In the aftermath of the shocking attacks on Henry Nowak and Stephen Ogilvie, public discourse has once again become consumed by questions of immigration and integration.
Every decent person will recognise that these incidents were horrific and sickening, and the people responsible must be brought to justice through the full force of the law. Regrettably, and in stark contrast to the wishes expressed by the victims’ families, these tragedies have precipitated violent unrest and division across parts of the UK.
Increasingly, it seems as though minority groups are held collectively liable for the actions of individuals who happen to share their ethnicity or religion. The notion that individuals should be judged not according to their own actions, but according to the characteristics they happen to share with others, is plainly absurd.
Yet beneath these demonstrations lies a fault line that has been building for some time, a legitimate concern that must be delineated from explicit racism or bigotry. How can a country uphold its humanitarian obligations whilst maintaining social cohesion and public trust?
It is a question that many are reluctant to engage with honestly, yet if recent events are any indication, it is one upon which the peace and stability of our communities may depend. Too often, discussions surrounding immigration, particularly those online, descend into false binaries. Political polarisation has cultivated an environment in which one is expected either to support immigration indiscriminately or oppose it altogether.
Legitimate concerns are either exaggerated or dismissed outright, whilst frivolous tropes and narratives are banded around with abandon. To properly investigate this, we must focus on the realities and not the polemics.
First, it must be recognised that offering refuge to those who need it reflects our country’s moral obligation to serve humanity, but the government must ensure that it is done in a balanced and sustainable way. Successful integration is also essential for social peace. Immigrants should consider how they can contribute to their new home, using their faculties to strive daily for the betterment of society. Certainly, nobody should enter another nation with any sense of entitlement.
The Holy Prophet (sa) of Islam said that the giving hand is far greater than the one that takes. On many occasions, people sought to help his Companions, but they refused to accept and preferred to earn a living for themselves.
However, integration is a two-way street, and the state should play its role as a facilitator. By providing language training and other vocational programmes, newcomers can be equipped with the skills necessary to become self-reliant at the earliest opportunity.
Moroever, immigration policy must avoid any perception of unfair preferential treatment, and policymakers should never become so focused on resettling refugees that they ignore the rights of their existing citizens. People who have lived their lives and paid their taxes in a country are entitled to question whether public resources are being allocated fairly.
Whether those concerns are ultimately justified or not, they cannot simply be dismissed. Perceptions matter in politics, and when people believe they are being treated unfairly, resentment can quickly take root. Recent events illustrate precisely how such frustrations can be exploited and redirected towards innocent communities.
In Southampton, ordinary Sikhs found themselves subjected to fear and intimidation despite having no connection whatsoever to the murder of Henry Nowak. Similarly, in Belfast, innocent people became targets merely because they happened to belong to a particular ethnic or national background.
There is nothing inherently racist about asking whether an immigration policy is sustainable or whether integration is being managed effectively. These are legitimate questions to posit in our democratic society. But equally, there is nothing legitimate about directing anger and violence towards innocent people simply because of their identity. Unfortunately, the failure to distinguish between these two positions has resulted in genuine concerns being dismissed as bigotry, whilst genuine bigotry disguises itself as concern.
Ultimately, whatever flavour of politics you prefer, it should never be about choosing between compassion and national security or between the interests of newcomers and existing citizens. That is a false dichotomy. A truly just society must protect both, recognising that these are not competing ideals but complementary responsibilities.
The Holy Quran teaches: “Be always just; that is nearer to righteousness.” (Surah al-Ma‘idah, Ch.5: V.9) If we can hold fast to this timeless principle, we will be better equipped not only to navigate debates around immigration, but also to preserve the cohesion and peace of our society.
Absolute justice is too important to be treated with casual utilitarian pragmatism or to be sacrificed at the altar of political expediency.