Refugee Week - 'Community as a superpower – but who gets to be part of the community?'

Maha Sardar of the Garden Court Immigration Team writes for Refugee Week on ‘community as a superpower’.

info@gclaw.co.uk

Share This Page

Email This Page

"*" indicates required fields

This year’s Refugee Week calls for us to see community as a superpower.

Last month, Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned that the UK risks becoming an “island of strangers.” He said this as he unveiled the Government’s new immigration White Paper, Restoring Control Over the Immigration System. It is based on the premise that the UK is experiencing “unsustainably high levels of migration”[1] and, as the title suggests, the focus is on controlling and restricting immigration into the UK. Underpinning the new proposals is the overarching theme of conditional belonging; you must prove your worthiness before you can belong. The messaging is clear – unless we restrict numbers and control the influx of immigration, community cohesion will be compromised.

But this framing is not new.

My family emigrated from Pakistan to the UK in 1961. At the time, people from the British Empire, including those classed as Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs) under the British Nationality Act 1948 as well as citizens of independent Commonwealth countries, had the right to migrate to Britain with no restrictions. This free movement had its roots in imperial ties. It offered many, including my own family, the opportunity to work and rebuild. Britain has a history of both accepting and relying on migrants to fill the yawning gaps in labour in the post-war boom. This is acknowledged in the White Paper.[2] Workers from South Asia and the Caribbean were recruited into factories, public transport, and the newly formed NHS. Their contributions to the community became the invisible backbone of modern Britain.

But in July 1962, that window of opportunity began to close. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act required an employment voucher to enter the UK. Hearing about the impending restrictions, my grandfather made a sudden, life-altering decision. He applied for a Pakistani passport, and a photograph and an inky blue thumb print later he was on a flight to London. He arrived in the UK just before the gates closed.

Further restrictions followed in short order, most notably with the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. Just a few months later, Enoch Powell delivered his infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech. He warned, in hauntingly similar terms to Starmer, that the British people would become strangers in their own land. His rhetoric stoked fear and division in the community. While today’s language may be more measured, the undercurrent remains unsettlingly familiar.

Migrants are too often portrayed as burdens or threats. The White Paper argues that higher levels of migration have led to “extra demand to our public services and our housing supply during a decade when both are already stretched, adding to pressure on key services and the housing market, and fragmenting social relations.”[3] But migrants bring with them a wide range of skills, talent and culture that can enrich their host community. They have always contributed. Yet true integration cannot be forced; it is only fostered when individuals are welcomed and have the freedom to participate fully in their community. This requires a sense of safety and belonging. Their contributions have been always been integral, but not conditional.

The White Paper recognises that refugees often lack opportunities for employment, despite having the necessary training and talent.[4] In a positive move, the Government has committed to exploring reforms to allow refugees and displaced people overseas to apply for employment through existing sponsored worker routes where they have the necessary skills. But this will only apply to a limited number of UNHCR recognised refugees.

The White Paper reaffirms the Government’s commitment to support countries experiencing humanitarian crises. It proposes a review of existing refugee sponsorship and resettlement schemes to assess their effectiveness, alongside the development of a clearer framework for community sponsored pathways that allow refugees to live, work, and study in the UK.[5]

However, the UK’s response to humanitarian emergencies has always been selective. The number of Ukrainians resettled in the UK far exceeds those from Syria and Afghanistan combined, reflecting an uneven application of policy.[6] The White Paper makes no mention of a dedicated resettlement scheme for Palestinians in Gaza. This is despite widespread recognition that the region is facing one of the most acute humanitarian crises in recent history. Palestinians will continue to lack a safe and legal route to seek refuge.

One of the proposals in the White Paper causing the most concern is the doubling of the qualifying period for settlement for Points-Based System migrants, from five to ten years.[7] Not only does this place a crippling financial burden on migrants, due to further applications and consequential fees, but it also counterproductive. Settlement is not just a legal status; it is a milestone of stability and security. Delaying the sense of belonging and a place you can truly call home by increasing the period a migrant is precarious, risks entrenching marginalisation.

The new Earned Settlement and Earned Citizenship route would mean that migrants can qualify for settlement or citizenship earlier if they are able to demonstrate contributions to the economy and society. There are clear positives to the idea that community can be seen as a measure to integration. It acknowledges the contributions to society that migrants can and do make and challenges the narrative that they should be seen as burdensome to society. It could also foster links between migrants and local organisations promoting social capital.

But this creates a system where we have good and bad migrants. This binary system risks creating hierarchies of those who are deemed to be deserving that echo colonial-era distinctions between ‘useful’ and ‘undesirable’ subjects. Such frameworks may inadvertently penalise those unable to contribute due to disability, caring responsibilities, or trauma and lack of opportunity in their local areas or neighbourhoods. It is unclear at present what constitutes meaningful contribution.

Without clear parameters, this system can create arbitrary decision making that could disadvantage migrants based on subjective interpretations of what “contribution” looks like. For comparison, the British Nationality Act 1981 currently requires most people applying for citizenship to demonstrate “good character”, which itself is an elusive concept – hard to define and quantify. It may raise ethical questions about exploitation of labour, especially in a sector that is already underfunded, or tokenistic or even coerced volunteering. Overall, it moves the emphasis from choice to necessity, removing a sense of agency.

We must ask ourselves: what type of community requires its members to prove they belong, before they are allowed to remain?

The decision to end overseas recruitment in the social care sector is a major affront to our sense of community.[8] It was only a few years ago when care workers, many of whom were migrants, were applauded for their vital contribution during the pandemic. Rightly acknowledged as key workers, they were invaluable in supporting our community and a lifeline for the vulnerable.

Care homes, whose vulnerable residents were severely impacted by the pandemic, were largely run by migrant care workers. In the care home where my grandmother was a resident, and eventually died after contracting Covid, she was exclusively cared for by migrant workers. For me, there is a deeply personal resonance. My grandfather arrived in 1961 and helped to rebuild the country’s post-war infrastructure. Decades later, my grandmother was cared for in her last years by those, who like him, had journeyed to the UK and contributed to vital services.

There is a moral inconsistency here. We clapped for migrant workers when we needed them most, but now we are closing routes for them to enter the UK, despite still being in such need. The Government’s position appears to be that domestic recruitment can eventually fill in the gaps. But the impact on our communities will be significant, particularly in rural or ageing populations.

Further substantial reforms to the asylum system will be set out later in the year. Whatever they may look like, it is important to remember that the very notion of community in Britain cannot be separated from the contributions of those who arrived seeking safety and opportunity.