Shabana Mahmood's New Immigration Crackdown Mirrors Century-Old Anti-Jewish Policies
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's recent visit to a migrant reception centre in Copenhagen has drawn attention to her controversial new policies targeting immigrants and refugees in the United Kingdom. Her proposals include extending the qualification period for indefinite leave to remain from five years to ten years, with refugees facing up to twenty years. Additionally, she plans to deny permanent refugee status even to those with successful claims.
Historical Echoes from the 1920s
These measures appear shocking and novel, but they have deep historical roots. In 1924, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin appointed Sir William Joynson-Hicks as home secretary to appease right-wing factions. Joynson-Hicks, a noted antisemite, raised the naturalisation period from five to ten years, and to fifteen years for Russians, a term often used as code for Jewish refugees fleeing pogroms.
He instructed immigration officers to increase vigilance and never give the benefit of the doubt to aliens entering the country, visiting ports to enforce tighter procedures. While Mahmood is not accused of antisemitism, her policies uncannily prefigure those of Joynson-Hicks, highlighting a persistent pattern in British immigration history.
Media-Driven Scapegoating Then and Now
The context of these policies reveals striking parallels. In the early 20th century, right-wing media outlets like the Times, Daily Mail, Express, National Review, and Morning Post fueled paranoia about a "flood" of "aliens" and "undesirables," often referring to Jews. They were accused of tribalism, refusal to assimilate, and leeching off the state, with slogans like "Britons! Do not allow Jews to tamper with white girls."
Today, similar narratives target Muslims and immigrants, accusing them of failing to assimilate, threatening British values, and causing housing shortages and unemployment. Right-wing conspiracy theories suggest Muslims aim to establish a "global caliphate," while figures like Suella Braverman promote a blood-and-soil definition of Englishness based on ancestry and ethnicity.
Debunking False Generalisations
These characterisations are entirely false. Recent polls show that Muslims in the UK and US are more likely than non-Muslims to believe democracy is the best system of government and express loyalty to their country. The primary source of hatred, both historically and today, remains the media, with outlets like the Daily Mail, Express, GB News, and social media platforms perpetuating division.
Governments often blame others for polarisation, as seen when Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage accused the Green party of "sectarianism" for attracting Muslim votes. To combat hatred, standing up to right-wing media is crucial, a lesson from the past when advertisers like J Lyons & Co forced the Daily Mail to withdraw support for fascism in the 1930s.
Consequences of Appeasing Right-Wing Press
By endorsing media lies and grovelling to oligarchs, governments fall behind the curve. Net migration may turn negative this year, jeopardising public services like hospitals, care homes, and universities. Politically, Labour faces an astonishing collapse, with only 37% of 2024 voters intending to support them now, as Starmer's government burns its house down to appease billionaire press owners.
The narrative of "scheming aliens undermining our values" has been drilled into public consciousness for over a century, originally by antisemites. It creates an unsafe environment for all minorities, including Muslims, immigrants, refugees, Black and Brown people, and Jews. Learning from history or repeating its mistakes remains our choice, as these policies threaten the fabric of British society.
