Prudence doesn’t mean rejection” “

Multiculture and immigration: one of the key issues in the campaign for the forthcoming local and European elections on 10 June. It will also be a key battleground between Conservatives and Labour in the general elections in a year’s time. The measures to control immigration in the UK could cost Tony Blair his job as Prime Minister. It has already cost Beverley Hughes, the junior minister responsible for immigration, her job: she was accused of allowing, or failing to prevent, immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania from illegally entering Britain. The debate on how many foreigners to accept every year and on the criteria for their selection is now reaching the heart of this country which during the Empire received millions of immigrants from the British colonies in Africa and Asia: an important slice of its population and its labour force. ImmigraNTS, rESOURCE OR DANGER? This is the dilemma – immigrants as source of new manpower indispensable for the UK’s continuing growth, or immigrants as dangerous rivals that remove jobs from the country’s inhabitants: that is the focus of debate in the press and between the parties at the present time. The xenophobic right of the tabloid press is publishing each day headlines of the type, “Five hundred immigrants flooding Great Britain each day”, “The gipsy guide on how to exploit the National Health Service” and “How my foreign neighbour ate my pet donkey”. The Conservative Party is profiting from these irrational fears by accusing the Labour government of failing to control the influx of immigrants. The party of Tony Blair is torn between a multicultural tradition that has always upheld immigrants’ right to maintain their own language, identity and culture and the need to integrate them, made even more urgent by the threat of Islamic fundamentalists. DefiniNG THE BRITISH IDENTITY. Recent statements by the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality Trevor Phillips have given rise to further debate in the media. He declared: “It’s important to clearly define what is meant by British identity to be able to help foreigners to form part of it”. This marks a turning point in the traditional Labour policy, which is now turning its back on multiculturalism, and opting instead for a model of assimilation aimed at trying to make foreigners participants in the British identity. Tony Blair seems to be moving in this direction. Following his last summit, the Prime Minister has promised a tightening up of immigration controls, aimed at eliminating the most glaring abuses: the fake marriage contracts that gives a foreign ‘spouse’ the chance to remain in the UK, or those who come to Britain pretending to be students but who then end up staying here. The government will introduce, by 2007, new identity cards that will permit it to keep immigrants under tighter control, and is already organising “citizenship” classes to teach foreigners how to live here. THE VOICE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The Catholic bishop of Lancaster, Monsignor Patrick O’Donoghue, immigration expert of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, has expressed his views on this question. “Multiculturalism – he told SIR – cannot be abandoned: it’s important to maintain this national tradition. The UK, for over a century, has been a land of immigration from African and Asian countries and it is important that it should remain so. We have learned a great deal from foreigners and must continue this tradition of holding out a welcoming hand”. At the same time, he adds, “it’s also important that foreigners, whether they be Poles, Romanians or Indians, have respect and appreciation for British culture while maintaining their identity. It’s important to learn traditions from each other, on such matters as family life, working practices, technology”. As for the idea of a ‘British identity’ that foreigners have to accept, O’Donoghue suggests: “if you live and work in a particular country, it’s important this should represent a value. It’s essential that the families and children of immigrants have full access to British culture so as to avoid ghettoes”. The idea itself of starting ‘citizenship schools’ could turn out to be a good one only if it serves to teach immigrants how the educational system, National Health Service or social welfare work. But if it threatens the national or cultural identity of immigrants it wouldn’t be so good”. “Let’s not forget – adds Bishop O’Donoghue – that many immigrants have been here for a long time, thirty, forty or fifty years, they didn’t arrive yesterday. The government is worried by the number of immigrants and the danger of Islamic fundamentalists getting in. Prudence is needed, but perhaps we are exaggerating the risk. Controls on immigration are to keep terrorists out, they ought to have no other purpose”.