One of our strengths as a nation is that we are a land of immigrants. Over the centuries, people have come to this country, fleeing conflict or seeking new opportunities, from other parts of the British Isles, from mainland Europe, or from further afield, to enrich and develop our common life.
Many of us will have Scottish or Welsh blood in our veins. Others trace our ancestry to the West Indies or Pakistan, though we ourselves are English. In Leeds, we have one of the larger Jewish populations in the country, and our city has benefited immensely from their contribution.
Yet, frequently in recent years, there have been expressions of fear over the role of immigrants to our country, and they have surfaced
again with the recent declaration of the cross-party Group on Balanced Migration. This calls for political parties to declare, in the run-up to the General Election, how they will restrict immigration. One of the signatories has described Britain as “our claustrophobic island”.
Oh, puhleez… that will really endear you to the actual congregants of the C of E, Bishop. The fact is, immigration is part of English tradition, but only in decorative and vivifying numbers which can be easily absorbed. I’m thinking of some of the farming families in my former parishes whose ancestors were French Huguenots. Excessively large numbers of migrants (e.g. romans, angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans) invariably cause a crisis in the culture of the nation and concomitant destabilization, though after a few centuries things settle down into a state of homogeneity once again.
Some come to enrich. Others come to remake.
Some come to be transformed. Others come to transform.
If you accept the “others”, then you accept that they do not change…Britain does. Then the question is; Do they come from a place that Britain should seek to become?
to borrow from Bill Clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of “enrich” is. If it’s refusal to assimilate, petty crime, armed robbery, honor killings, suicide bombing, etc., then yes, it’s been “enriching.”
I suppose it would be provocative to point out that migration also gave the Church of England Michael Nazir-Ali.
Re: “I suppose it would be provocative to point out that migration also gave the Church of England Michael Nazir-Ali.”
The problem, which Bishop John Packer seems to be brushing aside, is with immigrants who want to kill +Michael, and who want to change the religious, legal, and cultural identity of Britain to suit their religious taste and “teaching”.
I don’t understand how anyone could fail to see the the horrible problems that are directly caused by immigration policies that are changing the British Isle for the worse.
God save the Queen and her subjects (which included me at my birth)!!
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, Texas
And what about those who come to Britain with the intent to convert non-Muslims to Islam…….a religion whose militants are hostile to Christianity and Judaism to the point of killing those who oppose them?
It’s one thing to welcome immigrants with a similar cultural background; it is quite another to welcome immigrants who want to totally change your culture, religion and way of life at the penalty of death if you don’t change and conform. What fools we mortals be.
While, I agree that there is no merit in allowing those who seek violently to overthrow the established order to immigrate, it’s not always so easy to predict how people will turn out.
A case in point is the West Indian-descended population of the UK, whose forbears came to England in the 1950s to take on the jobs that many whites wouldn’t do. There are probably few ethnic groups who are more ‘British’ in outlook than the inhabitants of the West Indies, yet the backlash that erupted in the late 1960s against a group that had immigrated perfectly legally a decade earlier gave the lie to the notion that willingness to assimilate is all that is required for acceptance.
I also can’t help thinking of how the Indian populations of the new African states were permitted to obtain British passports, yet when the expulsions began (most notably in Uganda), successive governments sought to renege on that which they had pledged. Such a dereliction of the principle of full faith and credit was hardly commendable.
Perhaps the real problem is that we British no longer have that sense of the mystic chords of memory. And if we don’t, why expect anyone else to do so?