immigration

Aliens Act

Date: 
11 Aug 1905
About: 

The 1905 Aliens Act declared that 'undesirable immigrants' would be denied entry to Britain. Although it was vaguely worded, the restrictions were mostly levied against Jewish and Eastern European immigrants.

The 1905 Aliens Act did not discriminate against immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, who as subjects of the British Empire were granted free movement at this time. However, earlier Navigation and Merchant Shipping Acts had discriminated against seafarers from the Indian subcontinent. It was after the First World War that amendments to immigration rules and restrictions on 'coloured seamen' came to discriminate against South Asian migrants more formally (e.g. the Special Restriction (Coloured Alien Seamen Order)).

Secondary works: 

Karatani, Rieko, Defining British Citizenship: Empire, Commonwealth and Modern Britain (London: Frank Cass, 2003)

Shah, Prakash A., Refugees, Race, and the Legal Concept of Asylum in Britain (London: Cavendish, 2000)

Visram, Rozina, Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History (London: Pluto Press, 2002)

Archive source: 

National Archives, Kew

Tags for Making Britain: 

British Shipping (Assistance) Act (1935)

Date: 
01 Jan 1935
Precise date unknown: 
Y
About: 

The British Shipping (Assistance) Act of 1935 aimed to subsidize the British shipping industry in the context of the economic depression of the 1930s. While one of its purposes was to safeguard seamen’s jobs, it did so only for white British seamen, thus discriminating on the grounds of race. One of the requirements for payment of the subsidy was that the ship employed only ‘British seamen’. Thus, in the wake of the Act, many ship-owners sacked all but their white employees, and numerous Indian lascars found themselves suddenly without employment.

This discriminatory Act was met with considerable resistance. The Colonial Seamen’s Association, which brought South Asian seamen together with their black, Arab and Chinese counterparts, was formed in reaction to the Act, in order to better mobilize against it. They held numerous meetings in which the Act was denounced. In May 1935, Shapurji Saklatvala gave a speech decrying the Act at the Coloured National Mutual Social Club in South Shields. Opposition to the Act was also voiced in India where there were even threats of retaliation against white workers there. With protest against the Act coming from the India Office and Colonial Office as well as the CSA and other organizations, the discrimination was removed in March 1936.

People involved: 

Surat Alley (secretary of the Colonial Seamen’s Association), Aftab Ali Chris Jones (Braithewaite) (led the Colonial Seamen’s Association), George PadmoreShapurji Saklatvala (spoke out against Act),  Rowland Sawyer.

Secondary works: 

Tabili, Laura, ‘We Ask for British Justice’: Workers and Racial Difference in Late Imperial Britain (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1994)

Visram, Rozina, Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History (London: Pluto Press, 2002)

Archive source: 

MT 9/2737, National Archives, Kew

L/E/9/955, India Office Records, Asian and African Studies Reading Room, British Library, St Pancras

Special Restriction (Coloured Alien Seamen) Order (1925)

Date: 
18 Mar 1925
Event location: 

The Order was originally carried into effect in the port areas of Glamorgan, Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, Carmarthenshire, Liverpool, Salford, Newcastle-on-Tyne, South Shields, Middlesbrough and Hull. In January 1926, it was extended throughout Britain.

About: 

The Special Restriction (Coloured Alien Seamen's) Order is described by Laura Tabili as 'the first instance of state-sanctioned race discrimination inside Britain to come to widespread notice' (p. 56). The work of the Home Office Aliens Department, the Order was issued under Article II of the Aliens Order of 1920 and stated that 'coloured' seamen who did not possess documentary proof of their status as British must register as 'aliens' in Britain 'whether or not they have been in the United Kingdom for more than two months'. Police were to apprehend 'coloured' men disembarking from ships and report them to the police if they failed to show their documentation. In practice, it was not easy for 'coloured' seamen to prove that they were British subjects because sailors were not required to carry passports and, unlike those of their white counterparts, 'coloured' seamen's discharge certificates were not considered proof of their nationality because of allegations of trafficking in these papers.

Reasons for the issue of the Order are various and debated. In a letter dated 14 August 1926, the Under-Secretary of State cites the demands made at the end of the First World War by the National Sailor and Fireman's Union that 'steps should be taken to restrict the admission to this country of coloured seamen who could not establish that they were British subjects, since they competed in the overstocked labour market for seamen and were a source of grave discontent among British sailors', and claims that the accumulation of 'coloured seamen' in certain ports 'was a continual source of irritation and...likely to lead to a breach of the peace' (HO 45/12314). However, by the mid-1920s, employment in the shipping industry was beginning to pick up, which calls these reasons into question. Further, historians have recently questioned the role of the Union in pushing forward this piece of legislation, arguing that it was the state that played a more significant role.

State officials, determined to deport 'coloured' seamen, interpreted and enforced the rules rigidly, depriving these men of their citizenship. The India Office and Colonial Office received numerous protests from seamen who claimed that police were using the order to target men who were obviously British subjects. Further, officials erroneously applied the rules to non-seamen, for example registering 63 Glasgow-based Indians, most of whom worked as peddlers and labourers, as 'aliens'. Indians in Liverpool protested in the form of a public rally and through founding the Indian Seamen's Union, led by N. J. Upadhyaya. The India Office, fearful of the public outcry triggered by the Order in India, reprimanded the Home Office, even suggesting that all Indians should be issued with passports - a suggestion that was not received favourably by the Home Office. Finally, it was agreed that Indian seamen registered as 'aliens' could apply to the Home Office to have their British nationality verified. They would then be issued with a Special Certificate of Identity and Nationality which would enable their registration to be cancelled. The Order was finally revoked in 1942.

People involved: 

P. S. R. Chowdhury (Secretary of the Glasgow Indian Union which contested the registration of the 63 Glasgow-based Indians), Home Secretary Joynson-Hicks (passed the Order), N. J. Upadhyaya (founded the Indian Seamen's Union as a result of the Order).

Secondary works: 

Lane, Tony, 'The Political Imperatives of Bureaucracy and Empire: The Case of the Coloured Alien Seamen Order, 1925', Immigrants and Minorities 13.2-3 (July/November 1994), pp. 104-29

Little, Kenneth, Negroes in Britain: A Study of Racial Relations in English Society (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, [1948] 1972)

Rich, Paul B., Race and Empire in British Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 122–30

Sherwood, Marika, ‘Race, Nationality and Employment among Lascar Seamen, 1660–1945’, New Community 17.2 (January 1991), pp. 234–5

Tabili, Laura, ‘The Construction of Racial Difference in Twentieth-Century Britain: The Special Restriction (Coloured Alien Seamen) Order, 1925’, Journal of British Studies 33 (January 1994), pp. 54–98

Tabili, Laura, ‘We Ask for British Justice’: Workers and Racial Difference in Late Imperial Britain (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1994)

Visram, Rozina, Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History (London: Pluto, 2002)

Example: 

Letter from the Under-Secretary of State to the Chief Constables of scheduled areas, 23 March 1925, HO 45/12314, National Archives, Kew

Content: 

The file contains correspondence and reports by state and police officials relating to the Special Restriction (Coloured Alien Seamen's) Order, 1925.

Extract: 

I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that he has recently had under consideration measures to facilitate the control of coloured alien seamen at present in this country and to prevent more effectively the entry of others into the United Kingdom without proper authority; and he has come to the conclusion that in order to deal with the problem presented by these aliens – particularly those of them who are ‘Arabs’ – it is necessary that they should be required to register in all cases, including those where the alien has hitherto been exempt under Article 6(5) of the Aliens Order, 1920, by reason of the fact that less than two months has elapsed since his last arrival in the United Kingdom or that he is not resident in the United Kingdom.

…The difficulties [of the present situation] arise mainly from the fact that the racial resemblance between many coloured seamen is such that there is no satisfactory means of identifying individuals; and the primary object which the Secretary of State has in view is to remedy this deficiency by requiring every coloured seamen…unless he is able to show that he is a British subject, to provide himself immediately with a document by which he can be readily identified and on which his entry into the United Kingdom (if duly authorised by grant of leave to land) can be recorded.

Relevance: 

The language used in this passage - in particular the words 'control' and 'aliens' - is indicative of the perceived threat posed by 'coloured' seamen to the nation. The vagueness of the words 'problem' and 'difficulties' is suggestive of the concealment of some of the unmentionable reasons for the entrenchment of barriers to these sailors' entry into Britain (i. e., racism) - which are however hinted at with the mention of the 'racial resemblance' of the seamen. In general, the passage is illustrative of the strategies of control used in an attempt to maintain the racial and cultural homogeneity of Britain - and also of the failure of this.

Archive source: 

HO 45/12314, National Archives, Kew

1919 Race Riots

Date: 
01 Jan 1919
Precise date unknown: 
Y
End date: 
01 Aug 1919
Precise end date unknown: 
Y
Event location: 

London, Glasgow, Liverpool, Cardiff, Salford, Hull, South Shields, Newport, Barry.

About: 

In the wake of the First World War and demobilization, the surplus of labour led to dissatisfaction among Britain’s workers, in particular seamen. This was arguably the key factor that led to the outbreak of rioting between white and minority workers in Britain’s major seaports, from January to August 1919. Along with African, Afro-Caribbean, Chinese and Arab sailors, South Asians were targeted because of the highly competitive nature of the job market and the perception that these minorities were ‘stealing’ the jobs that should belong to white indigenous British workers. The housing shortage due to a lack of materials and labour during the war exacerbated the situation. The issue of ‘aliens’ taking jobs and houses from white workers was raised in the House of Commons. Further, as Indian seamen were hired at a considerably lower rate than their white counterparts and had to tolerate much poor working and living conditions, they were blamed by unions for undercutting the wages of white workers. Of course, racism, and specifically the fear of miscegenation, also motivated the hostility towards these settlers.

During the months of racially motivated violence in 1919 there were violent attacks on minority workers, resulting in five fatalities, as well as vandalization of their homes and properties. South Asians suffered somewhat less than black or Chinese workers as they were not regarded as such direct competition for jobs and housing; most remained within the navy and within their subsidized accommodation rather than seeking alternative employment and accommodation. However, a number of incidents involving South Asians have been traced. In May 1919, the Strangers’ Home for Asiatic Seamen in West India Dock Road was surrounded by a hostile crowd and ‘any coloured man who appeared was greeted with abuse and had to be escorted by the police. It was necessary at times to bar the doors of the Home’ (The Times, 30 May 1919). Newspapers of the time also report the devastation of a Malay boarding house and the shop of one Abdul Satar in Cardiff (Visram, p. 199).

Secondary works: 

Evans, Neil, ‘The South Wales Race Riots of 1919’, Llafur 3 (1980), pp. 5-29

Jenkinson, Jacqueline, Black 1919: Riots, Racism and Resistance in Imperial Britain (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009)

May, Roy and Cohen, Robin, ‘The Interaction between Race and Colonialism: A Case Study of the Liverpool Race Riots of 1919’, Race and Class XVI.2 (1974), pp. 111-26

Visram, Rozina, Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History (London: Pluto, 2002)

Example: 

East End News, 22 April 1919, p. 2

Content: 

This is an extract from an East End News report of a racial incident preceding the major outbreak of rioting. The article reports an attack by white men on an Arab restaurant that was frequented by white women.

Extract: 

There has been some friction between the Arabs and some English girls visiting an Arab eating house in Cable Street. On Wednesday a number of ex-soldiers entered the eating-house and soon afterwards revolver shots were fired. A general fight followed in which revolvers, knives and bottles were used. A large and hostile crowd gathered outside the restaurant and were very menacing in their attitude towards the coloured men inside. A large number of policemen arrived, but were unable for some time to gain admission. After the fight had been in progress for some time however, they managed to get the wounded men and their prisoners away.

Relevance: 

This extract illuminates the fear of black male sexuality and particularly miscegenation on the part of normative British culture in this period, and the way in which this fear contributed to the hostility and violence experienced by minority workers. While the focus here is on an attack on an Arab restaurant, similar concerns shaped the public response to Indian as well as African men.

Archive source: 

Local newspapers held at local libraries or at the British Library Newspaper Collection, Colindale, London

Subscribe to RSS - immigration