It sounds such an innocent word, straight from the Latin verb that I learnt meant to move from place to place. In that sense, it characterised my life as a doctor, moving from Liverpool to Stoke on Trent, back to Liverpool then to West Virginia, to Cardiff, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and finally back to Edinburgh. Perhaps another word could have been applied: vagrant or wanderer. In each place, my family and I were newcomers and had to build new relationships socially, at work and school. The children’s accents modified as we moved and they adapted to their new environments.
To us, migration became normal, a response to the pressure on animals to move to wherever the opportunities seemed best suited to their needs. In our case, selfishly, the need was mine, to forge a career that enabled me to support the family. This is the essential that drives most migration – to provide what is required to survive and, if possible, to thrive.
But the word is one that can easily arouse hostile emotions and can be used by those of ill will to do so. It was behind the xenophobia that drove Brexit and the current demonisation of the victims of people-trafficking. What drives most migration worldwide is the very basic need for food, water and shelter from danger, to ensure a safer future for one’s offspring. In these respects, we do not differ from insects and the other animals that are moving, mostly northwards, to avoid the consequences of climate change. In the richer world that we inhabit, desire for a better education or for more financial opportunities also plays an important role.
What would you do if life in Scotland became intolerable? In Britain as a whole, this has happened twice in my lifetime. In 1940, there was mass movement of children from the great cities as bombing raids were a nightly reality and invasion was a serious threat. Not all were as fortunate as my mother and me in moving to stay with a grandmother.
Then, in the 1950s, war damage and a foundering economy led to the UK Government encouraging migration to Australia and Canada, and there was net emigration from Britain, 2.25 people in every 1,000 leaving our shores. Even many highly qualified doctors failed to find work in the new NHS and were forced to migrate for better opportunities in USA and the Commonwealth. This led to labour shortages, and immigration became a feature of Britain from 1958 onwards. Britain slowly became a more attractive place to work and live in. It still is for most people who hope to better themselves. Nevertheless, immigration was balanced by emigration until the mid-1980s.
The immigration of the 1960s was characterised by ethnicity. The young NHS was undoubtedly saved by importation of first Indian then, when the Indian Government noticed their losses, Pakistani doctors and nurses. The more menial jobs on the railways, service industries and manufacturing were filled by migrants from the West Indies and the Far East. Overt racism, previously targeting the Irish, became apparent in towns and cities, aimed at people who looked different. Black people were seen as threats to the fortunes of indigenous white people. Racist comments were not confined to the poorer members of society – they were commonplace and from recent reports of police behaviour they still are.
However, two very positive consequences of immigration became apparent to most people over the 1960s and 1970s – the number of friendly neighbourhood shops, open all hours and days, run by Asians, and the kindness given by doctors, nurses and carers of foreign origin. We learnt that immigrants were prepared to work hard for less financial reward than was thought usual. Then, as I progressed through my career teaching medicine, I noticed the changes in the lecture theatres. The faces of the keener students in the front rows showed that more and more of them were sons and daughters of those immigrant shop keepers. Now those students are GPs in our practices, consultants in our hospitals, and professors in our universities.
In another field of endeavour – politics – increasing numbers have reached the heights of the Cabinet and some have joined backseat bigots in urging punitive action against immigrants; one, who always looks a bit apologetic about his role, became Prime Minister. In Scotland, others include our First Minister and leader of the Scottish Labour Party. This is a very positive story for the rest of the world about the opportunities for migrants into Britain.
Migration into Britain was balanced by emigration until 1987, despite our entry into the European Community in 1972. In absolute numbers, the net numbers (immigrants less emigrants) fluctuated between 250,000 and 350,000 per year until 2022 when they rose to over 600,000. This excess was related to a post-Covid influx of students and migrants from warfare in Ukraine and political dissent in Hong Kong, and there is evidence the numbers are now falling. Students in general do not stay long-term.
The much-publicised defence of our borders as a potential benefit of Brexit has proved just as effective as King Canute would have predicted. Worldwide, climate change is forcing migration and Europe is a prime destination. Migration is influenced by Macmillan’s events more than by government action, which recently has proved largely counter-productive.
To me, there are important lessons from the rather confusing story of immigration for all political parties, especially for Labour if they are to become the next one, with their hands on the levers of power. These are:
• Migration will inevitably increase owing to climate change and its consequences. Government action has little influence on net migration compared to that of external factors.
• Successful immigrants will have proved their resilience and are potentially useful citizens.
• Detention is expensive and has a negative economic effect.
• Most are young and want to work, learn and earn a living. Once employed, they pay taxes.
• We are an ageing population with increasing needs for care and support from public services.
• Britain is not alone as a recipient of migrants: any solution, matching needs and opportunities, requires joint action across Europe.
I hope some politicians are taking a positive view of the potential benefits to Britain and Scotland of increasing numbers of young active people wanting to live and work here. At present, there are plenty of jobs available that cannot be done by machines or artificial intelligence, and plenty of people penned up in unsuitable accommodation who could do them. An industrial policy taking account of the need to move to clean energy would reveal opportunities for training and employment.
There is an urgent need to employ more people in the immigration service to match immigrants’ need for work with the needs of employers in service, catering and care sectors. The actual net numbers are of little importance; the objective should be to move as many as possible into useful employment until Britain has insufficient jobs for them. This has happened before and makes us an unattractive destination, so numbers fall. Let’s start counting proportions of immigrants in gainful employment.
From the time over 10,000 years ago, when the last ice melted over Scotland and Mesolithic people walked up here, successive immigrations of Picts, Celts, Romans, Normans, Scandinavians and many other races have made us what we are. My own wider family includes both emigrants and individuals from at least 10 different nations. Migration ensures resilience and allows us to face the pressures of a changing environment, part of the evolution of life on Earth. We need to use its power.
Anthony Seaton is Emeritus Professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at Aberdeen University and Senior Consultant to the Edinburgh Institute of Occupational Medicine. The views expressed are his own
By Anthony Seaton | 31 May 2023