Immigration.
For many, it’s the issue that’s lasted a lifetime. While some, like me, view it as an extension of internationalism and the support of human rights, others view it as an idea to be feared and loathed, where they feel their cultures are set to be torn apart by “others” who are too barbaric ever to understand or accept Western societal views.
The fight for a respectful immigration policy is more prevalent than ever, with the current Labour Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, announcing her ‘moral mission’ to tackle illegal immigration. This mission, which she claims is ‘tearing communities apart’, involves making refugee status temporary, enforcing a regular two-and-a-half-year review for their applications, and requiring anyone arriving “illegally” to wait 20 years before they can apply for permanent settlement. These policies not only affect the individuals seeking refuge but also profoundly impact the communities they become part of.
This is a far cry from the Labour Party’s stance on immigration from the days of liberal reforming Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins. While not a supporter of unlimited immigration or open borders, Lord Jenkins was an outspoken supporter of cultural integration in a multicultural sense, referring to it as ‘equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance‘.
There were, of course, the likes of Enoch Powell, who stood opposed to such tolerant and liberal views on immigration and espoused his own ideas, most notably his ‘Rivers of Blood‘ speech, comparing the rise in immigration to Britain preparing its own funeral pyre, calling for an immediate reduction in immigration.
The Labour Party, then under Harold Wilson, condemned Powell’s speech as racist (racialist used at the time), irresponsible, and dangerous. Wilson himself stated in a public speech thereafter that he was “not prepared to stand aside and see this country engulfed by the racial conflict which calculated orators or ignorant prejudice can create“. Fast forward 57 years, and the same party that reforming Home Secretary Roy Jenkins called home, the same party that challenged Enoch Powell on his divisive racist language, has a leader and Prime Minister who called Britain an “island of strangers” in relation to our immigration system. That same party, and the very same position that Lord Jenkins undertook to build a civilised and modern society, is now being used to attack immigrants and echo the sentiments of Powell.
It is no secret that we Liberal Democrats wear our liberalism on our sleeves, but this does not, and cannot, be mistaken for weakness. Our commitment to evidence-based solutions is unwavering, and we must not allow the vitriolic language espoused by the government, the Tories and Reform to go unchallenged.
We must stand our ground, for our principles and for every single person fleeing war, famine, terror and torture, in hope of a better life. We are the party of Gladstone, of Lloyd George, of Ashdown, of Jenkins, of Kennedy. We have never been the party to walk on the other side of the road when people need help, and that must not change now.
* Jack Meredith is a member of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and an active campaigner and canvasser with Swansea and Gower Liberal Democrats. His writing focuses on democratic reform, social justice, trade unionism, economic democracy, and the institutional foundations of effective government. He has written for the Fabians, Lib Dem Voice, Liberator, Nation Cymru, Bylines Cymru, and Centre Think Tank.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
14 Comments
Hi Jack, most people support the right of refugees fleeing war and persecution to come to the UK and seek asylum here…but take a different view when they leave a safe country, like France, and then plead for safety. I would be happy to let a stranger into my house to seek safety if their was a hungry lion in the street, but I would be less inclined to let them in if they had already been in a safe house but then chose to come to my door because my house looked a more attractive place to stay.
As you say Jenkins did not support unlimited migration but you do not say what criteria you would use in sending people back. Refugees are welcome,but many are economic migrants who could have claimed asylum in France, Italy, Spain or Greece.
Jack Meredith has missed the fact that Roy Jenkins (as Chancellor of the Exchequer) kept his head down, followed the Whip, and went into the lobbies to vote for the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act. The Liberal M.P.’s went into the Noe lobby against it with David Steel as Teller.
It’s all in Hansard, Jack.
@TimRogers. Economic Migrants can’t claim asylum because they’re not refugees. Please don’t conflate asylum and economic migration, they’re not the same, although Farage and co want you to think so.
Why all the talk of France, Italy, Spain and Greece? We all know that that international law doesn’t require asylum seekers to apply at the first safe country they arrive in. How on earth would those countries cope if all the migrants, be they asylum seekers or economic, did stop there? With our very low birth rate aren’t we going to need quite a few of them anyway, just to pay for our NHS, the care system, our pensions etc etc. with their tax and NI, and through the tax and NI from those who are employed to meet their needs?
Ken Macdonald – former Lib Dem & ex head off DPP… Talking about the refugee convention.
This is the foundational problem. The definition in the Convention – that anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution is entitled to asylum – is too broad. That’s what has allowed the whole question of migration to get out of control. So millions of people are on the move who are, in reality, economic migrants, not entitled to settle in the UK. Yet they can plausibly claim that they face persecution at home and win asylum that way. If they are from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or a host of other places, who is to say they would not have a well-founded fear of persecution if they return? In this way, economic migrants magically become refugees
@Mike Taylor
“ Economic Migrants can’t claim asylum because they’re not refugees”
Forgive me disagreeing but not everyone who claims asylum is a genuine asylum seeker – some have their claims rejected because they are not genuine refugees seeking to escape persecution etc. Economic migrants who are in the UK illegally sometimes claim asylum to prevent themselves being deported, and then ‘disappear’ and don’t even turn up for the hearing to assess their claims.
Sorry jack but not all asylum seekers are genuine. Remember there are nearly 200 Sovereign independent countries in the world so why is it usually Britain that is targeted?
Tony Blair used to say that the era of tribal leadership is over and political cross-dressing was here to stay. We have to look beyond left or right. Cross-dressing has taken root not because ideological politics is dead but because one political ideology, neo-liberalism, has become dominant. All three parties sign up to its basic demands for free markets and free enterprise.
The 1962 Immigration Commonwealth Act, repealed the free movement of subjects of the British empire, migrating to the mother country. British imperial subjects now had to prove that they had a grandparent with a British passport. The fully intended consequence of this was to halt the migration to Britain by people of African or Asian heritage, with those from the white-settler colonies, South Africa, Australia, etc, being the only colonial citizens who could satisfy the criteria.
The last Commonwealth Act was passed in 1971. Britain subsequently joined the EU. Europeans who spoke entirely different languages, came from countries that Britain had in living memory gone to war with, had been prioritised for citizenship over people whose land, labour and resources literally rebuilt the Nation.
Every refugee or immigrant is an individual and as they live in their ‘new’ country they develop ties there than often, in time, exceed the ties they have with ‘home’. For those people, having deportation hanging over them as a sword of Damocles for 2 decades is just cruel.
Also the Home Secretary is proposing that a Home Office system that has spectacularly failed to keep up with processing new arrivals shall be further burdened. Where are the necessary staff and money to come from.
@David – in what sense is Britain “targeted”?
The UK is home to only about 1% of the world’s refugees and asylum seekers. Shabana Mahmood was just plain lying when she said this country is the “destination of choice” for asylum seekers – we aren’t even top in Europe, with Germany, France, Spain and Italy all taking more than us.
Max Wilkinson was absolutely right to call Mahmood out on her choice of language.
I would just like to take the time to thank everyone who has interacted with my piece so far. Whether we agree or disagree, seeing so much discussion take place delights me, and I value each and every one of your opinions.
Ian Sanderson (RM3) is quite right about the ties that anyone might well develop when they move to a different location.
Germany, for many years, tried to classify Turkish workers as “gastarbeiter”, making the process of naturalisation unnecessarily difficult in the belief (or PR spin?) that they were only temporary residents.
It didn’t work there and it won’t work here.
Jenny Smith. Only my mother tried to call me Mike. Kindly address me as Mick. I said nothing about false claims. What I said, and I stand by this, is that economic migrants are NOT ENTITLED to claim asylum. If the UK dealt with claims in a timely fashion, then those not entitled would be removed.
Michael Bukola. You clearly misunderstand Free Movement. Firstly it was a two way street. When we were in the EU, UK citizens had the right to live and work in any EU country and many did. EU citizens had the right to live and work in the UK, but if they weren’t able to support themselves and hadn’t found work in 6 months they had to go home. They had no preference in terms of citizenship and faced the same rules as everyone else. These rules still apply in the EU. I have a European passport and can live in Greece as I can support myself. I can’t claim any benefits, but I can vote in local and European elections, but not for the Greek parliament. If I wanted to become a Greek citizen, I would have to live here for 5 years and speak Greek. At 75, learning a difficult language like Greek is a huge ask. I may consider it if Reform were ever to take power in the UK
It doesn’t help the discussion if you get the facts wrong