So, what do you think is more likely to inflame extremist elements? If you encourage immigration or if you discourage it? If you speak about it, or if you are silent on the issue? Regardless, most political leaders in the Western hemisphere can’t resist immigrant-bashing whenever the economy wobbles dangerously.

“Get rid of the outsiders! They are wrecking our peaceful land with their regressive culture and stealing our jobs!” goes up the desperate war cry.

Given the fact that jobs sometimes do go to better qualified “foreigners”, the United Kingdom (UK) government is now building a case against these unscrupulous immigrants (“How dare they be smarter than us Brits!”), sounding a little paranoid in the bargain.
This time Prime Minister David Cameron (who had already announced the demise of multiculturalism some time back) has raised the bogey of immigrants in a speech at Hampshire, UK this week.
Many have dismissed this as a cynical ploy, meant for snaffling middle-class votes during the upcoming local elections, by touching a sensitive nerve. But it has upset some of his Liberal Democrats coalition partners and revived unpleasant memories of the present foreign secretary William Hague’s decade-old speech stating that the UK was in serious danger of being turned into a “foreign land”. (Ten years later the Brits have still not been over-run — obviously the fearsome immigrants turned out to be quite inefficient!)
Nonetheless, anti-immigrant diatribes are close to the Conservative heart, and even though there may be many benefits from immigration, all is conveniently forgotten when the Tories bind their flock together. Therefore, the Prime Minister has pointed out that during the Labour years, immigration ran amuck and between 1997 and 2009, there were 2.2 million more people coming into the UK than leaving it to stay abroad. Whilst this statistic may not seem alarming to Indians, who are used to large numbers, it could send hardcore Tory voters into a collective swoon.
Mr Cameron has also suggested that this immigration will carry on unstaunched unless reforms are carried out in the welfare system, as the benefit system encourages the poor, deluded British not to work, allowing the migrants to take over their jobs.
Welfare “reform” or “cuts” are another core Tory policy, as Right-wingers have always believed in small government. Linking it now to immigration may make public sector cuts easier to swallow. All should hail Mr Cameron because he is now taking the brave and bold step of talking about immigration because Labour refused to do so, saying it was racist.
To clinch his anti-immigrant argument, he has pointed out the reluctance of certain migrants to integrate, creating discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods. He said, “Real communities are bound by common experiences forged by friendship and conversation knitted together by all the ritual of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time”.
The implication is that if the communities are changed “too fast” tensions could escalate. The strongest indictment of Mr Cameron’s speech has come perhaps not from Labour, but from the extremist British National Party which is aggrieved that Mr Cameron has stolen their agenda.
Of course, there is little doubt that the ghettos which have become a part of London and other large towns need to be looked at and reformed. It is not healthy or even quaint to find whole communities, whether Indian, Pakistani or African, living as though under siege in specific localities. It requires an enormous effort, not just from the immigrants, but also from the majority community to help in the process of integration.
Perhaps the multiculturalism inculcated under Labour was not entirely successful — but by decreasing the numbers permitted into the country or by forcing immigrants to learn English, the existing problem will not disappear.
An island offers limited terrain, and whilst Mr Cameron is correct in pointing that endless immigration could lead to an assault on the existing facilities, there is need for the government to work harder in looking at why the integration has not been successful.
Somehow, I don’t think that simply learning English and appreciating English culture will sort out the issue. Nor will pub-hopping. Unless one can pass a test in “Englishness” by the amount of alcohol one imbibes… I know many Punjabi puttars who would pass out (literally!) but with flying colours.

MEANWHILE, ONE thing that is certainly uniting the whole of the UK is the mad frenzy of the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. Every kind of marriage memento, from napkins and beer bottles (yes! — remember the pubs?) to coffee mugs and plastic dolls are being churned out. And now soon to be seen on the small screen on April 18 is the movie about jab they met! Called William and Kate: Let Love Rule, its premier will, no doubt, be avidly viewed throughout the country.
The film is a quickie, since the shooting only began on February 10 — but perhaps because the couple has had a nine-year very public romance there was more than enough material for the script. All the masala was already there: from their meeting at St. Andrews, to Kate wearing a see-through dress, to their breaking up and making up. But though the couple had been living together for a while, the director, it appears, has been fairly discreet. While he has shown the couple kissing and then together in bed, they are always, alas, fully clothed. Maybe that’s how royals do it?
But if the trailer is anything to go by, Camilla Luddington (who plays Kate) is shown in a bath tub — naked knees popping out of soap bubbles — swigging a glass of wine. Now if we ever have a film made about any of our “royal” couples with stuff like this in it, you can be pretty sure that it will be banned.
Produced by an American channel, early outraged reports about the film said that the couple sported an “Americanised” accent — as a British accent is apparently very difficult for the Americans to understand.
All I can say is that many may complain about the real Prince William once they see his body double. Nico Evers-Swindell is not only better looking, he even has a full head of hair. Now we only have to find out which one the real Kate Middleton prefers.

Kishwar Desai can be contacted at kishwardesai@yahoo.com