You Can Become English

Suella Braverman wants immigrants to integrate. Excellent. So do I. Apparently, though, they must not get too carried away and become English. Learn the language. Embrace the country. Support the national teams. Raise your children here. Just remember that the family silver may never be yours.

On Question Time, Braverman described herself as British but not English because of her Asian origins. That is her choice. The problem comes when a personal identity becomes an admission policy. Englishness is as much cultural as ethnic. You cannot acquire English ancestors. You can acquire an English upbringing, outlook and sense of belonging. These are different things – unless your understanding of a nation begins and ends with a breeding certificate.

Braverman’s reference to “a few generations” leaves the obvious question unanswered. Generations of what? Living here? Sharing the culture? Marrying someone with the correct grandparents? Monty Panesar and Bukayo Saka might appreciate knowing whether representing England counts towards their probation.

Saka was born and raised in England to Nigerian parents. I was born and raised in Nigeria to English parents. I am a white Nigerian by birth, upbringing and cultural affinity. An Englishman by both ethnicity and culture. My Nigerian sensibility does not require African ancestry. Saka’s cultural Englishness need not require English forebears. Neither of us needs to evict one identity to make room for the other.

If we want assimilation, we must recognise the belonging it creates. Otherwise, we are asking people to learn the language, embrace the culture and love the country, then explaining that they have done splendidly but their grandparents have let them down.

There are three possibilities here. English by ethnicity. English by culture. Or both. These distinctions are perfectly intelligible, unless you choose to make a television argument out of them for the singular purpose of political point scoring. That is divisive and unbecoming of Reform or any party that aspires to govern every Brit: English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish.

Unless, of course, you’re the Greens, who by declaring Zionism racist, demand inclusivity unless you happen to be a Jew who believes in a national homeland.

Nobody acquires English or Scottish grandparents by moving to Birmingham or Glasgow. People can, however, become culturally English or Scottish through upbringing, language, loyalties and participation. Indeed, in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales blaming the English is apparently accepted as evidence of assimilation.

Ancestry describes where your family came from. Culture helps determine the people among whom you belong.

What matters is whether newcomers adopt our language, respect our laws and share our values. Where their grandparents were born tells us none of that.

Cultural assimilation in England means embracing liberal democracy and the Judeo-Christian inheritance that helped shape it. The law outranks the cleric. Women are equals. You can worship, walk away or point out that the sermon is nonsense.

It also requires enough common language to argue about the bins and recognise that a parrot lying feet-up at the bottom of its cage is not “pining for the fjords”. You cannot demand the freedoms of a liberal society while insisting your community is exempt from its principles or its language.

A country is more than an airport lounge with a benefits desk.

John Stuart Mill understood that national belonging could be acquired. In 1861, he wrote: “Experience proves that it is possible for one nationality to merge and be absorbed in another.” Shared loyalties make that possible. Declaring someone permanently foreign because of their ancestry defeats the entire enterprise.

America has proved the power of cultural belonging, despite repeatedly betraying its promise. Irish Americans and African Americans share a nation without sharing an ancestry. Their histories differ profoundly. Their claim to be American does not.

A shared American identity can unite people whose family histories have little in common. That is a national achievement worth learning from.

We need not import every American argument to recognise the principle. Cultural belonging can cross ancestral boundaries. Braverman need not look across the Atlantic to see cultural belonging transcend ancestry. She need only look at the family on our stamps.

The present King’s father was born on Corfu as Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark. His grandfather was a Danish prince who became King of Greece. His mother was Princess Alice of Battenberg. If Englishness requires ancestral vetting, Buckingham Palace has some explaining to do.

Philip was Greek by birth and royal title, with mixed European ancestry. He served in the Royal Navy, became a British subject in 1947 and married the soon to be Queen Elizabeth II that year. His belonging rested on a life of service, rather than an approved collection of ancestors.

His Queen’s dynasty had already exchanged Saxe-Coburg-Gotha for Windsor in 1917. Calling yourself Saxe-Coburg-Gotha while asking the country to fight Germany was a bit much, even for a family accustomed to having everything as they like it. Windsor sounded like somewhere you’d buy jam. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha sounded like something you’d need an air raid shelter to survive.

Changing the name did not change the ancestry. The point is not that a royal proclamation made the family English. It is that German ancestry did not prevent them becoming part of the country’s cultural identity.

I favour controlled immigration because a country cannot absorb unlimited arrivals simply by issuing everyone a postcode. Schools, housing and public services have limits. So does the pace at which strangers can become neighbours. Ministers who ignore those limits are asking everyone else to conduct a vast social experiment, then calling them bigots when they query the instructions.

Our country must honour its side of the bargain.

The multicultural separatist says communities should remain apart. The ancestry purist makes shared culture insufficient for belonging. One discourages assimilation. The other leaves those who assimilate wondering when they will count. Both result in a fractured country.

Suella joined Reform by changing her allegiance, not her ancestors. Political membership and national identity are different things, but she plainly understands that belonging can be acquired.

Does her “few generations” mean shared culture or approved ancestry? She should tell us. You cannot sell assimilation as the answer while leaving the entrance requirements in invisible ink.

We should demand assimilation. Then reward it with belonging.

Clive Pinder is a Nigerian-born Englishman, recovering global executive, former elected ornament and largely unrepentant political provocateur. He writes and podcasts about culture, liberty and the curious people who appoint themselves custodians of both on his Substack page, In Search of Sanity.