continued-opposition-to-arora-hotels.html
[5] The medical effects of imprisoning children are well documented and were recently highlighted in a briefing paper 'Significant Harm - the effects of administrative detention on the health of children, young people and their families' published jointly by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Royal College of General Practitioners and the Faculty of Public Health (also endorsed by the Royal College of Nursing). See: http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/texts/significant%20harm%20intercollegiate%20statement%20dec09.pdf
[6] No Borders Brighton, part of the No Borders UK network, struggles against all immigration controls and for the freedom of movement and equal rights for all. In September 2007, the No Borders UK network organised a No Border Camp near Gatwick airport in protest at plans to open a new detention centre there. Brook House was subsequently opened in March 2009, joining Tinsley House, a dedicated families and children facility, as the second detention centre in the local area.
Demonstration At The Mercure Hotel, Crawley
This afternoon local activists, including No Borders Brighton members held a demonstration inside the Mercure Hotel in Povey Cross Road, Crawley against the hotel's parent company's plans to turn the 254-bed four-star hotel into an immigration detention centre. The planning application by Arora International Hotels Ltd. was submitted to Crawley Borough Council last September and is due to be considered by the Council's Planning Committee on 25 January.
A dozen or so anti-detention activists unveiled a banner and leafleted the hotel's customers and staff (text below). This is the latest in an on-going campaign (previous demonstrations were held at Arora hotels in London 1, 2 and Manchester 1, 2) to pressure Arora International to withdraw their planning application.
More information and pictures to follow.
They no longer want to provide you with overnight accommodation, with food and drink, or to host your conferences and weddings. Instead they plan to go for a smaller and more select clientele, who they think they can make more profit out of.
Instead the owners of the Mercure, Arora International Hotels, want to turn it into a 254-bed detention centre and profit from the misery of the families and children that will be imprisoned there. To profit from the locking up of children whose only ‘crime’ is to be born into a family whose parent do not have the legal right to residence in the UK, who are locked up merely for the sake of the government’s ‘administrative convenience’.
Children are especially vulnerable to the physical and psychological effects of imprisonment and many end up suffering from illnesses such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), effects suffered even after a brief period of detention. Research has shown that PTSD can adversely affect children’s brains, especially the hippocampus which plays and important role in memory formation and learning.
PTSD and other health effects were highlighted last month in a briefing paper entitled 'Significant Harm - the effects of administrative detention on the health of children, young people and their families' published jointly by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Royal College of General Practitioners and the Faculty of Public Health (also endorsed by the Royal College of Nursing).
In recent months the detention of children in immigration prisons has also been criticised in other important reports:
by the Home Affairs Select Committee, in a report entitled 'The Detention of Children in the Immigration System'; The Children's Commissioner for England Alan Aynsley-Green in ‘The Arrest and Detention of Children Subject to Immigration Control’ and by Refugee and Migrant Justice, formerly the Refugee Legal Centre, in ‘Does Every Child Matter?’
Also last month nearby Tinsley House detention centre, a 146-bed dedicated families and children facility, was the subject of a damning report from HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Dame Anne Owers following an unannounced inspection in July. She condemned the conditions for children there as "wholly unacceptable". Do we need another of these monstrosities, an internment camp in everything but name, on our doorstep?
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Crawley Borough Council is holding a planning meeting on 25 January to consider Arora Hotels planning application. We ask you to complain to the council ahead of that meeting or join our picket that evening.
Jean McPherson, Principal Planning Officer: Jean.McPherson@crawley.gov.uk
Or contact one of those named below:
The Manager, Mercure Hotel:
Tel: 0129 3820169 Fax:0129 3820259
Tim Jurdon, Head of Planning, Arora Management Services Ltd: timjurdon@arorainternational.com
Phil Woolas MP, Minister of State for borders and immigration :
woolasp@parliament.uk
Bob Cotton, Chief Executive Hotel Hospitality Association:
bob.cotton@bha.org.uk.
A dozen or so anti-detention activists unveiled a banner and leafleted the hotel's customers and staff (text below). This is the latest in an on-going campaign (previous demonstrations were held at Arora hotels in London 1, 2 and Manchester 1, 2) to pressure Arora International to withdraw their planning application.
More information and pictures to follow.
MERCURE HOTEL NO LONGER WANTS YOUR CUSTOM
They no longer want to provide you with overnight accommodation, with food and drink, or to host your conferences and weddings. Instead they plan to go for a smaller and more select clientele, who they think they can make more profit out of.
Instead the owners of the Mercure, Arora International Hotels, want to turn it into a 254-bed detention centre and profit from the misery of the families and children that will be imprisoned there. To profit from the locking up of children whose only ‘crime’ is to be born into a family whose parent do not have the legal right to residence in the UK, who are locked up merely for the sake of the government’s ‘administrative convenience’.
Children are especially vulnerable to the physical and psychological effects of imprisonment and many end up suffering from illnesses such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), effects suffered even after a brief period of detention. Research has shown that PTSD can adversely affect children’s brains, especially the hippocampus which plays and important role in memory formation and learning.
PTSD and other health effects were highlighted last month in a briefing paper entitled 'Significant Harm - the effects of administrative detention on the health of children, young people and their families' published jointly by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Royal College of General Practitioners and the Faculty of Public Health (also endorsed by the Royal College of Nursing).
In recent months the detention of children in immigration prisons has also been criticised in other important reports:
by the Home Affairs Select Committee, in a report entitled 'The Detention of Children in the Immigration System'; The Children's Commissioner for England Alan Aynsley-Green in ‘The Arrest and Detention of Children Subject to Immigration Control’ and by Refugee and Migrant Justice, formerly the Refugee Legal Centre, in ‘Does Every Child Matter?’
Also last month nearby Tinsley House detention centre, a 146-bed dedicated families and children facility, was the subject of a damning report from HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Dame Anne Owers following an unannounced inspection in July. She condemned the conditions for children there as "wholly unacceptable". Do we need another of these monstrosities, an internment camp in everything but name, on our doorstep?
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Crawley Borough Council is holding a planning meeting on 25 January to consider Arora Hotels planning application. We ask you to complain to the council ahead of that meeting or join our picket that evening.
Jean McPherson, Principal Planning Officer: Jean.McPherson@crawley.gov.uk
Or contact one of those named below:
The Manager, Mercure Hotel:
Tel: 0129 3820169 Fax:0129 3820259
Tim Jurdon, Head of Planning, Arora Management Services Ltd: timjurdon@arorainternational.com
Phil Woolas MP, Minister of State for borders and immigration :
woolasp@parliament.uk
Bob Cotton, Chief Executive Hotel Hospitality Association:
bob.cotton@bha.org.uk.
Movement Issue #3 Now Available
Issue number 3 of the UK No Borders network newsletter 'Movement' is now available for download [right click on image and Save]. News covered includes COP15 reports, Calais update, Brussels No Borders Camp and much more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)