It cannot have escaped your notice that the subject of immigration arouses great passions. The Labour Party has lost a lot of support and failure to deal with this matter in government is a key factor. The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has made a number of bellicose speeches and is promising legislation to make life difficult for new immigrants and for those already here.
The former Conservative politician, Robert Jenrick – who recently defected to join Reform – has also been active on this subject, adopting a hard-line approach in his various speeches. There are regular news bulletins about this topic. The opening of an army base in Crowborough East Sussex to house those waiting assessment is a recent example. From all of which you might conclude that people’s attitudes to immigration and immigrants is clear. Since politicians and the media are supposed to be closely tuned to the public’s attitudes – politicians always claim to be “listening” and paying attention to their focus groups – you might think they are on secure ground.
You’d be wrong. Because when you listen to people, you often discover some widely differing, profoundly contradictory opinions which are a lot more nuanced.
Expats and ‘economic migrants’
For example, it often turns out that they have a member of their family – a son or daughter, perhaps – who has left these shores and gone to a foreign country either to study or even to live there permanently. They speak in glowing terms about what they’ve done, praising their initiative and ‘get up and go’. They proudly tell you how well they are doing. But is not the son, daughter, or family member an immigrant to their chosen country? Quite what is the difference between an immigrant here to an immigrant in Canada, Australia, or Europe?
Those leaving Britain can hardly be doing so because of the risk of torture, of being persecuted because of their beliefs, or at risk of death because of civil war. They are going because they want a better life or for better opportunities. They go out of choice. You might even class them as a member of that despised group ‘economic migrants’. Those who take enormous risks to come here by contrast, are often escaping violence or persecution.
I was once at a party in the south of France where many of the guests were British expats who had settled there. Several spent time running Britain down and one of their beefs was that Britain was being “overrun” by immigrants. It would have been impolitic of me to have pointed out “what are you but ‘immigrants’ to the Languedoc?” I was struck by the blindness they exhibited.
Another curiosity which is commonly experienced follows the contact people have with immigrants working in the health sector, say. You might listen to a tirade about immigrants only to be told soon after about how they were well treated in hospital by someone from [foreign country X] and the care they received by a doctor from [foreign country Y]. Bizarrely, this is spoken without any hint of intended irony. They will, equally bizarrely, readily accept that the NHS could not function without the contribution of medical staff from around the world.
Dehumanisation by distance
There is also a difference between what people think about immigrants in the abstract and how they react on a personal level. At a talk at the Hay Literature Festival, one of the speakers – who had experience working for one of the well-known tabloids – said the newspaper was always careful to show the boat people from a distance. They always filmed them in long shot, either on the boat, on a Border Force vessel, or walking along the quay at Dover. This was to emphasise the ‘hoards’ argument and to depersonalise them. It also places the emphasis on those coming by this method when far greater numbers come through legal immigration channels, for example on work or study visas.
When people have contact with an immigrant who has a name and may be providing a service, they are for the most part reasonable, respectful, and treat them as though they were just like anyone else. There is this gap between seeing ‘them’ as a group and in hostile terms and meeting a perfectly ordinary person who may just have a different coloured skin or has a foreign sounding accent. This is part of ‘the other’ argument.
I have also come across examples where someone is sounding off about immigrants in front of someone who is, or might have been, such a person and says, “Oh, I don’t mean you”. This epitomises the distinction between ‘them’ and those we meet in our everyday lives.
Multi-heritage nation
My previous, white British, member of parliament gave a talk once, welcoming some Ukrainians who had fled the war and mentioned having had an ancestry blood test which revealed an extremely mixed heritage including as far afield as Pakistan and Norway. It is likely that most of us will have a wide range of DNA. After all, at some time in all our families’ pasts there was likely to have been someone not from these shores. The notion of being ‘pure’ British is a very shaky one.
It is difficult to rationalise these conflicting approaches: on the one hand, the rage about immigrants arriving here and on the other, quite normal attitudes to those they meet. How when their own kith and kin emigrate to another country they consider that to be praiseworthy, but those coming here are regarded with suspicion and anger.
No one can deny that there are problems, especially regarding those arriving irregularly by boat. There is the challenge of processing their claims and, if successful, integration into society. It cannot be denied that someone waiting on a housing list maybe for years, is resentful seeing someone from foreign shores receiving accommodation.
I suggest politicians need to be careful in attaching themselves too closely to the ‘them’ side of the argument and constantly suggesting more and more draconian penalties and restrictions. If the 20-year delay to grant indefinite leave to remain is introduced, is it going to mean police entering a school, say, and removing a tearful child who is well known and liked by his or her peers? Suddenly, it’s not ‘them’ any more but a child they know with a name. Look at the effect ICE agents have had in America.
And immigration statistics? Surprisingly, the level has fallen dramatically according to Migration Observatory. They report: “Net migration fell sharply in 2024 and 2025 from the unusually high levels seen after the pandemic.” Wouldn’t think it listening to some of our politicians, would you?
Comments? We want to hear them. Please write to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
