The evolution of British immigrant
integration policy after World War II:
a historical and political science
perspective
Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej nr 8, 355-366
2014
URSZULA
KURCEWICZ
WarsawDOI: 10.14746/rie.2014.8.24
The evolution of British immigrant integration
policy after World War II:
a historical and political science perspective
Immigration intotheUKreachedrecord intensity after WorldWar II. The accep tanceof immigrantswasmotivated by boththe country’s foreign policy and internal
economic situation. Most immigrants to the Isles wereinhabitants of the former territo riesof the British Empire, migrating enmassetothe former seat of powerin theearly postwar decades. The United Kingdom also attractedthose who had political reasons
not to return totheir homelands, subordinatedtothe Soviet Union afterthe war. The
Isles alsowelcomedtwowaves of political migrants fleeingthe Eastern Bloc afterthe bloody conclusionof theHungarian Revolution of 1956 and the WarsawPact interven
tion in Czechoslovakiain 1968.
The opennessof theUK to largenumbers of immigrants in thepostwar period was also determinedby economic considerations. The country, with its rapidly growing
economy,needed a labour force.This state of affairs continued into the secondhalf of
the 1970s,when theeconomic crisis necessitated areduction in therecruitment offor
eign workers.
This article aimsto demonstrate the evolution of the multicultural model of immi grantintegration adopted after World War II by the UK. To this end, the authorpresents
the historical determinants ofthis model and examines the most important legal regula
tions which influenced itsdevelopment in the UK. Theauthor alsoseeks to interpret the
currentattitude of British society at large and of the ruling elite to the negative phenom
ena associated with migration, which escalated at theturn of the 21st century. Acknowl edging that multiculturalism, the ideaon whichthe modem British nation is founded, is currently in crisis, the author presentsthe actionstaken by the British authorities in or der to overcome this problem.
TheUnited Kingdom and the process of decolonization after World War II
The UnitedKingdom actively participated in the process ofdecolonization of its
overseaspossessions.The British decolonization model assumed a gradualtransfer of
power to the local population,with theEmpire maintaining control over theentire pro cess, known as the transfer ofpower(Kiwerska, 1989,p. 291-292). Thismodel ofde colonization was shaped by the experiences resulting from the emancipationof the thirteenAmericanstates in the late 18th century.
The theoretical basisfor the “transfer of power” policyfully developed inthefirst decade after World War II (Young, 1970,p. 488). Thefirst postwarSecretary of State, ArthurCreech Jones, advocated for thegradual progress of thecoloniestowards sover eignty underthe“supervision” of theformer Empire. To become independent, a colony wouldneed to fulfil a number of conditions, such as:
- suitable level of economicdevelopment, self-sufficiency (economic viability);1 - theexistence of an educated native elite, which would take over government and lo
cal administration;
- institutions of power functioning atthe central and local levelsin the colony;
- demonstratingthe pursuit of a“sense of national unity,” transcending anyreligious
or tribal affiliation (Kiwerska, 1989,p. 295).
1 As early as 1945, the British Parliament adopted the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. The act regulated the amount of subsidies granted to the colonies for the purposes of economic deve lopment, promotion of education, and health care. Another important document was the Overseas Re
sources Development Act of1948. At the time, two organizations were established and provided with
significant financial resources: the Overseas Food Corporation and the Colonial Development Cor poration (Kiwerska, 1989, p. 300).
The British decolonization strategywasadequately summed up by the Governorof
Uganda, Andrew Cohen: “the British policy must addressthree areas. Political prog
ress, economic development, and the introductionof education and change intothe so ciety are interdependent. None of theseelements can succeedwithoutthe other two”
(Cohen, 1959, p. 90). When the Conservative Partytook power in 1951, they main
tained the decolonization model promoted by the LabourParty. A characteristic feature
of the thirteen-year ruleof the Conservative Party wasthe ambition to maintainBrit
ain’s ties to the territories formerly controlled by the Empire. Thetransfer of power to
the natives in thecolonies would foster their independence while simultaneously main taining their bondto theformerseat of theEmpireasmembers of the British Common
wealth of Nations.
The Britishpolicy of gradualprogress towards sovereignty was challenged by the rapid development ofnationalliberation movements, especially in the African colo nies. Theyear 1960, symbolicallynamedthe “Year of Africa” wasthepoint at which
British policy towards its dependent territories needed tochange.The growingaspira
tions of independence of African colonieswere recognized in the memorable speech Harold Macmillan delivered on3 February 1960 to the Parliament of SouthAfrica.
Macmillan spoke about the windof change affecting the continent, aphenomenon
which could also be observedin the Britishterritories in Asia shortlyafter World War II
(Mansergh, 1953, p.341-351).The wind ofchange led to a departurefromthe policy of
progressive preparation forindependence. Great Britain had to accept the vigorous transformations that resulted inthe liberationofBritish colonies in Africa.
The ruleof the Conservative Partyalso determined the form of the BritishCom
monwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth was established as a result of the “white British dominions” attaining the status ofindependentstatesby the end of World War I.
The peace conferencein Paris in 1919-1920 was the first international meeting which
all-British conference was held, during which the British Commonwealthof Nations
was formallyestablishedas an association ofcountries connectedbycommon political, economic and cultural interests arising fromtheir membership of the formerBritish
Empire. The group included thefollowing dominions of Great Britain: Canada,Austra
lia, New Zealand, and the Unionof South Africa, as well as the majority ofcountries of
the former BritishEmpire.2
2 The first four dominions were joined in 1922 by Ireland, which, however, withdrew from the Commonwealth of Nations in 1949 (Słownik historii politycznej..., p. 550).
3 However, Great Britain maintained the exclusive right to amend the Basic Laws of Canada and Great Britain (Chase, 1947).
The form and functioning of the Commonwealth were recorded in the Statute of
Westminster in 1931. The mainprovisionsofthe Statute were based on a document
drawn up by a committeeheaded by ArthurBalfour,presentedattheImperial Confer
ence of 1926, and laterrenegotiated.TheStatute introduced equalstatus for Great Brit
ain and its dominions of the time. Another significant provision of the Statute wasthe
abolition of the principle wherebylegal acts enacted by the dominions hadtocomply with Britishlaw on pain ofnullity.3
After World War II,the Commonwealth entered a new phase. It became a platform
enabling Britain to maintain its influence in the former Asian and African colonies.
Jadwiga Kiwerskarefers to this transformation as“theprocess of transitionfrom Em pire to Commonwealth” (Kiwerska, 1989,p. 316). The first countries fromoutsidethe circle of “white dominions” to jointheBritish Commonwealth wereIndia and Pakistan
in 1947, and Ceylon (currently SriLanka) in 1948.The followingyear, theword “Brit ish” was omitted from the name of the Commonwealth. From thatmoment on, the
CommonwealthofNations became a multi-racial organization. Therenaming wasalso
symbolic of the abandonment of British ambitions of dominance in favour of equal rights for all members of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth of Nations would
becomea setting for full decolonization of the former possessionsof the British Em
pire. This approachwasannounced at theConference of the Commonwealthin 1945.It
was postulated that thetransformation of the Empire wouldproceed in twostages.The
firstinvolved the full decolonization and sovereignty of the former colonies,which then, through voluntary accession, would become members of the Commonwealth of
Nations. The British supportedthe formation of power structures in theformer colonies
based on the British parliamentary system. However, the Britishmodel, especially in Africa, was supplanted by a republican form ofgovernment. Thisdevelopment necessi
tated a change ininternal relationswithin theCommonwealth. From 1964 on, the Com
monwealth was a union of communities, but not governments (Lee, 1967, p. 232-237).
Specialist literature on the British decolonization model raises the issue of British aspirations tomaintain a strategic positionin the former colonies and continue close
economic cooperation to ensure the safety of British capital. Inthe faceof increasing political and economic empowerment of former Britishterritoriesand thefact that Af ricain particular had become afieldofColdWar rivalry betweentheUnitedStates and
the SovietUnion,the Commonwealth of Nationswas gradually losing its importance (cf. Miller, 1974; Mansergh, 1955).However, itis impossibleto ignore the role of this
institution in the development of the multicultural model for the integration of immi grants fromthe former British Empire.
Integration ofimmigrants into the hostsociety: a theoretical approach
Anthony Giddens theorizes thatin modem multiethnic societies, therelations be tween minority groups andthemajority of the population canbegroupedunder three basic models: assimilation, “meltingpotof nations,” and pluralism.
Assimilation means that “immigrants depart from their customsand practices and
adapt their behaviour to the values and norms of themajority. Integration with a new so cial order through assimilation requires immigrants to change their language, dress,
lifestyle andworldview” (Giddens, 2006,p. 279).
InGiddens’s “melting pot of nations”model, “the immigrants’ traditions of origin arenot erased under pressure fromthe dominant localtradition, but blend intoit to form
new cultural patterns. Inthis way, theculture of a society isenriched by thediverse val
ues and norms introduced to itfromthe outside,whilediversity isalso created by the
ethnicgroups themselves through their adaptation to the social environment in which they find themselves” (Giddens, 2006,p. 279).
The final model postulated by Giddens is cultural pluralism, characterized by
a commitment tothe developmentof a truly pluralistic society, in which many different culturesenjoy equal rights. In addition, suchasociety respectsethnic differencesas an
important componentof the lifeof thewhole nation (Giddens, 2006,p. 280).
One of themost recenttheories onthis problem wasdeveloped by Stephen Castles. He identified threeideal types ofimmigrantincorporationpolicies: pluralism/multicul- turalism, assimilation, and differential exclusion (cf. Castles,2003).
The policy of multiculturalism (pluralism) isbased on respect for the language, cul ture and religionof theimmigrants’countryoforigin, withthe state ensuring theirequal rights in allareas ofpolitical and sociallife. Multiculturalism reflectsthefact that new
immigrants, to someextent,adopt thecultureand norms of the host society, and subse
quentgenerations bom in the new countrypreserve elements oftheir culture of origin. The policy of multiculturalism involvesrejecting the ideal of a completely homoge
nous societyas a goal impossible to achieve in practice.4
4 Typical countries practicing the policy of multiculturalism today are the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. In the latter case, a system of selection is used whereby new citi zens are chosen on the basis of human capital represented by the individual: age, level and field of education, and language skills (Castles, 2010).
The policy of assimilation assumes that immigrants should adopt the culture and
norms of thehost country. Inthe process of their integration into thehost society, the newcomers renounce their native culture andformer nationalidentity whileadopting
thelanguage of the host country foruse both in public and private life. Thepolicyofas similation was appliedin the 18th and 19thcentury in countries suchas the United
century, withthe idea of thecrucible (melting pot) being increasingly abandoned, this policyevolved towards the multicultural decolonization model of the 1980s.
Most Europeancountries,from theearly 1970s on, haveshiftedawayfrom the idea ofintegrationas a process ofassimilation. Inwidercircles, both political and academic,
theassimilation policy was judgedincompatiblewith theprinciples of democracy. In
creasingly,the issue ofimmigrant rights, such as the right to their own cultural and reli gious identity,wasalso raised. Theserights were gradually incorporated into the legal
framework andprocedures regulating theissuing ofresidence permits and citizenship of the host country.
The policy of differential exclusion permitsthe integration of immigrants into cer tain areas of social life- mainly the labourmarket - while excluding them from the po litical sphere. Until the endof the 20th century, this policywasused in Germany, where the“gastarbeiter”concept originated -a working personwho nonetheless is not enti tled to citizenship orthe rightto participatein political and social life.
Evolution of the Britishmodelof immigrant integration in the legal and institutional context
The British concept of nationalityhad a significant impact on the evolution of the model of immigrant integration adopted. The British integration policy focuses on en
suringtheequality of thevarious social groups while maintaining socialcohesion.In
the UK, theincreasedglobal migration after World War II did not prompt the adoption ofa deliberate policyfor the integration of newcomers. There was emphasis on legal solutions regulatingrelations between different ethnicgroups. This approach is deeply
rooted in the history of Great Britain and latertheBritish Empire.Their formation was conditional on the coexistence of different ethnic groups. TheBritishstate officially came into existencein 1707,when England mergedwith Scotland. The next stepwas the formation of theUnitedKingdom as Ireland joinedtheunion in 1801. Thebegin
nings of the UK’s existenceas a single state- as notedby Renata Wloch - involved the
need for a peaceful co-existence of different groups withstrong national identities:the English, the Welsh, the Scotsand the Irish (Wloch,2011, p. 61). Thedevelopment of
theEmpireadded other groups characterizedby an ethnic rather than national identity.
Thus, itis interestingto notethe observation of Steve Vertovecthat today’s society has
reached a state of “super-diversity,” forming a complexmosaic of races,religions, and nationalities (cf. Vertovec,2006).
The Britishconceptof nationalityis reflected in matters relating to acquisition of
citizenship.The first legal acts regulating this issue wererelated to the emancipationof former dominions and colonies:Canada, India, and Pakistan. As a response,theBritish
government passed the British Nationality Act in 1948,under which theinhabitants of
theformerBritishEmpire maintained theirstatus as British subjects, and beingmem
bers of theCommonwealth,werefree to migrate, settle and take upemployment in the UK. Theypossessed, therefore,a “dual citizenship” of a kind(cf. Spencer, 1997). The liberal policies regulating the influx of foreigners weretightly linked, as has been men tioned, to the necessity ofobtaininga labour force for the rapidly growing economy.
Thetightening of legal regulations concerning immigration was associated withthe
escalation of ethnicity-related social conflict inthelate 1950s. The riots ofAugust and
September 1958 in Nottingham and London’s Notting Hill provided animpulse for le
gal changes. On 21 July 1962,theCommonwealth ImmigrantsActcameintoeffect,in troducing three categories of entry vouchers:
- category Awas granted to those who had beenguaranteed a job in Britain; - category B referred to immigrants possessing qualifications that werein demand
on the labour market;
- category Cmeant a possibility of obtaining an entry pass depending on the needs
of the British economy.
The introductionof the Commonwealth Immigrants Acthadan opposite effect to
the one desired. There was alarge-scale “beat-banrush.” All at once, foreignworkers
brought their familiesto the Isles. The British authorities reacted by abolishing the vouchersystem in 1965 and limiting the possibility ofbringing relatives and children
over the age of sixteen.
The freedom of establishment in Great Britain for Commonwealth citizensstopped
withthe Immigration Act of 1971. Itintroduced two categories ofcitizens:
-partials,or citizens ofBritain or theCommonwealth, bom in theUK or naturalized,
with parents and grandparents bom or naturalizedin the UK. This group also in cluded individuals residing inthe UK for the past fiveyears;
- non-partials,in turn, were those who could participate in the labour market but were
not entitled to bring their families.
In 1980, the adoption of the Primary Purpose Rule prevented immigrants from bringing theirpartners or spouses unless they could provethat the marriage was not “fictitious,” concluded for the purposeof gaininga residencepermit. Citizenship law was revised in 1983. Theabolition of the unconditional law of jus soli meant that citi
zenshipcould only be obtainedby achildbom in theUnitedKingdom to a parent who was a holder of British citizenship or an unconditionalresidencepermit.
A debate on the necessityof developingaspecificmodel of immigrant integra
tion was initiated by Minister of the Interior, Roy Jenkins. His speechof1966 out lined an integration process which, according to him, could never involve an
equalizing process of uniformization, but rathercultural diversity combinedwith
equal opportunities, introduced in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance (Jenkins, 1970, p. 267).
Matters relating to the integrationof immigrants were entrustedto the National
Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants established in March 1964, composedof representatives ofimmigrant groups.An accomplishmentof theCommitteewas the de
velopment of regulations preventingracial discrimination: - The Race Relation Act of 1965;
- The Race Relation Act of 1968; - The Race Relation Act of 1976.
Theaforementioned acts set outprinciples for thetreatment of persons of different
racebyfellow citizens and governmental services. The acts also established institutions
to protect racial equality.
- abolition ofrestrictions on access topublic areas (hotels, pubs,restaurants, cinemas), publictransport, or any placesmanaged by public authorities;
- incitementto racialhatred wasdeemed to be a criminal offence;
- prohibition of discrimination in employment, the provision ofgoods, services or as sistance, in trade unions, andin advertising;
- prohibition ofdiscrimination as part ofhousing policies and in thelease of commer
cial premises;
- prohibition ofdiscriminationin education and vocationaltraining.
The Actof1965established the Race Relations Board, where citizens could submit
complaints, with the Board reportingany violationsof anti-discrimination laws to the Attorney General.
The Act of 1968 founded theCommunityRelations Commission, which would op erate primarily at the locallevel and supervise local community associations.
Under theAct of 1976, theCommission ofRaceEquality was established,replacing
the formertwo institutions. Its basic aims included: - eliminating racial discrimination;
- promotingequal opportunities and good relations amongpeople from different eth
nic backgrounds;
- assessing the effectiveness of the Act of 1976.
Moreover, the Commission was authorized to refercases tothe court and to conduct formal investigations into violationsof the Act. Committees for Racial Equality were
established at a local level.
British society and theissue ofmulticulturalism
Apublic opinionpoll conducted in 2010 by Populus on behalf of SET (Searchlight Educational Trust)on a sampleof 5054 respondents gave reason to believe that opin
ions about multiculturalism are greatly divided in British society. Researchers identi
fied 6 groups holdingdiverse views towards race and ethnicity (Farrar, 2012, p.7-23). Those fullysupporting multiculturalism (ConfidentMulticulturalists), who repre
sent 8 percent of thepopulation,have attained a highlevel of education,are self-confi dent, and satisfied with their lives. Members of this group vote for the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, or the Greens.
Those with strong liberal views (Mainstream Liberals), mainly universitygradu ates, haveanoptimistic outlook onlife andare highlymotivated. This group,represent ing 16percent of thepopulation, sees immigration asa benefit to the country. They are
slightly less avid supportersof multiculturalism thanthe previous group (Confident
Multiculturalists), but they vote for the same parties.
The third group, made up ofthose showinganambivalent attitude to multicultural ism (Identity Ambivalents),represents 28 percentof the population. Thesepeoplehave
a less optimistic outlook on life and are unsure of theirfinancial stability. Most repre
sent the working class. This group contains Muslims, Blacks, and other minority groups.Among Identity Ambivalents,about 37percentvote for the Labour Party, but
Anothergroupis comprisedof the Culturally Concerned, whorepresents 24 percent of the population. Among themare mainly professionals and managers,who havea bet ter financial standing than members of other groups and are of advanced age. This
group is concerned abouttheimpact immigration could have on the national identity.
They fear that the integration of immigrants into Britishsociety might fail.42 percent ofthem support the ConservativeParty.
Those who conceal their hostility towards different cultures (Latent Hostiles) repre
sent 10percent of the population and aremostly older peoplewithout a universityedu
cation. They originate mainly fromthe workingclassand show a pessimistic attitude
towards their future.They believethat immigrants are “undermining” Britishculture and slowing down economic progress. In thisgroup, 29 percent supportthe far-right
British National Party.
The finalgroup is actively hostile towards the policyof multiculturalism(Active Enmity)and represents 13percent of thepopulation. This category comprises, in addi
tion to the middle-class,uneducatedand unemployed individuals.Theyare hostile to any ethnicor religiousgroup different totheir own. Manyjustify the use ofviolence as away of defending their rights. 56 percent of them supportthe British NationalParty
(Farrar, 2012, p. 7-23).
In conclusion, only 24percent of the British society approve of the multicultural
policy ofimmigrant integration, while23 percent are stronglyopposed. Overhalf of the respondentshave noopinionon the issue.
British society ina state of super-diversity
In the second decade of the 21st century, British society reached a stage of
“super-diversity.” With the currentintricate mosaicof races, religions and national ities, themulticulturalism policyhas ceased toapply. Steven Vertovec, who coined
theterm super-diversity, claims that new, more fragmentedimmigrant groups are currently forming. Whatdifferentiatesthosegroups from the immigrantgroups of
thelate 20th century isthe fact thatthey are much less organized and more diversi
fied intermsof legalstatus,languageand religion. Immigrants no longeronly arrive intotheUK from formercolonies,historically associated with Britain, butoften al
ready have experience living in other EU countries (cf. Vertovec, 1999, 2004).
Vertovecalsopoints out that new relationships give rise to new patterns of inequal ity and prejudice against recentimmigrants, now expressed by both theBritishand by minorities who had settled in the UKpreviously. The researcher argues that super-diversity hasledtothe emergence of new patterns of segregation - a newdef
initionof “whiteness.”
The terrorist attacksof 7 July 2005 became theturning point which intensified the debate on developing a new model ofimmigrant integration.Intheautumn of2006,the
Commission for Racial Equality headed by TrevorPhillips proposed anew concept of
integration,based on three pillars:
I - equality, promoted by an anti-exclusion policy;
III - participation, including an increased minorityparticipation in politics, for exam
ple through increasing therepresentation of minorities among Members of Par liament from 15 to 50.
Great Britain was faced withthe need to develop a new model, covering notonly the
integration of immigrantsbut also - as Gordon Brownsaid in 2006 - thenecessity of developing a new concept ofBritishness. The Philips Commission concluded that Britishness should be constructed around liberal values such as commitmentto democ racy, freedom ofspeech, freedom of action andnational values:common tradition and language. Philipsalsoadvocated stricterseparation betweenpublic and private spheres. The next step was the creation of theCommission onIntegration and Cohesion in2006.
Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Communities under the government ofGordon Brown,stressed thatthe ideasand policies of the government should not beconcerned with special treatment of ethnic and religiousminorities, sincethis would notbecondu
cive to social cohesion. She pointed out that even in mutual tolerance there are
non-negotiable ruleswhich mustbe recognized by all groups, both thenewcomers and
the locals. In 2007, the Commission released a report entitled “OurSharedFuture.” One of thekey findings of thereport was the disassociation of theconcepts of integra
tion and struggle against inequality and discrimination. The Commission adopted
a program for the integration of ethnicand religiousminorities,whichis currentlybe ing implemented. The programinvolves:
- creating a newnational holiday celebrating the cohesion of the Britishnation (Com
munity Day);
- negotiations withpoliticalparties in order topersuadethemto increase minority rep
resentation on electoral lists;
- obligatingcompanies to grant employees additional three days of paid leave for reli gious practice;
- employers should also organize English classes for their employees, and offices should reduce thenumber of translateddocuments issued to immigrants in order to
increase theirmotivation tolearn English;
- the state shouldexercisegreater control over the curriculaof religious schools;
- the programalso proposed that the symbolic meaning of citizenshipceremonies be
emphasized and that theybeheld for school-ageyouth (Our shared future).
The program considerslanguage to bethe main factor promoting national commu nity. Inthe UnitedKingdom, the multiculturalmodelof ethnic relationshas not been
completely rejected, but a stronger emphasis wasplaced on the need tomaintainsocial
cohesion and build a strongnational identity.
A significant change introducedby the Labourgovernmentwas the adoptionof the Borders, CitizenshipandImmigration Actof2009. Itaimedto simplify immigration
laws, strengthen border securityand reformthe naturalizationprocess. Before 2009,
naturalization was a relatively quick process,taking three years forfirst-generation mi grants, and involveda testin the English language, political systemand civil rights. The most important changes in the regulations mainly concern the introduction ofa trial pe riod forpotential future citizens of theUnited Kingdom. During this period,thecandi
date should demonstrate not only their “good character,”but also activeparticipation in the life of thelocal community and effortsmade for its benefit.These provisions may
be said to embodythe concept of “earned citizenship,” whereby nationality is granted as areward forcertain efforts that benefitthe public (Borders).
Conclusion
The coming of theConservativeParty intopower following the parliamentary elec
tions of 2010did not alter the main line ofimmigrant integration policy developedby
the Labour government. The policy ofmulticulturalism in the integration ofimmigrants wasmaintained, despite strong criticism from some circles. The main points of focus
are, as before, anti-discrimination legislation, the promotion of socialcohesion, and more recently,migration management strategy. Drawingon theexperience ofcountries such asAustralia and Canada, thenew government promotes ahighly selective migra
tionpolicy aimedat maximizing the benefitsto the UKlabour market and favouring
highly skilled migrants.However,GreatBritainis faced with the need to develop a new model, encompassing not only immigrant integrationbut also - as Gordon Brown said
in2006 - thenecessity of developing a new conceptofBritishness.
Bibliography
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/ll/pdf, 10.07.2014.
British Nationality Act 1948, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/ll-12/56/fulltext_en.pdf, 10.07.2014.
Carrera S. (2005), Integration as a Process of Inclusion for Migrants? The Case of Long-Term Resi dents in the EU, CEPS Working Document 219, Center for European Policy Studies, Bruksela.
Castles S. (2010), Migration and Community Formation under Conditions of Globalisation,
conferenrence: “Reinventing Society in the New Economy”, Toronto, 9-10 March. Castles S., Miller M. J. (2003), The Age of Migration. International Population Movements in the
Modern World, The Guilford Press, New York.
Castles S., Miller M. J. (2011), Migracje we współczesnym świecie, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
Chase E. P. (1947), Government by consultation in the British Commonwealth, “The Journal of Poli
tics”, no 2.
Cohen A. (1959), British Policy in Changing Africa, Northwestern University Press, London.
Commonwealth Immigration Act (1962), http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:// www.movinghere.org.uk/ deliveryfiles/pro/CommonwealthlmmigrationActl 962/0/8 .pdf,
10.07.2014.
Farrar M. (2012), Multiculturalism in the UK: A Contested Discourse, in: Islam in The West. Key Is sues in Multiculturalism, eds. M. Farrar, S. Robinson, Y. Walii, P. Wetherly, Palgrave
Macmillan, London.
Giddens A. (2006), Socjologia, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
Kiwerska J. (1989), Rozpad imperium brytyjskiego w Afryce, PWN, Warszawa.
Lee J. M. (1967), Colonial Development and Good Government. A study of the ideas expressed by the British official classes in planning decolonization 1939-1964, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Mansergh N. (1955), The Multi Racial Commonwealth: A Report. Proceedings of the Fifth Unofficial Commonwealth Relations Conference Held at Lahore, Pakistan, 17-27 March 1954, Royal
Institute of International Affairs, London.
Mansergh N. (ed.) (1953), Documents and Speeches on British Commonwealth Affairs 1931-1952,
t. Ill, Oxford University Press, London-New York.
Miller J. (1974), Survey of Commonwealth Affairs. Problem of expansion and attrition 1953-1969,
London.
Our shared future, raport Komisji Integracji i Spójności Społecznej, http://resources.cohesion- institute.org.uk/Publications/Documents/Document/DownloadDocumentsFile.aspx?recordId= 18&file=PDFversion, 10.07.2014.
Race Relation Act (1968), http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/71/pdfs/ukpga_19680071_en.pdf, 10.07.2014.
Race Relation Act (1976), http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74, 10.07.2014.
Słownik historii politycznej świata 1901-2005 (2006), pod red. B. Bankowicz, M. Bankowicza, A. Dudka, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków 2006.
Spencer I. R. G. (1997), British Immigration Policy since 1939. The Making of Muliti-Racial Britain,
Routledge, London.
Vertovec S. (1999), Conceiving and Researching Transnationalism, “Ethnic and Racial Studies”, no 22.
Vertovec S. (2004), Migrant Transnationalism and Modes of Transformation, “International Migra
tion Review”, no 38.
Vertovec S. (2006), The Emergence of Super-diversity in Britain, Working Paper no 25 for the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Oxford.
Włoch R. (2011), Polityka integracji muzułmanów we Francji i Wielkiej Brytanii, Wydawnictwa
Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa.
Young С. (1970), Decolonization in Africa, in: Colonialism in Africa, t. II: The History and Politics of Colonialism 1914-1960, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Summary
The paper presents the evolution of the British model of immigrant integration after World War II. It is a historical and political analysis. The author indicates the key elements of the British approach to decolonisation which were translated into concrete legal acts regulating the lives of the Commonwealth residents and immigrants arriving in the UK. The paper also discusses dif ferent dimensions of the integration of immigrants into British society. The analysis indicates that the multicultural model of immigrant integration adopted after World War II has been found to be dysfunctional, as British society has reached a state of super-diversity, becoming a very complex mosaic of races, religions and nationalities.
Ewolucja brytyjskiej polityki integracji imigrantów po II wojnie światowej: perspektywa historyczno-politologiczna
Streszczenie
W artykule ukazana została ewolucja brytyjskiego modelu integracji imigrantów po II woj nie światowej. Artykuł stanowi analizę historyczno-politologiczną. Autorka wskazuje kluczowe elementy brytyj skiego podej ścia do procesu dekolonizacji, które przełożyły się na konkretne re gulacje prawne odnoszące się do mieszkańców Commonwealthu i imigrantów napływających do Wielkiej Brytanii. W artykule omówione zostały również płaszczyzny integracji imigrantów ze społeczeństwem brytyjskim. Analiza wskazuje, iż przyjęty po II wojnie światowej multikul- turowy model integracji imigrantów został zakwestionowany jako dysfunkcyjny w obliczu osiągnięcia przez brytyjskie społeczeństwo stadium nadróżnorodności (super-diversity), czyli bardzo skomplikowanej mozaiki ras, religii i narodowości.
