This paper examines migration in the United Kingdom through multiple lenses: the historical and sociological foundations of human migration, the tension between citizenship ideals and demographic realities under globalization, and the specific policy challenges facing British institutions. Drawing on the International Organization for Migration, the UK Office for National Statistics, and peer-reviewed scholarship, the paper presents detailed immigration and emigration figures, ethnic minority population data, and internal migration patterns — particularly in London. It concludes by analyzing the Conservative government's proposed cap on non-EU migrants and the broader public anxieties about cultural change that drive UK immigration politics.
The history of humanity is also the history of migration, according to Professor Harzig and colleagues. The original Homo sapiens migrated out of East Africa and spread slowly across the world (Harzig, 2009, p. 8). Essentially, migration is the cross-border activity that individuals carry out in order to relocate for a number of potential purposes.
The five basic aspects of migration are as follows: (a) migration "within a cultural group" that seeks different geographic locations for purposes as varied as hunting or marriage; (b) migration of "segments of a cultural group into new, unsettled areas," called "outbound branching" or "filiation migration"; (c) "colonization migration," which involves moving into already settled areas to "establish rule over the peoples" already there — essentially, conquest; (d) "whole-community migration," the dynamic that occurs when a group's survival is being threatened or when "neighbors [are] becoming destructive" and it is time to move; and (e) "cross-community migration," which relates to peaceful moves into "another group's social space" or the "involuntary transport of slaves or captives" (Harzig, p. 10).
Authors Stephen Castles and Alastair Davidson explain that the concept of citizenship had not truly been a topic of great interest until recent years. That has been changing, however, as some states have revised their rules regarding access to citizenship for migrants, for children of migrants, and for other minorities who find their way into those states. Changes in government leadership have had a profound effect on how citizenship is interpreted and what policies toward citizenship and migration are instituted.
Ideally, the authors assert, "all the inhabitants of a territory" should be integrated into the "political community," and they should enjoy "their political equality as citizens" (Castles et al., 2000, p. 2). That said, it is also true that "relatively few nations match this democratic ideal" today, even though between the 17th and 19th centuries the political systems of nation-states "were astonishingly effective, in both internal and external terms" (Castles, p. 3). Those political systems "facilitated the integration of diverse groups into cohesive populations," Castles notes. In the meantime, globalization has ushered in changes to nation-states: the rich have become richer, there are more poor people, and in many instances "the middle classes [have been] eroded" in "virtually all the older industrialized countries," including England (Castles, p. 5).
The key aspect of globalization as it applies to migration is that it has "undermined the ideology of distinct and relatively autonomous national cultures," Castles explains (p. 7). These national cultures were always a "myth" in any case, because "virtually every nation-state has been made up of ethnic groups" that had their own traditions, languages, points of origin, and cultural values (Castles, p. 7). Today, a person from such an ethnic group is an "Other" until he or she can become a citizen. Another product of globalization — and a key theme of this paper — is that because of the "rapidly increasing mobility of people across national borders," populations have become "more heterogeneous and culturally diverse"; however, cultural diversity and "social marginalization" are frequently linked (Castles, p. 8). This dynamic has led to the creation of ethnic minorities experiencing "disadvantages and relatively isolated positions in society," Castles continues.
A pointed question raised by Castles is being asked worldwide by scholars and leaders pushing for democratic policies: "Can these Others be submitted to a process of acculturation… which will reduce them to nationals and thus qualify them for membership in the nation-state?" (p. 9).
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) published a white paper titled "Migration and Development: Achieving Policy Coherence," in which the author discusses the tensions within the UK development community (the Department for International Development — DFID). Despite "several years of concerted efforts," author Sriskandarajah explains, the UK development community has not been able to "mainstream" the concept of migration into its development policy agenda (Sriskandarajah, 2008, p. 17). There is a "persistent lack of consensus in DFID on prioritizing this issue," and the problem extends further: "There remains a lack of coherent thinking" throughout the British government on the issue of migration (Sriskandarajah, p. 17).
The principal obstacle to what Sriskandarajah calls "greater institutional coherence" in the UK is the tension between policymaking and development; the two are the responsibility of "different departments" governed by "different interests" (p. 17). In other words, the domestic agenda takes precedence over development commitments, and even when the two departments agree to cooperate and remain open, "they may have different objectives" (Sriskandarajah, p. 17). Development policy is made by DFID, while asylum and migration policy fall under the Home Office. The DFID group is interested in ensuring that "remittances reach the poorest," while the finance ministries in the UK understandably place a high priority on "legalities" (Sriskandarajah, p. 17). The author asserts that stronger leadership from the centre of UK government is needed as the nation addresses the challenges of "making migration more development friendly" (Sriskandarajah, p. 18).
"ONS figures on immigration, emigration, visas, and asylum"
"Ethnic population distribution and London migration patterns"
"Conservative migrant cap proposals and economic trade-offs"
Seeking to reduce the number of immigrants without "any justification" from previous governments had not worked. Balch (p. 624) argues that policy-makers ("political elites") arrive at decisions in part because they are "insulated from pro-migrant lobbying" and therefore conduct policy in a "rather autonomous way."
Murray makes a salient point in asserting that any cap should be set "in as flexible a manner as possible." The government should set a "soft target," Murray suggests, so that businesses would be able to recruit needed migrants who meet established requirements when economic circumstances call for it, keeping the economy strong. Hidden beneath the rhetoric and official policy pronouncements in the UK is a persistent public fear of the "Other" — particularly migrants associated with groups that sponsor or tolerate terrorism. This is a powerful public issue and is part of the broader context that shaped Cameron's electoral success. Ultimately, the data and scholarship reviewed here suggest that the UK must find a balanced, coherent, and evidence-based approach to migration policy — one that accounts for demographic realities, economic needs, and the long-term social integration of an increasingly diverse population.
You’re 42% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.