Policies surrounding immigrants and refugees have a history of being exclusionary.

It is only with the benefit of hindsight that people often wish more had been done to help, as with reactions to the Holocaust, one of the greatest human tragedies the world has seen.

What also becomes apparent, however, is the speed with which people forget the human aspect and push self-interest on both a personal and national level to the forefront.

In the 1930s, the growing crisis for European Jews did little to alleviate immigration constraints adopted by many nation states, including Great Britain.

Immigration quotas were hardened in response to rising international and domestic considerations, namely economic depression and the prospect of war.

Focus instead turned to safeguarding British interests, prioritising domestic matters over all others: no exception was made for the escalating persecution of European Jewry.

Such restrictions were extended to Britain’s Mandate in Palestine, a prime destination for many prospective immigrants.

The Jewish community was well established in Palestine with immigration remaining central to the Zionist aim of creating a Jewish state in the ’Promised Land’.

Palestine therefore represented a safe-haven for Jews. However, this territory became subject to immigration quotas, not least due to mounting Arab-Jewish hostilities.

European Jews were therefore left with limited options for refuge, finding themselves stranded within what was fast becoming a barbarous regime.

For those able to travel, potential escape routes remained limited and success in reaching safer lands did not grant immediate security.

In Palestine, in particular, those considered illegal immigrants were often interned in camps, or deported back to Europe.

Strict border controls thus helped to seal the fate of many Jews when, in 1942, the ’Final Solution’ was implemented.

By the time the truth about the Holocaust was realised, winning the war was the only feasible option to liberate those trapped inside Nazi-controlled Europe: the pre-war opportunity to offer security had long since passed.

Following the Allied defeat of the Axis powers, Jewish immigration dominated the displaced persons crisis for war-ravaged Britain, especially with the entangling of the Palestine and European crises.

America as a new world superpower exerted pressure to allow mass immigration to Palestine which not only conflicted with British aspirations to maintain Anglo-Arab relations, but also contradicted the 1939 White Paper’s promise to prolong restrictions in the absence of Arab consent.

Rising numbers of immigrants into Palestine further weakened Britain’s influence while, domestically, the British population turned against the Mandate following a rise in terrorism and a resulting loss of British life.

These pressures, alongside Britain’s depleting world status, ensured the end of the Mandate, paving the way for the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948.

Although policy decisions were often made separately within Britain and Palestine, investigating the wider context of policy change demonstrates the parallel concerns faced by the Home, Colonial and Foreign Offices.

The potential and real impact of these concerns within both Britain and Palestine highlights the prioritisation of national interests, and the subordination of humanitarian considerations.

Allowing mass immigration at a time of economic and political instability, together with a rising threat of social insecurity, was not considered viable either domestically or in Mandatory Palestine.

Moreover, when considering Britain’s stance on immigration within the context of the 1930s and 1940s, one can see a disposition which continues to manifest itself today: the question of obligation and responsibility of nations to accept refugees and the unwillingness of many to do so.

I first became interested in the Arab-Israeli Conflict when I studied the subject at A-Level.

I gained a first-class degree in history from Manchester Metropolitan University in 2014, before going on to study for a Master’s degree in history at the University of Manchester.

My Master’s thesis allowed me to explore in more depth the history of Palestine, European Jewry and immigration.

During the course of my research, I found myself both fascinated and dismayed to discover comparisons with present-day views on immigrants and refugees.

It seems that we perhaps do not learn from the past as much as we think, which begs the question: how far have governments and the public really progressed in the response to humanitarian crises?

’Refused Refuge: Britain and Jewish Immigration in the 1930s and 1940s will take place on Wednesday, March 21, at 6pm in the Main Hall at University College Isle of Man, Homefield Road, Douglas.

All are welcome, and no booking is required.

The lecture will be recorded and made available online at a later date.

Further details about the history and heritage lecture series, together with videos of last year’s lectures,can be found online at http://catrionamackie.net/lectures/.