There is no 'institutional racism' in 'Global Britain': that's official

Many commentators with far more expertise than I possess have picked many holes in the Sewell Report. I will not reiterate their criticisms, but I will point out a connection (which appears to have been overlooked) to a policy announcement which was made the week before. The government's 'new' policy on refugees will restrict entry to Britain to those who seek access by 'official' routes. This means, in effect, that as most refugees have no access to officially approved means of entry, they will be left to drown in rough seas or to starve in war zones (quite a number of which we have some responsibility for having created, through ill-conceived 'humanitarian interventions.') As these refugees have committed no crime other than having ethnic origins which are not favoured by Britain's immigration policies, this appears to be proof positive that there is 'institutional racism' in this country. To clarify this point: the report itself does not focus on the concept of 'institutional racism', but commentary on the report, including remarks by Tony Sewell himself. has emphasised the assumption that the report itself had an explicit stance against the concept of 'institutional racism. ' It did not ; but, as so often, the reception of a report tells us more about the general climate of opinion than the report itself.

As the Sewell Report made only passing reference to the Windrush scandal (and contained no sustained examination of the history of Britiain's immigration policies, which, since 1948, have exemplified 'institutional racism', one has to assume that the report's authors deemed this issue to be beyond their remit. However, it lies at the heart of it. If citizenship is defined by ethnicity, is that not evidence of institutional racism ? Governments have always denied that ethnicity has anything to do with British citizenship, but the immigration laws tell a different story. From the beginning, they were ostensibly intended to address public concerns about immigration from the New Commonwealth, and therefore to restrict it. It is arguable that, however restrictive the immigration laws became, fears of becoming 'swamped' by immigration never disappeared. (For details, see David Reynolds, 'Island Stories' (2019)) . It is this fear which (despite the fact that our neighbours on the Continent have accepted significantly larger numbers of refugees than we do) which still informs British policy. It is no exaggeration to say that this policy stinks, and is as shameful as the Aliens Act of 1905, which restricted entry to Britain by Jewish refugees from the Tsarist pogroms.