In the run up to the general election immigration has once again become a talking point for politicians and the media, however not one person in the mainstream media will dare walk into uncharted territory and explain that the main causes of immigration and asylum seekers is linked to corrupt British foreign policy overseas.
What if a political party leader told the electorate that they could drastically reduce and even end the number of immigrants and asylum seekers who come to the UK? Surely that leader would receive a huge amount of support from many people living in this country.
The fact is though politicians have the power to do this but fail to use that power because it would interfere with Britain’s overseas investments in countries all over the world. War and exploitation is big business for the British economy and this is the root causes to why immigrants and asylum seekers come to this country.
Corrupt British foreign policy leads to war & poverty
The Refugee Project is a coalition of refugee communities and organisations working to address the issues that UK foreign investment plays a role in forcing people to flee their countries.
On their website they say, “The vast majority of refugees today are fleeing conflict, or social or economic oppression – and the vast majority of the world’s refugees live in the countries of Asia and Africa; less than 2% make it to Britain. In many cases, the British government, companies and taxpayers are directly and indirectly supporting a multitude of human rights abuses that often go with British overseas investment and policies, some of which ultimately force people to flee their homes and then their countries .”
“These investments have not just been the more obvious ones, such as waging war or allowing the export of weapons. They also include supporting large infrastructure projects, such as hydro-electric and irrigation dams, oil and gas pipelines, and mines.”
The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CATT) is a London-based organisation which aims to eradicate the international arms trade. The impact that the arms trade has on conflicts around the world is substantial.
According to a CAAT report called, ‘Shelling Out: How taxpayers subsidies the arms trade’: “For decades the UK Government has had a policy of promoting arms exports, seemingly at any cost. The result of this policy is that the UK continues to arm repressive regimes around the world. In 2000, the UK licensed military exports to 30 of the 40 most repressive regimes in the world and British weapons are being used in most of the world’s current conflicts.”
The report states that £760 million of British taxpayers money is used to subsidise the arms industry. Is it really immigrants and asylum seekers stretching public services when you look at the previous figure?
Mark Curtis, an independent UK author and journalist said that up until May 2000 Britain was supplying arms to both sides in the war over the Democratic Republic of Congo. Arms went to Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola, while, on the other, it went to Uganda and Rwanda. Uganda and Angola were both on opposing sides but this did not stop Blair’s government from inviting both to the annual arms exhibition in September 2001. (‘Ten Years of New Labour’s Arms Exports’: May 21, 2007)
According to act!onaid international in 2005, British companies are undermining African economic development by forcing African countries to open up their markets to international competition. This has led to African farmers being out priced in the market which leads to further national poverty and unemployment.
British companies also tie their aid to economic policies. This means that an African country will only receive aid if they submit their economy to the will of British companies.
British companies deny life saving medicines to African countries in the pursuit of profit and prevent them from turning to cheaper drugs to fight diseases such as HIV.
Overall, successive British governments are responsible for the continued underdevelopment of many countries in Africa and their former colonies and this continues to this day. British foreign policy remains colonial and corrupt, and these are the issues that the politicians and the media continue to hide from public knowledge.
In the Guardian today Andrew Green who chairs Migrationwatch, an independent think tank calling for stronger control of immigration, said that “The reality is that the long-term immigration pressures come from the third world. It is not racist to point to this obvious fact.”
He also said, “In 1971, net immigration was -40,000: in 2008, it was +163,000. If it continues at about this rate the population of the UK will hit 70 million in 20 years’ time, and then 80 million in the 2060s. No wonder public concern has mounted over the years.”
Will Mr Green tell the truth though about how successive British governments have led to this situation? This is what makes the immigration debate racist from the viewpoint that the truth is hidden to disguise Britain’s corrupt role overseas while black and minority ethnic people bear the brunt of the majority white population who are misled by their government and the mainstream media.
For further research: