TEXT B Nice people do racism too.
Liberal commitment to a multi-ethnic Britain is wilting. Some very nice folk
have apparently decided that the nation’s real problem is too many immigrants of
too many kinds. Faced with a daily onslaught against migrants it may be
understandable to give in to populist bigotry; but it is not
forgivable. Take this, for example: "National citizenship
is inherently exclusionary." So no foreigners need ever apply for
naturalisation, then. And" ... public anxiety about migration ... is usually
based on a rational understanding of the value of British citizenship and its~
incompatibility with over-porous borders". Straight from the lexicon of the far
right. And best of all: "You can have a welfare state provided that you are a
homogenous society with intensely shared values." These are
extracts from an article in the Observer, penned by the liberal intellectual
Goodhart, who is just one of several liberal thinkers now vigorously making what
they consider a progressive argument against immigration. It goes like this: the
more diverse a society, the less likely its citizens are to share common values;
the fewer common values, the weaker the support for vital institutions of social
solidarity, such as the welfare state and the National Health Service.
There are perfectly good reasons to worry about how we respond to
immigration, not least the downward pressure on workers’ wages; the growth of
racial inequality; and the exploitation of illegals. But the answer to these
problems is not genteel xenophobia, but trade union rights, backed by equality
and employment law. The xenophobes should come clean. Their
argument is not about immigration at all. They are liberal Powellites; what
really bothers them is race and culture. If today’s immigrants were white people
from the old Commonwealth, Goodhart and his friends would say that they pose no
threat because they share Anglo-Saxon values. Unfortunately for
liberal Powellites, the real history of the NHS shatters their fundamental case
against diversity. The NHS is a world-beating example of the way that ethnic
diversity can create social solidarity. Launched by a Welshman, built by
Irish: labourers, founded on the skills of Caribbean nurses and Indian doctors,
it is now being rescued by an emergency injection of Filipino nurses, refugee
ancillaries and antipodean medics. And it remains 100% British.
Virtually all of our public services have depended heavily on immigrants.
Powell was forced to admit as much when, as minister for health he advertised
for staff in the Caribbean. His new admirers will discover that a rapidly
depopulating Europe will have no choice but to embrace diversity.
For the moment, however, the liberal Powellites are gaining support in
high places. Their ideas are inspired by the work of the American sociologist
Putnam, a Downing Street favourite. He purports to show that dynamic, diverse
communities are more fragmented than stable, monoethnic ones. But the policy
wonks have forgotten that Putnam’s research was conducted in a society so marked
by segregation that even black millionaires still live in gated
ghettoes. The prime minister still seems uneasy on the issue.
Last week, he wavered uncertainly between backing his pro-immigration home
secretary, and a defensive response to Howard’s goading that the government was
in a mess on the topic. Oddly enough, this is a place in the
arena of world politics where the PM does not stand shoulder to shoulder with
Bush. The Spanish-speaking former governor of Texas recently announced that he
would "regularise" the status of millions of illegal Mexican immigrants who had
slipped across the border to work. It’s the kind of massive amnesty that would
send the Daily Express into conniptions. Even more peculiar, the
prime minister appears to be ignoring not only Blunkett but also his new best
friend, the Labour mayor of London, Livingstone, and Scotland’s first minister,
McConnell. London wants more immigrants to keep pace with its booming economy,
Scotland wants them to boost its ageing work force..Yet the liberal Powellites
still seem prepared to confront a Bush-Blunkett-Livingstone-McConnell axis,
because they are scared witless by the far right. They hope that by appeasing
racism, they’ll make it go away. But this is a beast with an insatiable
appetite. The French discovered that too late; the thuggish
National Front is now France’s second largest party, with one in five likely to
vote for them in upcoming local elections. Liberal secularists who joined in the
assault on the rights of French Muslims now have to find a convincing
explanation for their cowardice, which has also betrayed the freedom of
expression of French Jews and Christians. In Holland, this
spinelessness has ended up as straight leftwing racism. The previously liberal
Dutch establishment is now pushing an asylum policy so extreme even the Sun was
moved to criticise it. The line up that favours managed
migration and diversity--Blunkett, McConnell, Livingstone, Bush and the
Sun--share one quality that the PM should envy m6re than any other at present:
they are all popular with the public. Maybe the government ought to pay, more
heed to this focus group than the ones that see scary foreigners on every street
corner. Perhaps we should also be creating an even more
progressive immigration policy, for example offering easier admission to those
who will bring their skills to the depopulated regions of the north. The
Americans will next year offer more work permits to IT whizzkids from India than
ever before; and before the middle of the century, the world’s strongest economy
will become its most ethnically diverse. Our own population is still over 92%
white; we shouldn’t be duped by anxious faint-hearts into becoming an all-white
backwater. This passage is most probably part of______.
A.an ethnic study B.a newspaper article C.a government report D.a research report