London Terror Attack: Is Immigration to Blame?

Marine Le Pen, the French far-right leader and presidential candidate, immediately condemned the attack in London, not by offering her condolences, but by asserting that “we must control our borders.”

Alienated from contemporary society by governments and populations alike, Muslims in Europe have had a lot to resent, which has made them a prime target for radicalization.

There is a lack of Muslim representation within local and national European politics, which causes governments to be unable to address the issues of their Muslim populations.

Focus: Politicians have used the attack in London to further their anti-immigration rhetoric, but it is not immigration to blame for this attack and others.

Terror struck the heart of London on March 22, 2017, when Khalid Masood carried out a reprehensible terror attack that left five people dead. Without hesitation, European leaders used the attack as an opportunity to further their anti-Muslim immigration rhetoric. Marine Le Pen, the French far-right leader and presidential candidate, immediately condemned the attack in London, not by offering her condolences, but by asserting that “we must control our borders.”

This rhetoric plays into the larger narrative of fearing and halting immigration championed by Le Pen and her Front Nationale. In the aftermaths of the attacks in Paris, Nice, and now London, other European leaders have also advocated for barring immigration. Nigel Farage used these attacks to bolster his anti-immigration platform during the Brexit vote, playing off of the fear of terror attacks within Europe.

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump also played off of the fear of terrorism and issued an executive order which barred entry of anyone from several countries in the Middle East, such as Syria, Libya, and Iraq, into the United States. Although this order was shut down in the Federal Court system, the intent to further discriminate against migrants and visa-holders alike from Muslim nations remains in the administration.

This narrative is little more than fear-mongering. Masood was born and raised in the United Kingdom to British parents. He was a citizen radicalized within the country.

In France and much of Europe, Muslims have had a contentious history with the rest of the population. Many Muslims immigrated to Europe during the period of decolonization in the 1950s and ‘60s, but were forced to live in slums and among the lowest rungs of society. There was little effort from European governments, who saw them as temporary workers, to assimilate these populations. Alienated from contemporary society by both governments and people alike, Muslims in Europe have had a lot to resent, which has made them a prime target for radicalization.

But how does this relate to modern-day radicalization? The answer is that Muslims in Europe have not yet moved out of the slums they occupied 50 years ago, and because of their lower standing in society, they have also been targets of recruitment from terror groups. Masood was allegedly radicalized by Sheikh Abu Hamza, an Imam in England who was recently arrested for inciting terror. The New York Times notes that homegrown terror has taken a greater toll than jihadis coming from the Middle East, and yet the rhetoric of our politicians tends to focus on threats outside of our country rather than inside.

Le Pen is an outspoken proponent of the French ideal of Laicite, the full assimilation of religious minorities into the mainstream. This belief permeates her speeches and her support of policies, such as the now-infamous Burkini ban. But instead of assimilating Muslims, this belief only serves to increase resentment in Europe’s Muslim communities, as Jeffrey Reitz, a sociology professor at the University of Toronto, explains. He believes that “many young Muslim women feel an underlying resentment. They have to take off the headscarf when they get to school, but they put it back on immediately when they leave, feeling that it’s an important way to defend their identity.”

It is clear that the reactionary speeches and policies coming from Europe’s leaders aren’t solving any problems, but there is a way for European leaders to fight radicalization. The first action these leaders can take is to work with Muslim communities to better understand the problems that these communities face. There is a lack of Muslim representation within local and national European politics, which causes governments to be unable to address the issues of their Muslim populations.

Second, governments need to provide more resources to these communities, which, on average, receive less government benefits and attention: in France, entire Muslim neighborhoods are left unpoliced. In the 1950s, European governments pushed Muslim immigrants into shantytowns and largely ignored them, and for the past 70 years, this has not changed.

Most importantly, Europeans need to be more accepting of Islam. Secularism in Europe is different than in the United States; across the pond, it means the general abdication of religion by the mainstream. This is why policies, such as the Burkini-ban, are so hotly contested within Muslim communities: their need to maintain key elements of their culture comes at odds with the rest of society, which wants them to abandon their culture entirely.

Retaliatory rhetoric does little to help in the fight against radicalization and terror. Yet, in the wake of terrorist attacks, the public finds solace in these very words coming from politicians. If we want to end the issue of radicalization in both Europe and in the United States, we should instead expect our leaders to pursue policies that solve these issues and espouse rhetoric that does not alienate our Muslim populations.