At the one-minute point of the video report, Norah O’Donnell observed, “We have the most refugees in the world since World War Two,” and Malala concurred. [...]]]> Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai appeared on CBS News recently to discuss her new book “We Are Displaced: My Journey and Stories from Refugee Girls Around the World.”

At the one-minute point of the video report, Norah O’Donnell observed, “We have the most refugees in the world since World War Two,” and Malala concurred. Of course, who does the count and who qualifies can change the number considerably, although the total in 1945 seems to be around 60 million displaced people when a lot of Europe was rubble.

But the world’s population is now more than triple what it was in 1945: around 2.5 billion then versus nearly 7.7 billion today. That fact alone should change the conversation about the planetary rescue project, but it hasn’t. Also keep in mind that most of the population growth occurs in poor nations, as shown by the graph below.

In addition, travel is far easier now than it was in the middle of the last century, so nearly all of the caravansters and other such from points south are economic migrants, trained by open borders leftists to tell BS stories that would qualify the invaders for asylum and a “better life” of maximum free stuff provided by US taxpayers.

To be clear, Malala Yousafzai is a genuine refugee, who was shot by the Pakistan Taliban when she was just 14 because of advocating education for women and girls. But it’s disappointing to hear her complain about America’s meanness toward migrants when the US is the most generous nation on earth in that regard — where the immigrant population has doubled since 1990, tripled since 1980 and quadrupled since 1970.

Here’s more from CBS about Malala’s appearance:

Malala Yousafzai amplifies voices of refugee girls in new book, “We Are Displaced”, CBS News, January 7, 2019

Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai has a new book highlighting the stories of young women impacted by global immigration policies. In “We Are Displaced: My Journey and Stories From Refugee Girls Around the World,” she not only tells her own story of displacement after being shot and nearly killed by the Taliban in her home country of Pakistan, but also the stories of other displaced women she’s met.

“Oftentimes when we hear about refugees we hear about them in figures and numbers. We hear about them, but we never hear from them. We never hear what they want to say, what their dreams are, their aspirations are,” Yousafzai said Monday on “CBS This Morning.”

The Oxford University student said she hopes people will learn more about refugees by hearing from them.

“For most of these girls, most of these women and children around the world who are going through conflicts right now, going through wars right now, their last choice is to become refugees, but that’s often the only choice to survive,” Yousafzai said. “And they want, you know, to live in a peaceful place. They want to have a home. They want to have a future for their children. And that’s often the things that we don’t hear. And I think that’s something that I want people to understand and that I want to deliver to this world.” (Continues)

Over in police state Britain, the government is cracking down on knives in a vain attempt to [...]]]> It’s curious how as society becomes more dangerous because of open borders and permissive laws regarding dangerous criminals (e.g. California’s jailbreaking Prop 47), the citizens’ means of defending ourselves is being reduced by attacks on the Second Amendment.

Over in police state Britain, the government is cracking down on knives in a vain attempt to quell the worsening knife crime violence — when of course the real problem has been unwise immigration.

Below, a diverse London resident carries a substantial blade to rob a store.

Even basic kitchen knives are not safe from British government overreach:

These knives were seen (& removed) by your local dedicated ward officers in Shepherds Bush today. The knives are easily accessible to the public and to those who wish distract & take for the use in crime. *REMINDER* please keep out of reach. #opsceptre @LBHF @metpoliceuk pic.twitter.com/hspQQ2050q

— Shepherds Bush Green (@MPSShepherdBush) April 9, 2018

Tucker Carlson and Mark Steyn chatted about various topics on Monday, including observations about London’s knife crime problem (starting 1:53):

TUCKER CARLSON: The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan is now — not making this up — vowing a crackdown on knives, cutting implements, following a crime wave there. He said, quoting “There’s never a reason to carry a knife” in vowing to punish all who do. Meanwhile in New York in related news, Bill de Blasio aide Regan Stephens was arrested after she was caught with an illegal handgun in her car. What do these add up to other than like the end of civilization?

MARK STEYN: Well it’s it’s interesting to me in Britain because I believe the National Cutlery Association has come out strongly against background checks for people who want to own knives. They’re thinking that if you outlaw knives, only outlaws will have knives, and I used the term cutlery seriously because people use what’s to hand.

I was in a French village two summers ago, and a lady and two of her daughters were in their bathing suits and the Mohammed next to them went full Allahu Akbar, stabbed them with a fork — the fork he was having breakfast with — and a helicopter had to fly in and helicopter the wounded to a hospital in Grenoble.

People use what’s to hand, and the reality in London as Katie Hopkins said on your show a couple of nights ago is that 85 percent of last month’s stabbings, both perpetrators and victims, are basically the result of modern immigration policies; and that to tie what you were talking about with the general about the border, that’s the issue — if you don’t have a border, if you don’t have a security perimeter at the border, you wind up having to have security perimeters over everything else, including cutlery displays in London supermarkets.

Just [...]]]> For the Sob Story File: a Mexican woman illegally residing in the US fears reporting her husband’s abuse because she might get deported. Cristina had begun the process of applying for a “special visa for victims of abuse” — the U visa — but stopped because of her mistrust of the American legal system.

Just how sorry are we citizens supposed to feel for a woman who won’t avail herself of remedies offering by the US government for her situation?

The New York Times articles does mention the U visa specifically — a subject which I investigated in a 2007 Vdare.com article: Victim Visas—How America Stupidly Rewards Misfortune and Fraud. It still seems like a dumb idea for the government to offer legal visas to people whose only qualification for eventual American citizenship is being a crime victim, but that opportunity is indeed enshrined in law. If illegal aliens don’t use it, then tough.

Findlaw has a description of the goodies available for non-citizen crime victims:

The ‘Domestic Violence Green Card’: Immigrant Visa Petitions for Victims

If you’re the victim of domestic violence and you’re not a United States citizen or permanent resident, you may be eligible to file your own application for what is commonly called a “domestic violence green card.” Typically, green cards (permanent resident status documents) are obtained when a family member or an employer sponsors an immigrant’s application to reside in the United States on a permanent or long-term basis.

However, if you’re residing in the U.S. and suffering as a victim of domestic violence, you are able to self-petition for a green card under a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). If you’re not currently residing in the U.S. but your abuser is an employee of the U.S. government or a member of the uniformed services, you can still file for your own green card if you were abused by a U.S. citizen or permanent resident while present in the United States. Finally, if you’re an illegal immigrant suffering domestic violence, you aren’t immediately eligible for the “domestic violence green card” but you can still receive protection from the government if you qualify for a special non-immigrant visa called a U visa.

Below, immigrants become naturalized American citizens, a much-desired status for illegal aliens.

A 2011 article in the Daily Mail (UK), titled The ‘crime visa’: How 18,000 illegal immigrants got legal status by being the victim of a crime, reported that at that time 14,000 of their relatives were also covered by the U visa which had an acceptance rate of 77 percent. The piece further observed, “While many immigrants may still be unaware of the U visa, word is spreading fast in some communities.”

So the U visa for non-citizen crime victims is an accepted practice, not some oddball offshoot of immigration law that doesn’t work. So why does the New York Times drone on at length about illegal aliens freaking out that they might get a free ride home to their country of citizenship? It is simply an excuse to impugn the new president as the architect of Fear among suffering foreigners. It seeks to conflate a single instance of a women being arrested by ICE “moments after she received a protective order” into a whole trend.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands have been protected by U visas. If that visa category is really so ineffective, then perhaps the government should end it as also being a bad policy from the start because it rewards foreign crime victims but there are no comparable advantages given to US citizens who have also experienced violent crime.

Too Scared to Report Sexual Abuse. The Fear: Deportation., New York Times, April 30, 2017

LOS ANGELES — Cristina’s husband had hit and threatened her repeatedly for years, she said, but it wasn’t until last year that she began to fear for the safety of her young children, too. Reluctantly, she reported him and filed a police report.

Cristina, an immigrant from Mexico who arrived in the United States as a teenager in the 1980s, began to apply for a special visa for victims of abuse that would set her on a path to citizenship and her own freedom. Then last month, she told her lawyer that she no longer wanted to apply. She was too fearful, she said, not of her husband, but of the government.

“I am scared they will find me,” Cristina, who lives in a suburb of Los Angeles, said in an interview, asking that her last name not be used.

Domestic violence has always been a notoriously difficult crime to prosecute. It often takes victims years to seek help, and they frequently have to be persuaded to testify against their assailants. And for many undocumented victims, taking that step has become exceedingly difficult because of fears that the government will detain and deport them if they press charges, according to law enforcement officials, lawyers and advocates from across the country.

Since the presidential election, there has been a sharp downturn in reports of sexual assault and domestic violence among Latinos throughout the country, and many experts attribute the decline to fears of deportation. Law enforcement officials in several large cities, including Los Angeles, Houston and Denver, say the most dangerous fallout of changes in policy and of harsh statements on immigration is that fewer immigrants are willing to go to the police.

The number of Latinos reporting rapes in Houston has fallen by more than 40 percent this year from the same period last year, Art Acevedo, chief of the Houston Police Department, said this month. The drop, he added, “looks like the beginnings of people not reporting crime.”

In Los Angeles this year, reports of domestic violence among Latinos have dropped by 10 percent and reports of sexual assault by 25 percent from a year ago, declines that Charlie Beck, the chief of the Police Department, said were likely due to fear of the federal government. Dozens of service providers and lawyers interviewed said immigrant women were deciding not to report abuse or press charges.

“We’ve always told our clients that even if you are undocumented, you don’t need to worry about it — the officers are going to protect you,” said Kate Marr, executive director of the Legal Aid Society of Orange County, Calif. The level of fear now, however, is unlike anything Ms. Marr has seen in her nearly two decades of work with domestic violence survivors, she said.

“Everything we’ve ever told our clients is out the window,” she said. “It’s so demoralizing and so frightening to imagine what happens if it continues.”

The fear among immigrants was exacerbated by a case in El Paso, where Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested a woman in February moments after she received a protective order against the man she said had abused her. The United States Commission on Civil Rights, a bipartisan independent agency, urged federal officials this past week to reconsider their courthouse arrest tactics. The agency said the Texas case and other courthouse arrests were having a chilling effect on immigrants throughout the country.

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the concerns about increased fear among immigrants.

Laura’s House, which helps hundreds of victims of domestic violence in Orange County each year, routinely asks clients about their immigration status so it can help them apply for visa protections if necessary. Under what is known as a U visa, victims of certain crimes receive permission to stay in the United State if they assist the police — and the promise of the visa often persuades victims of sexual assault and domestic violence to come forward.

Previously, nearly half of the more than 70 new cases that Laura’s House received each month came from undocumented immigrants. In the last three months, that number has dropped to less than one a week.

Many women share the concerns of April, 23, who waited for years before pressing charges against the father of her children and who asked that her full name not be used.

“I would call the police and use another name or make a neighbor call,” said April, who came across the border from Mexico when she was about 8 and lives in Orange County. “When he came after me, he’d say that I would get sent back to Mexico and never see my kids again. I believed him for a long time.”

Capt. James Humphries, who oversees the special victims investigations division in Montgomery County, Md., said he saw the willingness to report drastically backsliding in the county, where immigrants make up a large portion of the population. His unit has received roughly half the calls for sexual assault and domestic violence this year that it did in the same period last year, he said.

“It’s a constant challenge for us to reassure the community that the way we work has not changed and that the White House cannot dictate to us how to police,” Captain Humphries said. “It affects all crimes across the board, but if you don’t have domestic victims coming forward, the reality is that they do not trust the police.”

However, Sheriff Chuck Jenkins of nearby Frederick County, Md., has been a vocal proponent of strict immigration enforcement and said he had seen no evidence of decreased crime reporting among the immigrants there.

“They don’t want to be victimized by anyone else,” Sheriff Jenkins said. “Nothing that we do on the streets has anything to do with immigration status, and folks in the immigrant communities, both legal and illegal, are smart enough to know that.”

Still, others who work with victims say the impact of the fear is difficult to overstate.

In Austin, Tex., the nonprofit organization Stop Abuse for Everyone provides forensic exams for sexual assault survivors, and more than half of the clients are Latino. While the organization does not have precise numbers, Kelly White, the chief executive, said that fewer rape victims were coming forward this year, and that many call the organization’s hotline for support but say they do not want to contact law enforcement.

In Nassau County on Long Island, N.Y., the district attorney’s Office of Immigrant Affairs tip line for crime victims used to get up to 10 calls a week. But it has had none since December. And at End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin, which helps about 700 women a year get restraining orders against their partners, the requests this year have dropped to almost zero, the lead attorney there said.

The Los Angeles County Domestic Violence Council typically received about a half-dozen calls a week, with at least half from Spanish speakers. But since January, it has received only two calls, said Olivia Rodriguez, the executive director.

“This is not normal,” Ms. Rodriguez said. “They assume that if they call a government entity it’s all connected, that they will be reported to ICE and sent away. So instead they are just taking the abuse.”

Yanet, 56, who asked that her last name not be used out of fear of deportation, said she had endured more than a decade of abuse from her husband in El Salvador, where victims of assault have little recourse, before she decided to flee to the United States several years ago. She mostly worked as a cook in Los Angeles kitchens and in 2005 tried to obtain a visa meant for women escaping violence.

But the lawyer she went to tried to force her to perform oral sex in exchange for his help, she said. Yanet initially worried about reporting him to the police, but she did file a report after deciding she would not be victimized again. Now she is reluctant to move ahead with both the charges and her visa application.

“Every day I am scared that something will happen and afraid to even walk out of the door,” she said. “Doing something to get the attention of the government is worse. I don’t know who to believe or what is safe to do to protect myself.”

Worries over deportation will only increase the feelings of fear and isolation for victims of sexual assault or domestic violence, said Wanda Lucibello, a former prosecutor in the Brooklyn district attorney’s office.

For years, Ms. Lucibello said, the office and other local law enforcement worked to make people feel comfortable that they could report crimes without fear that they would then become a target for deportation. Under the Obama administration, victims of crime were not considered a priority for deportation, and many local law enforcement agencies went out of their way to make inroads with immigrants.

“When you’re talking about immigrant communities, you’re talking about perceptions and whether those perceptions are accurate or not,” Ms. Lucibello said. “If the perception is that there is a greater risk if you go to the police, you are going to be less likely to do so, and you are more likely to stay in an abusive relationship until you need to seek treatment at a hospital.”

She added: “It’s really the opposite of what anyone should want. All of this strengthens the abusive partner.”

The latest foray into civilizing the lecherous Mexican man is the installation of “penis [...]]]> Mexican men are widely known as being sexist swine, and they have a history of tormenting Mexican women on public transportation: the government reports that 65 percent of women in the capital city have been sexually harassed on buses or trains.

The latest foray into civilizing the lecherous Mexican man is the installation of “penis seats” on the Mexico City Metro, which is supposed to send a message of awareness, or something.

Below, Mexico City commuters find the penis seat to be. . . odd.

The current social experiment is not the first. I reported in 2006 that the Mexican government produced TV spots showing sex dolls in the workplace to make the point that women are not sex objects (Sex dolls fight Mexican machismo, BBC). That media campaign seemed rather unclear in its message, to be kind.

My understanding of psychology is that edgy art presentations don’t change behavior, but immediate negative reinforcement does. Why couldn’t the Mexican government give women commuters free pepper spray and tasers? There’s nothing like associating an unwanted behavior with a swift pain: that sort of training works.

Women-only buses were gratefully received in Mexico when introduced in 2008, but there were only a few, and having a separate safe bus system for women is probably unworkable.

Unfortunately for America, Mexico is the largest contributor by far to our diverse gaggle of immigrants, particularly the illegal variety. Twelve million was the number of actual immigrants as of 2014, and that doesn’t count the many millions of cultural descendants.

The BBC reports that the new seat “sparks debate” but debate doesn’t normally change behavior, does it?

Mexico City metro’s ‘penis seat’ sparks debate, BBC News, March

When a new style of seat suddenly appeared on Mexico City’s metro system, it was labelled as inappropriate, uncomfortable, humiliating and embarrassing.

It was supposed to be.

The seat, moulded to include a protruding penis and chest, was designed to highlight sexual harassment experienced by female passengers.

The explanation next to the men-only label read: “It is uncomfortable to sit here, but that is nothing compared to the sexual violence that women suffer on their daily journeys.”

The seat is not a permanent fixture, but part of a campaign launched by UN Women and the Mexico City authorities called #NoEsDeHombres, which aimed to highlight sexual harassment on public transport.

But the response has been mixed.

Underneath a video of the stunt, which has been seen more than 700,000 times in the past 10 days, some viewers praised the idea, while others called it “sexist” and unfair to men.

Gendes is a Mexican civil society organisation that focuses on working with men to promote equality and combat sexual harassment, which remains a major problem in the country.

Rene Lopez Perez, who heads their research programme, praised the campaign for taking an important issue and making it a talking point. But he also stressed the importance of not seeing all men as attackers.

“It’s important not to stigmatise all men as violent and potential attackers of women,” he said.

Holly Kearl, who founded the US-based website Stop Street Harassment, said there was something to be said for turning the focus away from women for once.

When she attended the UN Women Safe Cities Global Leaders’ Forum in Mexico City last month, she noted the onus of change was often put on women.

“Too often initiatives around women’s safety focus on what women should or should not do, so it is refreshing to see a creative campaign aimed at men,” she said.

The Mexican capital’s public transit system has long had a bad reputation for women’s safety.

In 2014, UK polling company YouGov conducted a survey about harassment on public transportation worldwide. For verbal and physical harassment, Mexico City’s metro was voted the worst.

Over the years, the city has tried various strategies to make women feel safer.

Trains have separate carriages for women. Women-only buses were also launched. An art collective, known as Las Hijas De Violencia (The Daughters of Violence), saw women responding to street harassment by blasting back at attackers with punk music and a confetti cannon.

Last year, the city’s mayor caused controversy by announcing another new strategy: women were to be offered a small, city-branded whistle that they could toot when they felt threatened.

The plan was largely derided for not getting to the root of the problem.

“If screaming doesn’t help, how will this?” wrote Mexico-based journalist Andrea Noel on Twitter.

Another Twitter user parodied the idea by suggesting the mayor’s office also created a set of maracas to shake when you come across a case of corruption.

Ninde, who does not want to be known by her full name, says she has no trust in the female-only carriages after she was assaulted in one last year when a man ejaculated over her.

She tries not to use the metro now, and will only do so if accompanied.

She would like to see more done to improve the service for women, but she does not think the “penis seats” help.

“It seems to ridicule sexual harassment. A real sexual assault is nothing like this,” she says. “I feel a little outraged that there are no real actions to eradicate the problem.”

How quickly [...]]]> On Sunday, a gaggle of diversity enthusiasts met up in Manhattan’s Times Square to celebrate a rally dubbed “I Am A Muslim Too” — a vile sentiment to be expressed just blocks from the site of the worst jihad mass murder in America, where 2,606 died in the World Trade Center on 9/11.

How quickly these lefties forget the 9/11 terror attacks. Perhaps the jihad will provide an updated reminder to New York City some day soon, courtesy of Muslim diversity.

And what’s with these crazy American women promoting more Muslim immigration? They should know that their European counterparts have suffered mass sexual assaults from immigrant rapefugees, and some streets have become very dangerous and women have become fearful about normal life in Germany and elsewhere since Muslim men arrived en masse.

Below, liberal women in New York City demand more Muslim immigration apparently so America can import misogyny, polygamy, child marriage and slavery.

At least the Fox report grasped the anti-Trump aspect of the protest, rather than any profound love of Muslims. Imagine if President Obama had instituted a temporary travel ban regarding the sketchy Muslim countries he had listed — would there have been weeks of noisy protests and lies? Very unlikely.

Former Trump pal Russell Simmons leads ‘I Am A Muslim Too’ rally against president, Fox News, February 19, 2017

The Muslim call to prayer rang out through Times Square in New York City on Sunday afternoon as a large, mixed-faith crowd of merchandise hawkers, social activists, organizers, curious tourists – and genuine protesters – declared their allegiance with Islam.

“I am a Muslim, too!” the group chanted several times at the anti-President Trump rally organized by hip hop mogul Russell Simmons and a local rabbi and imam. . .

In addition, welcoming refugees, of whom Muslims accounted for 46 percent in 2016, is not cheap. Breitbart reported yesterday that “American taxpayers will spend more than $4.1 billion in the 2017 budget to support the 519,018 refugees who have been resettled by the federal government in the United States since October 2009.”

Meanwhile across the pond, normally liberal Europeans have rethought open borders welcoming Islam, and now a healthy majority want an end to Muslim immigration entirely — not a little pause as President Trump mandated. A recent poll from the highly respected Chatham House think tank found that 55 percent of Europeans surveyed in 10 nations think a permanent halt is necessary.

And the Europeans are right for once: why welcome the historic enemy of Western Civilization? America doesn’t need any immigrants because of the workplace automation onslaught, and we seem to be plenty diverse already. So why not chill severely on all immigration?

Yes, the recent inundation of hostile Muslim hordes has refined Europeans’ appreciation of diversity.

Bill O’Reilly discussed the fascinating reversal of opinion in Europe on his show a week ago:

More details on the Chatham poll below:

Majority of Europeans want Muslim immigration stopped: Poll, Washington Times, February 8, 2017

European leaders were quick to denounce President Trump when he advocated a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration to the U.S. during the presidential campaign, but a new poll shows their own constituencies strongly support the idea.

The Chatham House survey published on Tuesday found 55 percent of Europeans from 10 different nations agree that Muslim immigration should be stopped. Just 20 percent say they want migration from the Islamic world to continue, while 25 percent neither agree nor disagree.

Majorities in all but two of the 10 states surveyed agree that “further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped.”

The poll caught the attention of Mr. Trump, who tweeted out the results of the poll on his own, closely followed Twitter account Wednesday afternoon.

The country most opposed to continued Muslim immigration is Poland, where 71 percent of those polled say it should be halted, compared to 19 percent who favor allowing inflows to continue.

Sixty-five percent of Austrians also agree Muslim immigration should be stopped, along with 64 percent in both Belgium and Hungary, 61 percent in France, 58 percent in Greece, 53 percent in Germany and 51 percent in Italy.

Pluralities in Britain and Spain — 47 percent and 41 percent, respectively — also agree that Muslim immigration should be stopped.

The country most opposed to halting Muslim immigration is Spain, and even there just 32 percent are against the idea. Opposition fails to crack 20 percent in most European Union nations, which have seen far greater flows from Syria, Afghanistan and other nations than has the U.S.

Mr. Trump floated the idea of a ban on Muslim migration during the presidential campaign, but backed off of the idea shortly thereafter amid widespread opposition, saying he now advocated “extreme vetting” from countries with records of terrorism or whose internal immigration controls are weak.

Upon taking office, he signed an executive order temporarily halting refugee inflows into the United States until sufficient security measures can be implemented. The order also temporarily banned travel from seven Muslim-majority nations — an order that is on hold amid a fierce court battle over its constitutionality.

The Chatham House poll surveyed 10,195 adults from 10 European nations from Dec. 12, 2016, to Jan. 11, 2017. Roughly 1,000 respondents came from each country.

Below, in 2015 [...]]]> Below is an interesting discussion on Hungarian TV about the illegal alien situation in Europe, and how intractable it is. Once the moochers are in Europe, they are next to impossible to evict. The aliens have a whole laundry list of delaying tactics, and their home countries don’t want them back either.

Below, in 2015 young Middle Eastern males jammed a train in Hungary to reach Germany and its promise of lots of free stuff.

America certainly dodged a bullet by electing Donald Trump. Hillary promised to admit large numbers diverse unfriendlies, and we will never know how many jihadist murders were prevented by the voters rejecting Hillary.

Back to Germany, property crimes and violence against women (part of the Muslim diversity package) have risen enormously. The following report includes some shocking crime statistics, e.g. in Berlin, 86 percent of burglaries are carried out by the aliens. Nationwide, the foreigners commit 800 crimes per day.

Germany is far less safe because of Merkel inviting the Muslim world into the heart of Europe.

ANNOUNCER: Germany does not want migrants anymore. The German government intends to deny developmental aid to countries that refuse to take back deported migrants. It seems that the first one to get into trouble will be Tunisia. The security and political expert Georg Spöttle and Barna Fábián discuss the topic. Good morning.

BARNA FÁBIÁN: Good morning. I am thinking that these Arab migrants were not needed in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, so the richest countries in the Middle East want none of them. Now the countries where they actually come from also do not want them back. Where they will go?

GEORG SPÖTTLE: We found out that around 5,000 Tunisians joined the international jihad, mostly they went to fight for ISIS, and these endangerers (German: gefährdend) the German government would like to deport as fast as possible to Tunisia, and also the serious perpetrators and the infamous Nafris, who only went to Germany to sell drugs, who under 4-5-6-7-8 false identities get social benefits, we are talking about getting thousands of Euros monthly. Now Merkel and the government would like to get rid of them real fast, the elections are “ante portas” [at the gate] this year, in the fall especially, when we vote for a new Chancellor.

Sunday there was a protest in Tunisia against the possible return of jihadists. They marched through the city with a large sign saying, “We are not Germany’s garbage bag.” This is a wee bit strange, because these people did not hatch out from some eggs here, but came from Tunisia using the migration wave. It is very interesting that the Tunisian government was not in a hurry in the past, either, to take these people back. We could see it in the case of terrorists, for example in the Berlin terror attack. He was not even alive when his re-admission papers finally arrived. They could not provide that in two years. The North African countries: Tunisia, the Kingdom of Morocco are not really motivated or in a hurry to get these serious perpetrators or dangerous jihadists accepted back into their country.

FÁBIÁN: It even turns out that they do not have any papers, say the Tunisian authorities; how could they accept him? He might not be Tunisian. But his father, mother, siblings, his children are there — It would be a matter of a simple DNA test to show they are his relatives. He was not born… in Vladivostok.

SPÖTTLE: Yes, they know they can make a fool out of us German police officers. When the day of deportation comes, he just says: “I lied; I am not Tunisian, I am from Algeria.” Then the whole process stops. They write to the Algerian authorities. They may answer or not, mostly not, or maybe after two years, an answer comes: “We do not know, please send picture, fingerprints etc.” Finally the result comes back: he is not from Algeria. Then he says: “Yeah I lied again,” “I am really Syrian” or whatever. They can stay for years; they can sabotage the process — it came out that last year around 50,000 North Africans and Afghans should have been deported, but in reality only maybe 50 were successful. The rest of them said: “I have a heart condition”, “I can’t fly on an airplane” or “I am a minor”. They invent these lies. So yesterday I printed out the official crime statistics, the federal German criminal statistics.

FÁBIÁN: How does it look? —

SPÖTTLE: It looks brutal. I would like to start with Berlin, my old stomping ground, where 86.4% of burglaries are committed by migrants. At the federal level, around 800 crimes are committed daily by migrants. Think about it, 800 crimes daily, which is 8000 in ten days; in a hundred days 80,000, a brutally high number. I checked the prison statistics. Of those inmates currently in German prisons, 27.9% percent are foreigners, so they are not German nationals and do not have citizenship. However, at the federal level…, the increase in crime is 33.9% since the migrants arrived. The tendency is increasing. This is what we can see. So major cities have almost identical numbers: In Hamburg and Berlin, for example, of the number of picked pockets and bag thefts close to ATMs, 43.5% of the perps are migrants, so the German population are logically — mostly woman and the elderly —afraid to be on the streets after dark. They are afraid of theft, robbery, and the young pretty women are afraid of sexual attacks.

FÁBIÁN: Are these statistics ever published in any German publication? Or is it even possible to release such information?

SPÖTTLE: Yes. Not in full detail, but interestingly, I have seen it in the liberal Focus (magazine) or I have seen it in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Bayernkurier picks out pieces of these stats. So one can see the coat of paint applied by Angela Merkel coming off, to quote Ágoston Mráz: “Angela Merkel now would not talk to herself from last year,” so to speak. Yes, but we must acknowledge That was a great statement from Ágoston.

Because the elections are coming closer, she is trying to to speak a little bit in the language of the voters. She practices self-criticism every day in the media. Still not doing it to the extent she should: like saying, “We really screwed it up here, because we should have defended our borders,” or she should say, “We need to deport all criminal migrants.” For example, the media are talking daily about the migrant criminal gangs. The drug mafia from Lebanon, or the infamous Thousand-member strong criminal organization that specializes in the theft of luxury cars, who usually steal high-end German cars and SUVs, and via the Mediterranean bring them back to North Africa where they can sell them illegally.

FÁBIÁN: Those thousands of migrants — from who knows how many countries — now on the Serbian side of the border, waiting — for the unlikely event of opening the Hungarian border fence — which will never happen, because someone who wants to come legally, can come over with papers and visas at the crossing, and those who want asylum can apply. This is how the process normally works, so these migrants are saying they have only a single friend in Europe: Merkel. …

SPÖTTLE: They believe that only if they were able to speak German — they may already be working there — but they do not speak it, they got information fragments, one can see as social media spreads them. For example, after the Hungarian referendum, they thought the border would be open for them. Now they think that because of the cold, there are fewer border patrol officers; they attempt to cross, so they are getting these half truths and lies, they try to orient themselves based on them. If they could read the German media, or if they had a friend who would translate for them the huge change occurring in German politics, I think they would turn around, go to their embassies, and show their papers: “Here, I would like to go back to Afghanistan or Pakistan.” They are still hoping that a great life awaits them there.

Yesterday, for instance, I watched the report by Attila Muci. He was talking about 5-6 thousand people, who are stuck in Serbia. Looking at them one can’t help but feel sorry. I feel sorry for them as human beings, wearing flip-flops in a cold winter [-20C – translator]. But they simply can’t accept the facts, that they have been living for a year in a Serbian train station, warming their canned food, those poor unfortunate people. It would be much better for them to return home, because they do not have a future in the European Union, and this is what the criminal organizations take advantage of. Like a cult, they enmesh these bitter, frustrated people.

They can see, it doesn’t matter if I live in Germany, OK, I will sell drugs, I will use fake identities to get more welfare, and he will pick up around two thousand euros in social benefits, but he will just barely exists in a container city or a winter hangar, and he sees, there is not really any will to integrate — maybe this is how he started: He’ll learn German, he’ll work, but he realizes that without language or marketable skills and a will to integrate, he will not succeed. The numbers are very high.

If only 20,000 migrant had arrived, they would have been quickly absorbed. Integrate them in different states in Germany, give them work and language courses. But in crowds of millions, even in the ones who wanted to do something, the will of integration is lost. They either turn to crime or they accept the state’s help, get €3,500 and return home. Or they are the dangerous jihadist organizations, who in the migrant camps pretend to be members of Islamic charitable organizations. they seduce the young boys with their ideology and later use them for their goals, bring them to their “One True Purpose” to make jihadists out of them.

FÁBIÁN: Georg, I would like to thank you.

SPÖTTLE: You’re welcome, it was a pleasure.

Silly people like to [...]]]> Typically, candidate Clinton and the left have learned nothing from Germany’s disastrous experience of open borders to the Islamic world — assuming the Ds value domestic tranquility rather than chaos, of course. Despite the obvious danger of Islam immigration, Clinton has pledged to up Islamic immigration by more than 500 percent.

Silly people like to say that America does assimilation better than Europe, but that idea assumes that the immigrants want to acculturate, and many Muslims do not. At best, some want to establish tribal enclaves where they can live as they did in the homelands only with more money; at worst, they use immigration as a weapon of conquest against America, aka hijrah.

Hillary Clinton presents herself as the great champion of women’s rights, but she proves the lie of that characterization with her welcome to many thousands of misogynous Muslims into America.

Secretary of State Clinton covered her hair sharia-style during a visit to Pakistan in 2009.

Just look at how Muslim immigrants behave in Europe. Not only were hundreds of German women sexually assaulted during Cologne’s New Years celebrations, but police have been unable to protect women from Muslims during later outdoors events like concerts. European women are now fearful of being out in public because streets are no longer safe for them — which is exactly the sharia-type atmosphere where women stay home that Islam seeks to inculcate.

In this country, Muslims strongly favor Democrats (70 percent according to Pew) but at a cost: Hillary is willing to sacrifice women’s safety and the nation’s security for a few votes. America has already had dozens of honor killings as well as jihadist attacks such as the ones in Orlando and San Bernardino.

Below, Europeans reject Muslim immigrants as “rapefugees” after the Cologne attacks.

Meanwhile, the current occupier of the White House, Barack Hussein Obama, remarked on Thursday at an Eid al-Fitr reception, “This is a difficult time for Muslim Americans. . . Let’s be clear, Muslim Americans are as patriotic, as integrated, as American as any other members of the American family.” (Read Obama’s full speech including lots more love at WhiteHouse.gov.)

The Breitbart article below compares the projected Muslim influx under a Hillary Presidency to the number in Germany, which is nasty enough. But the actual number forecast — 1.5 million — means the process would be just beginning if Clinton gets her way: those Muslims will quickly bring their abundant cousins (just think of chain migration multiplied by polygamy), and the 1400-year enemy of Western civilization will gain an expanding foothold in Islam’s most hated adversary. A Clinton Presidency would sentence America to more jihad-caused death and misery going forward. We can learn from Europe’s mistakes, right?

Under Clinton Presidency, U.S. Muslim Population Would Exceed Germany’s by 2024, Breitbart.com, by Julia Hahn, July 23, 2016

Under two terms of a President Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Muslim population would exceed Germany’s current Muslim population, according to data from Pew Research Center and the Department of Homeland Security.

According to a Pew report published earlier this week, “as of 2010, there were 4.8 million Muslims in Germany.”

A Pew report from January of this year estimated that there are roughly 3.3 million Muslims living in the United States. This means that today the U.S. already has a larger Muslim population than does Kuwait, or Brunei, or Bahrain, or Djibouti, or Qatar. Under current policy, Pew projects the number of Muslims in America will outnumber Jews by 2040. However, under a President Hillary Clinton it’s possible that date could come much sooner.

Under two terms of a Hillary Clinton presidency, the U.S. would have a Muslim population that is larger than Germany’s Muslim population of 4.8 million.

Based on the most recent DHS data available, the U.S. permanently resettled roughly 149,000 migrants from predominantly Muslim countries on green cards in 2014.

Yet, as Donald Trump explained during Thursday night acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Clinton “has called for a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama.”

Specifically, Clinton had said that, as president, she would expand Muslim migration by importing an additional 65,000 Syrian refugees into the United States during the course of a single fiscal year. Clinton has made no indication that she would limit her proposed Syrian refugee program to one year.

As Trump explained, Clinton’s Syrian refugees would come on top of the tens of thousands of refugees the U.S. already admits from Muslim countries.

Adding Clinton’s 65,000 Syrian refugees to the approximately 149,000 Muslim migrants the U.S. resettled on green cards in the course of one year, means that Clinton could permanently resettle roughly 214,000 Muslim migrants in her first year as President. If Clinton were to continue her Syrian refugee program throughout her Presidency, she could potentially resettle roughly 1.5 million Muslim migrants during her first two terms.

These projections suggest that after seven years of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, the U.S. could have a Muslim population that is larger than Germany’s Muslim population of 4.8 million.

These projections are rough estimates, and the population size could be impacted by additional various factors— including births, deaths, and conversions.

Many have warned if the U.S. continues at its current record pace of Muslim migration—or if pro-Islamic migration politicians, such as Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton, further increase Muslim migration—the U.S. risks following in Europe’s footsteps.

As Sen. Jeff Sessions has previously explained, “it’s an unpleasant, but unavoidable fact that bringing in large unassimilated flows of migrants from the Muslim world creates the conditions possible for radicalisation and extremism to take hold, just like they’re seeing in Europe.”

Andrew McCarthy has similarly argued that the large-scale importation of “assimilation-resistant Muslim migrants” enables the development of pockets of Sharia-sympathetic communities that can serve as breeding grounds for radicalization—as they have in Europe.

McCarthy has explained that, as we are seeing “in Europe and the Middle East, jihadism thrives when it has a support system of sharia-adherent Muslims. In Europe this means – as it would mean here – enclaves of assimilation-resistant Muslims… It is patently obvious that our security challenge is not just jihadists; it is the combination of jihadists and their support network of assimilation-resistant Muslims. Indeed, even if we could vet for all the currently active jihadists, it is from the assimilation-resistance Islamic communities that future “homegrown” jihadists will emerge – and that is apart from the material and moral support jihadists get from like-minded Islamists in these communities.”

Sessions has aruged that vetting migrants means not simply keeping out people who currently have terror aspirations and already have ties to terror groups, but also keeping out those who—based on their support for Islamist ideology— could be candidates for terror, or whose children could become candidates for terror, or who hold values that are hostile to American values.

Yet politicians in both parties, who have voted to expand Muslim migration into the U.S., have ruled out vetting measures that could take these factors into account. Both Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan have argued it’s inappropriate to examine the religious views of an applicant– in essence, this suggests that the U.S. can’t screen out migrants based on their potential support for ideologies that may be anti-gay, anti-women, anti-America or anti-religious freedom.

Yet neither Clinton nor Ryan have explained why importing hundreds of thousands of migrants from nations that may hold sentiments that are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-religious tolerance, and anti-America benefits the United States or helps to protect American values.