Sadiq Khan is the Muslim mayor of London, who believes that his city, and the country of Great Britain, needs more migrants, because they are doing such wonderful things for the economy, filling jobs the native-born won’t take. In an excess of enthusiasm, he tweeted that London was “built by migrants,” a claim that was at once shot down by those who responded to his bizarre claim with a brief history of the city he now governs. More on Sadiq Khan’s claim, and comeuppance, can be found here: “London mayor’s claim the city was ‘built by migrants’ revised by Twitter Community Note,” by Thomas Brooke, Remix News, June 27, 2023:

London mayor Sadiq Khan suffered the ignominy of having his bold claim that London was “built by migrants” revised by a Twitter Community Note.

In a tweet posted on June 21 to commemorate “Refugee Week,” the Labour politician suggested the U.K. capital was constructed by migrants and refugees, and called on Londoners to stand against the “hostile, draconian and immoral immigration policies” adopted by other European nations.

Sadiq Khan’s claim that London was “built by migrants” is bizarre and without foundation, unless he means to refer to the Germanic tribes – Angles, Saxons, Frisians, and Jutes – who arrived in England two thousand years ago, and whose major legacy was linguistic: the Anglo-Saxon that developed into English. These tribes did not “build London.” Unlike the U.S., Great Britain is not a country of immigrants, and there was little immigration until the mid-20th century, when migrants started to arrive from the Caribbean in the 1950s, and then, in the 1960s, the migration of Pakistanis began. The Pakistani presence has been an unalloyed catastrophe. Many of them arrived – and continue to do so — as economic migrants, eager to take advantage of the full panoply benefits offered by the British welfare state, including free or subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, unemployment benefits (even without having held jobs in the U.K.), family allowances, and more.

Muslim migrants have had difficulty integrating into a society of Infidels, whom they are taught to regard as “the most vile of created beings.” Their unemployment rate is three times that of the British. Their rates of criminality far exceed those of the native British, and of other, but non-Muslim, immigrants as well. Muslims make up 7% of the population, but 30% of those in prison. Perhaps most unsettling has been the deliberate debauching of many thousands of English girls by grooming gangs of Pakistanis, who first ply the girls, many of them in their early teens, with drink and drugs, engage in sex with them, and then pass them around as sexual toys to be used, repeatedly raped, by dozens of fellow Pakistanis. The police often chose to look the other way, afraid that they would be accused of “racism” if they started to round up Pakistanis.

“We must show more compassion towards those fleeing their country for a safer life,” he added.

Sadiq Khan misrepresents the mostly Muslim migrants who arrive, not for a “safer life,” but for an “easier life” of welfare benefits of every kind (see above), which is a different thing. They are not fleeing war or conflict in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, or in most of the Arab countries from which they arrive. Many claim to be “asylum seekers” hoping to find refuge from conflicts, but those claims of fleeing persecution and war are either grossly exaggerated or simply false. Sadiq Khan, himself a Muslim, is blind to the real effect of the Muslim migrants in the U.K. whose presence has been so harmful. He sees them as “refugees” from persecution and war, but a moment’s thought should disabuse him of that idea. What “persecution and war” is currently to be found in Pakistan, in Bangladesh, in Morocco, in Turkey – all countries from which large numbers of Muslim migrants have arrived in Europe?

And what no one is able to explain is why Great Britain should be saddled with the tremendous burden of taking in these people, even in cases where they may be refugees. There are 57 Muslim countries, of which 22 are Arab countries, including a half-dozen of the richest countries in the world – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain. Why should those countries not be asked to take in their fellow Muslims from now on, rather than inflict still more of those economic migrants on the countries of the West, that have already taken in tens of millions of Muslims, with the unhappy results we all see.

Khan claims these so-called “refugees” will take jobs that the native-born are unwilling to fill, but is this true? We have reason to believe that Muslim migrants are in no hurry to be gainfully employed, and many lack any marketable skills for a modern economy. Their unemployment rate is three times that of the indigenous British.

Khan should be asked to explain what he means by claiming that “London was built by refugees.” Which “refugees” have recently been “building” London? It’s mainly East Europeans, especially from Poland, who come to work, not to live on the dole. And how much, in government benefits received, are Muslim migrants costing the state? What percentage of Muslim “refugees” are unemployed three years, five years, ten years after they have entered the country? Does Sadiq Khan know? And what would he like to say about the rates of criminality for Muslims as compared to those of the indigenous non-Muslims, and of non-Muslim immigrants? Is he aware that Muslims are 7% of the general population, but 30% of the prison population?

Finally, how does Sadiq Khan rate the chances that Muslims will be able to successfully integrate into a society of Infidels, people whom the Muslims are taught to regard as “the most vile of created beings”?

We’ll wait right here for his answers.