This is a joint statement to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, by Black South West Network (BSWN) and Bristol’s Commission on Race Equality (CoRE). In the context of the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on BAME people and the Black Lives Matter protests, issues of race equity are at the forefront of public discourse. We therefore welcome the EHRC review, Public Sector Equality Duty assessment of hostile environment policies (November 2020), which will act as a point of reference on which to build and respond to the voices of the marginalised, and we look forward to seeing its recommendations implemented.
The ‘hostile environment’ or ‘compliant environment’ policy include measures which seek to restrict illegal immigrants renting property in the UK, driving, having bank accounts, accessing benefits, and healthcare. Convinced that immigrants take jobs away from “native” workers, are a drain on public resources, and are a threat to national culture, Britain’s attitude toward immigration is among the most hostile in the West. The negative experiences of the Windrush generation due to the government’s hostile environment has not happened in isolation. The report’s assertion that, ‘the Home Office did not give sufficient attention to understanding the potential impacts of the hostile environment policies for the Windrush generation, even though they were foreseeable’, is not new but is instead a continuation of Britain’s racist immigration policies throughout the 20th and 21st century. The different phases of British history have led to different policy responses to migration ultimately forming the current body of law we see today. As Colin Yeo, an immigration and asylum barrister, notes: Every country has immigration laws but the difference between Britain and other countries lies in the extent of the empire and the legal fictions that underpinned it which have led to racism, xenophobia, and a fear of losing jobs and the 'British way of life'.
As we see in today’s hostile environment, when the Aliens Act (1905) was introduced, the call to restrict alien immigration was not neutral or racially blind. This act laid down the conditions of entry for any foreigner wishing to live and work in the UK. Alien immigrants were defined in the Act as a person travelling on a steerage-class ticket, i.e. someone unable to afford a cabin. This anti-alien crusade was seen in starkly racial terms. British subject status persisted under the new legal regime established by the British Nationality Act 1948, which also created and allowed for new subdivisions of citizenships within what was now the Commonwealth. As migration to Britain increased after WWII, so did the number of small ads offering rooms to rent that stipulated ‘no coloureds’ (Yeo, 2020).
The Commonwealth Immigrants Act (1962) abolished the right of British subjects to live in the United Kingdom and limited the right of residence in the United Kingdom to Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies whose passport had been issued by the United Kingdom government itself. A substantial skilled work permit scheme was introduced at the same time, which policy-makers assumed would enable white Commonwealth migrants to continue to move to the UK if they wished. The subsequent Act of 1968 was introduced to exclude from entry a relatively small number of Kenyans and Ugandans who had retained their Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies after the independence of their countries of residence and whose passports had been issued directly from London. The Immigration Act 1971 and British Nationality Act 1981 both discriminated between one type of citizen over another based on their race. They continue to form the bedrock of modern immigration and nationality law.
And this is why, as Colin Yeo explains, British immigration law and debate about immigration was and continues to be tainted by racism: Immigration laws did not divide the world into citizens who had a right to live in the country and non-citizens who did not. Instead, citizenship was massively and widely defined and then immigration laws were introduced to limit which citizens were to be allowed into the United Kingdom. These laws were devised specifically in order to prevent Black and Asian citizens from doing so.
Little is discussed of the misinformation provided by various media outlets and political representatives on migration. Immigration is often given in net figures which include not only migration into the UK but migration out of the UK as well as migration within the UK. The words used such as ‘flooding in’ of asylum seekers gives the impression of an onslaught of foreign invaders despite 86% of the worlds refugees being in the global South. Moreover, the social services available to most migrants is often non-existent. When considering those with the ‘right to live or work in the UK’, it should be noted that these rights are often complex and can occur under a wide range of circumstances such as asylum seekers, indefinite leave to remain, limited leave to remain, student visas, etc. Often many of these have no recourse to public funds and when they do, such as asylum seekers, it is limited.
Ignorance around the topic is the result of a complex set of factors but media coverage which denigrates Black and Brown ‘immigrants’ whilst favouring white ‘expats’ is certainly part of it. The contradiction that lies in liberalising economic migration from certain countries on one hand whilst deterring migration from other countries is obvious particularly in the hostile environment’s impact on Black and Brown British citizens, who are far more likely to be challenged to prove their right to live in the country and consequently be denied services than white British citizens.
Racial discrimination is woven into the system informing many of the assumptions we see today. That a white American will not overstay their visa but a Nigerian will, the UK ancestry visa or the youth mobility visa which are quite clearly for white commonwealth citizens, or indeed that racial bias in the criminal justice system is carried through to the immigration system. This can be seen in the event that that happened at Tesco, the UK’s biggest retailer, which drew accusations of racial profiling and fuelling discrimination after displaying anti-shoplifting signs in Romanian this week. By using the Romanian language, the posters singled out Romanians and were evidence of a prejudicial attitude towards the diaspora.
As Sundeep Lidher of Runnymede Trust asserts,
Historical illiteracy continues to dominate public discourse around post-1948 migrations. Stories of colonial and Commonwealth arrivals must be re-framed to recognise their status as citizen-migrants [and] unpick the complex processes that have determined who has come to be defined as ‘British’ over time, and why. Histories of empire, decolonisation, migration, racism and anti-racism are also histories of inclusion and exclusion, of both citizens and migrants. Proper engagement with these histories will help us to make better sense of how the past has shaped - and continues to shape - who 'belongs' in modern Britain. The Windrush deportations are just the tip of the iceberg.