London’s Muslim Mayor doesn’t want to draw attention to “illegal immigrants.”

Sadiq Khan is the Muslim mayor of London, born in Tooting of Pakistani parents, He believes that his city, and the country of Great Britain, need more migrants, because those migrants are doing such wonderful things for the economy, filling jobs the native-born won’t take. He appears not to realize that Muslim migrants have been in no hurry to find jobs, and that many live on the government’s largesse, supplemented by what they can “earn” through street robberies and home burglaries. Muslims make up 7% of the U.K. population, but more than 30% of the prison population.

In an excess of enthusiasm, Khan once 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, as was noted here at the time: “London mayor’s claim the city was ‘built by migrants’ revised by Twitter Community Note,” by Thomas Brooke, Remix News, June 27, 2023:

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.

The U.K. capital was not constructed by migrants and refugees; there were hardly any of either group until the mid-20th century, and their numbers stayed small until the last few decades, when they arrived in large numbers, mainly from Pakistan and Bangladesh, both Muslim lands. There are no “hostile, draconian, and immoral immigration policies” being adopted elsewhere in Europe. Instead, European governments have allowed tens of millions of Muslim economic migrants to settle within their countries, where they manage to take advantage of every benefit the generous welfare states of Europe provide: free or greatly subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, unemployment benefits (even without a history of prior employment in Europe), family allowances, and more.

It is only now, after unhappy experiences with Muslim migrants who are incapable of integrating into the larger society — why should Muslims, the “best of peoples,” want to integrate into a society of Infidels, whom the Qur’an describes as the “most vile of created beings”? — that anti-immigrant politicians are being heeded.

His tweet in support of even more immigrants allowed into the U.K. prompted thousands of angry responses.

“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 as he claims, for a “safer life,” but for an “easier life” of welfare benefits of every kind, which is a different thing. They are not fleeing war or conflict in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Morocco, 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 cost the country so much, in money, in social cohesion, and in physical security. He sees them as “refugees” from persecution and war, but a moment’s thought should disabuse him of that idea. What “persecution and war” are currently to be found — let’s repeat the list from just above — in Pakistan, in Bangladesh, in Morocco, in Turkey – all countries from which large numbers of Muslim migrants have arrived in Europe?

In 2021, Jihad Watch reported about Sadiq Khan’s bids to tear down historic London statues, demonstrating his lack of respect for the history of London.

Like Obama removing the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office, Sadiq Khan would like to take down the statues in London of those Englishmen whom he regards as conquerors responsible for subduing “the lesser breeds without the law” and making their lands part of the British Empire.

In 2018, Khan invested $2,000,000 (USD) in taxpayer money in a police hunt against “offensive communication,” amid London’s violent crime surge. Less than a year later, Khan’s massive expenditure resulted in only six prosecutions for online thought crimes. Rather than scrap the whole endeavor, which was wrong on so many levels, and focus on real crime, a spokesman for Khan argued that even more work needed to be done to combat online “hate.”

Khan has made no secret of his disdain for Britain’s freedoms, and views Britons as a bunch of “racists” and “Islamophobes.” The “offensive communications” he sought at great expense to investigate and prosecute were those directed at, or about, Muslims. In other words, he was determined to punish those who were guilty of “racism” and “Islamophobia,” which in Sadiq Khan’s mental universe includes even the most judicious and evidence-based criticism of Muslims who, he should be reminded, do not constitute a “race.”

Khan has also:

  •  endorsed anti-Semites and defended 9/11 terrorists and an al Qaeda member.
  •  played the victim card to the point of cautioning Westerners to play by the rules of Islamic supremacists, so as to not upset them and lead them to join jihadi groups.
  •  called deadly jihad attacks “part and parcel” of life in a big city.
  •  called progressive Muslims who want to live in harmony with Western non-Muslims “uncle Toms.”

In mid-June 2023, officials working for Sadiq Khan were ordered not to describe any migrant as “illegal” – but to call them people “with insecure immigration status” or simply “undocumented.”

How much less harsh, and more confusing, is the description of illegals — people breaking the British law — merely as “people with insecure immigration status,” whose “insecurity” the British should sympathize with, and work to rectify by overlooking the fact that they are “illegal,” people who ought not to be rewarded, but sanctioned, for breaking British law? And the word “undocumented” makes it seem as if these illegal migrants had merely misplaced their papers instead of deliberately destroying their documents prior to arrival, so as to make it more difficult for the British government to find out the truth about their ages, criminal records at home, and whether their claim to fear “persecution and repression” is justified. Or are these merely economic migrants seeking to batten on what the British welfare state will provide? There is ample evidence to support that conclusion.

Back in June, the UK’s Sun detailed Khan’s linguistic sleight-of-hand: “KHANT SAY THAT: Sadiq Khan’s staff banned from using phrase ‘men and women’ or referring to ‘illegal’ migrants in woke move,” by  Jack Elsom, The Sun, June 12, 2023:

On the issue of migration, the guide says GLA staff must not refer to “asylum seekers” but instead say “people seeking asylum.”

A subtle verbal change, one that makes us more sympathetic to those “seeking asylum” out of presumed desperation to avoid persecution and war, while the phrase “asylum seekers” may suggest not so much people fleeing a parlous condition, but rather, those who have agency, and have calculated how best to improve their economic condition. Such phrases as “fortune hunters” come to mind, or Anjem Choudary’s phrase about Muslims deserving to receive from the British state the “jihad seeker’s allowance.”

And it adds: “Remember, we are all Londoners. Don’t make a distinction between ‘migrants’ and ‘Londoners.”

No distinction is to be made between “migrants” and “Londoners”? Both have an equal claim to London, whether they descend from families that have been living in the city for centuries, or have simply managed to slip illegally into the city from a foreign county last year or last week? Sadiq Khan wants the British not to make much — in fact, they shouldn’t make anything at all — of what he suggests is an entirely factitious distinction between “migrants” and “Londoners.” Anyone who would insist on such a distinction must, of course, be a “right-wing racist” or “Islamophobe,” determined to create divisions where here are none.

Sadiq Khan doesn’t want to draw attention to “illegal immigrants,” and hopes through sleight-of-word to obfuscate their status, and their criminality: they are to be referred to only as people “with insecure immigration status” — as if there was just a little matter that needed to be cleared up by bureaucrats, rather than a serious violation of the immigration laws that deserves to be investigated and those found guilty penalized with fines, or prison sentences, or both. Sadiq Khan doesn’t want “migrants” to be distinguished from “Londoners” at all. The ideology of the right-thinking, like Mr. Khan, is fixated on “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusivity.” And this apparently requires that we efface any supposed distinctions between “migrant” and “Londoner.”

This article was first published in FrontPage Magazine