Migration – Analysis

Background – a land of Migrants

• Britons are all immigrants.  Few people realise that the off-shore islands of Britain and Ireland were amongst the last places on earth to be continuously settled.  It only became possible to live here permanently after the last ice age which ended c. 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.  Modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago.  Migration from Africa took humans to the Middle East c.125,000 years ago and spread into Asia and Australasia up to 80,000 years ago.  Western Europe received a human population from 35,000 years ago.   Even the Americas had populations by 30,000 years ago.  Far from being the “old” world, Britain is very much the “new” world in population terms.

• We now know from aDNA (ancient DNA) analysis that the earliest Britons were dark skinned.  The first settlers – nomadic hunter/fisher/gatherers – became more isolated 8,500 years ago when these islands became separated from continental Europe. Then 6,000 years ago more dark skinned Neolithic people emigrated to Britain and Ireland from Europe in large numbers bringing agriculture with them.  They seem to have quickly formed the majority of the population.

• The first “white” settlers only arrived with the Bronze Age from 4,500 years ago. This means that for the majority of its settled existence, Britain has been inhabited by what would now be regarded as a Black population. 

• The early Bronze Age gave rise to the prehistoric “Wessex Culture”, a term coined by Hampshire-born archaeologist, Professor Stuart Piggott, on the basis of a series of well‐known richly furnished burials under round barrows in the central chalk areas of the region.
• There is increasing evidence that the Iron Age population – the Celts – were direct descendents of the earlier Bronze Age people.  All that changed was the culture, adopted from central Europe.

• The Roman invasion and occupation brought people from all over their Empire – from not just Italy, but Greece, Gaul (France) Hispania (Spain) and North Africa including Septimius Severus, the only “leader” of Britain of African origin. Although probably of mixed race, he was regarded as one of the 100 greatest black Britons in the original on-line poll organised by Every Generation for the October2003 Black History Month. Not many Romans settled here and it is estimated that Roman immigrants made up only about 3% of the population, probably confined to the richer lowland area and particularly in Wessex, e.g. the Cotswolds, Bath and the colonia of Gloucester.

• After the end of Roman rule a period of instability was exploited by immigrants from Ireland and the northwest European mainland.  Southern Britain experienced invasions and settlement by Germanic tribes. The size and scale of the migrations is a matter of debate, only now being resolved by aDNA studies.  These seem to show that 10% to 20% of the population of England had Germanic origins although later Viking and Norman immigration from the same areas of Europe make it difficult to distinguish between the so-called Anglo-Saxons and these later arrivals. It is clear that the greatest concentration of “Germanic” DNA can be found in the east of England and that further west, especially the west of Wessex, may have only 5% Germanic origins. It was the culture of the Anglo-Saxons that become predominant. 

• Migration has continued to be a fact of island life.  The Middle Ages brought Flemish and Italian merchants and weavers; the opening up of Empire brought African people here.   Even in the Tudor period there were believed to be hundreds of Africans already living in England. Between then and the early 19^th century, an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 people of recent African descent formed part of the population.  These were not slaves, at least in theory, as case law from the Elizabethan period onwards increasingly made clear that slavery in England itself was unlawful.  Some were in service with wealthy families but many would have been in port cities such as Bristol and Plymouth.

• The religious wars in Europe saw more immigrants coming as refugees in the late 16^th and 17^th centuries.  These included up to 50,000 Huguenots, who formed communities in Bideford, Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth, Southampton and Winchester. In the late 1600s the Commonwealth (republican) government allowed Jews, who had been expelled in 1290 by King Edward I, to settle once more in England.  They were followed by more fleeing the pogroms in the Russian Empire in the 19^th century and the Nazis in the 20^th century.  Today there are an estimated 400,000 people of Jewish origin in Britain.   

• Many of those fleeing the Tsarist regime were Polish.  Their numbers were bolstered by Polish soldiers who stayed in Britain after WWII rather than returning to the now Soviet controlled Poland. The 1951 Census showed 162,000 Poles living in Britain.

• All of this, of course, was before the Windrush generation and the Asian arrivals who came in the 1950s and 1960s under the 1948 British Nationality Act – a direct result of past British imperial adventures – and before the start of free movement within the EU.

• Many migrants are fleeing poverty and lack of opportunity.  The developed West uses much of the world as no more than a provider of raw materials and as a market for our finished goods and services.  As an imperial power the UK did little to raise the development standards of the people under our control.  We, however, had grown rich at their expense. In the “Winds of Change” exodus from Empire, many new countries were left ill-equipped to manage the independence they had recently won.  Now many in those countries see emigration as the only way of being ever able to emulate the Western standard of living.  To quote from Jeanette Winterson in Why Be Happy When You Can Be Normal“Then, as now, nobody talked about the legacy of Empire. Britain had colonised, owned, occupied or interfered with half the world.  We had carved up some countries and created others.  When some of the world we had made by force wanted something in return, we were outraged”.

• Many migrants are fleeing war.  Britain is one of the world’s main arms exporters.  According to an article in the Guardian in July 2019 the UK was the 2^nd largest arms exporter.  What is more relevant is the countries we export to and the controls on how those arms are used. 80% of UK arms exports go to repressive regimes in the Middle East particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE.  These regimes use their UK made weapons to fuel global conflicts – both bomb civilians in Yemen; the UAE is an active player in the Libyan civil war. There are many other examples of the destabilising impact of British weapons on poor countries and their regions.  Britain’s (illegal) wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; meddling in Syria, even the simmering conflicts left over from the days of Empire e.g. the India/Pakistan dispute, the Ambazonia War in southern Cameroon,  all add to the pressures on people to leave and seek a better place.

EU migration

• The EU has become the bogeyman for recent anti-immigrant campaigns.  Yet, the majority of immigrants come from outside the EU (84% for 2019- 2020: see Appendix), so Europe was never the issue.  Non-EU net migration to the UK has been greater than EU net migration for the whole period from 1991, except for 2013 – 2015 – 3 out of the last 28 years (see Appendix table 2).  This flow could have been stopped or controlled anytime the UK government wanted.  Under EU rules the UK had powers to remove migrants who don’t work and had no means of support; and to refuse welfare payments, but has never exercised those powers.  Other countries e.g. Belgium do – if an EU migrant has not found a job within 3 months and has no visible means of support they are removed.  Anti-Muslim prejudice also played a part, with the far-right stoking fears that EU membership would allow easy access to Britain for Muslims coming from the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan – and not forgetting Farage’s 80 million Turks – via other EU countries.

• The east European countries were admitted to full membership of the EU for political, not economic reasons.  The admission of these countries was accelerated to make sure they moved westwards to Europe and not eastwards towards Russia.  We now face the consequences of that rushed decision.  Maybe it was a price worth paying to stop the re-creation of the old Soviet Union in a new coat.  More EU money could have been invested in these countries to modernise their industries faster, to drive up living standards thus obviating the desire of many to leave.  But that would have hit western Europeans with an increase in EU budgets.  We were too miserly to help. 

• The Blair/Brown government mishandled the impact of those countries entry into the EU.  There was a 2 year transition period before free movement was allowed, with a further maximum 3 year extension that member states could use at their discretion.  The UK decided not to use any of that period and badly underestimated how many people would take advantage of the freedom.  Germany waited the full 3 years.  Obviously, if you were a Polish worker, going to Germany would have been more desirable than going to the UK.  Wages and standard of living are higher and with Germany being a neighbour of Poland it would have been less of an upheaval for the migrants.  But that door was closed to them.  Instead they took the next best option – come to the UK. 

Refugees, Asylum Seekers and “Illegal” migrants

• The other great media story is that the UK is being overrun by a “swarm” of refugees.  The government has previously made the claim: “Since 2016, Britain has resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any other EU state”.   But, according to Fullfact.org, and the more anti-immigrant Migration Watch, Britain accepted only 15,891 people as refugees and asylum seekers in 2018 compared to Germany 139,555; Italy 47,885; France 41,400; Austria 20,700 and Sweden 19,603.

• Brexit will worsen the refugee problem for the UK as it will no longer be party to the EU’s Dublin Regulation which mandates that asylum seekers be processed in the country of first arrival. That regulation also prevents so-called asylum shopping by stipulating that a migrant whose claims are rejected in one country is considered to be rejected across the EU.  If Britain does not remain party to this regulation, any asylum seeker who has been rejected by a EU country could head to the UK for a second try.

• By its very nature there are no reliable estimates on the number of irregular immigrants in the UK. The best estimates put the average at about 720,000 (ONS 2005 had 310k – 570k; the Pew Research Centre in 2017 had 800k – 1.200m).  The lack of any real action – other than flash events to gain media attention such as the van driving around in 2013 with a poster saying “go home or face arrest” – would indicate that central government is happy with the situation.       

• Irregular, unocumented immigration, mass non-EU legal migration and the arrival from poorer EU countries creates a pool of cheap labour for UK businesses to exploit.  Many of these people form the backbone of the gig or black economy, often working for below the minimum wage.  The agricultural and construction industries will often prefer migrants and use dodgy even abusive methods of employment, retaining people for years as “self- employed” with no pension, sickness or other basic rights. 

Students

• Allowing students from other countries to come to Britain to study has long been seen as “a good thing”.  It gave bright students from poor countries in the Empire the opportunity to train, learn new skills and aid the development of their own countries on return. It also gave British students the opportunity to study alongside and learn from overseas students, developing a greater understanding and, hopefully, a tolerance of other cultures. This was all part of the “soft power” diplomatic game – although in the case of Anwar Al-Sadat that seems to have backfired to name but one example.  After entry into the EU it was seen as a way to improve integration as well as building additional research capabilities.

• The UK has the second-largest group of international students in the world and there is no limit on the numbers of international students able to come to the UK to study.    Currently there are about 458,000 at university, 28,000 at private schools (which use their charity status to get UK tax benefits) and over 500,000 on short term English language courses (93% at private institutions). This compares to about 30,000 British students heading abroad for tuition and most of these are only doing part of their course overseas – mostly in languages.

• The change to charging for university courses has changed that dynamic.  Now universities are in a race to attract as many full-fee paying overseas students as possible. Some courses now only have overseas students, many have a majority of overseas students especially from China.  It is argued that this cohort of full-fee paying international students helps to subsidise fees for UK students.  It has also led to the expansion of universities much to the delight of vice-chancellors who therefore claim higher salaries for managing such vast empires.

• It is argued that international students offer positive economic benefit with the Department for Education estimating their export value at £17.6 billion in 2015.  They are also claimed to be important to the local economies where they study, supporting local employment, and by spending money in the UK on tuition fees, living expenses, and by friends and family visiting them.

• Non-EU students pay higher fees for studying than EU or domestic students. This is reflected in the fact that non-EU students now make up 73% of all international students and in the massive rise in the number of Chinese students – increasing three-fold to some 106,000 in the last 10 years, 30% of all international students.   

• The adverse effects are seldom highlighted.    Some domestic students raise concerns over the quality of academic discussions especially in groups with high numbers of international students who also require more attention from the lecturer.  Some academics claim that Chinese students in particular are using the UK for research purposes but take that research back to China to speed up Chinese expansion to the detriment of the UK.

• The largest impact has to be on housing.  The 458,000 international students at university have to be housed somewhere – a massive money-spinner for private landlords, but of little benefit to the wider population.  

• It is unclear how many students fail to leave, either by changing their visa status or just disappearing off the radar.  Around a quarter extend their visa, usually for further study.  But the number of student inflows and outflows suggest that a majority of students were not going home. For the past three years the estimated inflows of students has been significantly higher than the number of self-reported former students estimated to be leaving.  

Impact on losing countries

• Rarely mentioned is the impact a loss of skilled people has on losing countries. An aero- engineer moving from Toulouse to Filton has little impact on France, but a trained nurse leaving from a developing country can have a devastating impact.  A report in 2018 highlighted the fact that 70% and 75% of the physicians originally from Angola and Mozambique, respectively, were currently practising abroad. In total, approximately 65,000 doctors and 70,000 nurses from sub-Saharan Africa, which is equal to approximately 28% of the region’s medical workforce, were working internationally.  This is decimating the medical workforce in several areas (Young Scientists Journal 08.04/2018).  Malawi lost so many skilled nurses to South Africa, USA, Australia and the UK that the resulting shortage, especially in rural areas where nurses provided the backbone of the healthcare services, has led to an increase in the rate of infant mortality.  Besides the effect on healthcare provision there is a financial loss to these countries, having paid for the education of these professionals with no return.  

• Eastern Europe is now experiencing labour shortages.  Economies there have grown as a result of EU integration, EU subsidies and foreign remittances.  This has stimulated demand but without the manpower to meet it and this is holding back business expansion that would enable these countries to achieve parity in level of wealth with western European states.

Impact on Britain

• An endless supply of cheap labour depresses internal rates of pay.  This, it is argued, helps keep food prices low so that everyone should be able to afford to eat well.  The reality is that it serves to enhance producers’ profits, keeps normal working people’s wages low and the stock market high.  The drive for lower food prices, cutting environmental, animal welfare, health and safety standards as well as wages throughout food production, only appears rational in a society that won’t allow people enough money to live on without sacrificing food quality.

• It is argued that the UK does not have the numbers of highly educated, highly skilled workers a modern high-tech economy needs.  This is possibly true.  But there are two ways to solve this crisis a) raise more taxes to expand high quality education for all or b) allowing fee-paying independent, elite schools to thrive, allowing international students to stay and giving wide access for skilled, high income workers from overseas.  The UK government always chooses b).  Not only does this save raising taxes it also maintains the established social order in favour of the existing elite.

Environmental impact

• But, these policies ignore the impact a population which is forever increasing has on the environment, the destruction of wildlife habitats and the impact on the mental and physical health of society under the strain of ever more crowded polluting cities.  The UK is already one of the most densely populated countries in the world and Wessex one of the most densely populated parts of Europe and the UK (EU 275 per km²; UK  281 per km²; Wessex 299 per km²).

• Climate change is now having an even greater push impact on many poorer countries   This is affecting sub-Saharan countries most critically and will become an ever greater driver of migration.  Yet the richest countries, including the UK, contribute the majority of carbon emissions driving climate change much more than the poorest countries whose people are fleeing the effects.

Impact on Wessex

• What does all this prove?  Perhaps that all that is our past possesses our present; our genetic make-up; our culture; even our language; they are no more than a hotchpotch of pieces churned out by the cauldron of history; immigration has made us who we are.

• WR uses the more accurate account of our population history given above to guide its approach to immigration and the changes it will inevitably bring. Some groups in the past came here to exploit; most came to improve their lives.  Unfortunately, the Brexit trauma, in particular, has made immigration a hot and toxic political potato with anti-European and racist overtones.  WR plays no part in such ill-informed rhetoric but there is no ignoring the issue.  We recognise that the scale and pace of change are important to ensure a gradual evolution of communities.   

• WR is much less exercised about free movement than overall population growth both domestically and globally.  We believe that much more needs to be done to reduce and reverse the rate of overall population growth.  Migration needs to be managed, in order to keep Wessex’s population within its carrying capacity. However, we are opposed to the demonisation of people seeking a better life elsewhere, and to discrimination on the basis of race, religion or national origin.

• Many of the same type of problems of inequality of opportunity or quality of life that act as pull into Europe and the UK affect Wessex as well; the same measures of investment aid, development of real jobs, the spreading of wealth away from just London and the big cities has to be pursued here. 

• Internal migration – movement from elsewhere in the UK into Wessex – has a big impact on house prices and availability.  Rural areas face significant inward population movement – retirees, commuters, etc. – for example, according to ONS figures, in the year to mid 2019 London lost 94,000 people but the Government’s South West Region gained 25,000 (see appendices). The figures also highlight that, for Wessex, direct international migration is not a problem at all.  In the last year for which figures are available there were actually more international migrants leaving the SW than arriving.