Law, Opinion, and the Immigrant
| Date | 01 November 1962 |
| Published date | 01 November 1962 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1962.tb02223.x |
| Author | Cedric Thornberry |
LAW, OPINION, AND
THE
IMMIGRANT
Tms
country has
in
modem
times
been essentially one
of
emigration
and
millions,of
persons
born
here have over the last century
been
dispersed throughout the world.' In comparison with the vastness
of
this
movement the number
of
migrants from overseas who have
settled here is trifling. Probably under
a
million have done
so
since
the mid-nineteenth century; and they mainly before the First
World
War
and since the Second. But the agitation caused
to
our
society by their arrival has been wholly disproportionate to their
quantity. The introspection
of
the past fifteen years
*
and the
convulsion
(if
this
is not
too
strong
a term)
of
the last five have
been
matched in their painful intensity only by those occurring
around the turn
of
this
century over the entry
of
150,OOO
Eastern
European Jews.' That period saw the introduction
of
the *st
modem legislation
impeding
the entry
of
aliens through provisions
which have
grown
more restrictive with the years.
I
The propriety or morality
of
the principle
of
regulating the admis-
sion
of
aliens has since this time gone almost unchallenged though
particular instances
of
its exercise have occasionally caused contro-
versy.
It
seems to
be
generally believed that any community must
in
its
own
interest reserve
to
itself the right to determine which
persona, foreign to it,
it
will
admit into its corporate life. Its
discretion
will
be
exercised in such a manner as
it
is
hoped will
be
consonant with the well-being, social and economic,
of
its members.
The relevant principle
of
international law reflects this universal
sentiment.8
The controvemy over the Commonwealth Immigrants Act,
1962,
has
afiaen
over
what
has
been
seen
to
be
a somewhat complex ethical
problem.
It
may,
on
the one hand,
be
maintained
that the
tonne
tation
attributed
to
the
term
''
alien
"
by British constitutional law
is
unreal and
of
little
relevance
to
the problems connected with the
admission
of
strangers into
a
community. This phenomenon is
marked by
"
the
crossing
point
of
two
contradictory lines
of
1
8.
C.
Johoron,
A
Hutory
of
Emigration
(1818);
H.
L.
Cowsn,
Bktirh Emigra-
tion
to
Ektirlr
North
Amerioa
(1961).
3
The
significant
date
being
ltU$-the
yeer
of
publicetion
of
K.
L.
Little's
Negroer
in
Britain.
8
&e
L.
P.
Gsrtner,
The Jewwh Zmmigrunt in England,
1870-1Q14
(1960).
4
The
Alisnr
Act,
1005
(6
Edw.
7.
c.
18).
+
I[.
8.
Q.
Henriquea,
The
Law
of
Alicm
ond
Naturalisation
(1906);
N.
W.
Sibley
and
A.
Elise,
The Alisw
Act
and
the Right
o
Arylum'(1806).
Hyde,
International Law
(1946),
Vol.
I,
9
69.
5
e.g.,
L.
Oppen
b
eim,
Znternotionul
Law,
8th
ed.
(lQM),
Vol.
I,
4
814;
C. C.
654
Nov.
X9@2
LAW,
OPINION,
AND
TIfl:
IYMIOEANT
66s
behaviour, best mirrored in the etymology
of
the
Latin
horpcr
and
hortis.
These types
of
behaviour are indicated,
on
the one
hand,
by the self-consciousness of
an
exclusive group which involves
dirc
trust, fear and hatred of strangers and,
on
the other, by the
feeling
of mankind, conscious or subconcious, which cab for the honour-
ing
and
protection of visitors
or
those without help
or
kindred."
O
It
is clear that the writer of this passage had in mind
a
definition of
the term
"
alien
"
which beam little relation
to
its precire, legal
meaning-certainly to its meaning under the British Nationality
Act,
1948.'
Rather he referred to persons who were alien or out-
landish in their customs, dress, appearance
or
speech. But the
concept of British nationality (or Commonwealth citizenship)-and
non-alienage in its legal sense-has become largely meaningless in
that
it
attaches to persons
of
almost every
race
and
colour
who may
have been only little affected by tbeir assoaiation with the British
suzerainty which originally brought them their status. Conse-
quently, its possession has failed to mitigate the otherwise
"
alien
"
character of Commonwealth migrants
so
that they may readily be
accepted
as
fellow-members of
a
single society. In this respect they
may remain
as
alien to the community in these islands
as
any alien
properly so-called. In particular, the coloured immigrant may be
seen
as
the
K'
archetypal stranger
"
in the mythology of xeno-
phobia, who because of his
''
high visibility
"
has little opportunity
to conceal himself in his new surroundings while examining them,
and their implications for him.
On
the other hand it could be said that the standards
of
another
age, institutionalised in the principle of international conduct
referred to above, have
no
place under today's conditions; and
that
no
community is entitled to act in this matter unilaterally,
without regard to the needs of other societies. Without necessarily
going to this length
it
may be disputed that Commonwealth
immi-
grants, against whose unrestricted entry powers were sought under
the Bill, are indeed
"
alien
"
in
character.
In
fact the
main
body
of argument against the Bill seems to have adopted
a
qualified form
of the Grst of these two positions-that, admitting the apparent
''
strangeness
"
of the immigrants,
it
was yet asserted that
a
particular duty was owed by this country to them.
It
would be blankly ingenuous to imply that this has been the
only or the main issue since
it
was &st intimated,
a
year ago, that
the Government would seek to introduce
a
Commonwealth Immi-
grants Bill.
Two
collateral problems have unavoidably been
entangled with
it.
First, the intention to introduce the measure has been uneasily
diagnosed
as
a
symptom of national re-alignment-having regard to
Sea
a100
The
Admiorion
of
Alim~~,"
4
Journal
of
the
Society
of
7
11
6
19
Goo.
6,
c.
68,
0. 89.
Carl
Brinkmann
in,
Encyclopaedia
of
the
Social
Sn'encsr,
p.
693.
Edward
Manoon,
Comparative Legislation
114.
0
M.
P.
Banton,
White
and
Coloured
(ISSS),
p.
79.
To continue reading
Request your trial