UH-HUH. SURE: The root problem of Muslim integration in Britain is alienation — caused by poverty and racism, of course.

British newspapers have begun to read like a highlights reel of what many perceive as an irreversible trend in Britain: The attacks on the London Transport in 2005 by British-born nationals, the brutal killing of Lee Rigby in 2013 by converted and radicalized Muslims of Nigerian descent, the heartbreaking beheading of journalist James Foley and others by a British-accented militant (a jihadist known as “John the Beatle”) along with an estimated 500 other Britons fighting for ISIL in Syria, not to mention almost two dozen women emigrating to become jihadi brides. Even domestic institutions seem to be vulnerable; Operation Trojan Horse revealed a detailed plan by hardline Muslim community leaders in Birmingham to remove head teachers hostile to Islamic principles in city schools. This pattern . . . reflects the continuation of a malignant and deep-seated problem: not all citizens of free societies value freedom, especially freedom for others. . . .

The root problem – where ideological extremism flourishes – is alienation. Disaffected, second- and third-generation immigrant youth are seeking alternative communities of belonging that conflict with a free society. To this problem, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Muslim youth are born into British society and socialized in British schools, or naturalized after years of residence and integration, but endure frustrating barriers to socioeconomic mobility and face discrimination as members of an ethnic minority.

“Barriers to socioeconomic mobility”? Let’s take each stated case in turn.

The “British-born nationals” responsible for the 2005 bombings of the London Transport were Hasib Hussain (an 18-year-old who that very year had received a vocational certificate in business), Mohammad Sidique Khan (a primary school mentor who allegedly travelled regularly to Pakistan and Afghanistan for training), and Shehzad Tanweer (a 22-year-old who had recently finished studying sports science and gone to Pakistan the year before for “Islamic studies,” and at the time was working for his father, who “was respected locally as a prominent businessman”).

To sum up, then, two men had just received credentials (and thus had little opportunity to find out whether there were any “barriers to socioeconomic mobility,” and the other had a good enough job that he could travel quite a bit.

(The rest of those convicted for bombing were not British-born: Germaine Lindsay of Jamaica; Yasin Hassan Omar, Mukta Said Ibrahim, and Ramzi Mohammed of Somalia; Hamdi Adus Isaac [or Osman Hussein] of Ethiopia, and Manfo Kwaku Asiedu of Ghana.)

Now to the Lee Ribgy murderers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. Adebolajo, “the eldest son of a social worker and nurse from a hard-working Nigerian family,” began to pursue a building-surveying degree but dropped out before his third year. (Some sources say he studied sociology. In any case, he did knock up two fellow students.) So he didn’t even try to see whether there were “barriers to socioeconomic mobility.” (His parents didn’t face such barriers, evidently: “In 2005 the family moved into a £365,000 detached house in Saxilby, Lincolnshire, after the father got a well-paid NHS manager.”) Adebowale gave up even earlier, joining a gang and dealing drugs from a young age. It turns out that it’s difficult for such men to make it up the corporate ladder. (Source.)

Now to John the Beatle. According to one article, he “fled his million-dollar home in London last year, reportedly to wage jihad in Syria, and recently tweeted a picture of himself holding a severed head.” I’ll just stop right there.

So, how about the hundreds of Britons fighting in Syria? “There isn’t a single type of jihadist – there are people from both poor and rich backgrounds – so it is an issue to do with the individual’s mindset, not personal circumstances, Deputy Director of RUSI Qatar Michael Stephens told RT’s show In the Now.” And the “jihadi brides” are, from what I’ve read, quite young. So they haven’t had time to face “barriers to socioeconomic mobility.”

And Operation Trojan Horse is about people who have made it into positions of influence changing the rules and curricula in British schools. Barriers? What barriers?

So much for the economic argument. What about the idea that “disaffected, second- and third-generation immigrant youth are seeking alternative communities of belonging” (now that’s a euphemism for you) due to having “face[d] discrimination as members of an ethnic minority”? But then wouldn’t first-generation immigrants be affected by this as well?

Also, shouldn’t a nation be wary of allowing in members of an ethnic minority characterized by turning to terrorism in response to (supposedly) experiencing racism? And here we discover the reverse reverse bigotry of the matter. The author wants us to sympathize with the minorities because they’ve experienced racism. But unlike other, more peaceful minorities, these minorities lash out and kill people. So, if they’re going to be like that, shouldn’t one prevent them from entering one’s country in the first place?