For this post I’ve dropped the art in favour of straight up politics, but one has to flex with the inspiration. Paul Gilroy frequently uses the phrase ‘the European fortress’ in his persuasive arguments that British imperialism has not in fact come to an end but has simply morphed into something new. In many ways it is evident how the island of Britain itself is perpetually erecting and solidifying its own fortress apart from the EU even; one of the better examples being the UK Home Office’s introduction of what’s called the ‘points-based immigration’ system.
***
What is the Points-Based System for Immigration?
The latest issue of Red Pepper contains a piece by Frances Webber entitled ‘Informers in the Classroom’: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Informers-in-the-classroom
And what follows is from a blog post, a good breakdown of the lead up and transition to the policy we’re now confronted with:
The UK is an interesting example of European trends. Over the last decades it was known to be one of the major European ‘immigration countries’ owing it to its highly liberal immigration policies. Yet, the latest developments portray the British government’s increasingly strict stance on this matter.
What Led to the UK’s Make-Over ?
After the 2004 EU enlargement to ten new member states, the UK witnessed a historical immigration inflow, mainly from Central and Eastern Europe. At that time, the Labour government under Tony Blair advocated a liberal immigration policy which would pose no particular limit to the number of workers from the new EU member states. Although only 13,000 workers per year were expected, the immediate introduction of free movement of labour resulted in an inflow 20 times higher than expected. Soon, the government faced heavy criticism from the media, opposition and the electorate. In 2007, Prime Minister Gordon Brown then announced he would advocate tougher measures to protect the British labour market under the banner of ‘British jobs for British workers’. The Labour government took a major policy U-turn from a highly liberal to a rather restrictive immigration policy. Home Secretary John Reid argued that low skilled migrants must be limited. Therefore, not only did workers from Romania and Bulgaria (who joined the EU in 2007) have to apply for a work permit, but highly skilled migrants were also favoured to low-skilled migrants, who in turn were limited to certain sectors and quotas.
Policy U-Turn : The Right Choice of Direction ?
Several research institutes showed that the British government’s turn to more restrictive policies seems economically unfounded. The 2004-2006 immigration inflow has rather proven to be beneficial for the British economy. In 2006, the National Institute Economic Review (NIER) published a study which showed that the UK’s output would rise by 1 percentage point in the long-run thanks to its liberal immigration policy. Conversely, a restrictive policy as pursued in Germany would result in an output rise of only half a percentage point. Besides, several studies such as those carried out for the European Commission or by the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) showed that the side-effects of an open labour market policy feared by the UK government did not become a reality. Unemployment did not rise, the skill composition was not imbalanced, nor were national workers ‘crowded out’. If the government’s economic fears were proven wrong, what else could have motivated their case against liberalizing the labour market ?
London: Demonstration for withdrawal of British troops from Iraq
Partcipating at demonstrations regarded as criticizing the government might in future delay the application process for British citizenship. European and national public opinion polls (e.g. Eurobarometer) have shown that among European countries, the UK was one of the least supportive of EU enlargement and immigration. In 2006, a Financial Times poll showed that 3 out of 4 British respondents claimed that there are ‘too many immigrants in their country’. In reaction to such negative public opinion, the British government may have adopted more restrictive immigration policies in order to remain legitimate and popular to its electorate. Whether its reasons were purely economic or mainly political is debatable, yet the results remain the same: Immigrating to the UK is becoming increasingly difficult. In the context of the current economic recession the government argues that in these conditions Britain cannot afford to continue accepting as many immigrants as it used to.
Applying for Citizenship : ‘Geese and Skulls’
Previously, citizenship was granted to those residing in Britain for five years or for three years if married to a British citizen. Given that in 2008 half of the people granted citizenship were either spouses or children of British citizens, the government now argues that becoming ‘British’ should be based on tougher requirements than mere marital or family relations. The new rules for acquiring citizenship are reminiscent of the popular children’s game ‘Game of the Goose’. In this spiral-shaped board game players move forward by as many spaces as there are numbers on the dice until reaching the finish line. In addition to the citizenship test, which will concentrate on practical information about life in the UK and on history and politics, a new rule has been introduced: Providing that it takes effect in July 2011, a points-based system will now test applicants’ behaviour. Just as players in the Game of the Goose have to reach the finish line, applicants have to accumulate a certain amount of points to be granted British citizenship. In the game, when landing on a space with a goose, a player is granted extra spaces. Similarly, in the points-based system, applicants receive extra points by doing voluntary work, actively learning English, or if they move to areas of labour shortage (e.g. Scotland). Also, the government favours applicants demonstrating qualifications and special skills currently in demand, such as math teachers, nurses and ballet dancers. But, be aware! When landing on a space with a skull in the game, the player must move a couple of spaces back. In the points-based system, landing on the ‘skull’ is somewhat more controversial. Indeed, applicants are not only penalized for being involved in illegal or criminal behaviour: They are even castigated for participating in demonstrations (Iraq and Afghanistan wars), and if judged to fail integrating into British society or respecting British values. Although Phil Woolas, Minister of Immigration, argued that this way immigrants would prove they ‘earned’ their British passport, it seems appalling that the immigrant’s path towards citizenship would be prolonged when exercising the universal right of freedom of speech.
Game Over ?
Due to the economic recession the number of immigrants to the UK has already decreased. So whether changes to the previously rather liberal immigration policies in the UK are really a response to the recession is dubious. Rather, the underlying reason could be the ultimate will to remain in office. Whatever the rationale, an open but controlled immigration policy must clearly be in place. However, neither should an applicant have to move back to the start line for exercising his or her fundamental rights in a democratic country, nor should he or she become the loser of a game whose rules are evidently flawed. The UK is merely an example of the increasing trend to toughen immigration policies across Europe. However, in times of crisis, it won’t be long until other countries will have immigrants playing the Game of the Goose.
http://www.theeuros.eu/Goose-Chase-The-New-Immigration,3219
***
One might expect there to be little concern for the problems the immigration policy presents for the majority who are legitimately seeking an existence in the UK, especially given the recent appearance of our leading political parties on BBC’s Question Time where they quite effectively argued the BNP party’s anti-immigration stance for its leader Nick Griffin. That politicians are pandering for votes in this way suggests that we have an electorate that has been largely swayed into discomfort with – estimably due to a lack of access to information, particularly about economics in Britain – flows of migrants into and within the British fortress. But while this may seem like a digression from students I raise the image of Question Time up only to point out that there is real resistance to it, the kind which is instructive and inspiring.
Consider how overseas students coming to the UK are currently being affected by the new immigration policy as it demonstrates great potential in the way of controlling and homogenizing university demographics, tracking terrorists, and on and on. At Goldsmiths College, University of London, there is a mounting campaign against the points-system in general and its effects on overseas students; a movement which has grown largely from the experiences many students have endured as a consequence of both the design of the new Home Office policy and the Home Office’s imperfect administration of it.
The campaign is aptly named ‘Students not Suspects’ and here is a sample from their literature:
On the basis of perceived desirability (level of skill etc.), points are awarded to workers coming from outside the European Economic Area (EEA). This system is currently affecting higher education, making it more difficult for both students and staff from outside the EEA to obtain visas and subjecting them to discriminatory treatment. Persons applying for student visas must demonstrate they have approximately £17,000 in the bank, continuously for 28 days, and must in some cases register with the police. Any students and staff applying to extend their stay must submit biometric information (fingerprints and photographs) and get ID cards. Also, colleges and universities wishing to recruit students or employ staff from outside the EEA must register themselves as licensed sponsors of these individuals—which means institutions are now required to monitor students’ attendance and report them to the Border Agency when a number of ‘interactions’ (classes, tutorials, assignments, etc.) are missed and/or for ‘suspicions of breach of conditions’.
Why you should care
More than just a violation of privacy, the rules constitute a serious
threat to academic freedom and to democracy. They encourage overseas
students to be treated as potential suspects who come to the UK with the specific goal of abusing the system. The rules harm the relationship of trust between students and staff and create divisions between overseas and
EEA students. Furthermore, the introduction of biometric ID cards for foreign nationals is a backdoor route to their general application. The Home Office rules introduce yet another means of surveillance and layer of
bureaucracy. Unnecessary bureaucratic complications have already disrupted a number of students in their education and have even forced some to return home. The financial requirements make study in the UK hardly possible for students from less privileged backgrounds and/or countries with low currency exchange rates. All this fosters inequality and suspicion, dampens dialogue and international exchange, and results in a
less vibrant campus environment.
Who we are
Students not Suspects are a broad and growing coalition of students, staff and campaigners who are op- posed to the new Home Office rules. While we are our home is currently Goldsmiths (University of London), we are
appealing to, involving and acting in solidarity with anyone anywhere who is concerned about and affected by this immigration policy. What’s happening Already Goldsmiths Students’ Union has passed a motion
requesting that staff not comply with the new rules; the Goldsmiths branch of the University College Union (UCU) has adopted a policy of non-compliance with the rules; and several departments in the College have
drafted statements opposing the rules: the Centre for Cultural Studies, Media and Communications and Visual Cultures. Following a public meeting in December 2009, we are holding weekly meetings and information and
solidarity events are in the offing. We invite your participation at any and all levels.
How to get involved
To get involved, more information and/or to sign our statement of opposition: visit the blog at http://studentsnotsuspects.blogspot.com/; join us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=252057804209&ref=ts; and contact us at studentsnotsus-pects@gmail.com, especially if you’ve been affected and have a personal story to relate. In order to raise awareness of both the issue and the campaign it’s important to spread the word as widely as possible. Please engage others in discussion about the Home Office rules, the points-based immigration system more generally, and the Students not Suspects campaign.
***
I’ll admit I’m very interested in the Home Office’s new rules because their implementation suggests yet another mechanism which renders Britain a police state. While many baulk at a statement such as this – I once heard Harold Pinter being scoffed at when he advanced this very claim without equivocation – confirmation of this reality is emerging in the facts that a) universities are being solicited to turn registers over to the Home Office if asked and b) testimonials of students’ own subjection to the content of the rules and their harmful (mis)administration, those which I am told will soon be available on the websites mentioned in the ‘Students not Suspects’ literature I’ve cited above.
It’s unfortunate but ever certain that in order to discover what’s wrong with policy we need to encounter and be affected by the victims of its exercise. Thus we realize that the passport we hold enabling us to move about freely and unhindered serves only too often as a blindfold. In this way our privilege becomes a mechanism for control in the very control society which, according to Gilles Deleuze, has succeeded the disciplinary society Michel Foucault so brilliantly diagnosed.
Art & Power 2010


