British workers are groaning about their wages being driven down by ‘cheap’ labour from EU countries, because citizens of EU have a right to travel and work anywhere in the Union territories. But, comments Subhash Chopra, the discussion is being deflected to target comparatively fewer numbers of immigrants of a different hue

  Currently on the British political stage a play of sorts is enjoying a great run, with both the major political parties vying for attention with their own variations on the same theme. Both seem to be saying, ‘No Foreigners Please, We Are British’. But on closer view, the new play ought to be titled ‘No Coloureds Please, We Are White British.’
   The underlying theme of this play is immigration and keeping certain foreigners out. But who are these foreigners? Newcomers from Poland, Czech Republic or Slovakia, or Baltic nations such as Latvia or Lithuania, though foreigners in terms of language and custom, are not classified as such because they belong to the newly expanded EU club. Britain and France, who for long have regarded the knowledge of English or French as a special asset or welcome criterion, have waived that requirement for immigration from East Europe.
   East European migrants have been pouring into Britain over the past four years at an average of some 180,000 a year. In comparison, the inflow of non-EU immigrants from India, Pakistan, other Asian and African and Caribbean countries last year stood at a mere 12,000 — about 6.5% of those arriving from EU countries.

  Yet the political debate in the country has been increasingly focused on non-white immigrants, with both Labour and Tory parties studiously avoiding the non-white colour code in the debate. Both major parties at their annual conferences in the autumn renewed their pledge to root out any vestiges of racial discrimination while simultaneously closing all bolt holes to shut out all ‘immigrants’ who have no specialist skills or assets to benefit the British economy. Facing the barrage of Tory party and press criticism on the issue, Prime Minister Gordon Brown made the ‘Jobs for the British’ policy announcement.
   Richard Stagg, the British High Commissioner in India, in an article in the Hindustan Times sought to portray plans for new visa rules, some of them still in consultation stage, as measures to streamline the immigration system and getting the ‘balance right’. Introduction of biometric visas requiring fingerprinting and digital photographs, and simplification of some 80 categories of visas into just five classes under a new points-based system are welcome measures. So is a likely insistence on a reasonable knowledge of English language for intending immigrants as it would make life easier for the newcomers and the host community.
   But what is not welcome is the prohibitive £1000 cash bond from sponsors of visitors or guests. Apparently, the cash bond, which would be forfeited if the visitor fails to leave Britain by the visa expiry date, is to deter illegal overstayers. Another move to reduce the period of stay from six months to three months for relatives, tourists and other visitors would convey the message that visitors from Asia, Africa and the Caribbean are not very welcome. One wonders whether such rules could ever apply to visitors from the USA, Canada or Australia. A grandfather clause or reciprocity rules have always been wheeled in to circumvent the so-called non-discriminatory rules.
   But the envoy let the cat out of the bag when he pointed out that ‘fewer than half the children at school in London speak English at home as their first language’. That is the ‘imbalance’ that is worrying the political establishment.
   Yes, the composition of some of the schools a well as cities such as Leicester, Luton, Slough and parts of London is changing. The proportion of Leicester’s white population has fallen from 70.1% in 1991 to 59.9% today and is projected to fall to 52.2% by 2016, according to a Barrow Cadbury Trust study cited, without any touch of scare, by London’s Guardian newspaper. Similarly, the proportion of Greater London’s white population is predicted to fall from the current 67.5% to 60.7% by 2026.
   Rather than a cause for worry, it is a tribute to Britain’s ‘plurality’ that so many people from so many climes want to live in the country. London, like New York and other world metropolises, is a truly international city and proudly so. But bowing to the xenophobic racial lobby, the two major political parties are united in keeping the numbers of black or coloured immigrants down to a bare minimum with their strategy of allowing in only highly skilled professionals such as doctors, engineers or information technologists, besides the richer businessmen who are always welcome everywhere. For the ordinary Asian, Afro-Caribbean black or coloured folks, there is no more room at the British inn.
   For institutions such as schools, the issue calls for greater investment and effort to teach English, not whipping up scare stories. Children from Asian or Afro-Caribbean backgrounds will continue to speak in their mother-tongue at home for a generation or two, quite like their Polish, French or other EU counterparts. That is the nature of immigration and settlement where passage of time takes care of the teething troubles.
British workers are loudly crying over their wages being driven down by ‘cheap’ labour from EU countries, because citizens of EU have a right to travel and work anywhere in the Union territories. But the discussion is being deflected to target comparatively much smaller numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, of a different hue.
   Deport the illegal immigrants by all means. It might help on the margins but it will not tackle the major challenge posed by the unrestricted entry of workers from the EU. The EU arrivals may help keep Britain white and even increase attendance in Catholic churches across the country. Britain has the sovereign right to stop black and coloured immigrants, but let it be openly declared so. Casuistry or diplomacy cannot hide the colour of the real immigration debate.
   Ironically, a Christmas Eve message from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowen Williams, published in The Times of London, said: ‘The door of Jesus’ stable is open and anyone can come in and sit down.’ Not so the stable door of Fortress Britain!

Subhash Chopra is a freelance journalist and the author of India and Britannia: An Abiding Affair.

top