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.
PMK says
Why should Britain be saddled with these migrants? How about its history of empire? The East India Company generated great wealth for the British but did little to improve the lives of Indians (which includes Pakistan and Bangladesh)
Mary A. says
At least the British abolished sutti which was a disgrace. And they did not put up a Muslim monument like the Taj Mahal as representative of India when India has so many splendid monuments to represent it, in Varanasi for example. And more important maybe the British did not try to convert anybody like the Muslims who want to convert everybody to Islam or else death. And I’m not even British!
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Sutee was a fringe practice, and not something practiced mainstream. An Indian academician analyzed 3000 years of Indian history, including the Vedic era, and found only 1000 instances of Sutee over that period. You might say that it’s 1000 too many, and you’d be right, but statistically, it’s an asterisk: compare it to 150,000 people who die in a traffic accident every year to this day
The year Sutee was abolished – 1932, it was quietly accepted by the entire Hindu population throughout the country, b’cos it was not a core practice in the faith. Contrast that w/ 1857 – when Hindus thought that the cartridges of the rifles they were using were greased w/ beef fat, it started a war throughout North India that took more than a year to subdue
Mary A. says
PS to PMK: And how about the Muslim Empire which preceeded the British Empire. Or do you think we are all ignorant of history and all the countries that have been not only colonised and but also Islamised like the entire Middle East which was Christian. At least the ex British colonies are now free and can follow any religion they wish instead of ‘Islam or death’ and still you don’t leave countries like India alone but try to Islamise them.
Devasur says
British abolished a rare practice that wasn’t even practiced all over India. This is nothing but a shameless repetition of the atrocity literature of colonialists to justify colonialism.
In fact, the number of cases of Sati is far less than the cases of witch burnings in Europe. In fact, it is far less than the large number of Indian women who were kidnapped and forced into prostitution by the British.
British were no different from Islamic rulers in terms of plundering India and Hindus.
As a supporter of colonialism, it is expected that you discard the missionary attacks.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
But once these countries became independent, from where did Britain get a moral obligation to grant refuge to any of their citizens? To take your example of the subcontinent, after the Brits left, a group of their citizens remained in India, and got recognition in India as Anglo-Indians. For at least 50 years, they ran some of the most successful schools in that country. The Indians who do leave India for Britain, US or other English speaking countries happen to be from the elites: one doesn’t normally see them on welfare like the Pakis. In other words, you don’t have India sending its losers to Britain, the way Pakistan does
If colonialization was the justification for saddling Britain w/ people from all their colonies, why don’t they have people from all their ex-colonies – from Malawi to Belize?
Hoi Polloi says
So are Americans entitled to citizenship in the UK by virtue of their former status as inhabitants of a British colonial state? Brits enriched themselves as a result.
I apparently have free claim to some number of countries’ wealth by virtue of wars and religious pogroms against my ancestors. I have my eye on a certain castle.
Hoi Polloi says
I like to watch Sad getting corrected on his numerous erroneous claims and statements. He does cryface as well as Merrick Garland, Mayorkas, & Co.
Don McKellar says
Rewriting history. It’s what fascists do.
Pray Hard says
That’s not what Starship said.
Pray Hard says
Oh, surely, it was climate change, oppression or racism.
John Smith says
I don’t think most people are aware just how hardcore a muslim Sadiq Khan is. In his early days he associated with the most vilest of jihadi’s, and he would allow isis flags to be openly waved during his speeches. These days he’s playing the muruna card, but he wont fool those that know him better.
He wants to flood the UK with muslim migrants, not for the benefit of the UK, but for the benefit of jihad.
James Lincoln says
Khan is a “Brooks Brothers” Jihadi, John.
somehistory says
I like Dr. Hare’s description of professionals who are also psychopaths, and that includes politicians. ‘”Snakes in Suits.”
࿗Infidel࿘ says
This matches a description of Erdogan that one poster put on this site, when he described him as an Ayatollah in a suit
GreekEmpress says
+1
Mary A. says
For whatever it’s worth I think Britain was mistaken to grant residence to Indian or ex- Indian citizens which resulted in an influx of Pakistanis in the UK. But with regard to what you say about sutee even the death of one woman due to sutee is a crime against humanity. – and this is said by someone who has great admiration for the civilisation of India. !11There are no excuses for murdering a woman because her husband is dead.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Like I said, it was wrong, but blown out of proportion. Today, in that same country, 150,000 people die every year in traffic accidents. Last year, there were 150+ “love jihad” incidents in India, of which an unknown number resulted in the deaths of Hindu girls. 1 every 3 years over a 3000 year period looks pretty non-existent in comparison
I agree w/ you on the Paki influx. If a colonizing power leaves a country, they are under no moral obligation to take the colonized citizens w/ them. Also, it’s not like Britain has been taking in Paki Christians, Hindus or Sikhs, where it would have at least made sense from a refugee point of view
Mary A. says
To ‘infidel’
I think we should agree to differ because no matter how many examples you give me nothing can equal a woman being burnt in the pyre with her dead husband. This was a deliberate act because a woman was considered nothing without a man. That woman is considered nothing in her own right without the man she married. She has absolutely no value whatsoever, she counts for nothing without her husband. At the very least she has value to her parents, to the mother who carried her for nine months and went through hell to bring her into a world which does not value her for herself. People forget that it takes the same time and the same birth process for a woman to give birth to a girl as to a boy. Man has more muscle power, yes, probably because he was supposed in olden times to go out fight animals and who knows what else to bring food for the survival of the present generation while woman was in charge of delivering the future generation. What’s more in brains they are equal. If some deity would have meant for woman to be inferior that’s where her inferiority would have been located. Forgive me ‘infidel” but I will never agree with you so as I said above let’s agree to differ.
Devasur says
Your emotional ranting will not guilt-trip anyone here. At the same time, you don’t feel it is wrong for women to be kidnapped by the British and forced them into prostitution. It’s quite ironic you pretend to care for Indian women. Typical colonialists discard their crimes and amplify even a single crime done by natives to justify colonialism. Where millions of people dying due to colonialism don’t count but one person dies due to natives counts.
Hinduism has female deities who are treated on par with male deities. It is your Abrahamic religion which doesn’t even want to consider women as gods.
Mary A. says
I think we should agree to differ because no matter how many examples you give me nothing can equal a woman being burnt in the pyre with her dead husband. This was a deliberate act because a woman was considered nothing without a man. That woman is considered nothing in her own right without the man she married. She has absolutely no value whatsoever, she counts for nothing without her husband. At the very least she has value to her parents, to the mother who carried her for nine months and went through hell to bring her into a world which does not value her for herself. People forget that it takes the same time and the same birth process for a woman to give birth to a girl as to a boy. Man has more muscle power, yes, probably because he was supposed in olden times to go out fight animals and who knows what else to bring food for the survival of the present generation while woman was in charge of delivering the future generation. What’s more in brains they are equal. If some deity would have meant for woman to be inferior that’s where her inferiority would have been located. Forgive me ‘infidel” but I will never agree with you so as I said above let’s agree to differ.
Devasur says
But it is okay to burn women as witches right? That’s your allegation and confusing Indian society with your Western. In fact, suicide by burning oneself happens even now and it is not exclusive to India. Mahabharata has a sati incident in it. Go read it and come back at least you will get a little understanding of it. In fact, sati is not even exclusive to women and men to do that. This is why Westerners should not apply their twisted logic to Indian society which they have no understanding of.
Wellington says
With all those adhering to a totalitarian ideology, be it Islam, Marxism (now newly “warmed over” as Western Leftism), Nazism, etc., facts are optional.
Truth and totalitarianism don’t go well together at all. Never have. Never will.
James Lincoln says
Wellington says,
“Truth and totalitarianism don’t go well together at all. Never have. Never will.”
A 100% accurate “lesson for the day”.
commonsense says
Kudos to both of you, James and Wellington. …And to Infidel as well.
Aum says
Khan is a clown – it is time London electorate ousted him.
I will vote against him again.
Mary A. says
To Devasur: I never said it is ok to burn a women at the stake. You did. God knows my society is not immune from having committed sins against women. But at least some of us admi it. Others think they are too big to admit mistakes. So please don”t put words in my mouth. Anyway this is the end for me. I have no time to continue this stupid exchange which leads nowhere. So please be aware that I will not reply to anyone anymore. I will not even look at any reply. Goodbye.
Hoi Polloi says
Come back and ignore anyone who claims to be the sole possessor of facts, has a store of colonialism lectures, and a fondness for communism, Others here are welcoming and willing to discuss things in a cool and rational manner. Somehistory is often here and quite gracious to newcomers.
Hide says
London built by emigrant I’ve been to most of their countries and I don’t see any resemblance whatsoever to London.
Jim says
The Oil rich Muslim countries should start financing the settlement of Muslims in other Muslim countries. The Muslim mayor should be voted into retirement in the next election. If Muslims contribute so much, they should do it in Muslim countries.
Barry Morgan says
How stupid are the British? We Australians aren’t much smarter, although we haven’t appointed a Muslim as mayor of our capital city yet, but we ARE allowing too many Muslims into our country and we will pay the price as many European countries are now. We are already experiencing the same problems that those countries are, such as, high unemployment rates, high crime rates, high social welfare rates among Muslim immigrants. Muslims should only be repatriated to other Muslim countries.
Rarely says
Ludicrous of course. But we should remember who the audience is to whom he’s addressing his remarks. The idea is to lower the prestige of the actual builders of London , England and GB in the eyes of the recent immigrants and to raise their esteem as the “true” builders.
Didn’t you know that Sir Christopher Wren and William Shakespeare were immigrants?
commonsense says
+1
Kristen says
It’s clear to everyone—as evidenced by the spotless, modern, healthy and thriving communities throughout Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, etcetera—that the ignorant, inbred and feral seventh-century Jihadis built the foundations of the venerated western nations that we enjoy and hold in reverence. ?
If you buy that, I happen to have a bridge for sale in Baghdad. Serious inquiries only.
commonsense says
+1