Immigration is one of those issues that will not go away – it keeps coming back year after year, generation after generation. I was the author of the first book to be published in Britain on modern immigration from the New Commonwealth. It was called ‘Black-and-White in Harmony’¹ and it had a delightful picture on the front cover of two little children, one black and one white, playing the piano and singing together.

Seeking social integration

I’ve no doubt a lot of people thought that picture was the best part of the book. I was describing the past six years that I had spent working amongst the ‘Windrush Generation’ from the Caribbean islands who had come to make their homes in London, and I was advocating greater understanding leading to social integration.

At that time, in the late 1950s, integration was not the flavour of the month as my postbag reflected! There was no Internet back in the 1950s and TV was in its infancy, but I used to do a lot of radio broadcasts for the BBC and in one that hit the national tabloid headlines, I said that I would rather my daughter married a black Christian lad than a white beatnik. The postman had to bring my mail by the sack load, but it certainly stimulated conversation!

Not that there was any shortage of discussion on the subject of immigration, especially in the lead up to the Race Relations Act 1962, which limited the number of migrants coming from the New Commonwealth. Discussion of immigration in those days was all about skin colour because there was virtually no immigration from white nations. That’s why we invented the term 'New Commonwealth' to distinguish black from white – ‘Old Commonwealth’ being Australia, New Zealand and Canada. There were virtually no black people in Britain until the 1950s.

The first blatant use of racial prejudice for political gain was in the 1964 General Election, when Peter Griffiths, an outspoken opponent of immigration, won the Smethwick seat for the Conservatives against the national swing, defeating Patrick Gordon Walker, well known for his liberal views on immigration.

Political prejudice

An even more blatant use of colour prejudice for political purposes was by Enoch Powell in his notorious ‘River of blood’ speech in April 1968. He warned that white people would be in the minority in Britain unless immigration were controlled. He said, “As I look ahead I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood”.

I publicly opposed Enoch because his motives were demonstratively racist. But in fairness, I have to say in hindsight that what he said has come largely true

He said that the changes taking place in Britain’s population threatened the identity of the British people. He foresaw “the transformation of the population to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history” and that in some areas of Britain English people would be “strangers in their own country” due to the immigration influx of coloured people from the New Commonwealth.

I publicly opposed Enoch because his motives were demonstratively racist. But in fairness, I have to say in hindsight that what he said has come largely true – we have had bloody race riots and we have large areas of cities that are overwhelmingly populated by immigrants.

Just before Covid I went with a friend to see the baptism of 15 former Muslims in a church in Leicester where there are many more mosques than churches. My friend had a sore throat and popped into a corner shop to get some cough sweets. The owner did not speak a word of English and although the shop was full, no one spoke sufficient English to translate my friend’s needs.

This was exactly what Enoch Powell had foreseen and was the exact opposite of the policy urged by Hugh Gaitskell in the debate on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill in 1961.

Coloured people as ‘a problem’

Gaitskell believed that uncontrolled migration would follow the laws of ‘supply and demand’. He said that “As the number of unfilled vacancies goes down, the immigrant figures go down, and as the number of unfilled vacancies rises, the immigration figures go up.” The immigration figures from the West Indies right the way through the 1950s exactly followed the ups and downs of the demand for labour in the UK.²

everything changed with the passing of that Act, which grossly interfered with the natural immigration process, thus nullifying Gaitskell’s theories.

I personally followed Gaitskell’s line and I publicly opposed the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. But everything changed with the passing of that Act, which grossly interfered with the natural immigration process, thus nullifying Gaitskell’s theories. The talk of restrictions suddenly stimulated immigration from India and Pakistan - with their culture of arranged marriages) - which up until 1962 had been negligible. There was no threat of vast numbers of migrants coming from the West Indies because the total population of Jamaica was only 2 million, but the threat from Asia was very different, given the vast populations of India and Pakistan.

The public clamour for restrictions on immigration inevitably labelled coloured people as “a problem”, which did enormous harm to the cause of harmonious race relations, and this was the reason why I fought it so publicly. The politicians then made the extraordinary decision to allow any of those who were already in Britain to send home for wives and other relatives.

That policy still exists today so, for 60 years the Asians have had an open door to bring in their relatives, and with their high birth-rate – much above the native British birth-rate – they are likely to outnumber the native white population of Britain well before the end of this century. Moreover, unlike the population of Jamaica that is 95% Christian, the Asians are mostly non-Christian. This helps explain the large numbers of Asians today in some of our cities and their rapid integration that has led to a Hindu Prime Minister, a Muslim Mayor of London and a Muslim first Minister of Scotland.

Radically changing demographics

The identity of the white native population of Britain is rapidly disappearing. It will soon be impossible to define in 21st century terms what being ‘British’ really means. It is, of course, not merely immigration that is changing the character of the population. It is the attack from the secular humanists and anarchists at the same time that has severely damaged the cultural heritage of this country.

The Christian identity of the nation is rapidly disappearing, with more than half the population not even believing in God – which indicates that the immigrants are imbibing Western culture and adding to the cultural mix. The Bible-believing faithful remnant are now mainly in the older age groups and are not being replaced by young people in sufficient numbers to halt the decline.

This is a record net immigration for the UK, roughly equivalent to adding the population of Edinburgh or Bristol in a single year

Yesterday the government announced that total immigration for 2022 was 1.2 million - making net immigration into the UK for 2022 of 606,000 – far higher than the 488,000 level for 2021 (even though that figure was upgraded by 91,000 in the latest official publication). This is a record net immigration for the UK, roughly equivalent to adding the population of Edinburgh or Bristol in a single year – and after taking into account the numbers leaving the UK.

This is an enormous number for a small country such as Britain to absorb in so short a time. It makes the numbers that we faced back in the 1950s and 60s pale into insignificance. Then, there were never more than 40,000 or 50,000 coming in from the New Commonwealth in one year, which comprised those who were invited as well as those who were not, and included students as well as economic and political refugees.

Cross-channel immigrants

This is less than the number of those coming in small boats across the Channel who now pose the greatest difficulty. There is a real need to distinguish between genuine refugees fleeing war and persecution and those who are simply economic migrants. The vast majority, clearly, fall into the latter category – being almost entirely made up of young, healthy Muslim men, some of whom hold extremist Islamist views; or who otherwise pose a real threat to law and order. Many local communities are troubled by the ‘boat people’, none of whom have been removed under Home Office orders, to Africa or anywhere else.

Our politicians seem completely lacking in ideas of how to deal with the situation that is a direct threat to the safety and well-being of many in our population as well as to the economy of the nation.

They represent a distinct threat to the well-being of those among whom they are being temporarily housed, and they swell the numbers of those awaiting assessment by Home Office staff who appear completely overwhelmed by the numbers involved. Our politicians seem completely lacking in ideas of how to deal with the situation that is a direct threat to the safety and well-being of many in our population as well as to the economy of the nation.

Loss of Christian heritage

Only a spiritual revival can save the nation from the total loss of its Christian heritage. There are certainly pockets of new life among the churches today in different parts of the country. But is the Bible believing remnant strong enough to reap the harvest?

Much food for thought and prayer!

Endnotes
1 Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1958.
2 See Clifford Hill, Immigration and Integration: A Study of the Settlement of Coloured Minorities in Britain, Pergamon Press Ltd, Oxford, 1969, page 34.