Democrats Groan When Trump Announces Office To Help Victims Of Immigrant Crime
February 28, 2017
Democratic lawmakers let their opposition be known Tuesday to President Trump’s plan to open an office aimed at helping the victims of crimes committed by immigrants.
Democrats groaned loudly when Trump announced the creation of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE), an office which will fall under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security.
“I have ordered the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to serve American Victims. The office is called VOICE –- Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement. We are providing a voice to those who have been ignored by our media, and silenced by special interests,” said Trump.
A chorus of groans rippled through the audience at the joint session of Congress.
Trump then introduced the families of several people who have been killed by illegal immigrants in the U.S.
There are two different attacks, so be sure to watch the whole video. It’s less than four minutes long.
Liberal hypocrites never complained when Obama conducted the largest illegal immigration raid in U.S. history
You know all those liberals who are complaining about how Trump just conducted a raid on 683 illegal immigrants?
Those same liberals were silent after Obama conducted a raid on 3,168 illegal immigrants during the last week of March, 2012. It was the largest illegal immigration raid in U.S. history.
Chelsea Clinton says it’s “horrifying” that Trump is deporting an illegal alien who was convicted of assault, domestic violence, and false imprisonment
Chelsea Clinton says it’s “horrifying” that Trump is deporting an illegal alien who was convicted of assault, domestic violence, and false imprisonment.
Hypocrite liberals said nothing after Obama detained Ibtihaj Muhammad, a law abiding, Muslim, U.S. citizen, who was born in New Jersey, and who won an Olympic medal
If Trump had done this, liberals would be – justifiably so – heavily outraged.
But because this was done by Obama, liberals said nothing.
Barack Obama in 2005: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked”
Mainstream media falsely refers to Somalian rapist Mohamed Harir Ayanle as a “Minneapolis man,” then later refuses to report whether or not he showed up for his court hearing
In September 2016, President Obama allowed a guy from Somali named Mohamed Harir Ayanle to enter the U.S.
Three months later, Ayanle raped a woman on a bus in Polk County, Minnesota.
However, the mainstream media falsely referred to him as a “Minneapolis man.”
This December 12, 2016 article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press is titled
“Minneapolis man charged with raping female passenger on intercity bus”
The first sentence of the article is
“A Minneapolis man could spend 30 years behind bars after being charged with raping a woman on Jefferson Lines bus on Friday afternoon.”
In the entire article, there is nothing to indicate that Ayanle is from anywhere other than Minnesota.
The article has no use of any word such as “Somalia,” “Somali,” “Somalian,” “immigrant,” “migrant,” or any other such word, to indicate that Ayanle is from anywhere other than Minneapolis.
Likewise, this December 13, 2016 article from KSTP, the ABC News affiliate in St. Paul, Minnesota, is titled
“Minneapolis Man Accused of Raping Woman on Bus Heading to North Dakota”
Also, the first sentence of the article is
“A Minneapolis man has been charged after a woman said he raped her in the back of a bus.”
And again, the article has no use of any word such as “Somalia,” “Somali,” “Somalian,” “immigrant,” “migrant,” or any other such word, to indicate that Ayanle is from anywhere other than Minneapolis.
The news is supposed to report facts. It is a fact that Ayanle is Somalian. He is not a “Minneapolis man.” The mainstream media gave false information in its “news” reports.
Another thing about the media’s treatment of this incident raises huge red flags. The December 12, 2016 St. Paul Pioneer Press article ends with the following:
“Ayanle was released from custody Monday on a $5,000 bond on the condition that he does not leave Minnesota. His next court appearance is scheduled for Jan. 3.”
Why in the world did the judge in question think that Ayanle would stay in Minnesota, or show up for the January 3, 2017 court appearance?
The very bus that Ayanle was on when he committed the rape was headed to Grand Forks, North Dakota.
At the very time that Ayanle committed the rape, he was already headed out of Minnesota.
No rational person would expect Ayanle to return for the January 3, 2017 court appearance.
As I sit here writing this, it is now February 10, 2017. So it’s been more than five weeks since the January 3, 2017 court appearance was supposed to take place.
And yet this google search doesn’t show any new information about Ayanle. Instead, all we get are the articles about his initial arrest from December 2017.
So where is Ayanle on this day of February 10, 2017?
Did he show up for the January 3, 2017 court appearance?
Did he flee Minnesota?
I can’t find any news articles to answer any of these questions.
When ABC News re-aired a live interview with a refugee, they edited out the part where the refugee said he liked Trump
During a live interview which was originally aired on CNN, a refugee said he liked Trump.
But when ABC News later re-aired the interview, they edited out the part where the refugee said he liked Trump.
Media bias at its finest.
Starbucks recently announced that it will hire 10,000 refugees worldwide over the next five years.
I agree with Starbucks.
It is extremely important for refugees to be assimilated into their new home. Besides learning the language of their new home, obtaining a job is the most important part of this assimilation.
Refugees – real refugees, that is – are fleeing from horrifying atrocities that most of us cannot comprehend.
A real refugee is someone who is very much opposed to the policies of the country from which they fled. A real refugee does not try to turn their new home into the same kind of hellhole from which they fled.
For example, consider this story of real refugee Brigitte Gabriel:
Brigitte Gabriel, born October 21, 1964, is a conservative American journalist, author, political lecturer, anti-Islamic activist, and founder of two non-profit political organizations, the American Congress For Truth and ACT! for America. She has given hundreds of lectures and frequently speaks at American conservative organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, Christians United for Israel, Evangelicals, and Jewish groups.
Her sometimes controversial statements include that Islam keeps countries backward and that it teaches terrorism.
Brigitte Gabriel was born in the Marjeyoun District of Lebanon to a Maronite Christian couple, a first and only child after over twenty years of marriage. She recalls that during the Lebanese Civil War, Islamic militants launched an assault on a Lebanese military base near her family’s house and destroyed her home. Gabriel, who was ten years old at the time, was injured by shrapnel in the attack. She says that she and her parents were forced to live underground in all that remained, an 8-by-10-foot (2.4 by 3.0 m) bomb shelter for seven years, with only a small kerosene heater, no sanitary systems, no electricity or running water, and little food. She says she had to crawl in a roadside ditch to a spring for water to evade Muslim snipers.
According to Gabriel, at one point in the spring of 1978, a bomb explosion caused her and her parents to become trapped in the shelter for two days. They were eventually rescued by three Christian militia fighters, one of whom befriended Gabriel but was later killed by a land mine.
Gabriel wrote that in 1978 a stranger warned her family of an impending attack by the Islamic militias on all Christians. She says that her life was saved when the Israeli army invaded Lebanon in Operation Litani. Later, when her mother was seriously injured and taken to an Israeli hospital, Gabriel was surprised by the humanity shown by the Israelis, in contrast to the constant propaganda against the Jews she saw as a child. She says of the experience:
“I was amazed that the Israelis were providing medical treatment to Palestinian and Muslim gunmen…These Palestinians and Muslims were sworn, mortal enemies, dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews. Yet, Israeli doctors and nurses worked feverishly to save their lives. Each patient was treated solely according to the nature of his or her injury. The doctor treated my mother before he treated an Israeli soldier lying next to her because her injury was more severe than his. The Israelis did not see religion, political affiliation, or nationality. They saw only people in need, and they helped.”
Brigitte Gabriel is a real refugee. She has assimilated very well. She has not tried to turn the U.S. into the same kind of hellhole form which she fled. I support letting real refugees like her into the U.S.
I will gladly support the U.S. taking in one million real refugees like her each and every year.
By comparison, a fake refugee is someone who refuses to assimilate, and instead, tries to turn their new home into the same kind of hellhole from which they fled.
There are plenty of fake refugees living in the city of Hamtramck, Michigan. The reason that I call them fake refugees instead of real refugees is because instead of assimilating into their new home, they are passing laws that force their way of life on to the long term residents of their new home.
According to this article from the Washington Post, Hamtramck is the first Muslim majority city in the U.S., and Muslims make up the majority of its city council. So far, this Muslim majority city council has done at least two things to force the rest of the city to adopt the Muslim way of life.
First, the city council banned business owners within 500 feet of any of the city’s mosques from obtaining a liquor license.
Secondly, the city gave all of these mosques an exemption from the city’s noise ordinance, so they can use electronic amplification to loudly broadcast the Muslim call to prayer five times a day, every day. Residents who live near these mosques have complained that this wakes them up at 6 a.m.
It is because of these two things – things where the Muslims have used the government to force their way of life on to unwilling participants – that I refer to them as fake refugees instead of real refugees.
If liberals want U.S. citizens to be more tolerant of refugees, then I suggest that liberals put an end to this kind of nonsense, instead of supporting it, as they currently do.
I support taking in real refugees – the kind who want to assimilate, and who would never try to turn their new home into the kind of hellhole from which they have fled.
I have nothing against real refugees who want to practice Islam on their own, without forcing it on to unwilling participants.
But when fake refugees use the government to force their way of life onto the long term residents of their new home, such as by banning liquor licenses in their new home, and by using electronic amplification to loudly force their call to prayer into the homes of unwilling participants who are trying to sleep, then no, I don’t want them – these fake refugees – in our country.
If liberals want people to be more welcoming to refugees, then liberals need to acknowledge this distinction between real refugees and fake refugees.
Trump’s immigration ban is already harming American science
Iranian scientists have been a major boon to everything from Mars exploration to Ebola-fighting to advanced mathematics.
January 29, 2017
Samira Asgari had been preparing for the trip for months. She had just earned her Ph.D. from a Swiss university and was ready to start a postdoctoral fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, studying how a person’s genes affect our response to tuberculosis. But on Saturday morning, at Frankfurt Airport, she was intercepted by an American consulate, who stopped her from boarding her plane to Boston. “He said that it’s the U.S. government who issues the visa, and if they change their mind, the visa isn’t valid,” she says.
They had indeed changed their mind. On Friday, President Trump signed an executive order banning citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen—from entering America under any visa, for at least 120 days. Asgari, who is Iranian, was sent back to Switzerland. Having given up her apartment in anticipation of the move, she has nowhere to stay. To make matters worse, her luggage is missing.
Liberal hypocrites never complained about how Obama’s Syrian refugee policy discriminated against Christians
Liberals – justifiably so – have been complaining about how Trump wants to discriminate against Muslim immigrants.
However, these same liberals were completely silent when Obama discriminated against Christian immigrants.
However, on November 30, 2015, it was reported that during the previous two weeks (i.e., the two weeks immediately after Islamic terrorists murdered 130 people in Paris) of the 132 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration had admitted into the U.S., 100% of them were Muslim, and 0% of them were Christian.
But there was not a peep from liberals about this religious discrimination.
In May 2016, the Obama administration admitted 1,035 Muslim refugees from Syria into the U.S., but only two Christian refugees from that same country.
Again, silence from liberals regarding this religious discrimination.
From early to mid August 2016, the Obama administration admitted 1,575 Muslim refugees from Syria into the U.S., but only 12 Christian refugees from that same country.
And again, no complaints from liberals about this religious discrimination.
Sheikh Mohammad Rateb al-Nabulsi is a Muslim preacher from Syria who has called for homosexuals to be executed. In March 2014, Obama gave him a visa so he could spread his message to mosques in 17 U.S. cities.
This one is especially concerning. Why did Obama want this guy in the U.S.?
For a lot more nonsense like this from Obama, please see this blog post that I wrote, which is called “Here are 36 reasons why I would not be surprised if Obama wanted Iran to destroy Israel.”
Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal
January 27, 2017
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.
But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.
That decision came after a long and shameful history in this country of barring immigrants based on where they came from. Starting in the late 19th century, laws excluded all Chinese, almost all Japanese, then all Asians in the so-called Asiatic Barred Zone. Finally, in 1924, Congress created a comprehensive “national-origins system,” skewing immigration quotas to benefit Western Europeans and to exclude most Eastern Europeans, almost all Asians, and Africans.
Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).
When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.
Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between “the issuance of a visa” and the “entry” of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.
Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred. The 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion — which was Mr. Trump’s original proposal.
While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception. In the most commonly cited case, President Jimmy Carter barred certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were mainly students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued to be admitted in 1980.
While courts rarely interfere in immigration matters, they have affirmed the discrimination ban. In the 1990s, for example, the government created a policy that required Vietnamese who had fled to Hong Kong to return to Vietnam if they wanted to apply for United States immigrant visas, while it allowed applicants from other countries to apply for visas wherever they wanted. A federal appeals court blocked the policy.
The government in that case did not even bother arguing that the 1952 law permitted discrimination. The court rejected its defense that a “rational link” with a temporary foreign policy measure could justify ignoring the law — an argument the Trump administration is sure to make. The court wrote, “We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications.”
To resolve this case, Congress amended the law in 1996 to state that “procedures” and “locations” for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. While there is plenty of room for executive mischief there, the amendment made clear that Congress still wanted the discrimination ban to hold some force. A blanket immigration prohibition on a nationality by the president would still be illegal.
Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far. If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress’s vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter. An appeals court stopped President Barack Obama’s executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America’s constitutional system.
The population of Morocco is 99% Muslim.
Geert Wilders guilty of ‘insulting a group’ after hate speech trial
December 9, 2016
The Dutch far-right opposition leader Geert Wilders was convicted Friday of inciting discrimination and “insulting a group” after a trial over statements he made about Moroccans.
But the court found him not guilty of incitement to hatred and handed down no punishment.
Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), was charged after inciting supporters into a chant calling for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands in 2014.
According to a court statement, Wilders asked his audience: “Do you want more or less Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?”
The audience repeatedly chanted “less.”
The court said that Wilders “singled out an entire group of citizens” and that the message “came through loud and clear.” It convicted him of insulting a group and incitement to discrimination.
But the court found insufficient evidence to find him guilty of incitement to hatred.
The court, which could have fined Wilders, decided that verdicts were sufficient punishment and imposed no further penalty.
The 53-year-old far-right leader has campaigned against “Islamic immigration.”
“Three PVV-hating judges just declared Moroccans a race and convicted me, as well as half of the Dutch population,” Wilders tweeted shortly after the ruling.
Wilders said in a Twitter post ahead of the verdict Friday morning that he will “continue to speak the truth about the Moroccan problem.”
“No judge, politician or terrorist will stop me,” he added.
Wilders has previously called Islamic immigration “an invasion” that will “replace our people” and “erase our culture.”
Among his other policies, Wilders has called for a referendum on the Netherlands’ membership in the European Union, and a full burqa ban.
Wilders, 53, came to international attention in 2008 with the provocative online film “Fitna,” which juxtaposed the aftermath of terrorist attacks with verses from the Quran.
Known as much for his anti-Muslim views as his bleached hair, Wilders has been called “Europe’s Donald Trump” — with his party gaining popularity in recent years.
It’s not the first time Wilders has appeared in court on hate speech charges.
In 2011 he was acquitted of inciting hatred against Muslims, after calling for the Quran to be banned in the Netherlands.
Friday’s verdict comes three months ahead of the country’s parliamentary election in March, when Wilders will be vying for the top job of prime minister.
The opposition party leader will face current prime minister Mark Rutte, whose conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) rules in a coalition with the the Labour Party (PvdA).
Rutte said at a press conference Friday that neither he nor his party would be willing to govern with Wilders unless he retracted his comments about Moroccans.
Wilders has run on a party manifesto focused on a so-called “de-Islamification” of the Netherlands, in which he lays out an 11-point plan pledging, among other things, to shut down all the country’s Islamic schools and close the borders to migrants from Islamic nations.
Afghan asylum seeker arrested over murder of German medical student who was daughter of senior EU official
Afghan asylum seeker arrested over murder of German medical student who was daughter of senior EU official
December 4, 2016
A teenage Afghan asylum seeker has been arrested after he reportedly confessed to murdering the daughter of a senior EU official.
Maria Ladenburger, a 19-year-old medical student, was raped and killed shortly after leaving a student party in Freiburg, southern Germany, on October 16.
According to German media reports, the 17-year-old suspect will stand trial early next year.
Ms Ladenburger was the daughter of Dr Clemens Ladenburger, who since 2008 has been an assistant to the director of the European Commission’s legal wing.
The Freiburg University student, who reportedly volunteered at a local refugee shelter in her spare time, was raped before drowning in the River Dreisam.
A team of 40 investigators were put to work combing the area for clues, and eventually came across a black scarf that belonged to Ms Ladenburger on the riverbed.
They also found a seven-inch strand of dark hair that had been dyed blonde, but drew a blank after comparing the DNA on both items to their own records.
Three weeks later, investigators unearthed CCTV footage from a tram station which showed an asylum seeker who wore what police described as “a very conspicuous hairstyle, an undercut hairstyle,” that was dyed blond in parts.
He was tracked down and arrested before being asked to take a DNA test, which according to German newspaper Bild matched him to the crime scene.
A German police spokesman said yesterday that they were trying to establish whether Ms Ladenburger knew her killer.
They are also looking into whether the attack had been planned in advance. Dr Ladenburger and his wife Friederike Ladenburger have since posted a memorial notice in their local newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine, which pays tribute to their daughter.
“For 19 years Maria was a great ray of sunshine in our family and she will remain so,” it reads. “We thank God for giving us this gift, and for letting her be our child. We are sure that she is safe with him.”
A requiem was held for Ms Ladenburger at the Notre Dame des Graces Church in Brussels last October.
Her alleged killer is understood to have arrived in Germany during an influx of nearly one million asylum seekers in 2015 and had been living with a foster family without incident.
Germany has been bitterly divided over Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision last year to declare an “open door” refugee policy in response to the war in Syria, which has displaced more than 4.8 million people.
Since them, a number of domestic terror attacks and plots in Germany have been linked to asylum seekers of both Syrian and Afghan origin.
In July, a 17-year-old Afghan asylum seeker attacked passengers on a train in southern Germany with an axe, leaving three people seriously injured.
The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil) went on to claim responsibility for the attack.
Ms Ladenburger’s case has drawn some comparisons in the German media to that of Caroline G, a 27-year-old jogger who was raped and murdered in November in Endingen, which is near Freiburg.
However, German police have denied any links to the unsolved murder. “We have no connection to the killing in Endingen,” German prosecutor Dieter Inhofer said.
‘No Borders’ activist gang raped by migrants, pressured into silence to not ‘damage cause’
October 6, 2015
A young, female ‘No Borders’ activist working in a migrant camp on the France-Italy border remained silent about her gang rape by Sudanese migrants for over a month because “the others asked me to keep quiet.”
Colleagues are alleged to have said that reporting the crime would set back their struggle for a borderless world.
The ‘No Borders’ activist had dedicated a month of her life to helping migrants. Her group was stationed between Italy and France in Ponte San Ludovico in Ventimiglia when the atrocity occurred, according to reports from local papers La Stampa and Il Secolo XIX, and now reported in the major Italian national Corriere Della Serra.
One Saturday night, as loud music played at a nearby party, the woman was reportedly trapped in a shower block set up near the camp in a pine forest know as Red Leap.
A gang of African migrants allegedly raped her there, and her cries for help are said to have gone unheard because of the music.
La Stampa reports that the woman, around 30 years of age, would have reported the horrific crime were if not for her fellow left-wing activists, who convinced her that if the truth got out it could damage their utopian dream of a world without borders.
But Corriere Della Serra also reports that some of her fellow activists are now accusing the woman of reporting the rape out of “spite,” because her group was withdrawn from the camp following a separate controversy.
The town of Ventimiglia, where the alleged crime occurred, has been a flashpoint in the ongoing migrant crisis.
On the 30th September around 50 migrants and 20 activists were cleared from an illegal camp there. The activists organised a protest, whereby 250 migrants conducted a “sit in” on the shoreline.
Yesterday, Osman Suliman, 20, a Sudanese asylum seeker who had been in the UK for just five months, appeared in court.
He was charged with the rape of a Nottingham woman last weekend, the 26th of September, The Nottingham Post reports.
Austrian Supreme Court overturns conviction of Iraqi immigrant who raped 10-year-old boy in swimming pool
Man who raped 10-year-old boy at swimming pool in Austria has sentence overturned by Supreme Court
Judges say lower court had not established whether attacker thought boy consented to sex
October 24, 2016
A man who raped a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in Austria has had his conviction overturned after judges found he may have believed the child consented.
Police said the 20-year-old Iraqi refugee, who has not been named, assaulted his victim in a toilet cubicle at the Theresienbad swimming pool in Vienna on 2 December last year.
The child reported the rape to a lifeguard and his attacker was arrested at the scene, reportedly telling officers in initial interviews that he was experiencing a “sexual emergency” after not having sex in four months.
In June, he was jailed for a minimum of six years for rape and aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, and ordered to pay €4,700 (£3,700) compensation to the boy’s family.
But on Thursday, Austria’s Supreme Court overturned the rape conviction and ordered a re-trial on the charge.
While the sexual abuse verdict was “watertight”, the more serious offence requires evidence that the defendant knew their victim did not consent to sex.
Supreme Court judges ruled that the first court should have established whether the attacker thought his victim agreed to a sexual act and intended to act against the boy’s will.
“This intention was not sufficiently established, so the Supreme Court quashed the rape conviction,” Austria’s national ORF broadcaster reported.
The re-trial is not expected to begin until next year, with the defendant remaining in custody.
The unnamed man worked in Iraq as a taxi driver before leaving in 2015 and journeying to Europe and settling in Vienna.
His trip to the swimming pool was said to be part of integration efforts, sparking outrage amid tensions over the refugee crisis in Austria.
Speaking to local media, the victim’s mother revealed her son had been “screaming and crying every night” since the attack and had talked of suicide.
Prosecutors said the boy, known as Goran, suffered serious physical injuries from the rape as well as “profound depression”.
The attack sparked a backlash against migrants in the country, which has since seen support for anti-immigration groups rise and implemented a controversial cap on refugee numbers.
Reports of sexual harassment and attacks by asylum seekers at swimming pools have generated controversy across Europe, sparking a ban on male migrants at one pool in Germany and “vigilante” patrols in Sweden.
Police statistics in Germany showed that sex offences make up a tiny proportion of crimes committed by refugees and migrants in the country, which are mostly related to transport and documents.