What the Marcinelle mining disaster can teach us about today’s Los Angeles

Nothing. But what happened afterwards maybe can.

“Tutti cadav’ri! Tutti cadav’ri!” was the cry that went out on 23 August 1956, when rescuers finally reached the victims of the disaster that had unfolded at Bois du Cazier mine, just outside Charleroi in the French-speaking part of Belgium, two weeks earlier, on the 8th—“They’re all dead”. The uninitiated will ask why the rescuers gave this cry in Italian, in a French-language part of the country. The reason was, they were Italian.

Image: The Marcinelle disaster.¹

Without going into all the details, a simple human error had led to the hoist transporting—in double-decker fashion—wagons loaded with coal up from the mine’s deep seam being operated with one wagon still over the threshold of the cage. It struck the superstructure of the shaft, severing both the electrical cables and a pipe transporting hyraulic fluid. A short circuit ignited the hydraulic oil and a fire broke out, which raged uncontrollably. Of the 274 miners on shift that day, 262 perished. Just over half—136—were Italians, who had been welcomed to work in Belgium’s heavy industries—steel, cars, coal—after the collapse of Italy’s governance and the outbreak of its civil war after the Second World War. They were there by express invitation of Belgium’s government.

When it became clear to all and sundry that the Marcinelle disaster was one that had been avoidable, had certain basic safety measures been taken, such as ensuring that electricity and hydraulic oil were channelled separately, instead of being bound together, the Italian government assumed a position of righteous indignation, and the Belgian government assumed a position of rank obstinance. Instead of seeking to smoothen relations between the two nations, the Belgians redirected their efforts in recruiting foreign labour from Italy to Morocco, and thus was the path laid that led to frictions between Belgians and Moroccans.

One of the aspects of recruiting foreign labour, which may seem obvious but often gets overlooked at the time of considering how government is to fill the gaps in its workforce in certain sectors, is that labourers do not simply bring to the workplace their labour. They bring their cultures, their habits, their language, their appearance, their dress, their families and their hopes and aspirations. In return, they give their labour, receive a wage, pay tax, eventually retire, draw a pension and die. But dying on the job due to manifestly blithe attitudes to safety is not generally in the bargain.

Those outside the sector, even those who are aware of the sector’s recruitment challenges, who, if inclined, could apply to work in the sector in order to succour to its labour needs but find the work dirty or distasteful, or who don’t know anything of the work done in that sector, or of the difficulties faced by persons recruited in foreign countries coming to seek opportunity in a new country and don’t particularly care, caught up as they are in their own challenges, such as paying their taxes or claiming their benefits, as the case may be, and whose only impression of the incomers is gained when out in the streets and they note that southern, Mediterranean types tend to spend a lot of their social time out in the fresh air and sunshine, rather than cooped up in their minuscule maisons d’ouvrier see only a one-sided view of immigration. It looks culturally different. It’s not Belgian. It’s foreign. Foreign people have that in them, being foreign and all.

When the sector for which the foreigner was induced to uproot him or herself to the host country folds, as coal ultimately folded in Belgium, the workers who formerly worked in it, having paid their social security contributions, draw benefit, until they can find other work. A myth arises, which conveniently glosses over the very reason why Moroccans are in Belgium: they come in order to implant their culture, to take over and to claim benefits that are properly ours, not theirs, whereas the truth is far more often that they, or their forebears, came because they were invited to work in an industry that no longer exists, and brought their culture with them because of their ancient traditions, and there are a lot of them here now because they happen to have larger families than legacy Belgians do, a fact you can easily verify by looking at Morocco itself.

You can’t recruit half a person; not unless you divide their humanity into two halves. And that is something which people are, in fact, increasingly able to do. Whereas we like to think that the law lays down a standard for all, it doesn’t do that in people’s minds. Up there, there is one rule for us, and another rule for them. Of course, mine safety is paramount. But we don’t let foreign countries dictate to us what the standard is. Instead, we recruit workers from a country that makes no such demands.

The Marcinelle mining disaster made such an impact on Europe that it was commemorated on a ten euro coin issued by the Royal Belgian Mint in 2006, by when the mine was closed and its site had reopened (in 2002) as a museum dedicated to the 1956 disaster. Whether, by issuing the coin, the government sought to keep alive in the public’s awareness the horrors that had unfolded half a century previously in order to express contrition for the blasé attitudes it had then shown to miners’ lives or to engender interest in its new museum is for you to decide. Commemorations are intended to serve a purpose in the here and now: the reason we commemorate Armistice Day is to encourage people to sign up for the next war, since contrition fifty years after the fact is of questionable use and, well, governments only apologise once their arm has been forced half-way up their back. Because it’s for you to decide, it is also for you decide where the rights and wrongs lie in Los Angeles today.

Many immigrants living in the US cross its borders unlawfully. The reason they do it is because gaining lawful access to the US is difficult. So, they circumvent the difficulty by breaking the law. By breaking the law they render themselves liable to deportation, and that is something they are aware of. However, what drives them to break the law is necessity: the dangers they face outside the US. It seems to the observer that the US now wants to pose danger to immigrants inside the US so that the dangers outside the US pale in comparison.

If one looks at the crime of murder, the threat of incarceration, or of execution, is not always sufficient to dissuade a perpetrator from committing the act. They hope they will get away scot free. Or they kill others before they kill themselves. So, the assumption of the risk of capture cannot be legislated on; only the penalty in the event of capture and conviction can. And the severity with which penalties are administered to the guilty is frequently a question of judicial policy: the court decides how severe or lenient the penalty will be. At present, the government is implementing policy such as it would appear they do not want the courts’ intervention. The government is to decide the severity or otherwise of the manner in which its policy is implemented.

Once in the US, an unlawful immigrant nonetheless needs to eat, and they do that in many cases by working in the black market, where there are no safeguards, no fiscal or para-fiscal liabilities, no guarantees, cash paid in hand; a day-to-day existence, which entails no small risk for the employer as well. However, on the other hand, it is possible for them to work and pay tax. This surprised me, so I asked Michael D. Sellers, who had posted on the matter, to explain how it is that undocumented immigrants end up paying tax. This is what he said (at the end, he said it was a good question):

To your core question: how do undocumented immigrants pay taxes? The short answer is: many do, and often at higher rates than people realize. Here’s how:

—Payroll taxes: A large number of undocumented immigrants work using false or borrowed Social Security numbers or Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs). Employers withhold federal and state income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare—just as they would for any employee. These taxes go into the system, even though the worker will never collect Social Security benefits or receive refunds.

—ITINs: The IRS created ITINs in the 1990s so that individuals who are not eligible for a Social Security number can still file taxes. Millions of undocumented immigrants file tax returns using ITINs each year. According to the Treasury Department, ITIN filers contribute billions annually in income taxes.

—Sales, property, and excise taxes: Like everyone else, undocumented immigrants pay indirect taxes—sales tax on every purchase, gas tax, utility fees, and property tax (either directly or indirectly through rent).

So while it’s true that the IRS doesn’t know an undocumented person is undocumented, that’s not the same as saying they are invisible to the tax system. Many undocumented immigrants participate in the economy in ways that generate tax revenue—yet without access to the full benefits those taxes support. For example, they pay into Social Security, but cannot claim retirement. They help fund public schools, but cannot receive federal tuition aid. In this sense, they are often net contributors to public goods from which they are partially or wholly excluded.

That leads to your broader point—the “grey zone,” as you call it—about communal contribution versus legal status. I think you’re absolutely right that this is where U.S. and European sensibilities often diverge. In much of Europe, immigration is approached more through a statutory lens: the law defines the terms of inclusion. In the U.S., especially in the agricultural and service economies, there’s long been a tacit tolerance of de facto inclusion, even as de jure exclusion remains. That’s partly because our immigration system—particularly after 1996—closed legal pathways while still relying economically on immigrant labor.

This duality—welcoming labor but denying status—creates the very “grey zone” you’re describing. It’s a zone that’s simultaneously morally fraught and economically indispensable. And it leaves many undocumented people in a paradox: they’re inside the system enough to be taxed and targeted, but outside it when it comes to rights and recognition.

So yes, Don [another contributor who ultimatelty turned aggressive] may have a point if we assume undocumented immigrants operate entirely outside the system. But in the U.S., that’s rarely the case. The tragedy is that many are within the system just enough to be useful, but not enough to be protected.

Thanks again for the question. It’s one of the few that helps get at the underlying structure of the debate, rather than just the surface slogans.

Just enough to be useful, but not enough to be protected. Hence the similarity to Marcinelle.

The numbers of people bound in handcuffs and marched off building sites in Alabama can be viewed as indicative of the extreme measures that the government is taking, as can the use of tear gas against protestors in Paramount; or they can be seen as an indication of the extent of the problem the government is trying to combat. The answer lies somewhere between the two, just as the estimates of how many attend a march vary according to who you are, organiser or police.

The “Don” referred to raised points like: what constitutional rights has Trump abrogated? Answer: none. He has not abrogated people’s rights. Steamrollering rights is not abrogating them, and that approach demands that each individual case of abuse needs to be examined on its merits. That’s an approach that is not seemingly being taken towards protestors on the streets of Los Angeles, however, and so one is less tempted to look in detail at the actings of each individual law enforcer on those streets. This is unlike the situation with Derek Chauvin and George Floyd: Chauvin’s acts led to an examination of the way in which the police force he worked for was operated, but it didn’t implicate that force directly in the killing of Mr Floyd. In Los Angeles, I defy anyone to name a single one of the police officers, National Guard soldiers or protestors caught up in the fray and describe in detail the acts they have committed, and whether each of them was or was not valid in terms of their legal duties, their legal rights and their excusable justifications.

But that one thing, the disparity between usefulness and protection, bears a similarity to Marcinelle: that the structural problem with the status of immigrants in Los Angeles and elsewhere is being resolved by taking reourse to an overriding use of force rather than addressing the faults in the structure itself, just as instead of correcting the safety issues in mines, Belgium sought to recruit miners from countries that don’t complain. By posing the danger of deportation to a third country, into a prison designed for drug lords, and emphasising the precarious, arbitrary nature of one’s status in the US, its government is using force and fear as instruments of control and prevention, rather than relying on the judicial system to apply the relevant laws, which could be amended to cater to the reality, a path that would nevertheless be viewed by some as requiring an element of compassion. Except that compassion, like the assumption of risk, is not something one can legislate for, even if it can be the spur to actually legislating. It’s like Fred Astaire’s style: you’ve either got it or you haven’t got it.

As a footnote, Don enquired whether I was European, and, put on my guard, I asked if he intended sending a hitman for me. Yes, I’m European. He proceeded to pin me to wall with all the things that are wrong about Europe. All the bail-outs Europe had had from the magnanimous (his word) USA. There are an increasing number of Dons. An enquiry from an outsider into the nature of a dispute between two interested parties gets met with “You’re either with me or against me”, whereas all I sought to do was understand the nature of their dispute. But this is a dispute in which, increasingly, mediation, through courts or disinterested parties, is anathama.

Dons concede nothing. There is no middle ground, achievable through discussion and negotiation, and Trump is one of them—a Don. Middle ground with Trump is achieved by him withdrawing what he knows to be outrageous claims, but it is achieved through no compromise, as according to the definition of negotiation, and that is the signal feature of his entire policies: they are outrageous, so that the outrage of what he really wants, once achieved, is still a win, and not on the compromise side of his middle ground.

Where Don and Michael differed was on the extent to which immigrants working under the radar, with or without a tax contribution to the IRS, benefit the community as a whole. How can anyone know? The benefit to the community or otherwise is a product of the way in which immigrants choose/are required to work as a result of the circumstances to which they would default if they did not work in that manner. And those circumstances would be destitution or return to their homeland. But how do you measure the worth or otherwise of a structure that operates outside the bounds of measurement?

When the mobilisation went out in Russia in the autumn of 2022, many eligible young men fled for other parts, like Georgia. They lined up at the frontier to escape the draft. Some said they were right to do so, not to lend their labour to the unlawful incursion by their country into Ukraine. Others said they should be refused entry to Georgia and instead should return to Moscow and topple the Kremin’s leadership. Some viewed them as exporting Russian patriotism to Georgia; others saw them as unpatriotic cowards. Only they themselves know why they fled. If they return, they’ll be enlisted, or executed, or jailed, or they’ll die on the battlefield. At that point, it is not law that dictates their actions, but conscience and survival instincts. Can you make laws against those two fundamentals?

My parting shot to Don:

The subject here is your lot. Not my lot. Do you think that I as a European will fall for the obvious “He’ll always defend his continent” ploy? It’s shite where you are, and it’s shite here. Happy?

You’re just provoking for the sake of provoking. I’ve met you a thousand times before. You’re so respectful, always “with respect” for the author, for everyone, to begin with, then find the specious weak point, and hit the jugular, on something that’s so off topic it’s not even got a label.

This correspondence is closed.

Here’s Michael’s article, if you’re interested:

LA Protests; Trump Federalizes National Guard — What This Means

1. By Camille Detraux - http://dormirajamais.org/cincali2/, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64527850.