A critical analysis of Hayter, Teresa, (2003), No Borders: The
Case against Immigration Controls. Feminist Review, 73, 6-18.

 

The author of this article differentiates from the rest in the
portfolio as Teresa Hayter is not considered an academic.Teresa Hayter is
advocated for anti-racism and free migration movement. She wrote three books
and campaigns for the closure of Campsfield detention centre. The article is
not considered an academic work due to lack of evidence presented. The main
argument presented in the article is that migration controls cause human
suffering, specifically for women. The author argues to reverse the control of
movement as „ controls under the apartheid, immigration controls will
eventually become untenable” (Hayter:2003).Furthermore, it argues that border
controls are becoming „increasingly harsh suffering they impose on refugees and
migrants, largely to deter other” (Hayter:2003), the author presents it as
strongest argument for abolishing migration controls. The work presents the
anti-racism, socialist point of view. In addition, it presents anti-western
inventions approach arguing that borders are one of them. However in the
abstract Teresa states that „they undermine many human rights, including
potentially those of existing residents” (Hayter:2003) which arguably are the
western invention.

 

The work presents the range arguments but, the feminist argument
is briefly presented with „women have a particularly hard time. If they have
been raped they may be unwilling, or too traumatized, to tell the usually male
and hostile immigration officials who interrogates them at the airport that
this is the case” (Hayter:2003). The argument of hostile migration officials is
the only feminist argument presented in the work.

Furthermore, it states that „ reason for opposing immigration
controls is that they are racist, and increase racism” (Hayter:2003). In
addition, the author says that „far from appeasing the racists, as was their
intention, they legitimated and fed racism” (Hayter:2003), presents the
argument that borders should reduce racism but they increase it.The argument of
racism can be evidenced with ethnic hierarchy, presented in the work of Rober
Ford which „have revealed large differences in the opposition to the various
immigrant groups, with preferences forming a consistent ‘ethnic hierarchy’ ”
(Ford:2011).

We will write a custom essay sample on
A considered an academic work due to lack
Specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page


order now

 

The next argument is economic reductionism which focus is on
„actively recruiting migrants with desired skills and thus enabling the
government to obtain the labour of people whose training and education has been
paid for(…)” (Hayter:2003).

Afterwards article discusses public expenditure with the figures
from „ a Home Office report published in 2001 estimated that in 1998/99 the
foreign-born population made a net contribution of £2.6 billion to public
finances” (Hayter:2003) continuing that „ Asylum seekers are a ‘burden’ on
public finances only because they are not allowed to work, and because in
addition the government spends 50 per cent more on its Home Office- administered
support system than it would on ordinary benefits” (Hayter:2003). This shows
that 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 protested
against sovereign and corporate forms of power which constituted them as human
waste” (Tyler:2013).  The hysteria
surrounding the assylum seekers confirms that racism with „the New Labour
government introduced six major pieces of asylum legislation variously aimed at
accelerating the asylum process, expanding detention capacity, increasing
deportations (through fast-tracking), and enforcing destitution on failed
asylum-seekers ostensibly in order to encourage them to return to countries of
origin” (Tyler:2015).

 Furthermore, the article
argues that Labour and Tories are responsible for human suffering, presenting
it with „ the Labour government, by escalating the repression against asylum
seekers and referring to them as ‘bogus’ and ‘illegal’, is at least as
responsible 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 in
spite of the loss of skilled and enterprising people” (Hayter:2003), which over
time could lead to a worsening situation in the country and increased
migration.

 

In addition, the author presents the discrimination upon grouping migrants
with „(…) ‘managed immigration’ to meet shortages of both skilled and
unskilled labour”(Hayter:2003). 
Furthermore, author states that the border control doesn’t work by „ the
government’s many new repressive measures have not reduced the numbers applying
for asylum”(Hayter:2003) and „its efforts to deter and control asylum seekers
involve ever greater abuses and cruelty” (Hayter:2003), which can be evidenced
„according to national statistics, asylum applications in the UK rose from
4,256 in 1987 to a peak of 84,130 in 2002 „ (Tyler:2015).

 

In the work author questions the divide and rule tactics of border
control. Furthermore, she detects a neo-imperialist impulse in the modern-day
economics. The similar argument is made in the work „Us and Them?”
(Anderson:2013) and in the book written by author „Open Borders: The Case
Against Immigration Controls” (Hayter:2000).

 

 

 

Word Count:  750

 

 

Reference List :

Hayter, Teresa, (2003), No Borders: The Case against Immigration
Controls. Feminist Review, 73, 6-18.

Robert,
Ford. (2011).  Acceptable and
Unacceptable Immigrants: How Opposition to Immigration in Britain is Affected
by Migrants’ Region of Orgin. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(7),
1017-1037

Teresa Hayter, 2000, Open Borders: The Case Against Immigration
Controls

Bridget Anderson, 2013, Us and Them?

Imogen Tyler 2013 Naked Protest: the maternal politics of
citizenship and revolt, Citizenship studies, 17(2), 221-226

Imogen Tyler 2015 Welcome to Britain Anti-immigrant populism and
the asylum invasion complex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A critical analysis of Nyers, Peter. (2015). Migrant Citizenship
and Autonomous Mobilties. Migration, Mobility, and Displacement , 1(1), 23-39.

 

 

This article „analyses the „autonomy of migration” literature
within migration studies and critically assesses whether the concepts from this
perspective can be mobilized to understand the political agency and
subjectivity of migrants” (Nyers:2015). In summary the article focuses on the
autonomist approach. „The autonomist approach to migration makes vital and
dynamic contributions to our understanding of migrant political agency, its
dismissal of citizenship as and exclusionary concept” (Nyers:2015). Furthermore
„article engages with approaches to citizenship that analytically privilege the
perspective 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, „this
perspective came about as a response to the „control bias” that is prevalent in
much of literature on how migrants encounter borders and border control”
(Nyers:2015), presenting the focus on how migrants are controlled. The autonomy
of migration can be described as „dazzling term, slogan, and program all at
once” (Nyers:2015). This approach was designed in order to „liberate research
and activism on migration from some of the prevailing frameworks of the
dominant approaches in migration studies” (Nyers:2015). In addition, stating
that „autonomist approach to migration emphasizes that migration is a social
fact that mobilizes a full spectrum of creativity in human agency”(Nyers:2015)
later arguing that „mobility and controls cannot be disconnected,but the way
their relationship is perceived can be changed” (Nyers:2015). The argument
against increased border control is made by the author. „More restrictive
border control policies coupled with more sophisticated technologies of
surveillance and control only serve to make migration more dangerous and life
threatening” (Nyers:2015). Furthermore author states that „autonomy of
migration approach is critical of any attempt to portray borders as
impenetrable walls”(Nyers:2015) and that „autonomist approach insists that we
reimagine and rethink what is the border and its relationship to migration”
(Nyers:2015). This presents the autonomists approach towards the borders which
can be explained by stating that there are no walls that are impenetrable and
there’s always way around them.

 

In addition, the author states that „autonomy of migration
approach 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 or
dangerous for us and further, presents the argument that every human is
different by stating that „ ‘Migrants’ politics develop their own codes, their
own practices, their own logics which are almost imperceptible from the
perspective 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 to
traditions of the political are centered upon the politics of visibility”
(Nyers:2015), with the main concept that migrant wants to make themselves
visible as a migrant.                                                               

 

Later in the work, Nyers presents the reality of migration, border
control by stating that „ the repression and violence involved in border
controls, 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 a
passport. In article passports are described „ as a „wall,” as a barrier to,
rather than enabler of rights, justice, and autonomy” (Nyers:2015) which
further presents the critique of the citizenship.

 

In addition, the article discussed acts of citizenship with „how
subjects constitute themselves as citizens” (Nyers:2015) which can be
constituted to living by the values of the country for example Britain.
Furthermore, Nyers presents the paradox of exclusionary and inclusion of citizenship
stating that „subjects claim rights and perform duties and, in doing so,
constitute themselves as citizens” (Nyers:2015) and that „Many of the social
conflicts 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 citizenship
perspective fits well with many of the aims and purposes of the autonomy of
migration approach” (Nyers:2015). 

 

The author ends his work with the statement that „Despite
autonomist hostility to the concept of citizenship as exclusionary and statist,
I have argued that this perspective is enhanced when it engages with a
reformulation of citizenship from a purely legal category to one that
emphasizes acts and other performative form of citizenship” (Nyers:2015) with
the result that„ citizenship can be remade” (Nyers:2015). Furthermore, Nyers
presents the deep knowledge and understanding of the concepts presented and the
relation between them. In this work, Nyers(2015) stresses the importance of
human agency and free will and raises important discussion on how can
citizenship be remade.

 

 

 

Word Count:  750

 

 

Reference List :

Nyers, Peter. (2015). Migrant Citizenship and Autonomous
Mobilties. Migration, Mobility, and Displacement , 1(1), 23-39.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A critical analysis of Robert, Ford. (2011). 
Acceptable and Unacceptable Immigrants: How Opposition to Immigration in
Britain is Affected by Migrants’ Region of Orgin. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies, 37(7), 1017-1037

 

 

The main point presented in the work is that „the differences in
attitudes to the various migrant groups are very large, calling into question
the reliability of analyses which employ aggregate measures of attitudes to
immigration” (Ford:2011). In the article, author states that „most existing
research has suffered from a serious methodological shortcoming: it employs
aggregate measures of attitudes to immigrants, which do not distinguish between
different migrant groups. This paper corrects this shortcoming by examining
disaggregated British attitudes to migration from seven different regions”
(Ford:2011). The methodological shortcoming mentioned by author means that
existing research obscure differences in attitudes toward migrant groups and
that it does not put insight into the different migrant groups. From the
abstract, we can also read that author questions the reliability of other
analyses which Ford backs up with an argument that migration and discrimination
was declining at the time. „Both total opposition to migration and
discrimination between migrant groups decline during the period examined”
(Ford:2011).

 

In this article, author mentions different researches and why they
are limited. In the article author acknowledges this fact with  „ when such aggregated items are analysed, we
do not know what kind of immigrants respondents had in mind when they responded
to the survey” (Ford:2011). Another limitation of the surveys is that „ the
data employed generally ask only about „immigrants” as an aggregate group,
ignoring the diversity of migration flows” (Ford:2011). In other words, Ford
emphasized the fact that those surveys ask about migrants in general and ignore
the diversity of migrants.

 

The data used in the article is „from six British Social Attitudes
surveys conducted between 1983 and 1996″ (Ford:2011).The British Social
Attitudes surveys represent the British population and the longitude study
conducted between years presented above contained the same questions over the
time. The analysis of the data „have revealed large differences in the
opposition to the various immigrant groups, with preferences forming a
consistent „ethnic hierarchy”.Table 3 shows the results of logistic regression
analysis testing the influence of education, ethnic diversity, values and
economic factors on attitudes to each immigrant group. The generationally
varying factors- education, diversity and values- have a significant effect in
all seven models. Higher education, less authoritarian and ethnocentric values,
and belonging to and ethnic minority encourage more open attitudes to all
immigrant groups, even after controlling for potentially confounding factors”
(Ford:2011). The analysis presented the estimated probability if there’s a
relationship between the independent and dependent variable which can be
conceived in the Table 3. The data presented is suggestive which means that
there’s always the probability that it might or might not occur.

 

One of the other findings presented in the article is that young
people are more tolerant towards migrations and migrants. „Younger Britons are
much less likely to hold the authoritarian and ethnocentric values strongly
correlated with both general opposition to migration and discriminatory migration
preferences” (Ford:2011).

Furthermore, throughout the work, Rober Ford presents the evidence
that „white immigrants” are preferred over the „nonwhite immigrants” which
author concludes in discussion with, „ the evidence from this analysis suggests
that the current standard practice of treating immigrants as a single mass is
mistaken and likely to produce misleading results.Disaggregating attitudes to
different migrant groups reveals large variations in opposition to different
groups. British immigration attitudes are racialised: white immigrant groups
are consistently preferred to nonwhite immigrant groups, usually by large
margins. Britons also discriminate between migrant groups within each racial
category, resulting in an „ethnic hierarchy” of immigrant groups which is
consistent across time and between generations. The overall pattern of
preferences within this hierarchy may be the result of several factors and
needs to be investigated further. I find suggestive evidence that migrants from
regions with stronger economic, cultural and political links to Britain are
generally preferred to regions without such links” (Ford:2011). In the
discussion, Ford talks about a mistake that is treating immigrants as a mass
group. In there author states that „The evidence from this analysis suggests
that the current standard practice of treating immigrants as a single mass is
mistaken 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 regions
without such links” (Ford:2011). This presents that discrimination is not
simply based on the race, as migrants with stronger political and cultural
links to Britain are also preferred. Furthermore, producing the discussion that
there might be better ways of disaggregating the migrant groups.

 

 

 

 

Word
Count:  749

 

 

Reference
List :

Robert,
Ford. (2011).  Acceptable and
Unacceptable Immigrants: How Opposition to Immigration in Britain is Affected
by Migrants’ Region of Orgin. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(7),
1017-1037

 

 

 

x

Hi!
I'm Dora!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Click here