Mrs Thatcher and the immigrants
Alexander Chancellor
Until now only two Asian girls in England have actually been murdered by their fathers for refusing to submit to an arranged marriage, but several others have run away from their homes in Hounslciw and Southall. So a wind of change is already rustling Asian attitudes to love and marriage. This is important, of course, in the Great Immigration Debate, for the principal villain of the moment is the 'Asian male fiancé'. He is said to be exploiting the tenderness of the British heart and the liberality of our traditions to 'swamp' our indigenous communities and build dark, satanic Granthams in England's green and pleasant land. It is as well, therefore, that his days may be numbered, if not by Mrs Thatcher, by the potential brides themselves.
Fiancés are only one of the categories of immigrant on which the Tories, if theychose to be ruthless, would wield the axe, but they are the largest — five thousand of them or one fifth of a Granthamful arrive in Britain every year. And to discuss them at all is to emphasise the triviality of the Great Immigration Debate. The 'debate' is trivial first because both major parties would like, if possible, to restrict the flow of new immigrants to a trickle, and secondly because it would make no substantial difference if they did. Whatever measures are taken, Britain's coloured population will rise from nearly two million now to over three million by the end of the century. Because of its triviality, the 'debate' is boring, and it is also distasteful because of the chilling language in which it is conducted. The talk is all of vouchers, quotas and permits, as if in some international trade negotiation. There are bitter disputes about numbers, accusations of petty numerical errors. It is hard to believe that people are involved.
All this might seem to be an argument for abandoning any discussion of immigration altogether, (that is, if we accept that very little can be adieved by imposing new kinds of restriction and agree on the need to redefine British citizenship). But, of course, the 'debate' will have to continue, because immigration is an 'issue' — an 'issue' being something about which people believe they feel strongly and which sways votes. It is an issue for various reasons, but first, as Sir Ian Gilmour said in his recent book, 'British politicians of all parties in the fifties and early sixties showed themselves to be lamentably short-sighted on these questions . . . the great immigration took place without the British people feeling they had been consulted, an omission which has produced much natural resentment. (As Sir Ian points out, Enoch Powell showed no more foresight in this matter than anybody else.) To this resentment has been added another over the way in which white Englishmen have been made to believe that they have to be specially nice to the coloured population. The sympathy attracted by the repulsive Mr Kingsley Read in the `niggers, wogs and coons' case reflects a desire for greater freedom of expression. It is intolerable to people to feel that there are any limits on their freedom to express their feelings, short of incitement to break the law.
The only outlet for these resentments is, unfortunately, to demand a halt to immig
ration, however irrelevant this may be. It is
inevitable therefore, that Mrs Thatcher's intervention, with its promise of a 'clear end' to immigration supported by state ments of lamentable vagueness and inaccuracy, should be seen as a cynical attempt to attract votes to a party faltering in the opinion polls. I think this is only partly true. Mrs Thatcher actually believes what she says and is convinced that it needs saying (though the idea which possesses many politicians that immigration is something which has never been openly discussed before is a curious delusion). She appears to claim a special understanding of 'the British character', rooted in her Grantham childhood, and to feel that she has a mission to release it from its shackles and let it blossom.
That is excellent, except that in this case it is rather unfair on the Asians. The British character, as she sees it, is one formed by thrift, hard work, and independence, all qualities which are more evident at the moment among the Asians of this country than among the whites. She might not win votes by it, but she ought to give them credit for these things.
I am also willing to accept the sincerity of her declared motive for speaking out at all: 'We are not in politics to ignore people's worries: we are in politics to deal with them'. But she has thereby drawn attention to her party's impotence. Whatever measures the Tories may come up with —and they have been stampeded by her into concocting a new policy before even the Select Committee on immigration has provided them with the facts — these will not go far towards dealing with people's worries.
The final curious thing about Mrs Thatcher's performance is that she has been prepared — to so little apparent purpose — to alienate the coloured minority, so that Mr Whitelaw now has to conduct his stilted conversations with Asians in the rain. For the past two years, Conservative Central Office has pursued a policy of rapprochement with the Asians and the West Indians. It has even been quite successful. The assumption that the Tories were basically anti-immigrant was to some degree dispelled, and immigrant leaders had stopped advising their followers automatically to vote Labour. Mrs Thatcher has now booted them back into the Labour camp.
And perhaps, for she is not a callous woman, Mrs Thatcher has underestimated the effect of her remarks on coloured individuals, many of whom are beset by feelings, however exaggerated, of deep insecurity. A Pakistani friend of mine asked me seriously after Mrs Thatcher's interview whether he ought to take his family back home. It is all rather sad.
Previous page
