| April 09, 2008 | Wednesday | Rabi-us-Sani 2, 1429 |
|
The migration debate in the West
DID you now how wide Britain is at its widest point? Or which assembly has the most powers: Parliament; Welsh; Scottish; or North Irish? What percentage of the total British population is composed of migrants?
In case you didn’t get any of these questions right, don’t worry as you are in good company. They have all been taken from the ‘Britishness’ test that all intending migrants are now required to take. A survey, conducted by a newspaper when this test was first produced, shows that even large numbers of school and university teachers could not have passed the test if they were required to take it.
This test, administered at various centres across the country, is computerised and candidates pay a fee of 34 pounds or so, and are given a time and date. They are then put in front of computer terminals, and answer the multiple choice questions. To pass, one needs to get 18 questions right out of 25.
As one would expect, aspiring British citizens are known to pay others to take the test for them. Indeed, most of the people waiting to take it outside their designated centres can be studying from their guides till the last minute. The atmosphere of nervous tension is very similar to what I remember from my university days.
Although it has never been publicly stated, one reason for conducting this test is the perceived need to block as many immigrants as possible. For years, the immigration issue has been a stick for the Tories to beat the Labour government with. Charges of being ‘soft on immigration’ can be very damaging to politicians in a Britain that has moved steadily towards the political right since Margaret Thatcher’s imperious tenure.
One reason why the subject remains high on the political agenda is the public perception that the country is being swamped by foreigners. In a televised quiz, several contestants thought the population of immigrants was over 50 per cent of the total. Of course this impression has been created by the fact that immigrants tend to congregate in certain cities and areas where they become the dominant element.
The reality is very different: out of a total population of nearly 59 million, Britain has an ethnic minority population of close to 8 per cent, or 4.6 million. This includes Asians (2.3 million); blacks (1.15 million); Chinese (247,000); other ethnic groups (230,000); and mixed race (67, 717). Pakistanis make up over 742, 000 of the Asian community.
The immigration debate was recently given a new twist by a report prepared by the economic affairs committee of the House of Lords. According to its findings, the immigrant population generates very little benefit for the larger British community. This has been severely criticised by sections of the press.
The fact is that with the expansion of the EU, the pattern of migration to Britain has changed. Now, many East Europeans come to Britain to work for a couple of years, save some money, and then return. Traditionally, migrants would put down roots, send for members of their extended families, and buy property. According to the Office for National Statistics, while 591,000 long-term immigrants entered Britain last year, 400,000 left to live abroad, leaving 191,000 as net immigrants. Out of this, 92,000 were from East Europe.
Although Britain has generally been very tolerant and accepting of this influx, many feel uneasy about the numbers of foreigners coming to these shores. They see them as being favoured for subsidised housing, and placing huge pressure on public services like the National Health Service and state schools. Indeed, racist attacks on non-white immigrants are not uncommon.
But if nothing else, Britain is a country with a long history of migration. Beginning with Picts, Saxons and Normans ,and going on to French Huguenots and European Jews, wave after wave of persecuted people have made Britain their home. After the period of decolonisation in the late Forties and
Fifties, many citizens from the ex-colonies have migrated to the UK. It was not until 1962 that the government placed limits on migration.
On one level, many native Brits applaud the multicultural society that has developed. Migrants have contributed to food, fashion and sports. They prop up the NHS and public transport. London is perhaps the most cosmopolitan city in the world, with restaurants serving food from scores of countries, and dozens of languages being spoken across the city. It has become a mosaic that represents virtually every ethnic group in the world.
But fears of the downside of unlimited immigration have been exacerbated by the violent behaviour of a small section of the Muslim population. Currently, eight Muslims are being tried for planning to bring down a number of airliners over the Atlantic nearly two years ago. Most of them were born and brought up in Britain, as were the perpetrators of the 7/7 suicide bombings in London.
The fact that many of these young men are of Pakistani descent does little to endear the community to the public at large. Indeed, in terms of proportionate numbers, there are more Pakistanis in jail today than any other group.
Other European countries report similar apprehensions about their Muslim population. France has seen much violence recently with its North African population up in arms over unemployment and poor housing conditions. Spain has witnessed devastating suicide attacks on its trains. Holland, despite its tradition of liberalism and tolerance, is going through a wrenching reappraisal of its immigration policies.
But despite these reservations and outright opposition to immigration, demographic compulsions dictate that the doors cannot be completely shut. Many Western European countries are experiencing stagnant and even declining populations. To fill jobs, they will continue to need foreigners.
Indeed, as water and food shortages grow in vast parts of the developing world, and poor governance and civil strife drive people out, legal and illegal migration to the West will grow. Desperate people are already risking their lives and spending all their savings in highly risky attempts to get into more prosperous countries. Unfortunately, far too many poor countries are in a state of meltdown and offer neither security, nor employment to huge numbers of their people. As a result, they are losing skilled and unskilled manpower at a rate they can ill afford.
There is little doubt that with time, things are likely to get worse, and not better.
