The immigration nation

by Marcus Riberg

Today’s debate on immigration seems to lie parallel to the history of multiculturalism and racism in Britain. Not many can come to definite solutions for divisions within cultures in Britain. We spoke to Dr. Liza Schuster, a sociology lecturer at City University London to try and discover how immigration in Britain all began and what it means for multiculturalism today.

Schuster says that what the many cultures’ migrants have brought to London – and many other cities in Britain – is what makes it attractive to people, tourists, and investors: “Glorious and beautiful as Oslo might be, it is ultimately a very white city. London is extraordinarily multicultural.”

She goes on to describe that the focus on London can also make the debate on migration unbalanced: “Because something like one third of London’s population are migrants, some people are saying that Britain is breaking. But places like Cumbria, Northumberland and Cornwall are all majorly white. People concentrating on London often get a skewed perspective.”

With a starting point in the 16th century, Schuster points out that England – and London in particular – has a history of taking in and utilising the skills of migrants.

Skills

She explains that one of the most prominent migrant groups to come to London were religious refugees from France. They brought with them skills in a forgotten profession, and settled in an area known to many University of the Arts London students:

“The most famous arrivals bringing in skills to London were the Protestant Huguenots. They came in the 16th and 17th century. They were religious refugees mainly from France, many of who settled in London’s Brick Lane. You can still see the French influence in some of the street names – Fournier Street, for example. The Huguenots were particularly welcome because they were lace makers. At that time lace was extremely valuable and they would teach British workers how to make it.”

Fast-forwarding to Britain’s Industrial Revolution, Schuster describes the hardship suffered by Irish migrants, who in many ways made their new country’s rise to prominence possible: “The Irish have been coming for a long time, especially since the 18th century. Britain’s industrial position was built on migrant labour and labour coming from the countryside into the cities. Back then Irish would regularly be beaten up. English workers felt like the Irish were undercutting them.”

Throughout the 20th century Britain had varied groups of migrants coming into the country. One of the more interesting groups were the Jewish refugees, who were fleeing from Russia, where they were victims of racist attacks – known in Russia as ‘pogroms’.

Here, Schuster brings in another argument and points out a similarity between the Jewish and some of the migrant communities of today:

“What’s interesting about the Jewish migrants is that they also went to Brick Lane. The established British community didn’t like the Jewish people because they stood out. The Jews, in turn, were worried about drawing too much attention to themselves – just like some communities today. A lot of migrant groups who have settled and found a job are, or have been, worried about their sheer number triggering racism, because if there are too many of them the nation will become hostile towards them. The point I would make is that every new migrant group is greeted with hostility, but after some time they are accepted and a new group will be a victim of hostility.”

Threat posed?

After the Second World War and with the introduction of the welfare state, migration was the source of many heated debates. It has been argued that migrants pose a threat to the welfare state by coming to Britain and receiving benefits without working.

Schuster objects to this argument, saying that: “Migrants are less likely than the current British to take benefits. What’s also important to point out is that migrants coming to Britain pay taxes – so they pay for the welfare state. Not only are they paying for the welfare state, they also provide skilled labour. Many migrants work as doctors or for local authorities. Without migrants we wouldn’t have the money or the workers for our welfare state. We need to remember that wealth and power has been built with the help of migrants and the nation depends on them."

“After World War Two a lot of migrants were coming from Britain’s former colonies,” Schuster says, going on to explain some of the race-based arguments concerning former colonial subjects – many of whom had fought for Britain during the war:

“Sometimes there is an argument made that our fathers and forefathers built Britain’s welfare, but it’s worth remembering that there were many colonial subjects who fought in the British Army; Indians, Nigerians, these people fought for us and that is sometimes forgotten,” she says.

She brings up the example of MV Empire Windrush, a ship that in 1948 carried the first Jamaican migrants to Britain. Describing the situation, in which legislation on migration was unknown, Schuster says that:

“The ship brought back black men from the West Indies, many of whom had been soldiers in the British Army. There were discussions in Parliament as politicians were worried because they couldn’t say ‘don’t come’, but they didn’t want them to come because they were black. Britain had a labour shortage of 500,000 workers, but they wanted mainly white European refugees to come – like Poles, people who had been displaced during the war. Parliament kept this debate relatively secret, but there was a more open debate in newspapers.”

Another recent historic example of Britain trying to keep former colonial subjects out would be the Asian East Africans living in Uganda. When Idi Amin came to power he expelled them, but, as Schuster explains, when they landed in Britain they did not receive a warm welcome: “There were people at Heathrow with signs saying ‘you’re not welcome’ and ‘go away’.”