'I'm a child of an immigrant and I back Jim Ratcliffe's view' - West Midlands educationalist calls for an open debate on immigration

I grew up in a narrow terrace house on a drab, grey street in the Midlands. I was the child of immigrants who arrived in Britain in the mid-1950s with two suitcases and a belief that hard work would be enough. 

My parents used to describe their first morning in England – the thin winter light, the damp that crept into the walls, the unfamiliar quiet of streets so unlike the noise they had left ‘back home’. My mother spoke about trying to fit in with the neighbourhood as best she could, navigating a culture that felt entirely strange. She learned by watching: how women dressed, how they queued, how they spoke to neighbours over garden fences. She was determined not to be a burden.

They never pretended it was easy. There were long shifts and small humiliations. But there was also pride – pride in earning, contributing, belonging. My father often said that if a country allowed you to build your future there, you owed it respect and effort in return.

Because of that upbringing, immigration has never been an abstract issue to me. It is the story of my family. It is my childhood. It is the reason I am here.

That is why I have watched the recent controversy over Jim Ratcliffe’s comments with mixed feelings. When he suggested that Britain was being ‘colonised’ by immigrants, the backlash was immediate. The Muslim Council of Britain described the remarks as racist, and some others agreed. For them, such language evokes a history in which minorities were portrayed not as neighbours or fellow citizens, but as threats.

I understand that reaction. Words like ‘colonised’ are loaded with meaning. My parents were not colonisers; they were newcomers trying to survive, adapt and contribute. It could be argued that most immigrants today are no different. To frame them as an invading force risks stripping them of dignity.