Suella Braverman says she is British, not English, in migration debate

A televised audience debate on immigration turned to questions of Englishness, identity and social cohesion as Suella Braverman discussed her memoir and her decision to describe herself as British but not English.

The debate opened with an audience question noting that much of the work keeping the country running is done by migrants, and asking how immigration can be discussed without making them feel unwelcome.

One panellist, Julia, said a sense of control over the immigration system was essential. She argued that many migrants who worked hard and followed the rules were frustrated by porous borders and people breaking the law, and that this undermined social cohesion. She called for a functioning migration policy that is seen to work, and for a stronger link between contribution and the right to stay. She added that concerns about illegal arrivals, deportations and people not contributing or abiding by the law and culture of the country would make life harder for existing migrant communities.

Another panellist, Ollie, challenged that response. He said migrants watching would not have been made to feel welcome by what had just been said. He added that in his constituency some of the staunchest supporters of immigration control were people who had come to the country, played by the rules and felt their own position in society was being undermined. Julia replied that she did not disagree with that point, and the exchange continued over how immigration discourse affects migrants.

A separate audience member said it was ironic to debate migration in one of the most successful cities in the world. They argued that London would not be where it is without migration, and pointed to New York and Montreal as examples of success that could be replicated more widely. They said serious research showed migration was a great added value to London, and that the country as a whole would be poorer without it.

Another audience member attacked the Conservative record on immigration. They said every time a Tory speaks about migration, voters remember that net migration was over a million under Boris Johnson, and accused the party of breaking the border controls it claimed to support.

A further audience member said the migration conversation had lately become a way of normalising hatred. They cited Rishi Sunak having to publish an article explaining why he is English, and referred to people saying that migrants should be allowed to drown. They asked whether such language was legitimising racism and hatred.

The host then turned to Suella Braverman, noting that Sunak had been described as a brown Hindu who was British but could not be English, and that Braverman had said she was British but not English. Braverman said she was born in North London in 1980 and that her parents came to Britain as immigrants with nothing, adding that she was grateful for the friendship Britain extended to them. She said she had always considered herself British, of Asian ethnicity, and not English.

Braverman said her book, released that day, traced some of her ancestry to India via Mauritius and Kenya, and that her ancestors were not English. She argued it would be misrepresentative to co-opt Englishness as an ethnicity, comparing it to someone born in Japan calling themselves Japanese or someone born in China calling themselves Chinese. She asked why the English people were the only group on earth who could not have a distinct identity, and said she did not want to deny her Asian heritage. She described herself as British-Asian, said she could be born in England, support the England football team and love England with all her heart.

The host asked how far back someone had to go to be considered fully English, asking whether the line was 1066 or three generations. Braverman said she was not laughing and was serious, and suggested the question was partly facetious. She began to compare other countries before the transcript ended.