The good immigrant fallacy

When a generational talent such as Emma Raducanu emerges triumphant at a major sporting event like the US Open, they are often rewarded with a heart-warming backstory; where they came from, who inspired them along the way and how their environment helped to carve them into a tremendous success. When a star with a heritage as mixed as Raducanu wins our hearts and minds however, they can also become the spokesperson for one or more groups among us with various opinions on immigration and race. It will come as no surprise to those of us that watched the teenage sensation win her first grand slam that no sooner was the trophy in her hands than the same old tedious questioning began. Can somebody who was born in another country to two parents of a different nationality truly represent the United Kingdom in sport? If they are, are they taking the place of another athlete from a more traditional British background? 

Some of the people who put forward their support of Raducanu also have a very public history of opposing immigration. One such individual, Nigel Farage, once stated that he would hate to have Romanians as neighbours when living in London, yet was quick to label the US Open champion as a British success story. We have seen this type of hypocrisy aimed at British athletes in the past, no stronger than with football player Raheem Sterling’s career being reported through the press. When England crashed out of the 2016 European Championship, newspapers such as The Sun and Daily Mail released multiple stories attacking Sterling, not only for his claimed failure at the tournament, but also cherry-picking elements of his lifestyle and subjecting them to undue and unrelated scrutiny. Although the media outlets have since stringently refuted accusations that they singled the Kingston-born athlete out on grounds of race or heritage, other football players who have used their millions in almost identical ways have not been subjected to the same treatment.

Whether or not the Sun and Mail had learnt from their mistakes or were cashing in on a new wave of national pride as England made their first footballing final since 1966 remains to be seen. However, both papers ran similar headlines praising the man whom they had taunted and ridiculed 5 years prior after he carried his national team through the tournament, and it is certainly worth pondering how much the outlets would have escalated their abusive rhetoric had England not progressed as far as they did. In fact, it is very telling from the response of some members of the national fanbase towards fellow England teammate Bukayo Saka. Widespread support of Saka at the start of the competition disappeared overnight when the teenager missed a decisive penalty, sending the European trophy to Rome. The 19-year old, who was born in London to Nigerian parents, tweeted that upon representing his country at his first ever major tournament he was not surprised to receive abuse - including racial slurs and death threats. Sadly it seems, neither were his teammates or BAME football supporters.

Racial prejudice from a loud minority of sporting fans not only has a damaging effect on the athletes themselves but also on the entire community of Britons with mixed heritage. Many on the other side of the conversation held 18-year old Raducanu’s phenomenal achievement up as a grandiose gesture of the benefits of immigration to the UK, almost a ‘gotcha’ moment to those who have quibbled in the public eye for decades at what they view as the decline of ‘Britishness’ in our society. Rightly or wrongly, casting someone – perhaps especially one as young as Raducanu – as the epitome of the ‘good immigrant’ also reinforces the widespread belief that in order for a person who has come to represent Britain as a product of immigration to matter, they must be exceptional.

It remains to be seen how fruitful the latest golden generation of British sporting heroes will become. Raducanu’s incredible run seems bound to be repeated. Yet despite all of our home nation football teams performing as best as they have since at least the 90’s, we are all familiar with how fickle sporting glory can appear, especially when it comes to the beautiful game. What sadly does seem certain, however, is that while the achievements of our greatest athletes are rightfully applauded and claimed as our own, elements of society from the press to the armchair pundits seem certain to shamelessly link ethnicity and heritage to any sporting failures. Those in the vocal minority seem content with adding fuel to the already blazing fires that we have seen worsen in the 12 short years that social media has been a mainstream tool of misinformation. 

The ever-raging argument about what entitles a person to represent our island in competitive sport has almost become a symbol of Britishness in itself. It is puzzling that a problem with an answer as simple as ‘because the athletes want to’ should continuously be thrown about whenever a major sporting event comes around. There are certainly few nations who question their own identity as much as the British, perhaps stemming from the insecurity we feel knowing that our entire culture arose from the ruins of centuries of successful invasions. Indeed, even the period of colonialism that is much revered among some of those who bring questions of nationality to the forefront was only possible due to large-scale mixing of races, religions and cultures. It would appear that for some this history does not necessitate a modern Britain with athletes from different backgrounds representing our country, but instead see the Raducanu’s, Sterling’s and Ben Stokes’ of our island as an exclamation point to a statement that there is no true portrait of a Briton. Although we should be celebrating our diverse culture, from food to music to sport, we also need to ask ourselves if we are holding our top athletes up as champions of their sport – or as a counterpoint in an ugly debate.