Activists, organizations that support immigrants, and liberal and left-wing politicians are all demanding the publication of a report – demands that have been rejected so far at the time of writing.
BBC reporter Selestina Olulode writes:
Jacqueline McCenzy, a Leigh Day immigration lawyer who supports the victims of Windrush, has called for the report to be published.
She said that not doing so was an insult to the victims, and many victims had told her that they wanted to understand what had happened as part of the healing process.
A spokesman for the Home Office said: “This report does not reflect government policy and the views expressed in it are those of an author who is a historian independent of the Home Office.”
Diāna Abota MEP wrote an opinion on The Guardian which covers part of the history of racism and anti-immigrantism in parliament and points to the involvement of the two largest political parties.
All parties, including mine, have taken part in the adoption of fanatical laws. Recognition is the first step in correcting it
In 1949, the Royal Population Commission reported that “immigrants with a good supply would be admitted without reserves”. It can be assumed that “good stock” in this context means white. A committee of ministers was set up in 1956 to investigate colonial migration and whether it should be curtailed. It stated: There was no threat of a colorful invasion of the country at the time … Meanwhile, circumstances have changed … “The report said:” We clearly cannot accept … all the colorful immigrants who might want to come here. “
Fearing a “colorful invasion”, the MEPs predicted what Margaret Thatcher would say more than 20 years later about the “flooding” of British migrants. Significantly, the 1956 report also states: “There is no doubt that, although the bill would be non-discriminatory in form, it would be clear what the bill was actually aimed at.”
Abbot concludes with:
The system is calibrated for racism. It always has been. We know that, and now we know that Priti Patel Home Office knows it behind closed doors. A dirty secret is no longer a secret.
The Guardian An editorial statement was issued on 30 May.
The horrific treatment of thousands of black Britons since 2010 is one of the most shameful episodes in our recent history. At least 164 people were detained or deported due to the “hostile environment” developed by the Ministry of the Interior. According to a Wendy Williams survey published in 2020, they were made to “feel like criminals in the country where they had lived legally most of their lives”. About 20 died before receiving compensation, many of them in the Caribbean.
Ms. Williams found that “institutional ignorance” was to blame for a situation where laws were changed so that black people were punished without the Department of the Interior realizing it was happening. The report on the roots of the policy was prepared in response to her call for better training. It describes with astonishing clarity the process by which the laws began to discriminate against white and black people. It explains how a number of parliamentary acts from the 1950s onwards were “designed to reduce the proportion of people living in the United Kingdom who did not have white skin”. It was and is the racist legacy of a racist empire. And it’s no secret.
However, the government does not seem to want to oppose it. There have been warm words since Mrs Williams’ report, but little evidence of cultural change in the Priti Patel unit. In March, Williams said he was “disappointed at the lack of tangible progress.” Her proposal for a Commissioner for Migrants was not adopted. Windrush victims are unhappy with compensation delays.
Amelia Gentleman Guardian reporter and award-winning author The betrayal of the windrush: exposing the hostile environment, also reacted to the news and questioned the secrecy.
As she wrote The Guardian May 29:
The request for freedom of information about the document was rejected. While acknowledging that the issue was a “legitimate public interest issue” and that “openness and transparency” were important, the request was rejected on the grounds that the Home Office’s response to the Windrush scandal included “sensitive policy issues”. . The publication of the document could “hamper discussions and the ability of ministers to receive free and open advice”.
Immigration historians have said it is peculiar to suppress the work of history funded by taxpayers. There was speculation as to whether the report was internally detained for a year because its findings contradicted the government’s account of race. Last year, Tony Sevela’s report on the race on racial and ethnic differences said there was no evidence that Britain was an institutionally racist place. Last month, the prime minister told parliament: “Our UK has had a proud history of receiving people from abroad for centuries.”
Simon Wullie, former chief executive of Operation Black Vote and July 2020 Racial Inequality Unit no. 10 The leader said the refusal to publish the report was “shameful”. “The government firmly denies the systemic nature of racial inequality, and in this climate, historical facts have become an awkward truth that needs to be hidden,” he said.
British racism, associated with the years of its imperialist empire and major colonial rule, is evident to those who experience it every day. Windrush is just one example, but it is important for Caribbean people discussing their current ties to the crown.
The report does not cover the latest damage against the Black Caribbean community in the United Kingdom, in particular the ongoing deportations.
As a Jamaican politician On May 20, Lisa Hanna wrote:
I have been thinking lately about how we treat people who have broken the law. There is an important philosophical question here about the societies in which we, as members of a globalized world, want to live: if you live in a place since childhood or childhood and commit a crime in that place, are you punished? that place? Or should you be deported back to your country of birth?
These questions come to mind when reading about the UK’s return flights. According to an analysis by the campaign group published in the Guardian last week, most of the 20 Jamaicans who had experienced one recent deportation flight came to Britain as children. (The flight flew with seven people this week; others remained in the UK waiting for legal trouble.)
We need an open and fair debate on this. Is it humane to move people from one country to another where they may not have lived for decades and no longer have contact? Is it fair to the recipient country, which should now bear the burden of trying to reintegrate this person into a foreign society? And is it fair to this person, who not only has to pay a debt to a community with imprisonment, but also has to renew his life in a country thousands of miles away from home?
Black community activists continue to protest deportations.
The man’s mother, who is facing deportation, defends migration as a concept and celebrates the generational roots of her family in the UK. Then she cries out for the “evil” of deportation: “It’s racism, you sell these children like animals. like goats. ”
For readers who haven’t started using Windrush and the battles associated with it, I’ve written a few stories about it here before:
“If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas”: Member of Parliament attacks British Home Secretary over Windrush Generation;
Lenny Henry: “When it comes to fighting racism, institutional or otherwise, there is no finish line”;
and Racism in Britain: The ‘wind generation’ has come, but the pain and suffering have not disappeared.
If you are interested in the fascinating and in-depth literature on Windrush, I recommend reading the aforementioned book by Amelia Gentleman.
Margaret Doyle, writer for the UK Institute of Administrative Justice (UKAJI), wrote this report in 2020.
In essence, the book is the story of an investigation carried out by a journalist who broke into deep-seated violations, even though she was not convinced that the violation was found. The story unfolds like a thriller; it has villains and victims, but what the gentleman reveals at source is a rotten core, not a bad apple, not even the interior minister who was forced to resign. The gentleman is looking for the roots of a “hostile environment” policy campaign, an official term that was abandoned only when the scandal was discovered and the government renamed the policy an “appropriate environment”. Its roots go back to the Immigration Act of 2014, until the increase in immigration enforcement under the New Labor Party, but the narrative adopted by Teresa Maye as Home Secretary and measures related to hostile environmental policy were designed to prevent illegal issues. immigration, but to cling to the newly created political force that is alarming the overall balance of migration. The roots of this hostile environment are deeply linked to the threat posed by the Conservative Party with “UKIP neck breathing”.
“We’re here because you were there”
The book also tells the story of many affected by the Windrush scandal – men and women between the ages of 50 and 60 who were born in the Commonwealth and moved to Britain as children as they moved from one part of the British Empire to another. to join parents who had been recruited to help rebuild Britain after the war. They went to school, worked, had families, paid taxes and state insurance. Those who arrived before 1973 were eligible for citizenship but may not have been aware of the requirements. Like most people, they did not need to keep up with the many changes in immigration rules and visa requirements over the last 30-40 years. They had lived here for many decades and felt British to the core.
For the most part, the common factor that meant that the hostile environment affected them most, rather than others in similar situations, was that they had not traveled outside the United Kingdom since their arrival. They did not need a passport, there was no need to check their status. The issues raised by the transfer of immigration responsibilities as part of a hostile environmental policy came from nowhere and everywhere – from employers, the Employment Center, the Council Housing Office, hospitals. In some cases, requesting a passport – for example to visit elderly relatives in Jamaica – led to a refusal and a scary letter from the Interior Ministry threatening deportation.
I hope you will read it.
Wind Day in the United Kingdom is celebrated on 22 June. I am convinced that many events will also put more pressure on the authorities.
I also hope that the outrage over the news of the report will force the UK Government to publish the report they commissioned. We will inform you.
Join me in the comments to learn more about Windrush and the weekly Caribbean Twitter News Roundup.