As shadow home secretary debating the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Bill, Jack Straw pronounced: "Britain has been immeasurably enriched by the contribution that has been made to its economy and its society by successive generations of immigrants." He excoriated the Tories for an iniquitous set of laws that discriminated against immigrants of colour. There is nothing in our collective genes that makes it impossible for electorates to vote for leaders who suggest we have responsibilities to the dispossessed – whether as a result of violence, fear or deprivation – especially when in many cases we helped create the messes, historically or by our more recent megalomaniac interventions. The UK, the fourth-richest country in the world, is 34th in terms of the refugees it supports. Half of those who arrive can prove – in spite of our scandalously unjust procedures – that they have a legitimate right to stay. If and when they feel safe enough to, most of them will make good and add to the nation's wealth.Economic migrants are no different (except they are poorer and need more chances) to the thousands of Britons moving to Spain, Italy, South Africa, France; or the thousands of Americans, New Zealanders, white South Africans and Europeans on the move. The economic refugees from deprived countries have no way to come in without pretending to be asylum-seekers. Not all asylum-seekers are really seeking political asylum, but equally not all those seeking entry are "bogus" or terrorists.
Besides, economic migrants are intrepid, hungry, and often desperate people too, not villains we should hang on the cliffs of Dover.People go back, too, and it is so much more productive for all sides when they choose to do so rather than being bundled off when we decide they must. Kenyans, many highly educated, are returning home after exile because for the first time in decades their country is not ruled by a despot supported by the West. Thousands have gone back to Afghanistan, but that is not told to the British public.I found the Select Committee's conclusions depressing and dangerous. They were given the task to look not at arrivals but at removals (and do British people not care that in their zeal to keep to targets, the immigration services are removing real victims of state violence to war zones like the Congo?) The Crawley report says rightly that no evidence was provided to underpin their wild "social unrest" assertions. We need the public to better understand the dynamics of migration and the benefit of having new blood flowing in and out of any nation. Sure there are many costs and disadvantages, but the net gain is proven.This Select Committee report will only encourage New Labour to become even more of a bulldog on asylum and immigration. Blair is now such a son of Thatcher, I cannot see any other response.
That will lead to even worse national paranoia and ill-will towards incomers and settled Britons of colour. The gulf between the powerful and powerless will damage both sides. So, until he does better on this, I must agree with those who voted Tony Blair into the dog house.y.alibhai-brown independent.co.uk More from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Over the weekend, there was more bad news for the Tories.
Out in Buckinghamshire, the party hierarchy had a successful conference, with Iain Duncan Smith making a goodish speech. At the end, the MPs set off in a cheerful mood – and that is the bad news. Any Tory who is feeling comfortable about his party's prospects is only detached from reality. Reports from the doorstep indicated that while Labour support was soft and sullen, those who identified themselves as Tories were pretty determined to vote. But there was still a problem: the party's leader, IDS, aroused so much criticism that many canvassers were reduced to assuring potential voters that it was safe to vote Tory because he would have nothing to do with their local government.It did not work.
