75 years after Windrush, Britain’s mixed record on immigration examined

In recent years over 80 Caribbean migrants that entered the UK before 1973 were threatened with deportation for lacking the correct paperwork – often due to bureaucratic errors.

So, which is the more accurate picture of Britain today? The celebrations of the Windrush's 75th anniversary, including special coins being minted and receptions held by the King at Buckingham Palace, or the 'hostile environment' towards immigration encouraged by successive British Home Secretaries?

In fact, both reflect Britain's complex relationship with immigration going back decades.

A land of immigration

While some anti-immigration voices in the UK like to portray Britain as a largely homogenous society before the wave of Caribbean migration that occurred after Windrush, the British Isles have always been a destination for all kinds of migrants.

Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Irish, Huguenots, Jews and many others all settled on Britain's shores for various reasons even before the UK emerged as a great power in the 18th century. Thereafter, its vast empire and its involvement in global trade saw people move to Britain from further afield.

Historian David Olusoga's book, "Black and British", has noted how there were black Britons as far back as the Roman era, but that the community grew substantially from the 1700s, especially in port towns like London, Bristol, and Liverpool.

Meanwhile, London's control of India contributed to the emergence of Britain's first sizeable Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh communities. The First and Second World Wars saw Britain draw on colonial troops, many of whom then opted to remain in the UK after their service, adding to the diversity of its population.

Windrush paved the way for multiculturalism

The Windrush Generation did, however, significantly expand the Caribbean community and, arguably, open the way for the migration of other groups in the years that followed. For many, this was the beginning of Britain's transformation into a truly multicultural society.

The first West Indians that arrived in 1948 came in response to two significant developments. The first was the 1948 British Nationality Act, which gave British citizenship to all of Britain's colonies, which included many Caribbean islands at the time. This gave many West Indians the right to live and settle in the UK.

The second development was the effort made by the Labour government in London to encourage migration from the Caribbean, to plug Britain's significant post-war manpower shortages. Many of the 'Windrush Generation' would arrive to work for British Rail, the National Health Service and other key service sectors.

As more arrived, settled, and had children, Caribbean Britons had a substantial impact on life in the UK. Neighbourhoods like Brixton and Notting Hill in London became hubs of the community, introducing West Indian music, food, and, later, annual carnivals to British culture.

Meanwhile leading writers, musicians, politicians, and entertainers would all emerge from the Windrush Generation and their descendants.

Hostile reaction

Unfortunately, despite being encouraged by the British government to migrate, new arrivals from the Caribbean were often subjected to racism and hostility from elements of the white majority. In scenes reminiscent of the southern United States or Apartheid South Africa, the 'Colour bar' prevented black citizens from entering certain pubs, clubs, and churches.  

Some trade unions refused membership and some landlords refused housing, while gangs of white youths attack Caribbean areas. By 1962 these responses contributed to a shift in government policy, restricting the rights of Commonwealth citizens to immigrate.

By 1972, only those with work permits or with grandparents born in the UK could gain entry, effectively barring further large-scale Caribbean migration.

In the years that followed hostility to migration in general and non-white Britons in particular, not just the Caribbean community, persisted within a certain section of British society. In 1968, the Conservative member of Parliament, Enoch Powell, made his famous 'rivers of blood' speech in opposition to the Labour government's attempt to outlaw discrimination based on race.

The National Front, a fascist-inspired group made up mostly of young white skinheads, emerged and attacked Caribbean and other non-white neighbourhoods. Their numbers swelled in the 1970s and early 1980s, when economic recession prompted widespread job losses and some blamed migrants and their descendants for 'taking British jobs.'

Similar arguments were made by some who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU in the 2016 Brexit referendum. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), led by Nigel Farage, argued that the EU's Freedom of Movement had allowed too many Europeans to take 'British' jobs.

While the target of their ire was different, this time focusing on Poles and other Eastern Europeans that had become the latest wave of migrants to settle in the UK, the tone echoed those that opposed the arrival of the Windrush Generation.

Multiculturalism and integration

Yet, in parallel to the hostility, there has also long been a tolerant side of British society, that is much more accepting of multiculturalism and immigration.

While it is difficult to quantify, many would argue that the tolerant outnumber the hostile in some way. This, they would argue, is why radicals like Powell and the National Front stood out so much – because they represented the exception rather than the rule.

While immigration policies may have tightened in the 1960s and 70s, efforts were made to improve race relations, as seen by Labour's 1968 Race Relations bill that Powell unsuccessfully opposed. This saw the 'Colour bar' finally outlawed.

Racism persisted, and still does to this day, with certain British institutions like the police force regularly criticised for their particularly discriminatory approach to black Britons.

However, there has been an improvement in racial attitudes since the 1950s. Robert Ford of the University of Manchester noted there was a significant shift in the 1990s, with a marked decline in those opposed to living next door to someone of a different ethnicity or interracial marriage. Indeed, in the 2021 census, there was a record 1.25 million Britons with mixed-race heritage, many with Caribbean origins.

For many, Britain's multiculturalism and diversity is something hugely positive. This was seen, symbolically at least, during the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics when a giant model of the Empire Windrush was paraded through the stadium.

This was intended by the organisers to celebrate the great contribution of the Caribbean community to British life and underline the overall benefits that migration has brought to the UK.

Brexit and the 'hostile environment'

It is a sad irony that a few months before the Olympic ceremony, the British government shifted to a policy that would by far more hostile to migrants.

In May 2012, Theresa May, then the Home Secretary, announced a new 'hostile environment' policy aimed at cracking down on illegal migrants that had overstayed their work visas. This was followed by a series of high-profile campaigns, including vans carrying billboards stating, "In the UK illegally? Go home or face arrest."

In this context, the 'Windrush scandal' emerged, with Windrush Generation migrants threatened with deportation despite living in the UK for decades.

Though May's hostile environment was aimed at illegal migrants, it was interpreted by many as opposing migration in general. By 2014, the British Social Attitudes survey reported that 30% of Britons admitted to being racially prejudiced, an increase from a record low of 25% in 2001.

Some argued this shift was again down to economic factors, the post-2008 recession prompting an echo of the increased racial tension seen in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But others accused politicians like May of fermenting discord for political gain by demonising illegal migrants and, by extension, foreigners. 

The Conservatives adopted this approach primarily because they felt threatened by Farage's UKIP party, which had won over many traditional Conservative voters with their anti-migration rhetoric.

This fear also persuaded Prime Minister David Cameron to call a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU in 2016 and prompted May, when she succeeded Cameron as premier, to adopt a Brexit that would halt widespread European migration.

This was a successful strategy at first as it won over a lot of former UKIP supporters, leaving that party in disarray. Since then, though, successive Conservative Party leaders have continued to talk tough on immigration, perhaps fearing to do otherwise would prompt former UKIP voters to abandon them for more right-wing parties, like the 'Reform Party' that Farage helped establish.

The limits of hostility

Prime Minster Rishi Sunak and his Home Secretary Suella Braverman have recently stuck to the post-2012 script in their hostility to migration, particularly illegal migrants in small boats. However, there is increasing evidence that this is not the recipe for electoral success it once was.

Despite an anti-migration, even racist, element within society, polls consistently show they remain a minority. An Ipsos poll recently found that Britons were the third most positive in the world towards refugees, behind only Spain and New Zealand.

Meanwhile, a 2019 survey found that racist harassment in the UK was the second lowest among the 12 EU states sampled. Perhaps reflecting this, Sunak continues to languish far behind his Labour opponents in the polls and his repeated efforts to play the migration card do not seem to be shifting the dial.

If anything, the opposite is true. Opinion polls repeatedly state that Britain's poorly performing economy is at the top of most voters' agenda. Some see Conservative policies on migration, such as Brexit and restricting freedom of movement for European workers, contributing to inflation and labour shortages.

While a new Labour government would not likely reverse Brexit given the divisions it caused, it may entertain loosening migration laws from Europe to aid a much-needed economic recovery.

While this would not likely have the same transformative impact as the Empire Windrush, it would still be in the spirit of Britain's long history of openness to migration, even if it has provoked hostility from some elements of society as an unfortunate byproduct.