Unequal Opportunities: The UK's immigration policies for the wealthy and the rest
Within the UK, our immigration legislation becomes more tight-lipped as policies become more strict. Whilst the impact on refugees is dire, I want to ask the question, who does the UK think is a good immigrant?
Whilst some may raise this question as absurd, it is arguably valid given the confusing state that recent legislation finds itself in. The Illegal Migrants Act 2023 aims to shut down people entering the UK via small boats, making conditions some of the harshest we have seen. However, within the same breath Rishi Sunak notes the introduction of the High Potential Individual (HPI) Visa, an opportunity for the wealthy and well-educated to establish themselves in Britain. Whilst the entry itself is glaringly different, the outcome is the same. The UK will continue to become more populated, but the country’s seams are softened by the cash of wealthy immigrants who can push this country further. Their presence does not destabilise or clutter. Thus, what is apparent is that the boundaries of desirable immigrants, ones which are welcomed within Britain, are constantly changing.
The historical role of immigration
The role of migrants within Britain has shifted. Extensive legislation has been crafted to suit the needs of the country, but the context of the British colonies is important.
Initially, ‘undesirable aliens’ were targeted to come to Britain but we later saw the need for ‘racialised colony and Commonwealth Citizens’ instead.[1] Under the latter, we saw the enactment of the British Nationality Act 1948 (BNA), an interesting piece of legislation. This re-invented our understanding of subjecthood, expanding its borders completely.
What began to grow was an appreciation for becoming British, to become a ‘Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies’ (CUKC).[2] Foreign subjects could access the same rights as those born in Britain, and let ‘millions of British subjects to claim without justification a right to enter the United Kingdom’.[3] This slowly facilitated mass-immigration, and saw immigrants trickle into the country. Ultimately, ‘any man, whatever his colour, could say he was a citizen of Britain and enter the Mother Country’.[4]
Under the BNA specifically, it was the Windrush generation who exercised their right to come to the UK, but with the hopes of work. Notably, departures ‘increased rapidly in part due to the active campaigns of recruitment for workers’, especially after a destructive world war.[5] This generation found opportunity in rubble, re-building a capsized country. However, it was at this point that restrictions bound up these freedoms, dismembering free movement. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 introduced restrictions, which in parliament was described as ‘plain anti-Commonwealth measure in theory, and plain anti-colour measure in practise’.[6]
Passengers arriving on the HMT Empire Windrush (english-heritage.co.uk)
What is clear is that immigrants within Britain often serve a purpose. The UK is exploitative, and relied on much of the Windrush generation for cheap labour. However, this context continues to be useful. In considering the Illegal Migrants Act 2023, we observe changes in our definitions of who is worth the time and protection. Previously, legislation was deceptive but offered some opportunity for immigrants to resettle. There was a chance to craft a life for yourself within Britain, a gold standard country. Now that Britain has benefited, our legislation seeks to retaliate. It punishes those who attempt to come to the UK illegally with severity, and makes becoming a citizen extremely difficult.
But Britain has tried to exert control before. The enforcement of legislation in 1962 was a distant relative of the excessive Illegal Migrants Act today. In particular, Hugh Gaitskell compared the UK to the South African Apartheid government after its 1962 legislation: “You see, even the British are beginning to learn at last”.[7]
The need to close off borders to those who attempt to seek refuge, despite our international legislation upholding these rights for refugees speaks volumes. This is not a new emerging issue. Instead, the desire to control the ongoing issue of immigrants has been constant. In 1962, Britain slightly closed the door to mass-immigration, hoping issues of mass-migration from the colonies would cease to exist. A lot of fear is wrapped up in this, one which hopes the individuals of Britain are never treated the way the victims of the colonies were. However, within 2023 our legislation carries the same fire that it did previously, but it has become more forceful. Britain has now learned to slam the door, in which it puts up signs in red writing saying ‘keep out’.
However, there is desirable immigration. It would be untrue to suggest that Britain has understood every person who came to the UK as a burden. But when Britain had chosen which immigrants it wished to dote on, it had to do this carefully. In particular, after the 1962 Act was passed the UK sought to ‘secure free movement for emigrants travelling out of the UK’ whilst keeping mass-immigration under control.[8] In other words, Britain has priorities for the people they want here. In trying to block immigration from the Commonwealth, the UK needed to work out how to do so without ‘prejudicing the rights of returning emigrants’.[9]
Clear favourites arise within these processes. And with the introduction of the HPI Visa, the same ideas continue. Britain will always have space for newcomers if their country has suffered. In a post-pandemic world, the UK wants profit. If these individuals can prove their worth through money and health, this country will build a foundation for them, starting with fresh legislation in their favour.
Asylum seekers on make-shift boats trying to reach safety (unhcr.org)
As the number of people who become displaced grows, the UKs conditions will continue to get harsher. The desire to distance themselves from financial burdens becomes more visible. However, our legislation is targeted, often a part of an extended roadmap to benefit Britain. The condemnation that leaves the mouths of Tory ministers, stating that we have limited resources, never extends over to the rich in any capacity. It is an unfortunate but growing reality, and a warped double standard.
[1] Nadine El‐Enany, ‘Bordering Britain: law, race and empire’ (2020) Manchester: Manchester University Press, 45
[2] British Nationality Act 1948, section 4
[3] Randall Hansen, ‘The Politics of Citizenship in 1940 Britain: The British Nationality Act’ (1990) 10 Twentieth Century British History, 67, 82.
[4] Hansard, HOC Deb 05 November 1954 vol 532 cc821-32
[5]Huon Wardle, Laura Obermuller, ‘Windrush generation’ and ‘hostile environment’: symbols and lived experiences in Caribbean migration to the UK’ (2019) Migration & Society, 8
[6] Nasar (n 96) 112
[7] Darshan Vigneswaran, 'Europe has never been modern: recasting historical narratives of migration control' (2020) International Political Sociology, 15
[8] Freddy Foks, ‘Emigration State: Race, Citizenship and Settler Imperialism in Modern British History, c. 1850-1972’ (2022) Journal of Historical Sociology, 187
[9] Ibid, 187