Skip to Content

Guest Notes

Immigration notes

31 December 2016

9:00 AM

31 December 2016

9:00 AM

At last, we’ve found something worse than Islamists: Millennial Islamists. Abdul Razak Ali Artan, the Somali refugee who carried out last month’s attack at Ohio State, wasn’t just a soldier for Allah – he was also a bona fide Social Justice Warrior. Not so very long ago, Artan delivered a rant worthy of an American Waleed Aly to a student newspaper complaining about the trials of being a Muslim in the United States. ‘If people look at me, a Muslim praying, I don’t know what they’re going to think, what’s going to happen,’ he told the paper. (Maybe they thought he’d ram them with a Honda Civic or something bonkers like that. The bigots.) ‘I am a Muslim, it’s not what the media portrays me to be.’ No, of course not, you poor dear.

Incidentally, it wasn’t anything the Great Satan had done that drove Artan to homicide. ‘Seeing my fellow Muslims being tortured, raped and killed in Burma has led to a boiling point,’ he wrote in a pre-rampage Facebook post. For those of you not familiar with the situation, Burma’s Buddhist majority has been systematically executing its minority-Muslim countrymen. Appalling, yes – but how uni students in Ohio are culpable I really couldn’t say. Just picture this cretin sitting around with a bunch of dole-bludging mujahideen bemoaning the state of Muslims in the world. Artan takes a swig of some micro-brewed, gluten-free, non-alcoholic beer and says, ‘Yeah, I’m really concerned about the ummah in Burma. Myanmar, as the Crusaders say. It’s a pretty obscure genocide, you’ve probably never heard of it.’ Welcome to the age of the SJW jihadi.

But Artan’s isn’t really such a hot take on radical Islam. In fact, it fits into an alarmingly common pattern. Commentators have noted that, despite invoking the Islamic State before his attack and following methods laid out in its magazine Dabiq, he appears to have no ties to any formal terrorist cell. That’s good! Right? It shows that Isis’s network isn’t as pervasive as we once thought, or as they’d like us to think. Small-scale, lone-wolf attackers like Artan prove that Isis & Co. don’t have the means to organise and coordinate attacks on the scale of 9/11 or Paris. And that’s probably true. But it shouldn’t come as a relief. On the contrary: it proves the threat facing our civilisation is far direr than we might’ve thought.


Artan was, as we said, a Somali refugee. He came from the non-country that flippant conservatives (like me) constantly invoke in debates with libertarians: ‘If you hate the government so much, why not move to Somalia?’ The answer, of course, is because Somalia is quite literally the worst place ever. The UN ranks it as the least developed country on the planet. The GDP per capita is $600 and life expectancy is in the early 50s. The place is overrun with pirates, warlords, and Islamist militias. It’s impossible to quantify how truly miserable Artan’s life must’ve been there, or how dramatically it would’ve improved when he came to the United States at 16 years old. But it couldn’t have been lost on him. He was, by all accounts, an intelligent and well-adjusted young man. What could’ve led him to commit such an unspeakable crime against the country that saved his life… in retaliation against a bunch of Buddhists in Southeast Asia?

Like the Rotherham groomers, Cologne rape mob, and Melbourne’s Sudanese gangs, Artan attests to a deep sickness in the immigrant community – especially those from Islamic countries. A huge minority of those coming to the West fundamentally reject our values and mores. They have no desire to conform with even our most basic notions of acceptable behavior. (You can’t have sex with whomever you like, killing people isn’t an appropriate way to express frustration over geopolitical affairs, etc.) It has nothing to do with the global jihad, and it won’t stop if we defeat foreign terrorist organisations. Muslim migrants don’t always need prodding from radicals overseas to carry out every manner of atrocity against their new Western neighbors.

So why aren’t we getting smarter about who we let come here? To say the decidedly un-PC thing, migrants aren’t automatically inducted into our worldview because they pass through airport customs. Immigration doesn’t fix the Islamic world’s problems – it just relocates them. That’s why sexual assault, female genital mutilation, religious extremism, and all those travesties common in the Islamic world follow Muslims so persistently across borders. It’s rank stupidity not to acknowledge that fact, so we can spare ourselves the descent into a Somali-style hellhole. And never mind the Leftist nonsense about ‘imperialism’s chickens coming home to roost’. No one suffers more from such absurd expressions of white guilt than those immigrants who really do wish to embrace our culture and the peaceful, prosperous, liberal society it facilitates.

Those are the folks our immigration system must serve. Wanting to escape hardship isn’t enough. We can only afford to take in cultural refugees: those who have a sincere desire to pledge loyalty to our civilisation and everything it stands for. We need to take in far fewer migrants, meticulously vet those we do let in, and take special care that every last one integrates fully into our way of life. Multiculturalism, noble as it might be in theory, has failed. If our civil society – let alone our immigration system – is to survive, we need to adopt a policy of uncompromising assimilationism. Anything less will only yield more Abdul Razak Ali Artans.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments

Comments

The Spectator Comment Policy

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

Close