Tag: immigration

Germany Is Not Being Honest About Who Is Assaulting Children At Swimming Pools

Migrants will not stop molesting and assaulting children at swimming pools in the best and most democratic Germany of all time…

In the last 10 years, we’ve welcomed a lot of ill-behaved and criminal young men into our country for no discernible reason, and along the way we’ve had the dubious privilege of discovering whole new categories of crime. There is the hostile-immigrant-drives-his-car-into-a-crowd-of-unsuspecting-innocents crime, there is the hostile-immigrant-stabs-a-bunch-of-random-people crime, there is the immigrant-gang-collectively-rape-underage-girl-in-park crime, and there is the immigrants-at-swimming-pool-molest-or-assault-various-children crime.

The latter has been stealing the headlines since the latest (allegedly carbon dioxide-induced) ‘heatwave’ in Germany. Recent stories include this one about a 25 year-old man of undisclosed background (who is almost certainly a migrant, otherwise authorities would not be so secretive about his origins) exposing himself to a bunch of underage teenagers at a pool in Asperg (Baden-Württemberg). Or this one, about a 21 year-old Syrian at a pool in Schweinfurt (Bavaria) caught exposing himself to four boys. Or this one, about men of “dark complexion” who severely beat an 18 year-old and threw him down some stairs. Or this disturbing one, about two Syrians who groped and assaulted a 12 year-old girl at a pool in Hof (Bavaria), forcing her beneath the water repeatedly and leaving her with a bloody nose.

Stories like this often come in groups, and what set off the present cascade was a particularly grim incident from June 22nd in Gelnhausen (Hessen), in which a group of Syrian migrants aged 18 to 28 molested eight or nine underage girls at the local pool. When the girls first complained about what was happening, pool personnel sent them back into the water. After this incident became a nationwide story, the Mayor of Gelnhausen, Christian Litzinger (CDU) gave an interview in which he appeared to ascribe the crime to “high temperatures”, which can cause “tempers to flare up”.

Naturally, this is but a partial list comprising only those news reports that I found, that anybody bothered to report to the police and that have made it into the press. The problem is vastly more pervasive than my brief summary might suggest. Personally, I haven’t been to a public pool in Germany in 10 years. I would never go again, and I would certainly never send my kids there. What used to be occasionally amusing places to get a bit of exercise have become crowded loci of urban chaos invariably full of drunken 20 year-old men from the global south. Everybody knows this is happening but it’s very politically incorrect to acknowledge that it’s happening, and so it’s become the occasion for a great deal of bizarre messaging from our progressive establishment.

A small group of peculiar lunatics have decided that what we really need to do is remind everybody that groping and assaulting and molesting is not okay. Thus we’ve been treated to an array of bizarre anti-swimming-pool-molestation messaging campaigns that just love to reverse the typical ethnicities of perpetrator and victim.

Keep reading

Germany Begins Process to Restart Deportations to Syria, Starting with Criminals

The German government has begun the process of lifting the protection status for some Syrian refugees with the aim of returning them to their homeland now that the civil war has ended.

Germany has long been one of the top destinations for Syrian asylum seekers after civil war broke out in 2011. This was ramped up during the 2015 Europe Migrant Crisis when then-Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the gates of the EU, allowing in around a million migrants into Germany, including hundreds of thousands of Syrians.

Now, with the fall of the Assad regime in Damascus and the recent election of Christian Democrat Friedrich Merz in Berlin, Germany finally appears set to begin the process of returning at least some Syrians home.

According to broadcaster NTV, this will start with Syrians convicted of crimes, with the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bamf) being ordered to “start revocation activities” for criminals from Syria.

Previously, even criminal migrants from Syria were allowed to remain in Germany as Berlin had determined that their homeland was not safe for them to return to.

However, others have argued that the government needs to go further, with the anti-mass migration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party saying that previous refugees must also be returned home, not just criminals.

AfD MP Gottfried Curio said: “After more than half a year has passed since the fall of the Assad regime, a new government has been established and the fighting has essentially ended. It is time for the federal government to also take these new realities into account in its asylum policy.”

Keep reading

French Left-Wing MPs Introduce Amendment To “Reduce” Coverage Of Migrant Crime Stories

When reality does not mesh with the “narrative,” the left’s standard tactic is to turn to censorship, and the French left is no different. The French Greens and other left-wing parties now want to make sure that news stories are not used for ideological purposes by the “far right,” claiming that certain media outlets are causing a “moral panic” around immigration due to migrant murders.

According to a parliamentary amendment tabled on June 25, 2025, by a group of Green and left-wing MPs in the National Assembly, news stories of actual events that have happened, and actual lives lost, are being improperly used by the right.

Another post from the French Observatory for Journalism ,wrote: “BREAKING NEWS | Green and left-wing deputies submit an amendment to REDUCE the coverage of crime stories in PUBLIC media. The authors believe these stories are used for ‘political exploitation;’ the text cites the murders of Lola and Thomas.”

Keep reading

USAID Gave Known Con Man $800M Contract To Do Kamala’s Work On ‘Root Causes Of Migration’

President Joe Biden’s USAID awarded an $800 million contract to a business operating out of a Virginia home even after it formally ruled that its key manager lacked “honesty or integrity” — a reference to the fact that, according to a May 12 guilty plea, he had secured USAID contracts through bribery for a decade.

The contract was for addressing “issues affecting the root causes of irregular migration from Central America to the United States” — the work that Biden assigned to Vice President Kamala Harris, but which she never appeared to address, a Daily Wire investigation found.

The Department of Justice announced Friday that Walter Barnes III, the founder of government contractor Vistant (previously known as PM Consulting Group, or PMCG) and Roderick Watson, a USAID contracting official, pleaded guilty to a bribery scheme in which Barnes and two others conspired to pay Watson $1 million in exchange for $544 million in contracts.

What has not been reported is that the Biden administration continued to steer contracts to Vistant/PMCG even after it knew of the massive corruption: the migration contract, even larger than the $544 million in the indictment, and others that are still active.

The $800 million contract went to a joint venture between Barnes’ company and CollaborateUp, a tiny consultancy run out of a suburban home in Falls Church, Virginia, where its CEO, Richard Crespin — who runs the company while also working at a think tank — lives. The Virginia home was the address listed on the $800 million contract.

In announcing its $800 million contract, CollaborateUp said it would address the “irregular migration from Central America to the United States” by addressing “climate change.” Its website also touts its work “advancing DEIA” and combating “misinformation.”

This year, it added Mark A. Green, a former Republican congressman who served as Donald Trump’s appointee to lead USAID during his first term, to its payroll as a “senior advisor,” according to its website.

Keep reading

The Curbing Of The Administrative State

The Supreme Court delivered an opinion last week that not even the best of the punditry class was prepared to understand. The decision was Trump vs. CASA, and the topic concerned the nationwide injunction against Trump’s management of U.S. immigration policy. As with more than 40 other cases, federal district judges have intervened to stop the president from exercising executive powers.

The opinion could not be plainer: “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” That principle applies not only to this case but to the whole panoply of cases that have tethered the ability of the president to manage executive branch operations. The courts have presumed authority over the president that the Constitution plainly does not grant.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the following of the unjoined dissent by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: “[It] is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an Imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Court watchers called this an unprecedented rebuke of a colleague in a majority opinion.

The practical effect of the decision is to underscore the meaning of Article 2: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Why should this be controversial? Here we get into the overwhelming reality of the structure and operations of the U.S. government that stand in complete contradiction to the U.S. Constitution. It’s been going on for more than a century and has never been fundamentally challenged. Until Trump, most presidents were fine with it and offered no serious challenge. The legislature too has chosen to look the other way.

The issue is the fourth branch of government that is nearly the whole of the operational side of government as we know it. We elect leaders and representatives but our votes have carried ever less power over the course of a century. We know that but it has not always been obvious.

Keep reading

Trump’s justice department issues directive to strip naturalized Americans of citizenship for criminal offenses

The Trump administration has codified its efforts to strip some Americans of their US citizenship in a recently published justice department memo that directs attorneys to prioritize denaturalization for naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes.

The memo, published on 11 June, calls on attorneys in the department to institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either “illegally procured” naturalization or procured naturalization by “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation”.

At the center of the move are the estimated 25 million US citizens who immigrated to the country after being born abroad, according to data from 2023 – and it lists 10 different priority categories for denaturalization.

According to the memo, those subjected to civil proceedings are not entitled to an attorney like they are in criminal cases. And the government has a lighter burden of proof in civil cases than they do in criminal ones.

The memo claims such efforts will focus on those who are involved “in the commission of war crimes, extrajudicial killings, or other serious human rights abuses … [and] naturalized criminals, gang members, or, indeed, any individuals convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the US”.

The directive gives justice department attorneys wider discretion on when to pursue denaturalization, including in instances of lying on immigration forms, cases where there is financial fraud or medical fraud against the US or against private individuals; and cases referred by a US attorney’s office or in connection with pending criminal charges.

The justice department’s civil rights division has been placed at the forefront of Trump’s policy objectives, including ending diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs within the government as well as ending transgender treatments, among other initiatives.

That comes as the US’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agency registered its 13th in-custody death for the fiscal year beginning in October 2024. There had been 12 such deaths during the entire fiscal year that finished at the end of September 2024.

On Friday Jim Ryan, president of the University of Virginia, resigned amid an investigation by the justice department’s civil rights division. The investigation took aim at the university’s DEI programs and its continuing to consider race and ethnicity in various programs and scholarships.

The justice department also took the unusual step in recent days of suing 15 federal district court judges in Maryland over an order blocking the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removal.

The justice department’s civil rights division is reportedly in disarray as its traditional mission – to combat racial discrimination after the civil rights movement – is reshaped by priorities stemming from the president’s executive orders. About 250 attorneys – or 70% of the division’s lawyers – were believed to have left the department in the time between January and the end of May, according to a recent National Public Radio (NPR) report.

The memo’s focus on denaturalization comes as at least one person has been denaturalized in recent weeks.

Keep reading

Convicted sex offender from Kenya avoids deportation, lands state job

A Kenyan national convicted of sexually assaulting a sleeping woman in Minnesota wasn’t deported after his prison sentence — he was promoted.

Wilson Tindi holds a director position at the Minnesota Department of Education, where he audits taxpayer spending and oversees internal accountability.

Court records show Tindi was convicted in 2016 of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct after breaking into a woman’s home and assaulting her in bed where she slept. He pleaded guilty to the sex assault charge in exchange for prosecutors dropping a first-degree burglary charge.

Tindi was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to register as a predatory offender. His sentence was stayed for five years, but he was also sentenced to 210 days in the workhouse, records show.

However, despite the felony conviction and offender status, Tindi serves as Director of Internal Audit and Advisory Services at MDE, according to public records and his LinkedIn profile.

A former prosecutor with direct knowledge of Tindi’s case told Alpha News they were disturbed to learn he now holds a leadership role in state government.

“I don’t know how he would have passed a background check,” the attorney said. “He’s a felon and a registered sex offender—how is he employed?”

The attorney said that in addition to the 2016 conviction, Tindi was also accused of a similar crime in 2012, as court documents state. Although the case was never charged, prosecutors filed a Spreigl notice—a legal move to introduce evidence of prior misconduct—citing the 2012 allegation as evidence of a disturbing pattern.

“He is dangerous,” the attorney said. “He has no business being paid out of our taxpayer dollars and should be back with ICE.”

Keep reading

The Myth of Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional and Historical Refutation

For far too long, the American legal and political landscape has been distorted by a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment: that merely being born on U.S. soil makes one a citizen. This misconception contradicts the original intent of the amendment’s framers. Furthermore, it undermines the foundational principle that citizenship arises from allegiance, not geographic happenstance.

On May 15, the Supreme Court will take up three cases, consolidated under the name Trump v. CASA. It will address Donald Trump’s bold and necessary attempt to end the unconstitutional practice of granting citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental allegiance. The fact that the Court has chosen to hear these cases in May — a rare occurrence typically reserved for matters of utmost urgency — underscores just how pivotal this issue is. The stakes couldn’t be higher. At risk is the foundational principle that citizenship is rooted in allegiance, not mere geography. This is a principle that the Constitution clearly supports and that decades of judicial misinterpretation have dangerously eroded.

President Donald Trump’s executive order is at the crux of this case, and marks a critical moment in the battle to restore constitutional integrity. This action, however, has rekindled debate over whether birthright citizenship is truly required by the 14th Amendment. A closer examination of the Constitution, its framers’ intent, and relevant historical precedents reveals that birthright citizenship is neither constitutionally mandated nor consistent with the principles of American law and government.

The Crux of the Issue: Jurisdiction and Allegiance

The primary argument for birthright citizenship hinges on the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Advocates of birthright citizenship often isolate the phrase “born or naturalized in the United States,” disregarding the critical qualification that follows: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This latter phrase is not mere surplusage — it carries substantive legal meaning rooted in allegiance, not mere presence.

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who introduced the Citizenship Clause in 1866, explicitly stated its intent:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Senator Howard’s remarks make clear that the mere accident of birth within U.S. borders does not automatically confer citizenship if the individual’s allegiance lies with a foreign power. How can a person be both a citizen and an alien simultaneously if mere birth location were the sole determinant of citizenship?

Keep reading

Austrian Schoolchildren Forced to Learn Arabic to Communicate with Muslim Classmates

In a troubling revelation from Vienna, a concerned grandparent, Bernhard K., has exposed a growing crisis in Austria’s kindergartens. Speaking to the Austrian news outlet Heute, he described the stark reality at his grandson’s school, where only three of 25 classmates are fluent German speakers.

During breaks and after-school activities, the children revert to Arabic, leaving his grandson isolated. When asked how the boy copes, Bernhard’s response was shocking: “He’s trying to learn Arabic! How else is he supposed to communicate with his schoolmates?”

This is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a broader demographic shift. According to the Institute for Family Research, one in five children under 18 in Austria, roughly 340,000, lacks an Austrian passport.

Meanwhile, the number of native Austrian youths has plummeted from 1.6 million to 1.2 million. The rapid transformation is reshaping the nation’s schools and threatening the cultural fabric of its communities.

As The Gateway Pundit has previously reported, Muslims have now become the largest religious group in Vienna’s compulsory schools, comprising a striking 41.2% of all students across primary, secondary, and vocational education levels.

Meanwhile, just 34.5% of students now identify as Christian (17.5% Catholic and 14.5% Orthodox), more than 23% have no religious affiliation, and the remaining minority includes Buddhists (0.2%), Jews (0.1%), and others (0.9%).

“This is no longer immigration. This is displacement,” said Maximilian Weinzierl, national council member and leader of the FPÖ’s youth wing. “41.2% of Muslim students—that’s no longer a minority, that’s the new majority. What we as the FPÖ have been warning about for decades, but which was always dismissed as right-wing scaremongering, is now reality: Immigration has completely overrun our country.”

Keep reading

Student Visa Applicants Will Now Be Forced To Make Their Social Media Accounts Public

In a Monday announcement, several U.S. embassies stated that student visa applicants will be required to turn the settings on their social media accounts to “public” in order to facilitate scrutiny of their posts, presumably for ideological screening. The change is part of a recent string of crackdowns on international students, which has targeted many who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests or expressed anti-Israel views.

In a social media post, the U.S. Embassy in London wrote that “every visa adjudication is a national security decision,” adding that applicants for several kinds of student visas would be required to “adjust the privacy settings on all of their personal social media accounts to ‘public’ to facilitate vetting necessary to establish their identity and admissibility to the United States.” Several other embassy social media accounts also posted the statement.

The directive comes after months of ramped-up efforts to ideologically filter prospective international students. Earlier this year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio began canceling the visas of some college students who participated in anti-Israel protests—or, in one student’s case, simply wrote an op-ed. In one March press conference, he estimated that his office had canceled more than 300 visas.

“Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa.” Rubio said. “At some point, I hope we run out because we’ve gotten rid of all of them, but, we’re looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up.”

A domestic cable sent to embassy officials in May telegraphed this latest development, ordering officials to scour social media posts from prospective Harvard students, noting that the order “will also serve as a pilot for expanded screening and vetting of visa applicants” and “will be expanded over time.” Last week, additional policy updates directed embassy officials to review F, M, and J visas (which are common student visas) for “any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States.”

This latest move in the Trump administration’s mission to prevent students with disfavored views from studying in the U.S. is nothing less than outright viewpoint discrimination. While the U.S. has a national security interest in vetting visa applicants for affiliations with outright terrorist groups, merely opposing Israel’s actions in Gaza hardly approaches that line. And, as many free speech advocates have pointed out, this precedent can easily be utilized to punish many other viewpoints.

“There is nothing stopping this or another administration from using that authority tomorrow against critics of other countries, whether they’re protesting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s oppression of Uyghurs,” reads a recent statement from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment group. “That’s wrong. Requiring foreign students and faculty to self-censor their views about American foreign policy in order to stay in the country violates American principles of free speech and the First Amendment.”

Keep reading