McKinstry mentions immigration

Columnist Leo McKinstry, one of the “Usual Suspects” whom I have often criticized for bewailing the Islamization of Britain while remaining stone-cold silent about ending Islamic immigration into Britain, has, however briefly and indefinitely, broken the silence. Well, that’s an overstatement, since he has not actually called for ending or reducing Muslim immigration, but for doing something about Muslim immigration. What, he doesn’t exactly say. At the end of his article in today’s Daily Express he writes:

Muslims’ grievances are nothing more than the expression of regret that they do not control our society. We have to fight back, and that means abandoning multi-culturalism, cracking down on immigration and re-establishing a sense of national identity. Those Muslims who are really opposed to terrorism will join in this struggle, not sit sullenly on the sidelines.

“Cracking down” is rather vague. It could mean that the immigration of Muslims needs to be absolutely reduced, or it it could mean only that outright jihad supporters should not be allowed into Britain, while Muslim immigration as a whole continues. Also, he doesn’t say what should be done about Muslims in Britain who demonstrate by their behavior that they don’t oppose terrorism, though elsewhere in the article he declares that Muslims “must” show that they are against terrorism.

His ambiguous statement about “cracking down” on immigration is not the only sign of McKinstry’s lack of conceptual clarity on the issue. On one hand he says that “it is the Muslim community that has bred the terrorists.” On the other hand he blames “the British official state creed of multiculturalism [that] has encouraged victimhood and alienation, through the provision of separate housing, faith schools, language translation, support for mosques, grants to ethnic groups and the abandonment of border controls.” So which is it? Is it British state multiculturalism that has created a population of pro-terrorism Muslims in Britain, or is it the admission of Muslims into Britain that has created a population of pro-terrorism Muslims in Britain?

The contradiction could be resolved as follows: McKinstry is saying that as long as the British state ideology is turning Muslims into supporters of terrorism, Muslim immigration only exacerbates the problem and should be stopped, but that if Britain eliminated its multicultural policies, then the free immigration of Muslims could safely recommence.

Alternatively, we could understand him as saying that he’s not calling for an end or even a temporary halt of Muslim immigration, but just for greater screening efforts to keep out terror supporters.

One must guess at McKinstry’s meaning, because he is unwilling to be clear himself. He belongs to a tribe, newspaper columnists, who simply do not feel the need to make a coherent argument—who perhaps are not aware that there is even such a thing as a coherent argument as distinct from a bunch of proferred opinions jostling together in a kind of Brownian motion. When dealing with a life-or-death issue such as the jihadist conquest of Britain, that will not do.

At the same time, let us be clear that for McKinstry to advocate “cracking down on immigration,” however indefinite his meaning, is a definite step forward.

- end of initial entry -

James P. writes:

Maybe what Leo McKinstry means by “cracking down on immigration” is that Britain should only allow intelligent, highly educated Muslims into the country, like doctors for instance.

Jeff in England writes:

As the article states that Muslims must do this or that, it is obvious that McKinstry still accepts a Muslim presence which probably means he accepts some degree of Muslim immigration. However, given he is one of the top conservative leaning columnists in Britain (Melanie Phillips, Patrick O’Flynn, Janet Daley, Charles Moore being my other four) it is a significant column. As far as I know he is the first regular featured columnist here to mention immigration restriction. Andrew Green of Migration Watch regularly mentions it but he is a guest columnist.

Now for the other four. Melanie is probably the most important of the remaining four (though Moore, the editor of the Telegraph is very well respected) but she seems oblivious to the immigration restriction option.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 02, 2007 10:18 AM | Send