A Beacon of Openness and Generosity
Wail Qasim
I don’t remember my parents bringing me to London as an infant asylum seeker, but I do know we arrived in relative safety by plane. There were risks in coming to Britain to flee war in Somalia, but physically crossing the border didn’t put our lives in danger. Last year, at least 44 people died trying to cross the English Channel in small boats to seek asylum in the UK. Boris Johnson’s recent announcement that the processing of asylum seekers will be outsourced to Rwanda promises to make the journey to safety yet more dangerous for those looking to gain refuge in Britain.
The plan is the latest volley in a succession of cruelly devised Home Office schemes. Priti Patel’s ministry has in the past considered using nets and water cannon to hamper boats trying to cross the Channel. Places as various as North Sea oil rigs and Ascension Island in the South Atlantic have been touted as potential processing stations for migrants seeking asylum. Now the government has settled on a ‘new migration partnership’ with Rwanda, where tens of thousands of refugees from neighbouring states are already trying to make a home. Orphans of the 1994 genocide are apparently going to be evicted from the hostel where they live in Kigali to make way for people seeking asylum in the UK.
All these profferings from the Home Office may seem both immoral and absurd to many onlookers, but they are in keeping with the ministry’s long history of prioritising hostility over welcome. Since at least the early 1960s successive home secretaries have imposed ever stricter border controls while crafting the racist public opinion they claimed to serve. The Commonwealth Immigration Act 1962 stripped citizenship rights from subjects of the former colonies and laid the groundwork for the ongoing Windrush scandal.
The ‘hostile environment’ long precedes Theresa May’s tenure at the Home Office, let alone Patel’s. A gradual ratcheting up of hostility by successive governments, Labour as well as Conservative, has been evident for decades. There is seldom any relaxation of border policy, with each Home Office regime instead building new restrictions on top of the schemes of past administrations. Yet they easily could provide safe and open routes for those in need.
In recent weeks, when public opinion grew too vocal, a semblance of compassionate policy was introduced for those escaping war in Ukraine. Even though this has been a feeble effort, it points towards the reality that we need not choose between deadly Channel crossings and offshoring to Rwanda. If the outsourcing deal with the government in Kigali is allowed to pass unchallenged, the way to Britain will only become more dangerous. If we don’t want people to risk their lives crossing the Channel in small boats, we need to make it easier for them to come by safer routes.
In many ways my family was lucky to enter Britain in the 1990s, not least because now this is home. The suffering my home seeks to inflict on those in the same position a few decades later is brutal. ‘Our compassion may be infinite,’ Johnson says, ‘but our capacity to help people is not.’ The lack of capacity is entirely of his own making. If Britain really is a ‘beacon of openness and generosity’, it will draw back from the unusual cruelty of its current hostile trajectory.
Comments
Dr Michael Young
As an Ugandan Asian I have no objection to coloured immigration in small numbers. Our people came to Britain the 1970s and had close connections with Britain, having lived under British rule. Immigration then was small in numbers and manageable, not demographically destabilising as today.
Late news: "But mainstream democratic parties will have to sharply curb immigration in the West." It's happened.
In the end this is up to the natives, the white people. Do they care about the survival of British culture as it has been known? Are they not worried by immigrant majorities whose spokesmen in London talk of changing the street names and other historic landmarks? What if Pall Mall disappears? Oxford Street? Charing Cross? Nelson's Column? Is this OK with you? The London mayor, a man of Bangladeshi origin, is talking of changing the names of London landmarks.
Would Orwell be happy if he revisited his beloved England?
i am only a Ugandan Asian after all. It is up to you lot to act to save your culture. Not inhumanely or in fascist manner like the Le Pens but by restricting further immigration and insisting on the assimilation of immigrants already in the country.
I'm a white Ugandan Asian rapper seeking asylum from non-white Ugandan Asianland. George Orwell is my manager. My chart-topping hit, 'Britain First', has been remixed by DJ Prankster, aka Ugandan Asian, responsible for such hits as 'Waugh!' ("What is it good for? Absolutely nothing...")
I sense the derision at my capacious, voluntary musings, beholden to comforting import from Don MacLean's 1971 release 'Vincent':
"Now I understand what you tried to say to me
And how you suffered for your sanity
And how you tried to set them free
They would not listen, they did not know how..."
Alas, they are not listening now.
(Glad to say this was the only addition to said remix.)
All proceeds from this release go to Britain First ("patriotic, nationalist, conservative and traditionalist"), The National Socialist Movement (does what it says on the tin), The British National Party ("If you aren't British, get out") English Defence League ("Is there a corner of a cracked head forever England?" Ask Morrisey - definitely in the know.).
"London continued to be the region with the largest proportion of non-UK-born (37%) and non-British (22%) population."
I suspect that what you have done, if indeed you have looked up the figures at all, is to add these two percentages to come to a total of 59%.
If this is correct, and if the numbers all refer to non-whites, it would indeed be the case that 'the British capital is now majority non-white.' But this would represent a statistical blunder of the most elementary kind. The first point is that there will be a large overlap between the categories 'non UK-born' and 'non-British'. In fact, almost all the non-British total will be non-UK born, since if you are born in the UK, and one of your parents is either a UK citizen or settled in the UK, you automatically have the right to UK citizenship yourself. So the number you are referrring to is closer to 37% than 59%.
The second point is that only a proportion of the 37% will be non-white. The same document states that 'Polish is the most common non-British nationality', in the UK. The document does not give a separate number for London, but we can assume that a large number of the 37% are Polish, and those people are not 'non-white'.
I am sorry to contradict you, as you clearly hold strong beliefs and it is painful for those to come into conflict with the facts, but I suggest that one aspect of British culture you might benefit from acquiring is the practice of basing your beliefs on the empirical evidence and not preconceived beliefs.
I notice that posters here are not required to prove "I am not a robot". Until now there has never seemed a need for it. At the very least, a moderator or editor of this blog would be doing us a favour if posts which are merely re-pastings* of an earlier contribution were edited out. They're very tedious, and I suspect that that is their purpose. It smacks of the war of attrition that we see on Youtube live chats -- a quasi "denial of service".
*(The "a" is not a typo.)
So let me get this right - you are proposing to fight racism with ..... racism ? I can only hope that you were/are not a fireman.