The Aliens Act of 1905 had a large impact on immigration. Since the Liberal home secretaries operated the law, they were generous in spirit and gave the benefit of the doubt to the immigrants. However many immigrants were sent back on the ships that bought them since they could not state things that were important. This Act shows us that the British government were not as tolerant as they are characterised to be. However the situation did get worse for immigrants.
During the First World War some people were worried about the loyalty of British Jews and the effects of further immigration into Britain. This led to the passing of a strict immigration law in 1919. This was the Aliens Restrictions Act in December 1919. This harsh law to control immigration meant that entry could be refused by an immigration officer. Immigration officers had to make sure that immigrants had the means to support themselves and were medically fit. This reduced poor working class Jews immigrating into Britain to almost stopping. This again is signs of intolerance to immigrants.
There were two main reasons why people came to Britain after 1945. They came either as refuges from war in Europe or they came from the British colonies and Commonwealth to find work. At first the British Government welcomed both these groups, mainly because there was a labour shortage in Britain after the war and during the 1950s. The largest of the refugee groups to settle in Britain after 1945 was polish. Many Poles were already in Britain when the war ended. After Hitler invaded and defeated Poland in 1939, one million Poles left Poland. Many came to Britain to continue to fight against Germany. When Poland became communist in 1945, many of them decided to stay in Britain. After the war the British Government also encouraged workers from new commonwealth countries of the Caribbean, India, Pakistan and the Republic of Ireland to immigrate to Britain to work. Advertisements were sent out for many different workers including nurses, doctors, bus drivers, cleaners and builders. Due to the Labour Shortage The British Nationality Act (1948) was written. The British Nationality Act (1948) said that all people living in Britain, British Colonies and the Commonwealth have equal rights of citizenship.
The Windrush was the immigration of many West Indians to Britain. The Wind rush was the name of the boat that brought the West Indians to Britain. In source D we see how a West Indian felt as to why he came to Britain. However when he came to Britain there was a different situation.
Many of the people who settled in Britain between 1948 and 1960 had high expectations of their new life but were soon disillusioned by the racial stereotyping and discrimination which they experienced. Racial discrimination affected all areas of their life, including finding work and accommodation. For example one advertisement for accommodation read; “ROOM to LET/ NO COLOURED/ NIGGERS,” another read; ROOM to LET/ NO Blacks/ NO Dogs/ No Irish.” This was ignored by the government.
However after many incidents, such as the turban ban in Birmingham City Transport which led to the Sikhs to go on strike and proved successful in 1962 where the ban was lifted. These incidents were noticed and some people, such as Tom Driberg – Labour Party Chairperson, realised that the problem was not black people but white prejudice. This problem however was not solved by introducing laws that stopped racism, these incidents caused the government to introduce a new Act; the immigration Act (1962). This stated that From now on black, including black Asian, people would have to have an employment voucher before they could enter Britain. Vouchers had a quota which meant that they were limited. The immigrant had to prove that they had a specialist skill or appropriate education and qualifications for Britain’s needs. This shows that Britain was not tolerant in the first place as they were simply completing their labour shortage and once it was complete they felt that the immigrants were not needed.
The Act that followed was The Commonwealth Immigration Act. This stated that Kenyan Asians with British passports were no longer allowed to enter the country, however a clause in the Act stated that entry to white Kenyans with British passports were allowed to enter Britain. The main reason for this act to be passed was that the countries of West Africa had introduced an ‘Africanisation policy’ which meant that all foreigners, including Asians, were expelled from Africa.
During the 1960s and 1970s there was an increase in both in racist incidents and racist organisations. Anti-racist organisations were formed and action was taken for civil rights. During these decades immigration became an election issue. Legislation was introduced that was intended to tackle racial discrimination. This racism had a number of triggers. Firstly the White people felt that the Black and Asian communities were taking over as they were very concentrated. However this was not their fault as only a few areas allowed Black and Asian people to lease a flat. Black people also felt safer in numbers due to the large number of National Front members. The colour bar meant that Coloured people had to remain on the streets and socialise there. Many tenants did not allow the Black or Asian people to bring home guests or visitors.
Politicians used this feeling of a coloured takeover and the national front to target and gain votes. Some slogans used by MPs to gain votes were “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, Vote labour”. Enoch Powell was a leading figure in using racism to gain votes and said that immigration should stop whereas before 1960 he had encouraged Caribbean nurses to come to Britain in the labour shortage. This a important sign to show that Britain was not tolerant but was merely filling its own labour shortage.
The immigration Act (1971) made immigration by black people from the Commonwealth into Britain even more difficult. This stated that if a person was born in Britain or had a parent or ancestor born in Britain they could immigrate. Most people that fell under this category were people from New Zealand and Australia who were almost all white. Other people were not allowed. The discrimination of this Act was very controversial and hotly debated in Parliament before it came law.
Due to so much racism that the government had noticed and pressure from anti-racist organisations led to the making of the Race Relations Acts. The first Act passed in 1965 was the act made racism in public places illegal and made “incitement to racial hatred” and offence. However the act ignored racism in accommodation and work, which were the two main areas of concern for racism. Also no one was in charge of enforcing the law and nobody made sure that the act worked. The result was that the Act was very limited. The Act was not effective against racism as racism did not decline and racists were not punished by the law. However the second Race relations Act in 1976 which was eleven years after the original a second race relations act was written. This Act made racial discrimination unlawful in employment, housing and education. However it was hard for victims to take legal action as they did not have enough money and other resources. Also racism was hard to prove. There were no records of how many white or black people applied for a job or whether someone was denied a job for there colour etc. However these were not successful.
One major source of tension was the use of the ‘sus’ law. The law allowed two police officers to arrest someone for acting suspiciously. It was not necessary for the person to be arrested. The police only needed to witness ‘suspicious’ behaviour on two occasions by the same person. This rule applied even if the two occasions were a minute apart. Using the power of this law the police had the power to arrest black people for no reason other than acting suspicious. After many anti-racist campaigns this law was repealed. However, even after the law was repealed a black person had a much bigger chance of being stopped and searched compared to a white person. This caused tension which finally led to the Brixton riot.
In 1981 there were violent disturbances in Brixton that became known as the Brixton riot. In the space of a few days, at least 7000 police and 5000 young people, both black and white, clashed in the streets. Cars, shops, pubs and houses were damaged or destroyed. As the situation in Brixton began to calm down, the rioting spread to other areas, especially inner cities experienced violence and disruption in 1981. There were further riots in over 30 towns and cities across Britain. A government Inquiry investigated the causes of the riots and made recommendations to prevent future trouble. In 1985 and in 2001, however, there were more riots in many British cities. The causes of the riots have been interpreted differently by groups and individuals. This was a wake up call for the government and other racist organisations. This event meant that the black people of Britain were no longer going to stay quite.
Lord Scarman was appointed by the government to find out about the problems of policing the inner cities. In his report, Scarman reached the following conclusions:
- The riot was not caused by the behaviour of the police
- The police were not, on the whole, racist although there was ‘occasional racial prejudice.’
- Black people in Brixton suffered from racial discrimination and from rising unemployment and these were also causes for the riot.
Scarman recommended that the local police should take positive action and that local police should liaise with local organisations. However there in 1985 there were further riots.
The British Nationality Act (1981) stated that a British citizen was either someone born to British Parents or born Abroad to British Parents. British Nationals were no longer British citizens. This act changed the definition of who was a British citizen. A British national was a citizen of an ex British colony. This meant that many countries had lost the right to British citizenship.
Since the Second World War the pattern of migration into and out of Britain has changed. This has been due to changes in the law, wars, and abuses of human rights, poverty, famine, and the formation of the European Union. Since 1990 the rights of refuges and asylum seekers in Britain have also changed and become a controversial political issue.
There have been refugees from countries since the middle ages and from Britain. However the situation in Britain has increased in the late twentieth century. Refugees have come from countries such as Kosovo, Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, China, Iran, Eastern Europe, India and Pakistan. Also people who have no country flee to Western Europe to seek refuge. These include Kurdish people and Roma gypsies and travellers. Reasons for leaving their homes have generally been due to war, dictator ship and discrimination against human rights. Immigration and Asylum Acts were passed in 1993, 1996 and 1999. These laws changed life for asylum seekers in Britain. These laws no longer allowed them to claim benefits and to work. Instead they were meant to rely on charity, local authorities or beg for food and to pay for living accommodations. Instead of benefits adult asylum seekers received £36 worth of vouchers a week. Only £10 of which can be exchanged for cash. The rest had to be spent in a limited amount of time at certain supermarkets and have to be spent in one go. There have been many problems with vouchers. Many asylum seekers have had to wait weeks for their vouchers and rely on charity. Vouchers are different to those received by people who claim benefit which singles out asylum seekers. Asylum seekers who use false documentation to flee their country can be prosecuted on arrival to Britain. This is despite the fact that many have to use false documentation in order to escape. This made life for an asylum seeker harder and a more prominent issue in the government.
However the most people in the UK are under the illusion that there is too much help for asylum seekers and believe that they are treated better than homeless, jobless British citizens. A survey from a magazine in July 2000 shows that 63% of people thought that too much was done to assist asylum seekers in Britain. On average respondent assumed that asylum seekers were given £113 a week to live on. In fact a single adult receives £36. On Britain’s racial mix the average person thought 26% of the population is from a minority ethnic group but the true figure is 7%.
Eight out of ten believe refuges come to Britain because they regard it as a ‘soft touch’ and two thirds thought there were too many immigrants. This goes back to my question that Britain is characterised as a tolerant country by its own people. The media plays a big part in this stereotyping.
In conclusion I think that Britain has not been as tolerant a country as it is characterised to be. This can be proved from the beginning of the century. The Jewish immigrants from Russia were welcomed at first but as they reached Britain they faced discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping. This is due to the fact that they held different religious views and habits. They faced so much discrimination that they were even believed to be the cause of diseases that had been in Britain for many years. Due to bad accommodations which they had no choice against they were said to be dirty and unclean. The reason for this was that the British citizens of the time did not allow them to rent accommodations and Jews had to live in small cramped areas. This creates a sense of overcrowding. There could be an argument that the government was not tolerant as it introduced the Alien Act. This limited the immigration of Jews. As the Second World War came there was an increase in Polish arrivals. This is due to the fact that Hitler’s regime had invaded Poland. Polish people fought on behalf of Britain as fighter pilots. After the war as there was a labour shortage the government increased the number of immigrants allowed in Britain by introducing the Immigration Act of 1942. This allowed immigrants to enter Britain and have equal rights. We may see this as a sign of toleration but in the long term the British Government was merely fulfilling its own labour needs. Also the British public was not tolerant towards the immigrants as they felt as if they were taking over. This was mostly due to the coloured immigrants as it is easier to tell that an immigrants is black than it is to distinguish than a British citizen and a polish immigrant. This caused much racism in Britain. As before with the Jews there were problems for Black immigrants to gain accommodation. This is since not many tenants were prepared to have black people renting their homes. There was also a colour bar which did not allow Black people to enter pubs, clubs or certain entertainment areas. This shows racism and the government did not do anything to stop this. In the 1962 Immigration act the government reduced the amount of immigrants. This meant that if you were black or Asian you had to have an employment voucher. I interpret this as the government trying to say that ‘Britain does not need you.’ This shows intolerance as Britain was merely completing its labour shortage in 1942. The act however did not apply to white minority groups such as Australians or Irish. There was an increasing in the national front numbers and MPs such as Enoch Powell tried to use this to their advantage and target immigrants. However the Race relations act reduced racism in politics but did not affect racism at work as this was claim and even harder to prove that an employer was racist. This shows signs of tolerance to the immigrants but the act was not enough. The suspicion laws more commonly known as the sus laws played a big part in creating racial tension. A Black or Asian person was more likely to be stopped and searched compared to a white person. This led to race riots and the most commonly known was the Brixton riot. This shows a fight back by the Black people against the racism and discrimination. Finally in the late nineteenth century immigration of refugees and asylum seekers was made tougher as there was more as and abuse of civil rights. One case was that of a man from India who fled and reached Britain clinging onto the landing wheels of an aeroplane. This shows desperation, however the man was refused asylum. I personally think that the man was more liable to asylum than people who could gather all the papers necessary. This is since hat if a man is willing to go to those lengths to get away from the torture then there must be some truth behind his claim. So due to all these facts I believe that Britain has not been a tolerant nation in the last century and has failed to realise who is a real immigrant and need real help and who is not.