Random Crime by Migrants and Trust in Strangers

Anyone who grew up in the US during the crime wave of the 1970s-1990s learned never to open the door to strangers. If a stranger knocked at your front door claiming to need help, you were supposed to communicate with them through the door, and offer to call help. That's all. Criminals often faked accidents to gain access to homes, then robbed, raped, and/or murdered the occupants. As in this case. Of course these incidents were rare. Certainly 99% of the time, the people knocking at your door genuinely needed help.

But what if you opened the door to the 1%? Humans make decisions based on rare, spectacular, and recent risks. One random crime by a stranger has more effect on society than a thousands crimes committed by people who know each other.

Which brings us to the latest random murder committed by a recent migrant in Germany. The suspect is a Pakistani man who has been in Germany for 3 years. So far, there is no information about why he was allowed to stay that long. He has already compiled a criminal record. A week ago, he gained access to the home of a 70-year-old woman who lived near his migrant shelter in Bad Friedrichshall. He then beat her to death (g), stole property from the home, and left messages in English and Arabic in the home. Police say there is no evidence of any connection between the suspect and victim. DNA evidence ties him to the scene, as well as his possession of property stolen from the home. There were no signs of a break-in, suggesting the woman let him into her house.

Germany who visit the USA are often shocked by how inhospitable Americans are to strangers knocking at their door -- especially when the homeowner shoots at someone he thinks was a threat.

Now that Germany has imported tens of thousands of career criminals and mentally unstable persons from the Middle East and North Africa -- and spread them throughout the country -- Germans are going to have to unlearn their touching trust in strangers. It'll happen slowly, like the proverbial frog in boiling water. But once it's gone, everybody will notice.

Welcome to 1980s America, Germany. You're not going to like it.

Germany's Police and Pols to Women: No Alcohol or High Heels, Stay Home After Dark

Mainstream German politicians are doing something very clever. Slowly and surely, drip-by-drip, they are getting German women used to the fact that they are unsafe in their own country because of violent crime by migrants.

Of course they don't mention the last part. 

They have begun to issue new warnings informing German females about things they are no longer able to do in their own country. One example is the police in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein. Responding to attacks in which groups of 15-20 young Arab, Turkish and Afghan males surround women and then beat, grope, rob, and/or rape them, police gave advice to women such as scream loudly, take detours around groups of men, tell others to call the police if you're attacked. An article about the police instructions added the following list of behavior guidelines (g) (not from the police).

To women, mind you, not to criminals:

  • Always travel in groups of at least two or three.
  • Wear sneakers instead of high heels, so you can run away.
  • Avoid alcohol and drugs.
  • Drink out of bottles and open them yourselves.
  • Don't just stare at your cellphone, be aware of your environment.
  • In case of attack, don't act like a victim, act like an opponent: choose genitals, joints, eyes, nose and ears as defensive goals, because pain is greatest here.

The CDU Mayor of the Bad Godesberg neighborhood of Bonn, where a 17-year-old boy named Niklas P. was recently randomly murdered by a 20-year-old man of Moroccan extraction who had a criminal record, said casually (g) during a recent neighborhood meeting: "In any case, women should stay out of parks after dark." One of her political opponents immediately spoke up to say: "Bad Godesberg should be safe for everybody at all times."

The mayor of Bad Godesberg, Simone Stein-Lücke, is a woman from the purportedly conservative party in Germany. Yet faced with increases in violent crimes which are directly affecting the lives of her constituents, she decides to impose behavior limitations on the victims. Not the criminals.

Are you beginning to see why more and more Germans are voting for right-wing populist parties?

An Open Letter to the EU's External Action Service


Did you know that the EU has a foreign ministry? Very few people do, since it it does very little. The number of foreign-policy priorities all 28 EU member states can agree on can probably be counted on one hand. So they do things like this:

Brussels, 12/05/2016

Statement by the Spokesperson on LGBTI rights in the United States

"The recently adopted laws including in the states of Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee, which discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons in the United States contravene the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the US is a State party, and which states that the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection.

As a consequence, cultural, traditional or religious values cannot be invoked to justify any form of discrimination, including discrimination against LGBTI persons. These laws should be reconsidered as soon as possible.

The European Union reaffirms its commitment to the equality and dignity of all human beings irrespective of their sexual orientation and gender identity. We will continue to work to end all forms of discrimination and to counter attempts to embed or enhance discrimination wherever it occurs around the world."

I decide to send the three names credited with this statement the following open letter:

Dear Ms. Ray, Ms. Kocijancic, Mr. Kaznowski,

This is an open letter which I have also posted on my blog, www.germanjoys.eu.

I read with interest your pronouncement of May 12, 2016 calling on the states of Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee to 'reconsider' laws requiring persons to use bathrooms which accord with the sex on their birth certificates. You promised to "continue to work to end all forms of discrimination and to counter attempts to embed or enhance discrimination wherever it occurs around the world."

I am a citizen of the United States, but I have lived in Germany for over a decade. I have paid German taxes which, ultimately, help to fund the EU. I am curious about your reasons for making this pronouncement, and have a few questions which I would like to pose and a few points which I'd like to bring to your attention.

The first question is, of course, why are the decisions of democratically-elected legislatures in American states important to the EU? With all the other crises engulfing Europe these days, who decided to give this issue priority? Do you have any proof that these laws will ever have any significant effect on EU citizens? Can you name one transgender EU citizen living in the State of Mississippi, for instance?

Do you have any evidence that your views reflect the will of a majority of EU citizens? Do you have any public-opinion polls showing that large numbers of EU citizens care about these laws? Did you check the legislation of all 28 EU member states to determine whether those countries have similar laws? Do you believe that the bathroom choices available to transgender persons in 3 states of the United States are an important issue to the people of, say, Hungary? Poland? Romania?

Can you point to any treaty provision or legal precedent that supports your interpretation of the ICCPR'S non-discrimination clauses, which mention only discrimination on the basis of 'sex'? Specifically, do you have any legal precedent for the view that that gender-segregated bathrooms -- the overwhelming policy and practice of every society and every nation -- is unlawful discrimination on the basis of ‘sex’?

I have found no legal authority whatsoever to support your interpretation. I would be much obliged if you could show me any.

To take a much more fundamental issue than bathroom choice, marriage is now available to gays in every state of the United States. Are you aware that the largest EU member state, Germany, continues to deny gay people the right to marry, and has no plan to change that policy? And that the majority of EU member states denies gays the right to marry? Are you aware that large majorities of the populations of Eastern European states oppose gay marriage? Are you aware that just three years ago, one of the largest demonstrations in the history of France took place in Paris to oppose laws granting French homosexuals the right to marry?

Given the continuing controversy over this fundamental issue within the EU, why do you believe it is appropriate for the EU to take a stand on transgender bathroom rights in federal states in faraway lands? In particular, do you have any proof that your statement reflects the values of European citizens? 

I believe that a reliable representative poll would certainly show that a majority of EU citizens favors maintaining gender-segregated bathrooms. I challenge you to show me any evidence that this is not the case.

To sum things up, I believe it is the case that your statement (1) is backed by zero legal authority; (2) reflects a view which would be rejected by the overwhelming majority of the people whom you claim to represent; and (3) is directed at an issue that has no meaningful effect on EU citizens; and (4) is far too insignificant to be worthy of the time and attention of EU officials.

I think you should withdraw the statement and focus on issues that actually matter to the people of Europe.

Goodness knows there's no shortage of those, is there?


Andrew Hammel

Düsseldorf, Germany

Crimes in the Times

Whenever I blog about crimes by migrants, most of my German readers shift uncomfortably in their seats. They maintain utter silence about the issue, never commenting one way or the other, and privately wonder if I've finally drunk das Kool-Aid of neo-Nazism. The reason for this is a simple cultural misunderstanding: most educated Germans perceive a strong taboo against discussing migrant crime, but I don't.

Nor does the New York Times. An article about the influence of violent crimes on today's election in Austria begins with this picture of the bruises inflicted on a grandmother when she was raped by a young Afghan male:


By any measure, the string of crimes has been terrible. A grandmother of three, walking her dog, raped along a riverbank. A 10-year-old boy sexually assaulted at a public swimming pool. A 21-year-old student gang raped near the giant Ferris wheel at Vienna’s famed Prater park. A 54-year-old woman beaten to death on the street.

The fact that the crimes were committed by recent migrants from war zones and an immigrant who had lived illegally in the country for years added an especially volatile element to the political climate ahead of the presidential election on Sunday, when Austria could become the first European country to elect a far-right candidate as head of state since the end of Nazism.


Ms. Bubits is also the daughter of the woman, now 72, who was raped while walking her dog on Sept. 1. Since the attack, Ms. Bubits said, her mother has gone from being healthy to ridden with anxiety and requiring close attention.

“It goes up and down,” Ms. Bubits said, but “it’s basically as if she was suddenly 90.”

On a visit to her home on Friday, her mother could barely shuffle a few steps without assistance. Ms. Bubits said she and her mother wanted to speak out about what had happened to emphasize that despite the problems many Austrians want to help refugees and make a place for them in their country.

According to court documents, her mother was walking her 13-year-old dog by the Schwechat, a river where refugees and residents often bathe. A young man helped her up a slope, but then, the documents said, “exploited her physical weakness,” threw her to the ground, “held her mouth shut, ripped her clothes and forced her to engage” in sex.


“It is all getting whipped up politically,” said Martin Mahrer, a lawyer who is defending one of three young Afghans who have confessed to raping a female Turkish student in a park on April 22. “People now want offenders to be really severely punished.”

Mr. Mahrer said some of these young migrants had arrived from war zones, with completely un-Western views about women.

“They do not respect the same things we do,” Mr. Mahrer said. But, he asked, are foreign offenders less equal before the law than Austrians?

If this article had appeared in German newspapers which consider themselves comparable to the New York Times -- well, actually, it wouldn't have in the first place. Respectable broadsheets don't publish photos of bruises caused by vicious rapists. Only tabloids would stoop so low. Respectable broadsheets don't let victims of crimes by ethnic minorities tell their stories -- that privilege is reserved for victims of right-wing attacks. If respectable broadsheets mention violent crime at all, it is only to tell their readers what things are permissible to think and say about the issue. 

In other words, respectable broadsheets are ignoring a problem that's obvious to everyone living in Western Europe. Serious crime by migrants is a vitally important public-policy issue in Europe today. It is literally changing the political face of Western Europe. Statistics are one thing, but anyone who underestimates the potential explosive impact of random violence against strangers in public places is a fool. And respectable broadsheets are full of these fools, which is why they are so surprised by the rightward lurch in European national politics.

Erdogan: A Strong Leader Governing in his Country's National Interest

If there's one thing German mainstream journalists excel at -- and I'm tempted to say there is just one thing -- it's to point the finger of moral judgment at other countries. About half of all mainstream German press coverage consists of some reporter you've never heard of denouncing of country X's domestic policies, even though these have nothing to do with Germany.

The latest example is Turkish President Erdogan's decision to lift parliamentary immunity (g) for dozens of politicians in Turkey's parliament. We are assured by German journos that this is an unprecedented step in hollowing-out Turkey's democracy, that it's the hallmark of authoritarian rule, etc. Which it may be, who knows?

And more importantly, who cares? Certainly not the average German. In fact, the average German doesn't know what parliamentary immunity is. Being rational humans, average Germans pay most attention to things that matter in their daily lives, not legal abstractions. As Bryan Caplan pointed out almost a decade ago in his book The Myth of the Rational Voter, no more than 10-20% of people in most democracies bother to stay informed about the issues. They are the educated elite who have plenty of leisure time. The rest of the population views keeping up with the issues as a waste of time.

One thing that actually does affect Germany is who gets to enter the country. And here, Erdogan is showing his talent for statecraft. After successfully extorting billions of Euros from Europe by exploiting the migrant crisis, he is now setting his sights on offloading problem cases onto Europe. Under the recent agreement between the EU and Germany, the EU has agreed to resettle one Syrian refugee for every refugee sent back from Greece to Turkey by boat.

And Turkey is doing something clever. Relying on rights it was granted as part of the agreement, Turkey is yanking healthy Syrians with college degrees and/or valuable skills out of the 'Resettlement to Europe' line (g) and canceling their exit permits. The uneducated and those with expensive diseases, on the other hand, are free to go. They will land in Germany and promptly integrate into the German welfare state, racking up billions in medical costs -- yes, billions -- that the German taxpayer -- not the Turkish taxpayer -- will have to finance.

One might denounce this policy as cruel or cynical, and no doubt German journalists will. But of this there's no doubt: it is in Turkey's national interest. Turkish voters are no doubt just as ignorant as voters anywhere else. But they understand that inviting skilled workers who will find jobs or create jobs and pay taxes is in Turkey's interest.

Erdogan has a plan, and is pursuing it. Germany's immigration priorities seem to change every week. Germany is as ruthless as any other country in economic policy (see Bayer contemplating the purchase of Monsanto, the punching-bag of German journalists since 1985). But for some reason, Germany cannot seem to figure out what its interests are in refugee policy, or how or even whether to pursue them.

As Machiavelli said: "He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation."

Erdogan is playing Germany like a two-dollar violin. No wonder he's so popular in Turkey. And Merkel's so unpopular at home.

Remedial Asylum Law for Naïve, Unworldly Germans

Germans travel a lot, but apparently don't bother opening their eyes. Which accounts for a tendency some Germans have. As soon as they notice an aspect of a foreign country which they think is kind of sad and so terribly unlike Germany, they immediately declare that anyone from that country deserves political asylum in Germany, because it's so sad and disturbing what's happening in Country X.

This of course entails the assumption that anyone who has illegally entered Germany from country X must have done so only because of the sad and disturbing things which happened in Country X. All sentient adults can immediately spot the flaw in this train of reasoning, but there are still millions of Germans who cannot. So here is the lesson they need:

The fact that a country is not a democracy is not a valid legal reason to grant any random illegal immigrant from that country political asylum.

  • Example: China.

The fact that a country has suffered a recent terrorist attack is not a valid legal reason to grant any random illegal immigrant from that country political asylum.

  • Example: France.

The fact that there is some kind of regional insurgency in some part of a country is not a valid legal reason to grant any random illegal immigrant from that country political asylum. 

  • Examples: Central African Republic, Afghanistan, Pakistan PhilippinesColombia, Myanmar (bet you didn't know about those last three, did you?)

The fact that a country is poor is not a valid legal reason to grant any random illegal immigrant from that country political asylum.

  • Example: 2/3 of all nations in the world.

The fact that a attitudes toward women in a particular country are not very progressive is not a valid legal reason to grant any random illegal immigrant from that country political asylum.

  • Examples: Too many to name.

The fact that a country is currently undergoing a major political crisis is not a valid legal reason to grant any random illegal immigrant from that country political asylum.

  • Example: Brazil.

The fact that a country's human-rights policies have been criticized by NGOs is not a valid legal reason to grant any random illegal immigrant from that country political asylum.

  • Examples: France, Germany, Russia, and every other nation on earth.

The fact that there are high levels of political corruption in a country is not a valid legal reason to grant any random illegal immigrant from that country political asylum.

  • Example: Nigeria, and about 150 other nations.

The fact that a country may have a poor crop yield is not a valid legal reason to grant any random illegal immigrant from that country political asylum.

  • Example: Ethiopia, Sudan.

There is one, and only one, single, solitary, exclusive reason to grant a person political asylum in Germany. 


That is, that an individual can demonstrate a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country." That is the definition found in Article 1 of the 1951 UN Refugee convention and in Section 3 of the German Asylum Law (g).

People from some or all of these countries may indeed be entitled to political asylum. But not because they simply stumbled across the German border in 2015. They must show that they, individually, face severe persecution.

This is not my opinion, it is the law.

I hope this helps!

Spiegel Sets a Record: Six Migrants, No Reasons for Being in Germany

The Spiegel looks at what's on the smartphones (g) of six migrants. The whole article reads like an anodyne puff-piece from the heyday of Willkommenskultur.

We hear from Limamou from Senegal; Ahmad Hamed from Afghanistan; Hassan from Somalia; Ahmed from Pakistan; Ishan from Afghanistan; and Khaled from Eritrea. 

All male, all young. Not one from Syria. 

Let's do the basics here. Currently, in Germany, only migrants from Syria are accorded what's known as 'subsidiary protection' -- that is, because they are from a country currently engaged in civil war, they are essentially presumed to be entitled to legal residency in Germany.

Illegal immigrants from all other countries are not entitled to this blanket protection. This means that each of them, in order to obtain legal authorization to live in Germany, must prove that they, as individuals, face severe persecution on the basis of their religious beliefs, nationality, ethnicity, or political affiliations. The persecution must be severe enough to present a serious threat to health or life.

The lazy German reporter, violating one of the basic tenets of journalism, fails to ask the most important question of all: why are these men here? What valid legal reason do they have to justify their illegal border entry?

Pakistan is a peaceful, stable constitutional democracy. Afghanistan is also generally democratic. The Taliban is in control of somewhere between 20 and 30% of the country, depending on who you ask, and is waging an insurgency in some other areas. Nevertheless, the majority of the country is still under government control. And even in Taliban areas, it's hardly the young males who suffer.

And let's have a look at Senegal:

Currently, Senegal has a quasi-democratic political culture, one of the more successful post-colonial democratic transitions in Africa. Local administrators are appointed by, and responsible to, the president. Marabouts, religious leaders of the various Muslim brotherhoods of Senegal, also exercise a strong political influence in the country especially during Wade's presidency. In 2009, however, Freedom House downgraded Senegal's status from 'Free' to 'Partially Free', based on increased centralisation of power in the executive. However, it has since recovered its Free status by 2014.

In 2008, Senegal finished in 12th position on the Ibrahim Index of African Governance. The Ibrahim Index is a comprehensive measure of African governance (limited to sub-Saharan Africa until 2008), based on a number of different variables which reflect the success with which governments deliver essential political goods to their citizens. When the Northern African countries were added to the index in 2009, Senegal's 2008 position was retroactively downgraded to 15th place (with Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco placing themselves ahead of Senegal). As of 2012, Senegal's rank in the Ibrahim Index has decreased another point to 16 out of 52 African countries.

And Somalia? After years of lawlessness, Somalia is steadily regaining stability after the government was re-organized in 2012. It now has a central government recognized by a growing list of other countries:

Djibouti re-opened its embassy in Mogadishu in December 2010. The following year, India also re-opened its embassy in the capital after a twenty-year absence, as did Turkey.Iran and the United Kingdom followed suit in 2013, as well as Qatar and China in 2014.Italy maintains a special diplomatic delegation and a Technical Mission to Mogadishu, and is scheduled to re-open its embassy in the city. In 2013, Egypt likewise announced plans to re-open its embassy in Mogadishu.

In January 2013, the United States announced that it was set to exchange diplomatic notes with the new central government of Somalia, re-establishing official ties with the country for the first time in 20 years.

Migrants from Somalia not fleeing a country that is plummeting into civil war and chaos, they are fleeing a country that is recovering from civil war and chaos. 

Which leaves only Eritrea. Eritrea is a pretty messed-up place, even by Third World standards. The Eritrean man is most likely to have some genuine legal justification for staying in Germany. But we'll never know, since the reporter didn't ask.

Any German journalist who interviews a non-Syrian migrant without asking the most pressing question -- why do you think you have a right to stay here? -- is producing propaganda.

PC Euphemism Drives People to the Right Wing

The right-wing Alternative for Germany party is now polling at a righteous 15% (g) making it the third-largest party in Germany. And a recent polls shows why: even though most Germans don't think the AfD has any real answers to Germany's political problems, half of Germans approve of the tendency of AfD politicians to 'tell it like it is'.

This is something I've been pointing to for months now: the tendency of functionaries from the mainstream German political parties to muffle controversial subjects in layers of gutless waffle irritates many voters.

  • When people see Arab clans staging massive, bloody brawls on the streets of German cities, they hear politicians speak of 'neighborhoods where the challenges of integration are particularly difficult'.
  • When they read of women being stripped, robbed, beaten and/or gang-raped, they hear politicians speak of 'deeply tragic isolated incidents of severe misconduct which the justice system must take seriously'.
  • When they think to themselves that any migrant who commits a serious crime in Germany should be deported by force to wherever they came from within days, they hear baffling, condescending lectures about 'the constitutional right to an individual determination of asylum status during which only crimes above a certain level of intensity can be taken into account...etc. etc.'
  • When they hear of foreigners groping children's genitals while masturbating in public baths, they hear of 'persons being investigated for improper touching' and the ever-present warning not to 'overgeneralize on the basis of one case'. As if the politician were more concerned about the potential reaction of his fellow citizens than the fact that a child was molested.

A chunk of the electorate -- 50% in Germany now -- becomes convinced that politicians either don't know or don't care about reality. And feel an instinctive affinity for any politician who actually uses straightforward, plain, active sentences to describe what he or she sees. They don't necessarily know about or even care about the party's policies -- they just finally hear someone in a position of responsibility using the sort of language normal humans do.

Over to Orwell:

Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

‘While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.’

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

Now of course this preference is selective: the AfD is currently riding high on the preferences of certain voters to hear blunt talk about immigration, not about other subjects. But the tragic flaw or genius of democracy, depending on your viewpoint, is that voters get to decide what's important to them.

This is hardly just an issue of diction. Donald Trump is now the Republican nominee in the US, and one main reason why is his blunt talk. The AfD has now permanently changed the German political landscape for the same reason. Something which starts out as a matter of tone can quickly change how countries are governed. Only people who've never read Orwell should be surprised by this.

Germany Has Already Imported an Inevitable Increase in Violent Crime

It's good to be smart, for a lot of reasons. One of them is that higher intelligence is associated with a lower lifetime risk of being the victim of a crime:


The abstract:

Intelligence has been linked to antisocial, violent, and criminal behaviors. Surprisingly, however, there is a lack of research examining whether intelligence differentially affects the risk for personal victimization. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by examining whether adolescent levels of verbal intelligence are related to the odds of personal victimization in adolescence and adulthood. This study analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). The results revealed a statistically significant and consistent association between intelligence and victimization. Persons with lower intelligence were more likely to report being victimized even after controlling for the effects of violent criminal behavior. Future research would benefit by examining more closely the association between IQ score and the risk for victimization over the life course.

Note the first sentence: "Intelligence has been linked to antisocial, violent, and criminal behaviors." More to the point, lack of intelligence has been linked to higher levels of antisocial, violent, and criminal behaviors. Hundreds of studies establish this correlation, in dozens of different cultures.

This is why cognitive ability is important in the German immigration debate. If you decide to let 800,000 young males into your country in a single year, it is extremely important to know what their level of cognitive ability is, for a very simple reason: the lower the level of cognitive ability, the higher the propensity, on average, to commit violent and antisocial acts.

Let me insert the necessary qualifications: this does not mean that every low-IQ immigrant will commit a violent crime, or even that most will. Nor does this mean that you can predict what any one individual immigrant will do on the basis of broad studies.

What this does mean, though, is that if (1) a group of young male immigrants have a profile of low cognitive ability; and (2) you let very large numbers of them into your country -- you will then have a marked increase in antisocial behavior and violent crime.

This is inevitable.

It is baked-in.

There is no way to avoid it.

Let's add a few factors to indicate the German situation. The typical 2015 young male immigrant to Germany:

  1. Is now for the first time freed from the social constraints which strictly limit antisocial behavior back home (reputation in the community, threat of violent retribution from own/victims' kin).
  2. Speaks no German and has zero understanding of the host country's culture, customs, and history.
  3. Has nothing to do all day, since he cannot legally work until his immigration status is clarified, and likely has no relevant job skills in any case.
  4. Has, for the first time in his life, unrestricted access to cheap alcohol.

All these factors point in the same unpleasant direction: No matter what the German government does, no matter what policies it follows, no matter how many unpaid hours volunteers put in, Germany will see a significant rise in antisocial activity and violent crime in Germany in the coming years driven by migrants.

Any analysis of migration policy that tries to deny or ignore these fact is fundamentally dishonest.

To link back to the study above, the primary victims of this increase in violent crime will be Germans with lower cognitive ability and less education. That is, the ones who live in the lower-middle-class and working-class neighborhoods where migrant shelters are now being erected -- generally against the will of nearby residents. It is these people who will be most exposed to the increased dangers and risks of uncontrolled immigration.

And when they quite rationally react to this situation with anger and disgust, they will be insulted and mocked. By the very educated urbanites who created and supported the policy in the first place.

I Am Now a 'German Analyst'

Soeren Kern at the Gatestone Institute quotes the rantings of some obscure crank on his so-called 'weblog':

In an insightful essay, German analyst Andrew Hammel writes:

"Let's do the math. There are currently 16 million Turkish citizens of Kurdish descent in Turkey. There is a long history of discrimination by Turkish governments against this ethnic minority, including torture, forced displacement, and other repressive measures. The current conservative-nationalist Turkish government is fighting an open war against various Kurdish rebel groups, both inside and outside Turkey.

"This means that under German law as it is currently being applied by the ruling coalition in the real world (not German law on the books), there are probably something like 5-8 million Turkish Kurds who might have a plausible claim for asylum or subsidiary protection. That's just a guess, the real number could be higher, but probably not much lower.

"If visa requirements are lifted completely, each of these persons could buy a cheap plane ticket to any German airport, utter the word 'asylum,' and trigger a years-long judicial process with a good chance of ending in a residency permit."

Hammel continues:

"There are already 800,000 Kurds living in Germany. As migration researchers know, existing kin networks in a destination country massively increase the likelihood and scope of migration.... As Turkish Kurds are likely to arrive speaking no German and with limited job skills, just like current migrants, where is the extra 60-70 billion euros/year [10 billion euros/year for every one million migrants] going to come from to provide them all with housing, food, welfare, medical care, education and German courses?

And finally, "the most important, most fundamental, most urgent question of all":

"Why should a peaceful, stable, prosperous country like Germany import from some remote corner of some faraway land a violent ethnic conflict which has nothing whatsoever to do with Germany and which 98% Germans do not understand or care about?"

Turkish-Kurdish violence is now commonplace in Germany, which is home to around three million people of Turkish origin — roughly one in four of whom are Kurds. German intelligence officials estimate that about 14,000 of these Kurds are active supporters of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a militant group that has been fighting for Kurdish independence since 1974.

On April 10, hundreds of Kurds and Turks clashed in Munich and dozens fought in Cologne. Also on April 10, four people were injured when Kurds and Turks fought in Frankfurt. On March 27, nearly 40 people were arrested after Kurds attacked a demonstration of around 600 Turkish protesters in the Bavarian town of Aschaffenburg.

On September 11, 2015, dozens of Kurds and Turks clashed in Bielefeld. On September 10, more than a thousand Kurds and Turks fought in Berlin. Also on September 10, several hundred Kurds and Turks fought in Frankfurt.

On September 3, more than 100 Kurds and Turks clashed in Remscheid. On August 17, Kurds attacked a Turkish mosque in Berlin-Kreuzberg. In October 2014, hundreds of Kurds and Turks clashed at the main train station in Munich.

Just to clarify a few things for newcomers: I am an occasional analyst of events in Germany, but I'm an American citizen who lives here, not German.

I'm also not a neo-conservative, and disagree with many of the positions taken by the Gatestone Institute. But on the subject of European immigration, we see eye-to-eye. I have quoted their reports from time to time on this blog, because they're generally solidly researched and draw attention to aspects of European immigration policy which are most definitely downplayed by the mainstream European media, including state-funded broadcasters.

And I have yet to hear any answers to the obvious questions I posed back in my original blog post on March 1.