A critical analysis of Hayter, Teresa, (2003), No Borders: TheCase against Immigration Controls. Feminist Review, 73, 6-18. The author of this article differentiates from the rest in theportfolio as Teresa Hayter is not considered an academic.Teresa Hayter isadvocated for anti-racism and free migration movement.
She wrote three booksand campaigns for the closure of Campsfield detention centre. The article isnot considered an academic work due to lack of evidence presented. The mainargument presented in the article is that migration controls cause humansuffering, specifically for women. The author argues to reverse the control ofmovement as „ controls under the apartheid, immigration controls willeventually become untenable” (Hayter:2003).Furthermore, it argues that bordercontrols are becoming „increasingly harsh suffering they impose on refugees andmigrants, largely to deter other” (Hayter:2003), the author presents it asstrongest argument for abolishing migration controls. The work presents theanti-racism, socialist point of view. In addition, it presents anti-westerninventions approach arguing that borders are one of them.
However in theabstract Teresa states that „they undermine many human rights, includingpotentially those of existing residents” (Hayter:2003) which arguably are thewestern invention. The work presents the range arguments but, the feminist argumentis briefly presented with „women have a particularly hard time. If they havebeen raped they may be unwilling, or too traumatized, to tell the usually maleand hostile immigration officials who interrogates them at the airport thatthis is the case” (Hayter:2003). The argument of hostile migration officials isthe only feminist argument presented in the work.Furthermore, it states that „ reason for opposing immigrationcontrols is that they are racist, and increase racism” (Hayter:2003). Inaddition, the author says that „far from appeasing the racists, as was theirintention, they legitimated and fed racism” (Hayter:2003), presents theargument that borders should reduce racism but they increase it.The argument ofracism can be evidenced with ethnic hierarchy, presented in the work of RoberFord which „have revealed large differences in the opposition to the variousimmigrant groups, with preferences forming a consistent ‘ethnic hierarchy’ “(Ford:2011).
The next argument is economic reductionism which focus is on„actively recruiting migrants with desired skills and thus enabling thegovernment to obtain the labour of people whose training and education has beenpaid for(…)” (Hayter:2003).Afterwards article discusses public expenditure with the figuresfrom „ a Home Office report published in 2001 estimated that in 1998/99 theforeign-born population made a net contribution of £2.6 billion to publicfinances” (Hayter:2003) continuing that „ Asylum seekers are a ‘burden’ onpublic finances only because they are not allowed to work, and because inaddition the government spends 50 per cent more on its Home Office- administeredsupport system than it would on ordinary benefits” (Hayter:2003).
This showsthat migrants can be beneficial and problematic for the economy of the country.In addition, the argument can be further developed with „through naked revolts, they protestedagainst sovereign and corporate forms of power which constituted them as humanwaste” (Tyler:2013). The hysteriasurrounding the assylum seekers confirms that racism with „the New Labourgovernment introduced six major pieces of asylum legislation variously aimed ataccelerating the asylum process, expanding detention capacity, increasingdeportations (through fast-tracking), and enforcing destitution on failedasylum-seekers ostensibly in order to encourage them to return to countries oforigin” (Tyler:2015). Furthermore, the articleargues that Labour and Tories are responsible for human suffering, presentingit with „ the Labour government, by escalating the repression against asylumseekers and referring to them as ‘bogus’ and ‘illegal’, is at least asresponsible as Tories and the media for inciting racism” (Hayter”2003).Afterwards, the article talks about ‘brain drains’explained as„governments use their ability to cherry pick the migrants they want”(Hayter:2003). The article argues that brain drain „is probably positive inspite of the loss of skilled and enterprising people” (Hayter:2003), which overtime could lead to a worsening situation in the country and increasedmigration. In addition, the author presents the discrimination upon grouping migrantswith „(.
..) ‘managed immigration’ to meet shortages of both skilled andunskilled labour”(Hayter:2003). Furthermore, author states that the border control doesn’t work by „ thegovernment’s many new repressive measures have not reduced the numbers applyingfor asylum”(Hayter:2003) and „its efforts to deter and control asylum seekersinvolve ever greater abuses and cruelty” (Hayter:2003), which can be evidenced„according to national statistics, asylum applications in the UK rose from4,256 in 1987 to a peak of 84,130 in 2002 „ (Tyler:2015). In the work author questions the divide and rule tactics of bordercontrol. Furthermore, she detects a neo-imperialist impulse in the modern-dayeconomics.
The similar argument is made in the work „Us and Them?”(Anderson:2013) and in the book written by author „Open Borders: The CaseAgainst Immigration Controls” (Hayter:2000). Word Count: 750 Reference List :Hayter, Teresa, (2003), No Borders: The Case against ImmigrationControls. Feminist Review, 73, 6-18.Robert,Ford. (2011). Acceptable andUnacceptable Immigrants: How Opposition to Immigration in Britain is Affectedby Migrants’ Region of Orgin. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(7),1017-1037Teresa Hayter, 2000, Open Borders: The Case Against ImmigrationControlsBridget Anderson, 2013, Us and Them?Imogen Tyler 2013 Naked Protest: the maternal politics ofcitizenship and revolt, Citizenship studies, 17(2), 221-226Imogen Tyler 2015 Welcome to Britain Anti-immigrant populism andthe asylum invasion complex A critical analysis of Nyers, Peter. (2015).
Migrant Citizenshipand Autonomous Mobilties. Migration, Mobility, and Displacement , 1(1), 23-39. This article „analyses the „autonomy of migration” literaturewithin migration studies and critically assesses whether the concepts from thisperspective can be mobilized to understand the political agency andsubjectivity of migrants” (Nyers:2015). In summary the article focuses on theautonomist approach. „The autonomist approach to migration makes vital anddynamic contributions to our understanding of migrant political agency, itsdismissal of citizenship as and exclusionary concept” (Nyers:2015). Furthermore„article engages with approaches to citizenship that analytically privilege theperspective of the migrant. This is a kind of migrant citizenship „from below,”one that is attentive to the practices and political enactments of migrants”(Nyers:2015) and „with a body of schoolarship” (Nyers:2015). Furthermore, „thisperspective came about as a response to the „control bias” that is prevalent inmuch of literature on how migrants encounter borders and border control”(Nyers:2015), presenting the focus on how migrants are controlled.
The autonomyof migration can be described as „dazzling term, slogan, and program all atonce” (Nyers:2015). This approach was designed in order to „liberate researchand activism on migration from some of the prevailing frameworks of thedominant approaches in migration studies” (Nyers:2015). In addition, statingthat „autonomist approach to migration emphasizes that migration is a socialfact that mobilizes a full spectrum of creativity in human agency”(Nyers:2015)later arguing that „mobility and controls cannot be disconnected,but the waytheir relationship is perceived can be changed” (Nyers:2015). The argumentagainst increased border control is made by the author. „More restrictiveborder control policies coupled with more sophisticated technologies ofsurveillance and control only serve to make migration more dangerous and lifethreatening” (Nyers:2015). Furthermore author states that „autonomy ofmigration approach is critical of any attempt to portray borders asimpenetrable walls”(Nyers:2015) and that „autonomist approach insists that wereimagine and rethink what is the border and its relationship to migration”(Nyers:2015). This presents the autonomists approach towards the borders whichcan be explained by stating that there are no walls that are impenetrable andthere’s always way around them.
In addition, the author states that „autonomy of migrationapproach refuses to frame migration within either the discourse of victimage(migrants are powerless) or security (migrants are dangerous)” (Nyers:2015).The autonomy states that migrants doesn’t have to be in need of our help ordangerous for us and further, presents the argument that every human isdifferent by stating that „ ‘Migrants’ politics develop their own codes, theirown practices, their own logics which are almost imperceptible from theperspective of existing political action” (Nyers:2015). Another concept of autonomy puts „emphasis on migrant struggles,practices, and tactics that escape sovereign control poses a challenge totraditions of the political are centered upon the politics of visibility”(Nyers:2015), with the main concept that migrant wants to make themselvesvisible as a migrant. Later in the work, Nyers presents the reality of migration, bordercontrol by stating that „ the repression and violence involved in bordercontrols, and thus, romanticizing the experience of migration” (Nyers:2015)which presents the harsh reality of how violent migration can often get.Afterwards, the author describes another way of control which is apassport. In article passports are described „ as a „wall,” as a barrier to,rather than enabler of rights, justice, and autonomy” (Nyers:2015) whichfurther presents the critique of the citizenship. In addition, the article discussed acts of citizenship with „howsubjects constitute themselves as citizens” (Nyers:2015) which can beconstituted to living by the values of the country for example Britain.
Furthermore, Nyers presents the paradox of exclusionary and inclusion of citizenshipstating that „subjects claim rights and perform duties and, in doing so,constitute themselves as citizens” (Nyers:2015) and that „Many of the socialconflicts initiated by migrants are, after all, not about becoming citizens,but about insisting that they are already citizens”(Nyers:2015). Afterwards,article brings together both concepts with „ the acts of citizenshipperspective fits well with many of the aims and purposes of the autonomy ofmigration approach” (Nyers:2015). The author ends his work with the statement that „Despiteautonomist hostility to the concept of citizenship as exclusionary and statist,I have argued that this perspective is enhanced when it engages with areformulation of citizenship from a purely legal category to one thatemphasizes acts and other performative form of citizenship” (Nyers:2015) withthe result that„ citizenship can be remade” (Nyers:2015). Furthermore, Nyerspresents the deep knowledge and understanding of the concepts presented and therelation between them. In this work, Nyers(2015) stresses the importance ofhuman agency and free will and raises important discussion on how cancitizenship be remade.
Word Count: 750 Reference List :Nyers, Peter. (2015). Migrant Citizenship and AutonomousMobilties. Migration, Mobility, and Displacement , 1(1), 23-39.
A critical analysis of Robert, Ford. (2011). Acceptable and Unacceptable Immigrants: How Opposition to Immigration inBritain is Affected by Migrants’ Region of Orgin. Journal of Ethnic andMigration Studies, 37(7), 1017-1037 The main point presented in the work is that „the differences inattitudes to the various migrant groups are very large, calling into questionthe reliability of analyses which employ aggregate measures of attitudes toimmigration” (Ford:2011).
In the article, author states that „most existingresearch has suffered from a serious methodological shortcoming: it employsaggregate measures of attitudes to immigrants, which do not distinguish betweendifferent migrant groups. This paper corrects this shortcoming by examiningdisaggregated British attitudes to migration from seven different regions”(Ford:2011). The methodological shortcoming mentioned by author means thatexisting research obscure differences in attitudes toward migrant groups andthat it does not put insight into the different migrant groups. From theabstract, we can also read that author questions the reliability of otheranalyses which Ford backs up with an argument that migration and discriminationwas declining at the time. „Both total opposition to migration anddiscrimination between migrant groups decline during the period examined”(Ford:2011). In this article, author mentions different researches and why theyare limited.
In the article author acknowledges this fact with „ when such aggregated items are analysed, wedo not know what kind of immigrants respondents had in mind when they respondedto the survey” (Ford:2011). Another limitation of the surveys is that „ thedata employed generally ask only about „immigrants” as an aggregate group,ignoring the diversity of migration flows” (Ford:2011). In other words, Fordemphasized the fact that those surveys ask about migrants in general and ignorethe diversity of migrants.
The data used in the article is „from six British Social Attitudessurveys conducted between 1983 and 1996″ (Ford:2011).The British SocialAttitudes surveys represent the British population and the longitude studyconducted between years presented above contained the same questions over thetime. The analysis of the data „have revealed large differences in theopposition to the various immigrant groups, with preferences forming aconsistent „ethnic hierarchy”.Table 3 shows the results of logistic regressionanalysis testing the influence of education, ethnic diversity, values andeconomic factors on attitudes to each immigrant group. The generationallyvarying factors- education, diversity and values- have a significant effect inall seven models. Higher education, less authoritarian and ethnocentric values,and belonging to and ethnic minority encourage more open attitudes to allimmigrant groups, even after controlling for potentially confounding factors”(Ford:2011). The analysis presented the estimated probability if there’s arelationship between the independent and dependent variable which can beconceived in the Table 3. The data presented is suggestive which means thatthere’s always the probability that it might or might not occur.
One of the other findings presented in the article is that youngpeople are more tolerant towards migrations and migrants. „Younger Britons aremuch less likely to hold the authoritarian and ethnocentric values stronglycorrelated with both general opposition to migration and discriminatory migrationpreferences” (Ford:2011).Furthermore, throughout the work, Rober Ford presents the evidencethat „white immigrants” are preferred over the „nonwhite immigrants” whichauthor concludes in discussion with, „ the evidence from this analysis suggeststhat the current standard practice of treating immigrants as a single mass ismistaken and likely to produce misleading results.Disaggregating attitudes todifferent migrant groups reveals large variations in opposition to differentgroups. British immigration attitudes are racialised: white immigrant groupsare consistently preferred to nonwhite immigrant groups, usually by largemargins. Britons also discriminate between migrant groups within each racialcategory, resulting in an „ethnic hierarchy” of immigrant groups which isconsistent across time and between generations. The overall pattern ofpreferences within this hierarchy may be the result of several factors andneeds to be investigated further. I find suggestive evidence that migrants fromregions with stronger economic, cultural and political links to Britain aregenerally preferred to regions without such links” (Ford:2011).
In thediscussion, Ford talks about a mistake that is treating immigrants as a massgroup. In there author states that „The evidence from this analysis suggeststhat the current standard practice of treating immigrants as a single mass ismistaken and likely to produce misleading results” In addition, it finds„suggestive evidence that migrants from regions with stronger economic,cultural and political links to Britain are generally preferred to regionswithout such links” (Ford:2011). This presents that discrimination is notsimply based on the race, as migrants with stronger political and culturallinks to Britain are also preferred. Furthermore, producing the discussion thatthere might be better ways of disaggregating the migrant groups. WordCount: 749 ReferenceList :Robert,Ford.
(2011). Acceptable andUnacceptable Immigrants: How Opposition to Immigration in Britain is Affectedby Migrants’ Region of Orgin. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(7),1017-1037