Why Anger in the UK Targets Muslims, Not Immigration

 For decades, successive governments in the United Kingdom actively allowed and encouraged immigration from Muslim-majority countries. This was not an accident. It was state policy.

After the Second World War, Britain faced severe labour shortages. Workers were recruited from former colonies for factories, public transport, and later for the NHS. Student visas expanded. Family reunification laws were introduced. Asylum systems were formalised. Over time, these policies produced settled Muslim communities that paid taxes, raised families, and became citizens.

None of this happened secretly.

So when anger suddenly erupts today — framed as panic about “too many Muslims,” “Sharia creeping in,” or “losing British values” — a basic question needs to be asked. If Muslims were invited, processed, documented, and naturalised by the state, why are they now treated as intruders?

The answer is uncomfortable but simple.

The issue is not immigration itself.

It is selective anger.

Immigration Did Not Begin Yesterday

Britain did not wake up one morning and discover immigration. Multicultural society did not arrive unannounced in the 2010s. Muslim communities have been part of British life for generations.

Mosques, halal shops, Muslim doctors, taxi drivers, teachers, shopkeepers, and small businesses have existed since the 1960s and 1970s. They grew gradually, legally, and visibly.

Yet public debate increasingly behaves as if this presence is sudden, imposed, and unnatural.

That distortion matters. It allows economic and governance failures to be reframed as cultural threats. Housing shortages, stretched public services, stagnant wages, and declining local cohesion are real problems. But instead of confronting decades of poor planning, austerity, and political short-termism, frustration is redirected.

Muslims become the symbol.

Not the cause.

The Indian Exception That Breaks the Argument

If the anger were truly about immigration numbers, it would look very different.

Indians are among the largest immigrant communities in the United Kingdom. In Canada, they are the single largest source of new immigrants. Their presence is highly visible across technology, healthcare, education, retail, and business ownership.

Yet there is no sustained panic about “Hindu takeover.”

No daily headlines about Hindu law.

No viral posts warning that Hindu culture threatens national identity.

Why?

Because Indians are generally framed as economically useful, socially quiet, and politically non-threatening. Muslims, by contrast, carry the weight of global fear — terrorism, wars, security narratives, and decades of media framing that equates Islam with danger.

Same immigration system.

Different story.

This Is About Visibility, Not Law

Much of the anxiety revolves around visibility rather than behaviour.

Muslims pray openly. They fast collectively. Some wear religious clothing. Their festivals are public. Their identity is harder to dilute into the background.

That visibility unsettles societies that are comfortable with religion only when it remains private or culturally decorative.

There is no serious political movement in Britain proposing to replace British law with religious law. Courts operate under the same legal framework. Civic institutions function as before. The fear is not legal.

It is psychological.

It is the fear of no longer being the unquestioned default.

Governments Opened the Door, Then Blamed the Guests

There is a quiet hypocrisy at the centre of the debate.

The state designed the migration system. Corporations benefited from flexible labour. Universities collected international fees. Hospitals relied on foreign-trained doctors and nurses. For decades, immigration was economically useful and politically manageable.

When cohesion frays, accountability does not move upward.

It moves downward.

Communities that followed the rules are told they must explain themselves, prove loyalty, and minimise difference. Politicians who authorised visas and work permits now speak as if immigration were an uncontrollable force rather than a deliberate policy choice.

That anger is not organic.

It is redirected.

Why Muslims, and Why Now?

The timing is not accidental.

Economic pressure, cultural anxiety, global conflict, and social-media amplification have combined into a volatile mix. Islam, already burdened by long-standing suspicion, becomes the easiest container for collective unease.

This is not unique to Britain. Similar patterns exist across Europe and North America. Muslims are portrayed not as neighbours but as demographic forces. Their faith is treated not as belief but as ideology.

Once that shift occurs, nuance disappears.

The Question Britain Avoids

If immigration itself were the problem, all immigrants would be the problem.

They are not.

Only certain groups are framed as existential threats. Only some are asked to constantly justify their presence. Only some are told they may live here, but not change the atmosphere.

That reveals the truth beneath the debate.

This is not about borders.

It is about belonging.

A Necessary Honesty

Britain has every right to debate integration, cohesion, and shared civic values. Those discussions are necessary. But they cannot begin with selective memory or scapegoating.

Muslims did not suddenly arrive in Britain.

Britain simply decided, at a moment of stress, that it needed someone to be angry at.

Until that reality is acknowledged, the debate will remain loud, circular, and unresolved — driven by fear rather than facts, and nostalgia rather than responsibility.