British Immigration Policy Under the Conservative Government

Asifa Maaria Hussain

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138734494
• eBook ISBN: 9781351739481
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This title was first published in 2001. This thought-provoking book examines the repercussions of British immigration policy under the Conservative government for individuals from the developing countries using primary empirical data. It is a well-informed, balanced and empirically sophisticated study, which is suitable for courses on politics, ethnic studies and law.

1 Introduction: The Issue at Hand and a Review of Contemporary Literature on Immigration

Introduction: The Issue at Hand

This book will examine the view that the immigration policies of the Conservative party under the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher between the years 1979–1990, enshrined in law were restrictive and discriminatory, and had a severely negative impact on immigrants from the Indian sub-continent. There is considerable evidence from immigrants from the Indian subcontinent and from other actors in the immigration debate such as organisations and MPs that white immigrants have been treated more liberally by the immigration process. They did not face the same procedural problems encountered by those from the Indian sub-continent; nor were so many rejected when they first applied for visas to enter Britain permanently or even temporarily. Officials and MPs admitted that it was easier for white immigrants to satisfy the immigration criteria. Organisations such as the Immigration Advisory Service pointed out that virtually no white persons came to seek their help in immigration matters, which suggests that the process of gaining entry for them was virtually trouble free.

One of the groups of individuals seeking to emigrate to Britain, who suffered from unequal treatment, as a result of the application of immigration policies, were nationals from the Indian sub-continent. This study will draw on a variety of direct evidence and information from the various parties involved in a highly sensitive process which attracted much political debate during the 1980s and early 1990s - documentary evidence and interviews with officials, individuals and organisations will provide proof of the tough and harsh nature of the immigration regime in operation under Thatcher.

The claim that the immigration regime was particularly strict when applied to citizens from the Indian sub-continent will be supported by:

• Analysing the immigration laws passed during the 1980s, which will reveal flaws and unfair regulations;

• comparing the number of immigrants from the Indian sub-continent with relative numbers from other regions, including the White Commonwealth countries;

• looking at the numbers removed as illegal immigrants;

• investigating the actual exercise of authority and powers by the government’s agents, e.g. Entry Clearance Officers, in terms of their conduct, interviewing techniques, and wording of questions. The argument will be made that unfairly worded and difficult application forms made entry to Britain difficult to achieve and provided an excuse for refusing entry when many applicants were unable to fill in a form correctly. Deliberately long waiting times, increases in complaints and in the use of organisations indicated that there was a problem with the system of entry in operation;

• establishing which categories of immigrants were adversely affected by the immigration control regime.

The terms ‘fair’, ‘unfair’, and ‘racial discrimination’ will arise at various points in this book in reference to the Conservative immigration regime. The following definition of these terms should be assumed:

Fair/Unfair the immigration regime could be said to be fair if equality of treatment applied to all those seeking entry to the United Kingdom. In the case of the Conservative immigration regime the charge of unfairness arises because many of those affected viewed procedures as not being impartial and unbiased. Evidence in this book will demonstrate that many of the regime’s rules and procedures were not applied to all those seeking entry, e.g. the imposition of visas in 1986 singled out specific countries. All the countries of the Indian sub-continent are included in the list of visa countries whereas none of the Old Commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are included. In the case of Indian sub-continent nationals the primary purpose rule is widely considered unfair as it clashes with the culture of that part of the world, and puts extra pressure on those seeking entry by asking them to prove a ‘negative’.

Racial discrimination This means unequal treatment solely on the basis of colour and culture. The selective imposition of visas is one example of discrimination. In addition, the Conservative immigration regime did not respect or accommodate the cultural aspects of the Indian sub-continent such as arranged marriages, and the primary purpose rule was perceived as discriminatory. There was also a lot of stereotypical thinking involved which assumed that all black or coloured visitors seeking a temporary stay would end up staying permanently. Some of the procedures and the attitudes of immigration officials were also viewed as discriminatory. This created a sense and perception of racism in the eyes of Indian sub-continent nationals.

Theories of Immigration

Different theories of immigration have emerged over the course of the 50 years or so since the second world war, a period which has seen changes in the degree and direction of international migration. The theories, which have been most accurately highlighted by Parekh,¹ distinguish three attitudes towards immigration and stimulate three types of government policy on immigration:

• Liberal View - According to this theory the policy should be one of unrestricted immigration providing that those who wanted to enter a state committed themselves to obeying the laws and acknowledging the established structure of authority. The liberal view perceives the free movement of people as a basic human right;

• the Centrist View - according to the Centrists, who essentially take the middle ground when it comes to immigration, immigration in principle should be allowed but some element of control has to be exercised in the light of global developments in the 20th Century. If there was totally unrestricted entry, Centrists argue, this would encourage a huge influx of people merely on economic grounds which would have a detrimental effect on race relations and on the economy. Therefore some restrictions are necessary. Furthermore unrestricted entry would lead to considerable overcrowding, especially in the case of Great Britain which is essentially a small country;

• the Nationalist View - This is perhaps most controversial of the three theories because it advocates a virtual end to immigration and is against the inflow of any ‘outsiders’ who do not match the common stock of individuals constituting the large majority of citizens.

It is quite clear that the Liberal theory would be unworkable in the modern world given the vast economic disparities between different regions of the world thus attracting economic refugees. It would also be unworkable because of different political situations around the world which would attract many political refugees. In other words most would argue that a line has to be drawn somewhere so that immigration is subject to enlightened control.

The Centrist or middle ground theory is perhaps the most sensible approach to managing the question of immigration for those states like Britain who are concerned by the influx of immigrants. The nationalist view should have no place in today’s world because it only serves to perpetuate racial tensions and discrimination, especially in multi-racial societies. States in the modern world are greatly heterogeneous today and many “..are products of considerable ethnic intermingling and cannot pretend to belong to a single ethnic stock”.² This is no less true of Western states like the USA, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain. However, although it may be the most sensible approach to immigration, the Centrist theory has to be applied equally and justly. It will be argued that the British government did not conform to the principles of the Centrist view in principle (legislative enactments) or practice (implementation) after 1979.

A close look at Conservative Party policy on immigration would suggest that it falls into the category of the centrist view. However, this study will argue that in practice the views of various sections of the party suggest that official Conservative policy belonged somewhere between the Centrist and Nationalist viewpoints. Tory policy makers claimed they were adopting a largely middle ground approach, allowing a measured amount of immigration tempered by various restrictions. In practice however, the emergence of the ‘New Right’ in the party, who have been advocating a more stringent immigration regime, which largely wishes to end all immigration, has seen the imposition of more pressures on the government to further toughen its already strict policies. A significant point to note is that Conservative policy since 1979 has been discriminatory in the sense that the balanced Centrist approach of keeping immigration to manageable levels has not necessarily been applied equally to potential immigrants from all regions of the world. It has been well documented that the official line has been stricter towards would be immigrants from many coloured and black nations such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, while fewer reservations have been voiced about the prospect of immigration from white countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia.

The immigration issue raised considerable controversy during the period of office of the Thatcher administration. The reason for this was the ferocity and vigour with which Thatcher’s successive governments tackled the issue of immigration. Certain questions are worth posing. Was Thatcher’s fairly hard-line stance on immigration a pre-planned policy waiting to be implemented? Or was it one, which the Conservatives believed would help them sweep to power at a general election? Or was it simply a reaction to public opinion or public disquiet at the flow of immigration into Britain? Also, more importantly was Thatcher’s immigration policy discriminatory against those from black and coloured nations?

If we look at the Conservative’s party manifesto for 1979 we wi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: The Issue at Hand and a Review of Contemporary Literature on Immigration
• 2 The Development of Immigration Legislation and Rules since 1945: An Overview
• 3 Channels for Processing Immigration as an Issue in Glasgow: The Organisational Network
• 4 Survey Analysis: Impact of Immigration Laws and Rules on Indian Sub-Continent Nationals in Glasgow
• 5 Case Studies: Real Life Immigration Cases and Experiences of Individuals
• 6 Immigration: The Official View
• 7 Political Perceptions of the Immigration Issue
• 8 Conclusions - Conservative Immigration Policy 1979–1990: Reconsidered
• Bibliography