The Elephant in the Room

As the U.S. electoral race draws to a close, immigration remains one of the undeniable hot-button issues, one that Kamala undoubtedly wishes could simply be ignored. But it can’t. The numbers have been out for a while: more illegal immigrants have crossed the border during Biden’s administration than under Trump. In fact, the number under Trump had dropped drastically. Initially, Americans chose the ‘love and unicorns’ approach but it didn’t take long for reality to slowly set in.

The impact became clear when locals found themselves passed over for jobs in favour of cheaper immigrant labour, when taxes increased because the government insisted on housing, feeding, and supporting said immigrants, and when America, a country previously thought to have no culture, realised its non-culture was being eroded.

This isn’t only the case in the U.S. The same issues have taken centre stage in Europe as citizens face the real-life consequences of their previous voting decisions. Eventually, the chickens always come home to roost.

If you’re wondering how they got there, it was a combination of political correctness, social media activism, and identity politics. On platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram, it’s still politically incorrect to voice certain truths. But since I’m in Africa, I’ll take my liberties. The truth is, unchecked immigration—especially from countries with cultures diametrically opposed to the host nation’s—often marks the beginning of a nation’s decline. Wealthy nations, with all their resources and experts, failed to account for one simple human truth: when push comes to shove, no one really wants to share their bed with a stranger.

Despite keyboard warriors labelling anyone with a divergent view as a “something-phobe,” many Europeans have expressed concern over how quickly their countries have transformed in the last decade. Those brave enough have captured videos showing the desecration of their cities, cultures, and, of course, the rising cost of living, driven by a growing social welfare budget.

However, this post isn’t about Europe, the UK, or even the USA. Although I sympathise, one might say they brought those problems on themselves. This is about Uganda and how we’re once again on the cusp of repeating history. In his brilliant book Uganda: An Indian Colony, Samwiri Lwanga traced how this country’s economy was once dominated by Indian immigrants.

"Indians were ubiquitous—from the remotest villages to small urban centers, to big towns. On weekends, the town squares of Kampala, Jinja, Mbale, Masaka, Gulu, Mbarara, Fort Portal, and other major urban centers could have been mistaken for Delhi, Mumbai, Madras, or Calcutta."

Samwiri details the trials Ugandans faced under their Indian overlords—how Ugandan businesspeople were barred from certain industries, how parts of the city were reserved strictly for Indians, and how the Indian grip on economic and political power was so strong that it took a “madman” to break it.

Contrary to popular opinion, Indians were not evicted with “nothing,” nor did they leave without being offered more than adequate compensation for their losses after draining the country for decades. This article isn’t meant to dredge up Uganda’s dark past or spark anti-immigration sentiments; rather, it’s a caution to Ugandans about what can happen when we fall asleep at the wheel. Because the truth no one wants to say aloud is that Ugandans are poor, and because they are poor, their economy can be easily hijacked.

“For almost two decades before their expulsion, Indians had taken money out of Uganda and within a decade after their expulsion the same Indians who claimed to have left Uganda penniless were emerging as economic powerhouses in Britain, Canada and in other places where fate has cast them. The pretence was that Indians who had left Uganda penniless had, like the proverbial sphinx, emerged as millionaires thanks to their extraordinary money making talent. It was actually money they had moved out of Uganda and had for two decades invested that performed the miracle of their being so successful in business wherever they went.”

When Chinese, Eritreans, Ethiopians, and others immigrate to Uganda with the hope of a better future, no one is saying they shouldn’t. It’s a beautiful country, and despite its leaders’ best efforts, remains livable. However, when non-Ugandans start to own factors of production, the conversation changes. Whether by design or neglect, Ugandans lack easy access to cheap capital. This means that for the average Ugandan entrepreneur, it is infinitely more difficult to turn a profit than for the average Chinese, Ethiopian, or Indian businessperson. It’s not that Ugandans are lazy or lack the entrepreneurial skill to succeed; they are simply sabotaged by a system that rewards everyone else while preying on them.

While colonialists and Indians once used violence to capture the economy and shut Ugandans out, today’s actors merely price them out. That was the crux of the China store debate. Foreign investors, given all sorts of concessions that Ugandan businesspeople could only dream of, created a mega-store with super-cheap goods. Multiply that across the country, and Ugandan businesses can no longer compete.

“Though slightly less than 1 percent of the population, Indians controlled 75 percent of the economy. This was not a healthy economic situation and the country was imploding slowly but steadily. The only relationship between Indians and Africans was the master/ servant relationship, where the African grew the cotton and coffee which the Indians took for a song or simply stole.”

In the ensuing online debate, I saw many Ugandans celebrating the collapse of downtown traders. I wondered how these people could fail to connect the simple dots. When the natives of a country are excluded from the process of creating and utilising a nation’s resources, the following consequences are likely:

• Capital flight: Foreigners typically repatriate profits to their countries of origin, as was the case during Indian control of the Ugandan economy, resulting in significant foreign exchange losses.
• Lack of skill transfer: Locals are rarely given the opportunity to develop the necessary skills to sustain the economy. Foreigners lock locals out, hiring them only for menial jobs.
• Lower standards of living: As fewer locals participate in the economy, coupled with capital flight, the general standard of living declines due to a lack of circulating capital.
• Political capture: Foreign owners of production factors accumulate enough power to sway political decisions in their favour, even when those decisions harm the local population.
• Cultural shift: Countries that import immigrants from vastly different cultures often experience significant cultural changes. As I write, there’s a real possibility that the UK could one day find itself living under Sharia law.
• Civil unrest: Unsurprisingly, these pressures eventually lead to unrest, causing loss of life and destruction.

One of my favourite writers, Thomas Sowell, once said, “Nothing is easier than to have good intentions, but without an understanding of how an economy works, good intentions can lead to disastrous consequences for a whole nation. Many, if not most, economic disasters have been the result of policies intended to be beneficial—and these disasters could often have been prevented if those who originated and supported such policies had understood economics.”

With the high Ugandan business mortality rate, exorbitant cost of capital, land grabs, and all the other troubles resting on the Ugandans' shoulders while every other inhabitant (read: foreigner) benefits from tax holidays and other favours, what’s the likely outcome? Although history might be boring on a page, it’s absolutely brutal when repeated on the streets. Interestingly, China, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and India all have strict immigration policies, along with even stricter protectionist policies aimed at boosting and sustaining local businesses. Why is it only controversial when Ugandans ask for the same?

The truth remains: Immigration without assimilation can have terrible consequences for a nation and its inhabitants—both native and non-native. In a country still struggling to support its own people, what makes Ugandans think this is the right time for open borders? Perhaps we should start by adequately feeding our own family before extending food to the neighbours, lest the children riot and burn the house down.