Sharjeel Ashraf is a political analyst and a freelance journalist.
Immigration is the hot topic of the day – with it dominating our newspapers, radio shows and television. However, whatever your views are of immigration, it is ultimately a matter for the British public to decide. Key word here being “British.” Not Indian. Not Nigerian. Not Pakistani. But British.
This should, in fact, be a non-controversial and apolitical point to make.
The government of the United Kingdom, which decides on our immigration policy, should be a representative of the British people and be solely elected by the British people. It is therefore disappointing that commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote in British elections – it defies the very idea of a British government representing the British people.
A student who steps of the plane from Mumbai can start voting in the United Kingdom as soon as he arrives, in fact, so can his dependents – now it is worth noting that hundreds of thousands of foreigners came in as the dependents of students. If you send your son to study in England, you get to vote in British elections! A care worker who arrives from Lagos can start voting in the UK the day he arrives, and again his dependents can as well. We brought in 648,000 people via the care worker route alone.
India is the largest contributor of immigrants to the United Kingdom, it’s citizens have the right to vote in British elections, join the army, police and civil service as well run for public office. It would be logical to assume that similar rights are issued to British citizens in India. Instead, article 326 of the Indian constitution only allows for Indian citizens to vote. Foreign citizens, even if long-term residents, are completely barred from voting. If a British citizen moved to India, lived there for twenty years, married an Indian citizen, and raised children there – they would have less rights in India then an Indian is afforded after having lived in the UK for a day.
Nigeria is the second largest contributor of immigrants to the UK; it’s citizens again have vast rights upon entering the UK. It would be logical to assume that there is a reciprocal relationship here. Instead, under the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act of 2022, only Nigerian citizens can vote. Pakistan is the third largest contributor of immigrants to the UK; its citizens are allowed to vote in the UK – in return the Pakistani government bars British citizens from voting under Article 51(2) and Article 106(2) of their constitution.
Now, in reality the number of British citizens moving to these countries is small – however the lack of reciprocal arrangements is fascinating. Why is it solely Britain that is so inclusive? Is this not unfair towards British citizens?
Perhaps, more worrying is the fact that the Indian government engages in severe economic protectionism against foreign citizens. British citizens cannot own property in India under the Foreign Exchange Management Act of 1999, and in the event that you wish to set up a company in India it is necessary to have at least one Indian resident director and an Indian registered office address. In contrast, Indian nationals own more property in London then White Brits and are able to set up a company without a local director. It is difficult to see how this inequality can be morally justified.
Another example, although not of a Commonwealth nation, is China where British citizens cannot even own freehold property. British citizens are restricted solely to acquiring leaseholds. Interestingly, there are further restrictions in this as well – a Brit must have worked in China for at least one year and is only able to purchase a property in a residential area for personal use, not for letting or as a speculative investment. There is a blanket prohibition on foreigners owning land in rural areas. In contrast to this, there is no prohibition on what Chinese citizens can own in the United Kingdom – with Chinese citizens having bought everything from steel mills to residential homes. There are 120,250 properties in London alone that are owned by mainland Chinese proprietors.
Perhaps with India and China, a financial penalty can be imposed in the form of a higher council tax rate at a premium of three hundred percent. This council tax rate would be levied against the proprietor regardless of whether the property was rented out, lived in, or held empty as a speculative investment. This additional tax could be withdrawn in the unlikely event that the governments of India and China withdrew their double standards with regards to British citizens.
This policy would in no way be racist in fashion as it would solely target foreign nationals and not British nationals of foreign descent. The criteria would be nationality not ethnicity.
The British government must at the earliest aim to combat these double standards across the board. In order to secure the integrity of the British electoral system it must restrict the right to vote solely to British citizens. This should be part of a wider campaign to restore respect for the British passport, as part of this we must look further into property rights for foreigners. If a nation applies restrictions against British citizens in its realm, then there should be restrictions against their citizens in the United Kingdom.
