Following on from my last article, I thought I would jot down some ideas about another one of the Tories' favourite scare stories - immigration.
If you listen to the media and the Tories, Britain is (to use Thatcher's infamous quote) being swamped by immigrants. Our way of life is being destroyed, extremism is being fostered and our language crushed underneath a mound of 'alien' tongues. Since we have such a PC (the most dreaded insult the Mail can use) Government, none of this is fought against - indeed, Brown et al are encouraging the tide, keen through liberal self-loathing to see the end of Britain and the rise of Londonistan.
Absolute rubbish.
Anyway, now that I feel that I've stated the obvious in response to the fears, it's important to sit back and actually analyse the situation. As with crime, there is a lot of 'fear' about immigration - most of it is not necessarily based on reality, but that doesn't make it any less real for the public concerned, or any less important for politicians to take seriously.
The first thing that we have to do, and I cannot emphasise this enough, is restore the clear distinction between asylum seekers/refugees and economic migrants. Sadly, the media has used asylum seeker as shorthand for all their attacks on immigrants - descriptions of spongers, scroungers and criminals are repeated ad nauseum and have become associated with the term. Of course, the reality is that refugees and asylum seekers are defined legal terms which we, as a nation, have legal obligations in regards to. We receive very few asylum seekers and refugees - the vast majority end up in countries neighbouring the one that they have fled from - but we have international obligations to support those who seek asylum and ensure that they are protected. It is a travesty that asylum seekers are not able to work - by paying tax and earning for themselves they would contribute far more money to the Exchequer than any small measure that Liam Byrne is suggesting, along with aiding the process of integration. In addition, it would benefit the UK by capitalising upon skills and talents which are currently going to waste, allowing them to contribute to the economy at a time of downturn. However, to be able to promote this approach will require the attitudes of people to be changed - the Government can do this, but it first has to actively decide that it will promote the benefits that immigrants (both Asylum seeker/refugee and economic) bring to the nation.
In regards to economic migrants, who are a different issue for discussion, we need to open up the arena for debate. Currently, immigration is a non-debatable issue, as it is quickly stolen by extremists for their own ends. Nobody wants to get into a debate and find that they are being tarred by association with the BNP or their ilk, but if no debate is held then the lies of the BNP are given dark places to flourish. Like much fear, the fear of immigration is best countered by open discussion and exploration, by acknowledging the feelings which have legitimate roots and challenging those which have darker motives behind them. There are areas of the UK which have witnessed great changes in terms of the diversity of their population, and people do feat that which is different. Part of the problem is that these changes are often in areas which are already encountering social deprivation - diversity and immigration are therefore seen as additional strains on the system rather than possible contributions.
If we do not work on the tensions which already exist in communities, then we should not be surprised that immigration will further heighten them. We have a remnant of a working class which feels that Labour has abandoned it and nobody else is interested - apart from the BNP, who talk 'Old Labour' economics with the easy balm of providing someone to blame for everything thrown in for good measure. The lure of a scapegoat is a powerful one, particularly for people who feel disempowered in their own lives, and is a large part of the growth of the far-right in recent years. Therefore, it is vital that we ensure that we are improving life for both established and recently arrived communities. This requires publicising improvements that are made for communities, demonstrating falls in the crime rate (such as is being reported today) and listening to the concerns of those who feel alienated from society.
I think that the learning of English for immigrants is an important aspect of this. Britain has long been the subject of immigration (both military based and otherwise) and has benefited from this. Our history is one of evolution, with influences from the Continent (from Romans to Vikings to Normans to the Dutch) impacting on our development alongside the later influence of immigration from the Empire. So much of British culture has its roots elsewhere in the world, but has arrived on our shores and been developed into something unique. Therefore the different languages that come to the UK are to be welcomed and encouraged, allowing immigrants to retain the roots of their native country and to add to our own cultural mix. However, a shared language is a vital component of social interaction and community building - it empowers immigrants to contribute to society economically, socially and culturally and allows established communities to interact equally with all those around. I believe that we should increase the provision of ESOL classes to ensure that everyone has access to English classes. The Government has talked about immigrants forming a social contract with the UK when they choose to come here, and part of this should be the commitment to utilise resources for learning English - the Government would at the same time commit to providing widespread and free access. Who knows, it might prove popular with some 'Brits' too!
In terms of a contract with the UK relating to acceptance of certain cultural stipulations, I am sceptical of this. For people who have been British citizens their whole life there is widespread disagreement over what constitutes Britishness - think about topics such as the Monarchy or the future of the Union for obvious ones. We should certainly acknowledge that immigrants who choose to complete the citizenship requirements will be better qualified and knowledgeable about being British than most of us - a reflection on how much we take for granted and a sign that more education is required to increase knowledge amongst those born British.
I believe that immigration provides an important contribution and resource to this country, but I do also realise that it is an argument that still needs to be won with the British public. Papers such as the Mail pick on the extreme cases to tar all immigrants or those they define as not being truly British, such as when some Muslims object to pig-related material etc. Our shame as a Government is that we do not do enough to counter these claims, instead lowering ourselves to their level with our 'tough' stance on immigration. Locking asylum seekers up in camps is barbaric, and a disgrace to our nation, and provides fuel to the BNP.
Immigration is an opportunity, we need to make sure that we utilise it. Britain is not a fixed concept, it is an evolution and each generation contributes to that. But we should recognise that there are areas which require continued investment to improve them for those who live there already. By creating and sustaining these communities, Britain will continue to be a country that people want to live in and Britishness a state that others wish to attain.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Bravo! Great to see someone put their head above the parapet and point out that a totally undefinable concept such as Britishness (or indeed Scottishness) is unusable as any sort of standard. Creating hoops for people to jump through eg citizenship tests is a paper exercise without merit.
Thanks Adsie. National identity is always in flux, and if you put 20 people in a room we'd get about 25 definitions. The BNP have a strongly defined national identity - would we accept that? Of course not, but we head down similar lines when we try to impose a static definition on people.
As you say, citizenship tests are extremely limited in their usefulness - I'm sure Osama bin Laden could get himself to pass the test with a bit of revision, so it certainly doesn't guarantee the absence of extremism.
Post a Comment