Its remarkable how often I've seen I've seen claim circulating since last week from progressive accounts that the new Con migration policy would have excluded Priti Patel's parents. This isn't true - the policies which would have prevented their entry have existed for over 50 yrs
Patel's parents came to Britain from Uganda in the 1960s - I can't find reference to when they came but they will have come as Commonwealth Citizens, exercising the rights accorded to them by the British Nationality Act (1948), passed by the Attlee Labour govt
The first restrictions to this act were applied in 1962, by the MacMillan Con govt. Further restrictions applied in 1968, by the Wilson Lab govt, who responded to a surge in Kenyan Asian migration by unilaterally restricting the migration rights of Kenyan Asians
Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan thus prevented tens of thousands of African Asians just like Priti Patel's parents from migrating to Britain. Many of them only had British Commonwealth passport which made them ineligible for Kenyan passports.
Many of these African Asians, abandoned without warning by a Labour government responding to domestic anti-immigrant sentiment, remained stateless for nearly 40 years, until Gordon Brown addressed the issue in (IIRC) 2008.
The next major piece of legislation came in 1971, when Edward Heath based the Immigration Act, responding to pressure driven by Enoch Powell's anti-migration campaigns. This legislation introduced for the first time "patriality" clauses - meaning rights were restricted to those
who had a British parent or grandparent. The racial implication of this were obvious to all. White Commonwealth citizens would typically have at least one British parent/grandparent, black and Asian citizens would not. Kevin Pietersen could come. Hashim Amla could not.
The Ugandan Asians crisis which many (including me) have in the past erroneously thought was the context of Patel's parents' arrival, came in 1973. Idi Amin demanded all Asian ethnicity Ugandans leave the country within 60 days.
Edward Heath, to his immense credit, sought to protect all of them from the Amin regime - most came to Britain but substantial numbers also resettled (with British govt assistance) to Canada, India and elsewhere.
The next major reforms to immigration came under Thatcher with the British National Act (1981). This tied British citizenship to birthplace for the first time, and ended all migration rights for all Commonwealth citizens.
It also ended the practice of ius soli - birthright citizenship. To this day, children born in Britain to two migrant parents do not automatically acquire British citizenship. They have to apply for it, a process which is increasingly expensive and difficult.
Much of the Immigration Act 1971 and the British Nationality Act 1981 inform migration policy to this day. The provisions which enable the Home Office to deport people unable to prove their migration status - driver of the Windrush Crisis - come from the 1971 Act.
The next major reforms applying to *non-EU* labour migrants was the points based system introduced by Labour in 2008. This awarded points to migrants based on various criteria (qualifications, shortage skills, job offers etc). It has applied to non-EU imm ever since.
So, to return to the claim that "Priti Patel's *new* immigration system could have prevented her own parents arriving, this would be incorrect for any year after 1973:
Since 2008 - the points based system introduced by Labour could have prevented her parents arriving
Since 2008 - the points based system introduced by Labour could have prevented her parents arriving
Since 1983 - the British Nationality Act which came into force that year ended the remaining migration rights of Commonwealth Citizens such as has parents
Since 1971 - the Immigration Act restricted migration rights to those with at least one GB grandparent
Since 1971 - the Immigration Act restricted migration rights to those with at least one GB grandparent
If Patel's parents had opted to stay iin Uganda (as some of her other relatives did I believe) they would most likely have been helped to migrate by the Heath govt in 1973.
If Patel's parents had opted to migrate to Kenya rather than Uganda, they would have been abandoned by the Wilson Labour government in 1968 and would have become stateless and stranded.
Thus, it is simply incorrect to claim that Patel is introducing new restrictions which would have harmed her family's migration prospects. The restrictions which have done that have existed since the 1970s at least. She has extended these to EU migrants who could previously
migrate to Britain without restriction. She has, therefore, introduced controls for (predominantly wealthier, white) EU migrants which (predominantly poorer, non-white) migrants have had to work with for many decades.
Those who don't like migration restrictions can find many grounds to criticise these new rules. But they are neither hypocritical on the part of Patel, nor are they inconsistent - indeed, they are more consistent than prev regimes as same rules now apply to all labour migrants
If you'd like to learn more about public opinion and immigration policy over the long run, then check out @ProfRAHansen 's "Citizenship and Immigration in Postwar Britain" or "Brexitland", my book with @ProfSobolewska on identity conflicts in British politics, out in the autumn.
(small correction - Ugandan Asians expulsion was 1972, not 1973 as stated above)
