Viewpoints Immigration and the Shaping of Britain | Immigration and the Shaping of Britain |
|
|
|
| Viewpoints | |
|
4 November 2000 "Fifty years from now Britain will still be a country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pool fillers and - as George Orwell said - 'old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist' and - if we get our way - Shakespeare still read even in school. Britain will survive unamenable in all essentials."
Immigration and nationality laws are a powerful tool in stopping various categories of people from entering. Countries everywhere will restrict people according to their wealth, profession, family ties, health and race. But in the light of the recent progress achieved by the Macpherson Inquiry on institutional racism, it is a step backwards that British immigration restrictions have been and still are largely based on race. By using its immigration laws to define the kinds of people who are wanted or unwanted, the British state has revealed the kind of society it is aiming for (Dummett 1977). From the effects of the various immigration Acts, it is evident that that Britain has been aiming for a white society. In 1914, the British Nationality Act was passed declaring the unity of British peoples around the world and that all persons born within the Empire were "equal before God and Crown" (Klug 1989). Later, the 1948 British Nationality Act reaffirmed the right of British Commonwealth citizens to settle in Britain and find work. However, when the economy took a downturn and jobs became scarce in the 50s, resentment brewed against the immigrant communities. Although Commonwealth immigrants had the legal right to live and work in Britain, they were regarded as a group that did not belong and should not have had the right to compete for jobs with 'native' British people. Faced with the pressure of this public opinion, Parliament passed the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act. British subjects no longer had an automatic right to work in Britain and had to apply for vouchers instead. The effect of the Act was to reduce the numbers of Commonwealth citizens entering the UK. However, it was soon realised that this Act also penalised white people living in the Commonwealth. To correct this oversight, Parliament brought forth the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act. The 1968 Act introduced the idea of distinguishing those Commonwealth citizens who had a "substantial connection" with Britain and those without. Those Commonwealth citizens with a substantial connection were automatically allowed to enter and settle in Britain whereas those without were restricted. The Act defined "substantial connection" as anyone having a parent or grandparent who had been born in Britain. This had the effect restricting any commonwealth citizens who were Black, Chinese or Asian, while permitting free entry for whites. The 1968 Act also had the unusual character of having been proposed, debated and passed in 3 days. The reason for the hurry was the increasing Black nationalism in East Africa where large communities of Asians lived. These Asian people were Commonwealth citizens with British passports. They were being persecuted and expelled from their homes in East Africa and it was feared that, being displaced, they would exercise their right to settle in Britain (Klug 1986). But having no "substantial connection" they were not allowed automatic entry. Hence they were rendered stateless having nothing but British passports that entitled them to settle nowhere. In 1971, the idea of "substantial connection" was developed further and clarified to put a stop, once and for all, to all immigration for settlement (TVS 1984). The 1971 Immigration Act finally reduced the status of Commonwealth citizens to that of aliens through the idea of "Patriality". Patrials were people who were UK citizens, or Commonwealth citizens with at least one UK-born parent or grandparent. Under this Act, few non-white Commonwealth citizens qualified as Patrials even if they were born in the UK. On the other hand most white Commonwealth citizens at the time, no matter where they were born, qualified as Patrials. Subsequent immigration and nationality Acts tightened up immigration practice even further along the same lines. The right to pass on British Commonwealth citizenship by descent was eventually abolished. Britain's participation in 'Fortress Europe' again targeted non-white immigration, while at the same time Britain freely opened its borders to white European immigration. Irregular application of nationality laws in the 80s and 90s also saw the denial of citizenship rights to Hong Kong Chinese while full British citizenship were given to the predominantly white people of the Falkland Islands. In pursuing an active policy of keeping non-white people out over the years, the State sends a clear message to the ethnic minority people living in Britain. The message is two-fold: that an increase in numbers of ethnic minorities is undesirable, and that non-whites are not really British and do not really belong in Britain. The existence of these immigration policies severely undermines the present move towards racial equality in Britain. These laws give an official sanction for the views of far right organisations, and they perpetuate the divisive myth that Britain is "a country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, ... and 'old maids bycicling to Holy Communion'." DUMMETT, A. (1977) "Who is my neighbour?: the race question in the UK".
Liverpool Institute of Socio-religious Studies. |
|
This
was John Major's vision of Britain in a speech he made in 1993. He paints
a suburban, middle-class, English and Christian picture of Britain. These
are what he called the "essentials" of Britishness. Other aspects of British
society would therefore seem to be non-essential, for example, important
British features such as: Scotland, young people, Islam, the inner city,
and ethnic minority communities. But no matter how subjective such pictures
of Britishness are, they are often strongly held and continually reinforced.
An effective way of reinforcing what one considers to be essential is
to identify the non-essential and to reject it. A good example of how
this works can be seen in the experience of Commonwealth immigrants to
Britain in the 20th century. 
