British Immigration Immigrants
Critically evaluate government responses to ‘coloured’ immigration in the period 1945-1962
“In the social history of twentieth century Britain the Second World War stands out as a watershed; the sheer scale and magnitude of the events that took place during those crucial six years seems to lend indisputable credibility to the view that modern wars are a major force behind progressive social change.”
Britain found itself faced with in an unprecedented governmental issue in 1945. The myth of British supremacy as a world power had been fully exposed, reducing, in the process, the notion of Empire to the concept of Commonwealth. The country, in turn, required structural, economic and sociological reconstruction and, just as World War One had facilitated a loosening of the legal straightjacket pertaining to female citizenry in the UK so the protracted demise of Hitler led British politicians to consider immigration as a means to the end of restoring the country, at least partially, to its former international status. The fact that so many Commonwealth citizens had fought side by side with British troops during the war had already fostered a sense of unity between ‘coloured’ subjects and the ‘mother’ country, even before the official commencement of immigration after 1945, and this factor was a vital building block in the post-war structure of British society. Yet the reality of state sponsored immigration and social integration of the period 1945-62 was markedly different to the perceived humanitarian solidarity of 1939-45.
To best come to a conclusion it makes sense to evaluate successive UK governments’ response to ‘coloured’ immigration chronologically so as to gauge discernible shifts in policy over time during the historical period in question. However, it should be borne in mind that, “for most people in Britain, the ‘state’ means basically ‘the government.’” This means that though there are changes of administration and policy, the relationship between the state and immigrants remains constant, ratified in parliament and meted out in legislation. Therefore, the term ‘government’, within the confines of this essay, will frequently mean the state – the nation, as opposed to the people who live within it, although, as will become apparent, partisan politics and cynical electoral manoeuvring likewise played a significant part in the ultimate manifestation of immigration legislation in the UK.
Post-war immigration issues were a novel experience for the British government. Traditionally, and certainly until the 1980’s, the UK had been an exporter of people (a country of net immigration) and a pioneer of travel, in the mould of the majority of island nations. After 1945, however, ‘primary’ (individual settlement as opposed to familial congregation) immigration was actively encouraged as a matter of policy by the UK government for predominantly economic reasons. Indeed, in 1947 the government commissioned an independent economic survey, which stated that, “foreign labour can make a useful contribution to our needs… this need to increase the working population is not temporary; it is a permanent feature of our national life.”
In fact, the newly conceived National Health Service, London Transport and British Rail even went so far as to set up recruitment centres in the West Indies to bring ‘coloured’ workers over to the UK, and though the numbers recruited in these ventures were relatively small to begin with, the move established a nucleus of ethnicity in certain areas, such as Brixton in South London, that acted as a catalyst for the accelerated immigration figures of the 1950’s.
However, the kind of “foreign labour” recommended in the 1947 government survey was not written with ‘coloured’ immigrants in mind. Instead, authorities were thinking more in terms of a core white policy, which is in contrast to much of the retrospective reportage of immigration propagandised today. In reality, therefore, in the years immediately following the end of the war, European immigrants were preferred to ‘coloureds’, in spite of English being the first language in the West Indies. Government authorities were concerned, amongst other factors, with worker solidarity and the effect that ‘coloured’ workers might have upon the unions, which maintained a fragile, uneasy relationship with Westminster after 1945. Government records, released after thirty years, highlight the negative portrayal of ‘coloured’ immigrants and the measures taken to block their entry in the UK, in spite of the grave need of economic reconstruction. “Examples of tactics employed were the delay in issuing passports and the omission of the reference to British subject status on travel documents, even though the holder was entitled to such a reference.”
Therefore, government policy was driven by notions of colour in order to serve both imperial and domestic expediencies. The British Nationality Act (1948) was a significant legal milestone because it began the conceptual separation between British and Commonwealth citizenship, the foundations upon which subsequent UK immigration law was to be based. At this juncture the government made no differentiation between subjects born in the UK and those born within the broader geo-strategic umbrella of the Commonwealth. This Act was, however, a theoretical move designed to create a sense of conceptual hegemony; it soon had to be revised in light of the reality of figures of ‘coloured’ immigrants coming into the UK via the New Commonwealth countries and their effect on the local population.
The major feature of the period 1945-62 was the absence of visa restrictions with regards to ‘coloured’ immigrants. As calls for legislation grew more vocal, the high numbers of new arrivals to the UK was cited as the reasoning behind the need for stricter passport regulation within the Commonwealth, yet the facts and figures do not underscore this social fear. “Immigration of blacks and Asians was running at approximately 14000 per annum in the 1950’s, but in 1961 there was a large rise.” Even the relatively high figures of immigration from the New Commonwealth nations in 1961 (66290) did not equate to a scene of urban overcrowding or mass unemployment. At the time of the passing of the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act (and subsequently, Enoch Powell’s infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech) most towns across the UK remained predominantly white only. Wales, for example, witnessed almost no ‘coloured’ immigration whatsoever during this period, and where ‘coloured’ people were found, they were localised exclusively in the docks of the capital.
Even arch Conservative Simon Heffer concedes that the sharp rise in New Commonwealth immigration figures in the fifties and early sixties did not bequeath any serious political concerns for the government. “Ostensibly, there were no great social problems. Observers from as far away as America had come to Birmingham to see how successfully it had assimilated its immigrants, and, with a huge demand still for labour in a tight market, there had been no real problem finding them skilled or semi-skilled jobs.”
Therefore, instead of reacting to actual socio-political difficulties arising from immigration, government authorities were spurred on instead by the demands of the public and, increasingly, the media, who elevated the issue to an underserved status of national importance. Furthermore, individual partisan policy issues clearly played a significant role in the timing and manner of the execution of immigration legislation. For instance, in 1959 the Conservatives won an unprecedented third consecutive general election, giving the Tories a secure mandate. As the traditional centre-right party of the UK it is little surprise that they should oversee the passing of the most stringent law against ‘coloured’ immigrants, the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act. The law can be seen as part of a broader government policy of moving towards European economic market union at the beginning of the 1960’, which necessitated a symbolic move away from the Commonwealth. As David Childs explains, “Macmillan did succeed in convincing his colleagues of the need of this new departure.” Therefore, it becomes apparent that immigration legislation was driven by factors outside of the issues of numbers, facts and figures of arrivals into the country and was motivated instead by external geo-strategic issues.
In addition, the British government soon discovered that its definition of nationality as defined in the 1948 Act was outmoded. This, in turn, gave way to the second phase of post-war legislation beginning with the landmark 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which imposed much more stringent guidelines concerning entry to the UK, and is the single most important piece of legislation within the boundaries of this essay. The Macmillan government was largely acting in response to growing unrest in certain urban areas about the increased rate of ‘coloured’ settlement. “An opinion poll at the end of the previous year had indicated that 90 per cent of the population at large supported the new legislation.”
Racial undertones were clearly present as the Act was centred upon immigrants from the New Commonwealth and did not concern immigration from the Old Commonwealth or Ireland. Moreover, the Act coincided with the granting of independence to a variety of New Commonwealth states, with Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago receiving official independence from the Crown in 1962. Clearly the British state was keen to legally define the difference between being British and being a subject of the Empire in order to protect what it perceived as a delicate domestic balance. As Jack Watson concludes; “It was one thing to control immigration – unlimited population growth would add to Britain’s social problems – but the fierce criticism of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, both at home and abroad, centred on the argument that it was directed against immigration from the New Commonwealth and not against immigration in general.”
Yet in spite of the arrival of the concept of quotas into the political discourse regarding immigration (clearly still a pertinent factor in light of the Tories’ election campaign in May 2005) the numbers of ‘coloured’ immigrants did not change markedly after 1962. “The 1962 Act sought to control immigration by regulating the number of workers able to enter the country. Since the movement was already controlled by labour demand, the legislation had little effect in this direction.” Therefore, although the UK government responded to public opinion, a strong sense of ethnic superiority and political expediency, the reality of the matter remained that immigration, post 1945, was an economic and not a nationalistic issue. Just as the indigenous population had complained in the wake of the influx of immigrants from Ireland after the 1842 potato blight, so the calls for strict immigration measures against ‘coloured’ peoples during the period 1945-62 ought to be seen as merely a necessary stage in the advent of twenty first century, multi-ethnic Britain.
Conclusion
Commentating in 2005 it is easy to lose sight of the context and reality of Britain in 1945. In no way can Britain, at this time, be considered a multicultural society. Minorities were measured out in terms of religion and Celtic ancestry as opposed to relating to issues of colour or race. Yet, paradoxically, it is a fact that societies with rigid racial and ethnic structures are less inclined to open up to the idea of becoming hubs of multiculturalism. Fear largely dictates this sociological pattern.
Thus, with a non-white population of roughly 30000 in 1945, the British Government owed a constitutional and representative debt to its people to make certain that assimilation was piecemeal and that fears of a ‘coloured’ take-over were assuaged. As Bédarida explains, “one must take into account three facts in order to grasp the complexity of the problem and its potentially explosive character – the pressure of numbers, the inequalities and racial discrimination.”
The period 1945-62 represents the embryonic stage of British government legislation with regards to ‘coloured’ immigration. After an initial phase of de-regulation pertaining to visa controls, the government reacted to public pressure and began measures to curtail ‘coloured’ immigration into the country. Yet, and in the final analysis, the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which brought an end to the period of ‘coloured’ immigration harmony, was a calculated political manoeuvre designed to allay public fears and, far more damning in the eyes of posterity, was motivated by discriminate desires to reduce ‘coloured’ entry into the UK, the immunity of citizens of Ireland testimony to the racial undercurrent to government policy at this time.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- F. Bédarinda (translated by A.S. Foster), A Social History of England, 1851-1990 (Routledge; London & New York, 1991)
- V. Bevan, The Development of British Immigration Law (Croon Helm; Beckenham, 1986)
- B. Brivati & H. Jones (Edtd.), What Difference did the War make? (Leicester University Press; London & New York, 1995)
- D. Childs, Britain since 1945: a Political History: Third Edition (Routledge; London & New York, 1995)
- S. Glynn & A. Booth, Modern Britain: an Economic and Social History (Routledge; London & New York, 1996)
- A.H. Halsey (Edtd.), British Social Trends since 1900: a Guide to the Changing Social Structure of Britain (Macmillan; Basingstoke, 1988)
- S. Heffer, The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix; London, 1998)
- P. Johnson (Edtd.), Twentieth Century Britain: Economic, Social and Cultural Change (Longman; London & New York, 1994)
- A. Marwick, British Society since 1945 (Allen Lane; London, 1992)
- H.L. Smith (Edtd.), War and Social Change: British Society in the Second World War (Manchester University Press; Manchester, 1986)
- J. Watson, Success in British History since 1914 (John Murray; London, 1983)
Selected Articles
- T. Kushner, Immigration and Race Relations in Post-war British Society, in., P. Johnson (Edtd.), Twentieth Century Britain: Economic, Social and Cultural Change (Longman; London & New York, 1994)
- J. Macnicol, The Effect of the Evacuation of Schoolchildren on Official Attitudes of State Intervention, in, H.L. Smith (Edtd.), War and Social Change: British Society in the Second World War (Manchester University Press; Manchester, 1986)
- C. Peach, V. Robinson, J. Maxted & J. Chance, Immigration and Ethnicity, in, A.H. Halsey (Edtd.), British Social Trends since 1900: a Guide to the Changing Social Structure of Britain (Macmillan; Basingstoke, 1988)
- M. Smith, The Changing Nature of the British State, 1929:59: the Historiography of Consensus, in, B. Brivati & H. Jones (Edtd.), What Difference did the War make? (Leicester University Press; London & New York, 1995)
Websites
- History and Nature of Immigration Law, in, Oxford University Press Website; http://www.oup.com/uk/booksites/content/1841741884/clayton_ch01.pdf
Please note: The above essays and dissertations were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their work to us.
Was this useful to you?
Did you find this article useful? Was the content up-to-date or do you have something to add? Give us your feedback and we'll make this site even better for you to use!
