The Economist reports that anti-immigrant violence has taken a sharp up-tick in Germany:
ANTI-MIGRANT violence in Germany has become so severe over the past year that it is a miracle that no refugee has yet been killed. In one case, inebriated thugs threw a Molotov cocktail through a window into a room where an 11-year-old refugee would have been sleeping, had he not crept into bed with his mother in another room. Another xenophobe fired a gun into a refugee home and hit a Syrian man in the leg. Elsewhere, someone lobbed a hand grenade into a processing centre for asylum seekers. It did not go off.
There were 13,846 “right-extremist†crimes in Germany in 2015, according to preliminary estimates, about 30% more than in 2014. Of those, 921 were violent. This year the pace has accelerated, especially in the former East Germany. On February 18th about 100 people in Clausnitz, in the eastern state of Saxony, tried to block a bus carrying 20 refugees, including children. In another Saxon city a cheering crowd interfered with firefighters dousing flames in a building being converted into an asylum home. One police chief warns of a “pogrom atmosphereâ€.
To place that number in perspective it’s nearly three times as many as were reported here in hate crimes of all sorts in 2014, the most recent year for which data are available.
The moral of the story seems to be that it’s a lot easier for the Germans to avoid being anti-immigrant when they don’t have many immigrants.
Yep. Absolutely predictable, dangerous to existing Muslim populations in the west, and fuel to the far right, as I believe I pointed out at OTB about a hundred times.
To your comment I would add that hysterical reactions by Muslim activists in the United States don’t help their cause.
I didn’t know there were hysterical reactions. At any rate, letting in a bunch of homeless males was a really bad idea.
Steve
I’m sure it grates on some when I make a point through hyperbole or taking an argument to the extreme, but…….
As I’ve noted, if you can convince yourself that trade protection is good when it comes to Mexico, China…….. You certainly can convince yourself that, say, for the good of Illinois, Illinois residents shouldn’t buy Iowa corn……. Absurd you say??
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-29/workers-teslas-gigafactory-stage-mass-walk-out-protesting-out-state-workers
Liberal ideas morph without bound and are like the camels nose in the tent.
I don’t advocate trade protection. I advocate reciprocity.
The last time I checked Illinois residents and Iowa farmers use the same monetary unit and the same banking system, but I could be wrong. It is a silly and trite argument.
The issue in the link is union workers, but the article also notes that Tesla does not have more out-of-state workers because they get subsidies from Nevada. If I understood the article correctly, Tesla is using a third-party company to supply workers, but that is just for plausible deniability.
Anything that the government does to unfairly enhance trade does not affect its “free” status. Free-trade can only be impacted by being negative or equal.
Conservatives have no problem with a socialized money supply as long as it benefits them. It is too bad Donald Trump does not have a position on de-socializing the money supply. The Republicans would really have something to lose their minds over.