Mass immigration in the period 1945-c.70 a Essay

Was Britains approach to hatful in-migration in the stop 1945-c.70 a achiever or a failure?The question of whether Britains approach to aggregative in-migration in the catch 1945 c.1970 was a victor or a failure is no. as straightfor fightf bed as it root may seem. Unpacking the question a little leave behind help. Firstly, it is important to consider what is meant by Britain? Should it be taken to mean the g only overnment or the bulk, and which race?Britains approach baron be thought more promising to refer to establishment moreover distinctly m all British people having nought to do with government in addition encountered mussiness migration and migrants in one way or a nonher and in that respectfore can be said to have had an approach to it. Also, the judgment of a singular approach over close to 25 years is mis steer. A variety of governments were incumbent over this period and at that placefore a variety of approaches to visual modality immigrati on might be expected. British night club in akin manner experienced substantial changes from the trauma of World warfare 2, the prompt post-war period and decolonisation to the 1970s and thusly approaches and reactions amongst the people at large atomic number 18 bound to be many and change as well.Then, finally, there is the question of success and failure. In objective history how argon success and failure to be judged? thither is no truly satisfactory practise to such subjective notions. It might trump out be determined on a indemnity root, either governmental or non-governmental, but that is still a kind of narrow view. This essay will adjudicate selectively both(prenominal) governmental and non-governmental approaches to big bucks immigration into Britain from 1945-1971 in a mostly chronological frame execution, beginning with the immediate post-war period and Polish settlement, before turning to what has been termed compound or New dry land immigration. judic ature policy will be analysed as will both(prenominal) of the cordial effects of and response these to migrations. Finally, the governmental approach to mass immigration from Ire background will be examined and logical argumented with the motive examples before a conclusion and practice is attempted. It should be noted at the starting time that it is not possible in the position provide to include discussion of both immigrant existence group, nor to examine satisfactorily the responses of the population at large but the groups discussed herein have been chosen on the basis of poetry.That the reconstruction of the Britain after(prenominal) World War 2 would require comprehend was already a concern of the government in 1944, who appointed a Royal relegation to assess the matter of population. This Commission report in 1949 that immigration could be welcomed without defy if the migrants were of good human stock and were not pr scourted by their religion or look sharp f rom intermarrying with the host population and becoming co-ordinated into it. An indication of who constituted grateful migrants had already been given by the government. At the finish up of World War 2 there were perhaps 500,000 Poles in Britain. While ab initio the government favoured voluntary repatriation for the Poles, the advent and realization of a USSR dominated communist Poland was displeasing or impossible to many.Recognising the potential offered by the Poles, the Polish Resettlement Corps (PRC) was make in 1946 to help in their variation to culturedian life in Britain. This was followed in 1947 by the Polish Resettlement execution. The dependents of those who enrolled in the PRC were alike admitted to Britain and by 1948 there were approximately 114,000 enrolled in the PRC and 33,000 dependents. Layton-Henry has cogitate that, while sympathy for the Poles existed because of the war and the Soviet annexation of their country, the main reason for the roaring i ntegration of the Polish ex-servicemen and their families was the acute paucity of ride at the end of the war although there was reasonable about opposition from people and trade unions.Post-war Britain was still imperial and compound (though undergoing an ongoing process of decolonisation), if no bimestrial a power, and as British subjects colonial immigrants had the pay of access to Britain and full rights of citizenship, including take rights, the right to work in the civil service and the right to serve in the armed forces. Notable in discussions nigh colonial immigration are the western United States Indies and the Indian subcontinent and it is immigration from these areas that shall be considered below.In both the atomic number 74 Indies and the Subcontinent there was an cognizance of the labour market in Britain during the war colonial labour had been widely used, with around settlement resulting. In India, Britain had gained a temperament as a land of take out and honey and mutual knowledge was undoubtedly increased by the war. The increasing migration of westernmost Indians to Britain began in 1948, the Empire Windrush leaving capital of Jamaica on the 8th of June with 492 passengers bound for a new life with their right, and that of other citizens of colonies or race countries, to free accounting entry guaranteed by the British Nationality suffice 1948. The demand for labour in Britain and the poverty of both(prenominal) the air jacket Indies were the main factors lending to the migration, but also important was the especially Jamaican impost of labour migration.Many had traditionally gone(a) to the nearby and rich US, but this was gravely re rigided in 1952, directing migrants to the UK. Although roughly(prenominal) West Indian migration to Britain was done in the hope of better prospects, direct enlisting also took place, for example between the capital of the United Kingdom Transport Executive and the Barbadian Immi grants nexus Service and the NHS. Similarly, mass migration of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims from India and Pakistan was to increase in the 1950s and 1960s. Many factors governed this, such as the economic opportunities presented by Britain, pressure for land and un manipulation following limited industrialisation. In both sheaths, travel agents, family reunions and chain migration helped to drive numbers, with the comer of dependents often signalling a shift from fugacious to perpetual wave migration.West Indies India Pakistan assorteds Total1953 2,000 2,0001954 11,000 11,0001955 27,500 5,800 1,850 7,500 42,6501956 29,800 5,600 2,050 9,350 46,8001957 23,000 6,600 5,200 7,600 42,4001958 15,000 6,200 4,700 3,950 29,8501959 16,400 2,950 850 1,400 21,6001960 49,650 5,900 2,500 -350 57,7001961 66,300 23,750 25,100 21,250 136,4001962* 31,800 19,050 25,080 18,970 94,900 fudge 1. Estimated net immigration from the New land(* first six months)It has been said that after the war, the Brit ish mash government keep an open door policy to immigration, intentionally settling some groups and further others, although the racial discrimination of the Royal Commission Report which followed by nature from the racial discrimination strong among the government, armed forces and civil service before and during the war remained present. Of embark onicular proposition concern were the immigrants visibility and ability to plunge into British golf-club, obviously favouring white Christians. In early 1950 an interdepartmental working committee recommended discouraging colonial immigration at source, tightening up entry requirements and encouraging voluntary repatriation.The immigration of coloured people was now being seen as a problem in several areas of British life although because of the small numbers mired, the Labour government chose not to act and stamp down the traditional rights of citizens. The new materialistic government of 1951 were also concerned with avoi ding the creation of, in Churchills words, a magpie society. Both Labour and traditionalist governments from 1948-62 were involved in the complex political and ideologic racialisation of immigration policy and had by 1952 instituted some covert, and sometimes outlaw(prenominal), administrative measures to discourage drab immigration. Debate continued throughout the 1950s about non-white immigration and social problems that were, in the minds of some, intimately connected with it.Where blacks had colonized in Britain before the war, racial disfavor was already a factor but during the war, when co-operation and unity were vital, it may have fall for a time. For non-white immigrants the post-war era revealed continuing aversion and vilification from various parts of society, including in Stepney a priest who considered that blacks posed a social and moral problem. Incidents of violence occurred in the of late 1940s between whites, sometimes Irish immigrants, and non-whites in Bi rmingham, Liverpool and capital of the United Kingdom. These continued sporadically, leading to the much publicised Notting Hill and Nottingham riots in 1958 and the again in 1968.There were problems on both sides including discrimination against non-whites in employment and ho employ while some whites also worried about these issues and it seems that certain employers and landlords, pursuit to maximise their profits took advantage of the situation. patronage such extreme incidents we must contrast also the less high profile friendly and welcoming approach of some people. It would indeed be inappropriate and imprecise to generalise about the approach to mass immigration by the public and individual(a) local circumstances must invariably be considered. However, it has been said that post-war British society was still very traditional, and disdain the empire, very insular for the majority of British people. This, feature with the pride of empire and the recent belt down of Ger many, exacerbated by the natural British transcendency taught in schools, could easily lead to a negative attitude to immigrants.In 1962 the people Immigration Act was passed by a Conservative government, legally chokeing for the first time immigration from the Commonwealth. It was attacked by some sections of Labour and the media press as a response to crude racist pressures. Other Labour members, however, supported and had scarpered for stricter immigration controls, sometimes even stricter than that of 1962 and eventually Labour u-turned on the issue of repealing the Act. In fact, the looming prospect of strict regulation of immigration from the New Commonwealth speeded up immigration, in particular from the West Indies, destroying the rough balance that had existed between labour demand and supply.The overt politicisation of race and immigration is visible in the Smethwick campaign of 1964. tool Griffiths fought the Conservative campaign against Labours Patrick Gordon Walke r and was returned against the national trend. His campaign was based, as he saw it, on defend the interests of the local white majority over the influx of immigrants and he notoriously refused to doom the popular slogan If you want a nigger for a neighbour balloting Labour defending it as an chemical formula of the popular feeling about immigration. sensibly ironically, Labour introduced another Commonwealth Act in 1968 in order to restrict the entry of East African Asians who held British passports.The governmental approach to post-war mass immigration from the colonies and the Commonwealth should ultimately be viewed in the light of Irish immigration, for to 1971 the Irish were the largest immigrant minority in Britain (see Table 2). In the 1861 count 3% of the population of England and Wales were Irish and 7% in Scotland with their numbers increased to 957,830, just under 2% of the total population of majuscule Britain, in the 1971 census. In the late 1920s and 1930s some restrictions on immigration and repatriation were proposed, partly in worry at the potential effects of US immigration restrictions increasing the flow of Irish into the UK, but were never realised leave off during the war.The worries expressed by the reconvened working society in 1955 were restricted to controlling the immigration of coloured colonial and Commonwealth citizens, who were British subjects with legal rights to settle, and not with Irish immigration, think that the Irish are not whether they like it or not a different race from the ordinary inhabitants of Great Britain. That an estimated 60,000 Irish per year were migrating to Great Britain compared with far few colonial or Commonwealth citizens was evidently not the point, nor was the fact that Irish immigration also led to social tensions as the working party had itself concluded. These were later emphasize by the Commonwealth Acts, about which there was no pretence of adopting non-racist immigration contro ls by including Irish or other aliens in the legislation.Table 2. Origins and numbers of some overseas born population of Great Britain in 1971(note that immigrants may have also emigrated, therefore this table does not essay total numbers of immigrants per year of entry)In such a climate, the rise of the Conservatives Enoch Powell as a spokesman for anti-immigrant rage seems inevitable and the public response to his rivers of communication channel prediction saw his popularity in survey rise from 67 to 82% in his favour, even making him a contest for the Conservative attractership. Powell used rhetoric and recital to create an image of Britain in its dying throes through massive immigration, racial civil war and strife in which received white Britons were strangers in their own country, ousted from school, interior(a) and hospital by immigrant communities who plotted against them using the invidious tend Relations Act of 1968. The whole premise of the problem of immigran t numbers is in fact a non-starter since in the post-war era emigration from Britain has in any case generally been at a higher rate than immigration.Fortunately, racism at the highest levels was less acceptable than in former days and Powells speech was embed offensive by many of his parliamentary colleagues although 327 out of 412 Conservative constituency groups wanted all immigration stopped indefinitely and 55 wanted strict limits imposed. A Conservative victory owing in some measure to Powells dissonant if not entirely unpopular personal campaign and a promise that there would be no further large-scale permanent migration led to the Immigration Act of 1971, permutation employment vouchers with annually renewable work permits that no longer carried the right of permanent residence or the right of entry for dependants. Because of the special relationship between Britain and Ireland, no(prenominal) of this applied to Irish immigrants, suggesting that colour evil was at its he art.In conclusion, despite sign so-called open door policy to immigration, guaranteed by colonial or Commonwealth citizen rights guaranteed in 1948, the approach of successive British governments from 1945 to 1971 was to attempt to regulate mass immigration on the basis of skin colour. so it seems that in the late 1960s even Labour accommodated itself to a White Britain constitution and the difference in approach to Irish and West Indian and Indian immigrants understandably bears this out. Even today it is apparently acceptable to make a special case for the Irish who, according to Migration Watch UK only come into the same category since they were part of Great Britain for centuries despite the fact that this ignores Irish ethnicity and identity while favouring skin colour, words and historical political and economic command as reasons for some spurious sameness.An Irish anecdote illustrates the offensiveness of this, stating just because we babble English doesnt mean we are the same. Racial and immigration issues became inextricably linked and highly politicised and the prominence of Enoch Powell lead to the rise and normalisation of far right groups such as the National movement and the BNP, still active today and latterly on trial for race crimes. now the debate centres around asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, who, in the style of Powells immigrants, threaten, despite the facts, to swamp Britain, and even in the run-up to the current election the Conservative leader Michael Howard is making immigration a primeval election issue. Was the approach a success? In terms of keeping non-white colonial and New Commonwealth citizens out of Britain, no. In terms of linking and politicising immigration and racism and normalising prejudice in British society, yes.BibliographyBrown, R. 1995. racism and immigration in Britain, International collectivism Journal 68.Davies, N. 1999. The Isles. London Macmillan.Foot, P. 1965. Immigration and travel in Br itish Politics. Harmondsworth Penguin.Hiro, D. 1991. Black British White British. London Grafton.Homes, C. 1988. John marks Island Immigration and British Society, 1871-1971. London Macmillan.Layton-Henry, Z. 1992. The Politics of Immigration. Oxford Blackwell.Office of National Statistics. 2004. Populations Trends 116 (Summer 2004).Solomos, J. 1993. Race and Racism in Britain. (2nd edition) London Macmillan