Chapter 52 Section 4 Immigration

Soon I will fundamentally offend the political wisdom of the party.Since Enoch Powell's speech on immigration in Birmingham in 1968, centre-right politicians have avoided speaking on immigration and race, seeing it as a sign of civilized good-heartedness.And, if it cannot be avoided, speak to an audience in "multicultural", "multiracial" modern British society, borrowing left-wing vocabulary across the political spectrum.Such attitudes sometimes turn a blind eye to the real problems that immigration poses, and describe the concerns of those directly affected as "racist."I was never prepared to subscribe to this attitude.This attitude is both dishonest and worldly.

I pin my hopes for a British revival on what I believe to be a capitalism that is more color-blind, and one of my credos is that the individual is respectable only as an individual, not as a member of a class or members of a race.The political-economic system I favor is designed to liberate individual talents for the good of society.I disapprove of racist instigators, like the National Front, who try to exploit racial issues.I find it profoundly meaningful that these groups were and are both socialists and nationalists.All collectivism leads to oppression: the victims are just different. At the same time, large swathes of the UK have been transformed by mass immigration to the new Commonwealth over the years, making it difficult for local residents to accept.After making public speeches about racial tolerance, wealthy politicians return to comfortable homes on quiet streets in affluent neighborhoods, where housing prices ensure segregation without the stigma.It's one thing; it's quite another thing for poor people to watch their neighbors change while they can't afford to move, and the value of their homes keep depreciating.Consolation, not praise, should be given to those in such situations.From my conversations with people in my constituency, I've learned that it's not just white people who are concerned about this. Immigrants who have moved in want to become real members of the neighborhood, and they know that continued immigration could be reactionary, that they could become victim.The feelings of these ordinary people are not expressed, which opens the door to extremism.Moreover, whatever the extremists achieve will be exploited by leftists of all stripes.No matter how poorly the socialists manage their economy, cut defense spending, or maintain law and order, at least they secure a sympathetic audience when they denounce their opponents as bigots.The left is always quick to capitalize on troubles of its own making.

Prior to February 1978, work on drafting immigration policy was already at Wiley.Whitelow undertook a period of time.But little progress, certainly not the progress that the loud supporters at our party's annual meeting hoped for.This was partly due to the fact that Willie himself was a naturally liberal mind on domestic affairs.The difficulty is figuring out the scale of current and future cuts in immigration. Roy Jenkins has amended the immigration rules to allow his fiancé to immigrate to the UK to marry a British citizen, a rule that has been abused in many cases.The amnesty clause actually encourages illegal immigration on a scale that is hard to guess. After January 1973, due to the removal of the time limit, some people entered the UK for a "short stay" and were later accepted to settle in the UK, and their family members were also accepted.This became a common practice at the time.Workmanship restrictions were not strictly enforced.In particular, there are no definitive figures for immigrants, nor figures for potential immigrants and their dependents entitled to immigrate to the UK.Therefore, areas for action in these areas exist, but are limited.Because some of our obligations cannot be decently and humanely shirked, especially East African holders of British passports and (under the Conservative government's immigration laws of 1971) those who were already resident in the UK on 1 January 1971 Dependents of immigrants.

Closing the loopholes, tightening regulations, and introducing new management measures for both primary and secondary immigration, all of which could reduce immigration arrivals.However, I know that the most important part of managing race relations is reducing the unknown of the future.The danger lies in the fear of the unknown, not in the current known.Willie Whitelaw subscribed to this basic analysis, so that he stated at the party's annual conference in 1976 that we would have "a clear policy aimed at ending the work of immigration, as the post-war years had seen". Although I wasn't prepared to speak on immigration, I wasn't surprised when it came up in the middle of a "World in Action" interview.I've thought a lot about this question, and I've expressed my views strongly in other interviews.For the above reasons, I do not feel constrained to answer this type of question.I say:

There is a real serious concern that the country might be overwhelmed by people of different cultures... so if you want good race relations you need to allay the fear of immigration numbers... We did envision the prospect of ending immigration, of course, resettlement except in the case of sex.So we need to figure out how many people have the right to immigrate...everyone in this room is treated the same under the law and I think that's why a lot of people worry about their situation or that they're going to be hostile unless we Cut immigration numbers. I was amazed at the reaction to these extremely mild language.This quickly shows how far politicians have to be from the real concerns of the people.Liberal leader David Steele denounced my "terribly irresponsible attitude" and later added, to make the most of it, that my speech was "indeed evil".Dennis Healey called me "a ruthless, calculating, intent on muddying the waters of racial prejudice...to spread fear and hatred in quiet neighborhoods".Home Secretary Maureen Rees accused me of "creating noble racism".Archbishops joined them. Fifteen years later, these ideas of mine were reflected in legislation and were generally accepted.The above reactions seem downright hysterical.

Even then, the national response to my speech was very different.No doubt this reaction was sharpened by the rhetoric of the critics, who thought they had finally knocked me to the ground.Before my interview, the polls suggested we were neck and neck with Labour.And since then we've led Labor by 11 percentage points.In this interview, the unintended effect received by off-the-cuff answers is politically significant.No matter what Willie was feeling inside, no matter what the other colleagues were feeling, this effect provided us with much welcome motivation in our most difficult moments.Discussions within the shadow cabinet over policy proposals have also intensified.A few weeks later, we had a consensus across the board, satisfactory to all but the die-hards who insisted on deporting immigrants, a consensus that will carry us into the election.

The whole course of this incident shows that I must trust my own judgment on key issues, and do not necessarily expect to persuade my colleagues in advance; I can expect that some people in the country will follow me, perhaps a majority.