Is 70 million too many? Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali

London, UK: January 14, 2010, (PCTV Newsdesk)

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has broken the church consensus on immigration by endorsing the cross-party Balanced Immigration Group’s statement 70 million is too many.  Both he and the group are right that every country has limits to the numbers of new arrivals that it can accommodate and the UK, in particular, as a small country cannot take an indefinite number of people who wish to live here.  Not only is there over-crowding, especially of metropolitan areas, but social, educational and medical services are placed under increasing strain and there is always the concern about jobs and housing for the indigenous population, particularly from its poorer sections.

The question, however, is not simply one of numbers but also of the quality of would-be immigrants.  One of the missing features of the mass immigration of the 50s and 60s was any concern for the congruence of such immigration with the values, culture and language of the host country.  We must never again allow this to happen.

As a trading nation, Britain will need to plan for a certain amount of immigration.  An aging population will require that the work-force is kept up to the proportion required to support the elderly and those unable to work because of illness or disability.  The country will continue to need certain kinds of skills for the sake of the economy and the service sector will require human resources not easily available locally.  

All would-be immigrants should be willing to adapt to living in a context shaped by traditional British values, which have been largely derived from the Judaeo-Christian tradition.  This does not, of course, exclude their own contribution once they are here, but we should expect not hostility but a desire to become good residents or, for some, citizens of the country to which they have come of their own volition.  Whilst we can acknowledge the reality and the value of a multi-cultural and multi-faith society, this should not again result in the kind of politically-correct multiculturalism which has led not to engagement and mutual learning between the different communities but to the isolation and segregation which has given extremists the chance to propagate their noxious ideology, especially among the young and impressionable.

Radical ideology, which claims to be Islamist in inspiration, has caused havoc in many parts of the world.  In the Islamic world many courageous human rights groups, women, politicians and other are fighting to purge their countries of this infestation.  We must not allow it to take root here.  At the same time, we need redoubled effort to engage ethnic and faith communities that may be in danger of isolation.  The mobility of young people in terms of travel, education and interaction should be encouraged.  People from Islamic lands, in particular, should not be isolated by drawing a cordon sanitaire around them.  This is a temptation because of the security situation but it could be counter-productive in the long-run as it may drive such populations into the arms of extremist elements.  This would be immensely harmful to global western interests.  Minority communities in such countries, Christians, Jews, Bahais, Ahmadis and Zoroastrians, should particularly be able to maintain contact with the outside world as their survival may depend on it.

We need, more and more, to think of immigration in differentiated terms: not everyone who comes here should be thought of as a settler.  There will be students who are an important way of inter-cultural engagement and who provide much needed resources for our cash-strapped universities.  There will be temporary workers in the service industries and there will be business-people based here temporarily.  It should be recognised that some EU immigration is of this kind.  People will move back and forth as opportunities arise and economic conditions change but we do need to ask if unrestricted EU immigration to Britain is sustainable, especially if the EU continues to expand and may, one day, include countries like Turkey, Albania and the former Yugoslavia.

As far as asylum-seekers are concerned, Britain has a good record of being a refuge for those fleeing persecution but it seems to be getting more than its fair share of those claiming to be refugees.   Why, for example, are those asylum-seekers who arrive in another European country not settled there and are allowed to continue to seek entry into Britain?  UNHCR and other organisations should be encouraged to find a fairer formula for genuine refugees so that richer and poorer countries can share this responsibility without increasing the threat to their economy, social fabric or security.

For those who come here to settle permanently we need an integrated strategy on immigration citizenship and security where there is real joined-up thinking in this area which moves beyond the mandarins of Whitehall to include those who have experience and expertise in the cultural, religious and ideological dimensions of this question.  Lord Carey and his co-signatories have begun an important debate.  Let us not waste this opportunity but use if for the good of all who live here.

+Michael Nazir-Ali
January 2010