1. British immigration policy, race
relations, and national identity crisis
University of Notre Dame London Programme
Professor Clive Bloom
14 May 2003
“An influx of coloured people domiciled here is likely to impair the harmony, strength
and cohesion of our public and social life and to cause discord and unhappiness
among all concerned.” 1
On 22 June 1948, the Empire Windrush landed at Tilbury, Great Britain, bringing
with her 417 Jamaican immigrants from the West Indies, the first of many in the great
influx of Commonwealth migrants to the mother nation. Surely, Britain had seen
immigrants come to her shores before, but this voyage signalled the beginning of a
much larger inflow of coloured immigrants than she and her native people had ever
experienced. At the end of the Second World War, labour demand skyrocketed as the
United Kingdom was in dire need of reconstruction. Coloured immigrants from the
Commonwealth states of the former British Empire supplied this increased demand
for low skilled and unskilled labour in post-war United Kingdom. From 1948 through
the 1970s immigration from these former Empire regions, such as the Caribbean,
India, Pakistan, Africa, and the Far East, continued to flow into Britain. Today,
Britain is truly a multi-ethnic society, as celebrated by the Commission for Racial
Equality (CRE).
This multi-ethnicity, however, does not sit well with many of this scept’red isle’s
natives, and has even been attributed to causing the current crisis of national identity
in Britain. This paper will chronicle the rise of multi-racial Britain since Empire
Windrush and the various immigration acts passed to control the subsequent issues of
race relations. It will also explore the impact of such immigration policy on race
relations and how the rise of multi-ethnicity in Britain has led to a national identity
crisis: “Who are the British?” Finally, possible solutions to Britain’s racism and
nationalism will be looked at.
The unskilled labour shortage that resulted in the years following the Second World
War can be attributed both to Britain’s need to reconstruct and the reallocation of
British labour to skilled work. This shortage could only be filled by substantial
immigration, and where better to receive a large influx of immigrants than from
Britain’s very own Commonwealth states? These countries “provided a ready-made
source of recruitment.” 2 The 1948 British Nationality Act gave citizens of
Commonwealth countries special immigration status, allowing them to freely “enter,
work, and settle with their families.” 3
The 1960s, on the other hand, brought about controls to limit the immigration of
Commonwealth citizens for the first time. The 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act
required any migrant to obtain a voucher before being given leave to enter. There
were three kinds of vouchers that applicants could obtain: Category A vouchers were
issued to those who had already acquired a job in Britain; Category B vouchers were

2. for those who did not yet have a job secured, but clearly possessed special skills that
would be beneficial to British society; Category C vouchers were issued on a first-
come, first-serve basis to those who fell into neither A nor B. The Category C
voucher, however, was abolished by Labour in 1965 when they came to power.
The 1968 Commonwealth Immigration Act distinguished those UK passport holders
who had a right of entry and abode in Britain and those who did not. A passport
holder had to be born and naturalised in the UK or have a parent or grandparent who
had been born, adopted, or naturalised in the UK, a principle known as patriality.
What this Act effectively accomplished was retaining the right of entry for many
citizens of the ‘old’ Commonwealth countries, such as Australia and Canada, while
removing this right from the ‘new’ Commonwealth citizens. Skin colour was not
mentioned in the Act, but this is clearly the effect that this Act was designed to bring
about, the differentiation between those whose skin colour is white and those who are
coloured.
The 1971 Immigration Act restricted opportunities of entering Britain even more.
Those who did not meet the requirements of the 1968 Commonwealth Immigration
Act now had to obtain a work permit every 12 months in order to remain in Britain.
This act ended almost all new primary immigration from ‘new’ Commonwealth, or
coloured, countries. Family reunification is now the main source of continued
settlement in Britain from these countries. 4
In 1981, the Nationality Act declared all who had qualified for right of abode
according to the 1968 and 1971 Immigration Acts to be British Citizens. Only British
Citizens and European Union Citizens are free of immigration control. Mason
interestingly points out, “Children born in the UK to non-British citizens do not
acquire British citizenship unless they can satisfy the requirements of patriality. Such
children could become stateless.” 5 Most recently, in 1996, the Asylum and
Immigration Act placed increased restraints on those wishing to seek asylum in
Britain.
From 1948 up until 1962, Britain experienced massive waves of immigration from
Commonwealth states while the government maintained a laissez-faire stance. Why
then in 1962, did the government begin to place restrictions on immigration? To
answer this question, one must first look at the consequences of this massive wave of
unrestricted immigration of Commonwealth citizens into British society to meet the
increasing demands for unskilled labour in the early post-war years. The large influx
of coloured labourers into predominantly white British cities eventually began to lead
to social strain: “the arrival of large numbers of migrants, particularly in inner city
areas with the most acute housing problems, inevitably exacerbated already serious
shortages and supplied ready-made scapegoats on whom already extant problems
could be blamed.” 6
In the eyes of many whites, the new arrivals of coloured ethnicity were causing
shortages in resources and eventually began to take their jobs after the demand for
unskilled labour began to subside in the 1950s. Journalists Mike and Trevor Phillips
point out that “natives of the British Isles saw themselves as being at the head of the
hierarchy of the British nations [and] the idea which underpinned this role and held
the whole structure together was a belief in the racial supremacy of whites born in

3. Britain… [and] the British had a destiny to rule over ‘lesser races’.” 7 The letter from
eleven Labour MPs to Clement Attlee, quoted at the beginning of this paper, further
demonstrate the racist atmosphere of this time immediately following the Second
World War.
Integration of these new arrivals from the ‘new’ Commonwealth states was essential.
But Arthur Marwick, Professor of History at the Open University, points out that:
“The British, at the best of times, are a xenophobic people. For their part, the
immigrants had long-standing and deeply felt cultural and religious traditions of their
own. To hope for integration, let alone assimilation, was perhaps to hope for too
much.” 8
These increasing strains on societies resources eventually led to overwhelming white
hostility toward these coloured immigrants, which in 1958 manifested itself in the
form of the Notting Hill riots in the West London community. Afterwards, a
conservative campaign mounted to begin to control immigration of these coloured
people into Britain. It was the view of these conservatives and more radical right-wing
nationalists that only through the strictest immigration policies could race relations be
improved. In other words, Britain would no longer have a problem with race relations
if no more coloured immigrants were allowed to further strain the system. Therefore,
in 1962, the British government laissez-faire policy toward immigration ended with
the passage of the Commonwealth Immigration Act. Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of
Blood’ speech only further inflamed public resentment toward immigrants.
Today, the ultra right-wing British National Party (BNP) is on the rise as the threat of
global terrorism has sparked new public fears about the effectiveness of immigration
policies and the consequences of a multi-ethnic Britain. There is a growing disillusion
of poor whites in many de-industrialised areas of Britain, which has resulted in
campaigns against racial equality. 9
Responses to the rise in nationalist parties and racism came in the form of race
relations acts. First enacted in 1965, the original Race Relations Act set up a race
relations board to deal with the relatively new problem of racial tensions throughout
the United Kingdom. The Act itself, however, did not go far enough to actually bring
about any real changes in racial attitudes. The 1968 version of the Act still did not go
so far as to carry any weight in enforcement.
In 1976 the Act was again updated and, according to Anthony Lester, an author
specialising in human rights, “established a body of law, which was broad in scope
and was unique in Europe. It is, however, drafted too technically, and contains
unnecessary exceptions and limitations.” 10 This amendment to the Race Relations
Act, however, did establish the CRE, “a publicly funded, non-governmental body set
up to tackle racial discrimination and racial equality.” 11 Today the CRE is responsible
for promoting and celebrating the benefits of multi-ethnicity in Britain as well as
assisting in investigations against racial discrimination.
In 2000, the Race Relations Act was amended to provide further protection against
discriminatory acts. According to the CRE, “The Race Relations Act of 1976, as
amended by the Race Relations Amendment Act of 2000 makes it unlawful to

4. discriminate against anyone on grounds of race, colour, nationality (including
citizenship), or ethnic or national origin.” 12
One of the biggest obstacles of race relations policy and immigration policy is that
their messages differ and oppose one another. While immigration controls give the
message that coloured people should be kept out of Britain, race relations policy gives
the message that they are welcome members of British society. To add to the strain of
this inconsistency, Britain seems to be experiencing an identity crisis. As former
General Secretary of the National Council for Civil Liberties, Sarah Spencer argues,
Post-war immigration to Britain has, it appears, contributed to a national identity
crisis. Having lost its imperial, military, economic and sporting prowess, Britain is no
longer confident of its role and cultural identity. Some British, or more accurately,
English people, doubting whether their culture is resilient enough to survive perceived
dilution by other cultures, feel threatened by immigrants who may have different
customs and values and do not, in Lord Tebbit’s terms, adopt England’s cricket team
as their own. 13
This national identity crisis has called into question the very meaning of the word
“Britishness.” What is Britishness? Clearly, the Irish, Scots and Welsh have strong
national identities linked with their respective nations. But they do not necessarily
consider themselves British. The English, on the other hand, are caught in the middle.
Are they English? Are they British? And now, how do they cope with coloured people
taking over their land and jobs and resources? Certainly then, the post-war wave of
coloured immigration has led white Britons, mainly Englanders, to question their
national identity.
Equally so, however, the national identity of the coloured immigrants has been called
into question. Who and what are they? Is someone living in India in the early post-war
years already British, being a member of the Commonwealth? Or does he become
British only after immigrating to the British Isles? Terms such as black Briton or
Asian Briton have come into use in our language. But, is there really a secure feeling
of national identity for these first- and second-generation Britons from the former
Empire nations?
The fact will remain that a single national identity for Britain is impossible to define.
According to Spencer, “Identity implies a distinct, homogenous, common culture,
marked by common values, shared understandings and loyalties…. Like individuals, a
nation does not have one identity but many…. Nevertheless, the sense of national
anxiety is real.” 14
On 10 October 2000, the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (MEB)
called for the government to make a formal declaration that the UK is a multi-ethnic
society. Basically, the government was being asked to rethink what it means to be
British. The chairman of the MEB, Lord Bhiku Parekh, says such a declaration would
be “a statement of who we are,” a way of saying to ethnic minorities and the world
that the UK cherishes its diversity. 15
In September 2002, Home Secretary David Blunkett set up a controversial
“Britishness” test for would-be immigrants. He “mentioned two things in particular –

5. forced marriages and genital mutilation – which he said were certainly not part of
Britishness. But stating in any detail what are characters of Britishness is a
challenging task.” 16
Immigration, therefore, has caused both white British resentment toward coloured
people and sparked a national identity crisis. But why has this happened and what can
the government do to correct these problems? Spencer argues that although current
immigration policy and its presentation by government are damaging race relations,
immigration controls certainly should not be withdrawn. After all, there are a limited
number of resources available in Britain. It would not be economically possible to
allow everyone to enter. The question is not, then, whether or not to control
immigration, but rather, “what kind of immigration controls the UK should have and
how to ensure that their impact on race relations is a positive one.” 17
The current UK immigration policies are stated in negative, defensive tones. In 1971,
the Government released a statement: “Immigration law in this country has developed
mainly as a series of responses to, and attempts to regulate, particular pressures rather
than as a positive means of achieving preconceived social or economic gains.” 18 The
problem is that no government since this time has attempted to redress this situation,
which Spencer argues is necessary to improve race relations. Immigration laws must
be positive and focus on the social and economic benefits that immigrants bring to
British society, rather than negative and inconsistent with current race relations
policy.
Strict immigration controls and its language have negatively affected race relations in
Britain since the 1960s. New threats of international terrorism from abroad and
asylum seekers have renewed the public’s cause for alarm. The small rise of the BNP
in the last local elections has signalled that race relations in Britain are getting worse,
not better. Clearly, the government must redress the issues of racism in Britain by
reforming the language, goals, and presentation of immigration policies. Only through
positively accepting immigrants of colour as beneficial to British society can Britain
hope to move forward into more positive race relations and comfortably incorporate
multi-ethnicity into a new national identity.