london global refugees city beyond postcolonial

Although one may ague that there are indeed differences between the two cases which would make it ‘politically less risky to accept the Ugandans than the Kenyans’, it however did not alter the legal question of the Asians.

This essay will argue that the responses of the Labour and Conservative parties to the two East African Asian crises were different from one another, thus it will show that not both of the parties were ready to sacrifice their principles in the light of unexpected events. This paper claims that the internationalization of refugee resettlement served to cut through ties between the former colonial diaspora and the metropole (Britain) on the one hand and the diaspora and the motherland (India) on the other.Īfter the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962, the Commonwealth was effectively littered with second-class British citizens, who were seeds of political crises. The Ugandan Asian expulsion became framed as a matter of international concern, rather than a purely British postcolonial problem. The desire of these countries to reduce their responsibility for former colonial subjects eventually led to shifting conceptions of citizenship and international dispersal of postcolonial refugees. Though the focus is on the creation of a global Ugandan Asian diaspora, developments in Kenya, as well as in Britain, and India are crucial keystones of this international history. It explores similar concerns with postcolonial diasporas and postcolonial identity issues in the homogeneous imagination of the decolonized nation states. This article examines the role of postcolonial diasporic refugees, particularly East African Asian expellees, in international migration policy.

London global refugees city beyond postcolonial