It was quite a surprise to read the Daily Mail’s front page story today welcoming immigration to the UK. It was not the lead story but at least there was something positive to say about someone who was born abroad, of foreign parents who has emigrated to this country. Not an asylum seeker, nor a refugee but, it would be argued, an economic migrant. No, the Mail today screamed, “Hands off our tennis golden girl, Aussies!”
This was a reference to Johanna Konta who was born in Australia of Hungarian parents, was based for many years in Spain, represented Australia in tennis until 2012 but now lives in Eastbourne and plays tennis for Britain. In traditional Mail terms, they could not help quoting an unnamed Australian newspaper which proclaimed, mysteriously, that she moved here “because of a man”. Good grief: which man? David Cameron? Jeremy Corbyn? No, it transpires, it was her boyfriend who, the Mail reveals, is “a systems operator at Hawk-Eye Innovations.” I can’t wait to tell everyone down the pub about that one.
If you had thought that the Mail had changed its ways after a lifetime of dripping poison over the nations consciousness, you would be sadly mistaken because the lead story was true to form: “Why we must refuse to take 3,000 migrant children, by the PM: Cameron says caving in would just encourage massive new influx of refugees.”
I saw this front page on twitter last night and assumed it had been photoshopped. Not even the Mail could be that stupid, could it? Praising an immigrant in one part of the newspaper and quoting verbatim the prime minister who leads the party the newspaper supports in another. I know the answer: Syrian children are the wrong sort of immigrants.
Konta, with whom I have absolutely no issue coming here to ply her trade, is a nice white girl who fits in very nicely with the Mail’s vision of what an English person should look like. She is probably no more British than any of the South African cricketers who have come to England to play test matches, or the South Sea islanders who have come to play rugby union for England, some with Welsh accents. Konta, who strikes me as a sincere person, has broken no rules and is perfectly qualified to play for Britain. Good for her and, hopefully, good for British tennis. Rules is rules.
The Syrian children, meanwhile, are not so fortunate. Many thousands of children are alone, strangers in a strange land. Some are babies, others are as old as 18. They have come to Europe by a variety of different ways but mainly for one reason; to escape terror, through the barrel-bombing of President Assad and the islamic fascism of IS. They have fled for their lives. Meanwhile, our PM, who yesterday referred to those living in squalor at the Calais ‘jungle’ as “a bunch of migrants” (on Holocaust Memorial Day, may I remind you), says that taking in more children will only encourage more children to make the perilous journey to Europe. Now there may well be some truth in what he says. If some people, living under tyranny and in constant fear, see that others have made it to safety and security, they may decide to follow them. Who wouldn’t? But how about the children, often unaccompanied? They are not making an economic decision, based on having thought things through. They may not know the first thing about Western Europe – very young children, traumatised, often orphaned, certainly won’t – but they do want to survive, they want to be safe.
The ‘wrong kind of migrants’ are those of different coloured skins who talk a different language and, here’s the rub, worship a different god, namely the one who appears in the Qu’ran. Now, I am not interested in the colour of someone’s skin, I do not concern myself with anyone else’s sexuality and I am not bothered which, if any, religion they choose to follow. My ideal world would be a secular world, where everyone is free to worship the god they wish to worship or, better still in my world, free to worship no god at all. A country, a world, where religion is separate from the state, where people are free to live their lives as they wish so long as their beliefs have no effect on anyone else. No privileges, no special pleading. I am not aware that any of the Syrian children are demanding special treatment, just safety and security.
There is a bigger question here, that of immigration in general. It is a debate we never see to have. The political right, generally, opposes immigration, the left, in general, supports it. Who is asking the electorate, the great British public, what they think? I say this seriously because in the world in which I live, there are genuine concerns about immigration and the effects of immigration. The Tories talk of little else, Labour has avoided talking about the subject altogether. There are pluses and minuses with immigration. We need more workers in certain areas, certain workers from abroad, it is perceived, are driving down the wages of British workers. if political debate consists of the prime minister, Gordon Brown, referring to a Labour supporter as “that bigoted woman” for even raising the issue of immigration, what does that tell us?
People worry about “an open door” policy or “uncontrolled immigration” and the attitude of the left is to dismiss their fears because they are all wrong and we are right. That’s not a debate, that’s not addressing concerns, that doesn’t help anyone. And that’s why middle Britain will be nodding its head collectively at Cameron’s comments. Right now, the foreigners begin at Dover argument is the starting point for the political and media establishment position. That’s where we are.
It is imperative that people are engaged in a proper and open debate on immigration. This is uncomfortable for many but necessary for many more. I have met and worked with people from many different countries and backgrounds. In almost all instances, they have been assets to their employers. I would say that in some instances they have made little or no difference to the pay and conditions of so called home grown workers (like me, 5/8ths foreign, by blood) but in others they most certainly have. But we never have the chance to talk about this stuff like adults.
Adults debating immigration leads us back to migrant children, refugees, migrants, asylum seekers – call them what you will – who form today’s newspaper headlines and they are almost presented in a negative light. It’s far more complicated than that.
To repeat, politicians of the left and right feel they have all the answers, that they know what the public is feeling about issues like immigration. Labour has gone from a ludicrously populist anti-immigration slant to their 2015 election manifesto to a situation where they have not a policy, but a position and that position is, to all intents and purposes, let them all in. That’s a bit simplistic and probably unfair but certainly that’s many see it.
It suits the political right to continue to frighten and scare us with Shock! Horror! rhetoric, backed up by the cheap populism of the tabloids.
A more considered response and a well thought out solution will require debate and it must surely be within a secular solution. Right now neither the politicians on all sides nor an hysterical press seek debate or solutions. Only by allowing the people to speak, to express their concerns and to feel part of possible solutions will we deal with the issue of immigration.
