That's official data, you won't find more reliable data than this , seeing greek boats you

can realise they are actually gender balanced,

different story for libyan boats which, because of the reasons that I explained before, are made up mostly by men. You can't measure
'large' as an absolute value, Europe actually welcome few refugees compared to middle eastern countries.
Europe is obliged by Geneva Convention to welcome real refugees, it should be even more important for countries which support
religious freedom, human rights, liberalism et similia as their core values, 10% of refugees are also Christian and they are welcomed in
Middle East so it's really laughable seeing people that condemn all muslims as terrorists and then support killing boat refugees that
escape from war.
We know that the facts in Cologne have been magnified by biased media especially in US: they were not 1000 men but about 80 men,
they were not refugees but a gang of North African illegal immigrants already known to the police, not actual rapes (like these
instead http://www.vice.com/read/rape-culture-germany-cologne-new-years-2016-876) but pickpockets covered by violence. Regular
refugees (like legal immigrants) have instead crime rates and rape rates even lower than
Germans http://www.thelocal.de/20151113/police-refugees-commit-less-crimes-than-germans Illegal immigrants(all ethnicities) are
known for higher crime rates because they can't find legal jobs and don't benefit social support. Actually muslim immigrants (legal +
illegal ones) are slighlty less prone to rape than other immigrant ethnicities like in Sweden (Sweden's rape case s a
mythhttps://debunkingdenialism.com/2015/12/12/how-anti-immigration-activists-misuse-rape-statistics/) . Rape rates by
ethnicity http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/05/08/br-1996-2-invandrares-och-invandrares-barns-brottslighet-1/br-1996-2-invandraresoch-invandrares-barns-brottslighet-1.pdf
Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia: 4,6
Jordan, Palestine, Syria : 1,9
Iraq: 4,0
Iran: 2,0
Romania, Bulgaria: 3,6
"The rest of Africa, excluding Uganda": 3,3
Some people use the 'islamization card' to oppose refugees but let's analyze that too. Muslims are often considered not compatible with
liberal values falling into the error of equating the entire Muslim world to Saudi Wahhabism when in fact it is not,indeed, the Muslim
world is very diverse, quarrelsome and absolutely not homogenous. Muslim immigrants are mostly Moroccans, Tunisians and
Algerians ,countries where religious freedom does exist, other examples: religious offices have recently been banned from politics in
Morocco, veil is forbidden at school in Tunisia , 34% of parliamentarians are women in Algeria,and here
Syriahttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Syria; it is true that they are more religious countries than we are today, they have
still blasphemy laws (abolished in the West only few decades ago) but what has been said until now makes them at least compatible
with liberal values. Some figures: France, a country that have lived immigration for decades and it is the European country with the
highest percentage of Muslim immigrants today, ( being an extreme case I analyze the data on this country in order to cover all
intermediate situations) one fifth of all Muslims has already become an atheist and only 5% of Muslims attend mosque regularly, then
these have views on issues like homosexuality similar to French people. I call it assimilation while 'atheization' better describes the
situation than 'islamization'. Add then these facts
1)Syrians in Germany will be ~1%, ethnic Arabs in France are ~10%
2) Immigrants to France are mostly permanent settlers, refugees are semi-permanent settlers.
3)Syrians are more Christians leaned than North Africans.
And 'islamization' become a non-problem.
SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-saunders/10-myths-about-muslims-in_b_1864589.html

Lithuania is not 1/4 russian File:Homicides, average per year, 2007-09 and 2010-12 (per 100 000
inhabitants) YB14.png
As I said before existing literature in 2014 shows that the results of immigration for Europe are
mixed for property crime but no association is found for violent crime . IZA Journal of Migration .

Honor killings are indeed a crappy example due to their very tiny impact while the so called
femicide has no special links with foreigners. Regarding rapes I think you are referring to Cologne
attacks, then yes, they can be partially linked to economic condition. The rapes were linked to a
known gang of illegal moroccans (that was already investigated by the police through Operation
Casablanca before the Cologne facts) that used the tactic of violence against women to steal mobile
phones and pockets. We know that the facts in Cologne have been magnified by biased media (like
Sweden rape case https://debunkingdenialism.com/2015/12/12/how-anti-immigration-activistsmisuse-rape-statistics/ )especially in US : they were not 1000 men but about 80 men, they were not
refugees (5 asylum seekers were suspected but then released) but a gang of moroccan illegal
immigrants already known to the police, not actual rapes (like these instead
http://www.vice.com/read/rape-culture-germany-cologne-new-years-2016-876) but pickpockets
covered by violence. Legal immigrants (like legal refugees, that male up less than 0,4% of euorpean
population anyway) have instead crime rates and rape rates even lower than Germans
http://www.thelocal.de/20151113/police-refugees-commit-less-crimes-than-germans , same in my
country Italy (data and sources here Gli immigrati non sono criminali o stupratori per natura ma ci
sono precise ),in fact illegal immigrants arent allowed to look for legal jobs so they have higher
crime rates than legal ones. Jihad-rape is therefore a crappy explanation especially if we consider
that headscarf is generally frowned upon by urban middle and higher classes in Morocco itself.
Morocco moves to drop headscarf
Goths? Invasion? Thats defiinitely off-topic but Ill engage this debate anyway. The Goths
migrations were made up of peoples who brought with them houses, weapons and wealth, forming
entire cities within roman borders, today's migrants are instead heterogeneous simple individuals
that follow individual paths, they are searched, they are not rich and can be easily defeated by our
military forces (nowadays the best weapons are good accessible to very few people, whole states are
needed to finance them while in Ancient Rome a small blacksmith was enough to get the best
weapons), at that time it did not even exist a statal organization comparable to ours and extended all
over the territory.Today's immigrants are more like slaves than barbarian invaders . furthemore
Rome had foreigner citizens in its territory much earlier than the barbarian invasions, many colonies
gained Roman citizenship after being conquered and remaining faithful to Rome, their citizens
became Roman citizens and contributed to the country's politics as natives. the phenomenon already
existed many centuries BC, in 90 BC Lex Italia made the phenomenon only more widespread
granting Roman citizenship to all the Italics who remained faithful to Rome during the Social War,
in 89 BC Lex Pautia ,Lex Papiria and the Lex Pompeia completed the legislation in favor of the
Italics Colonia romana - Wikipedia and as we know the heyday of Rome was yet to come, this
happened despite there were no institutions of integration and mass gathering places (most of the
population was made up peasants in the countryside) as todays schools.
Last paragraph was a theoretical historical comparinson but lets analyze actual todays facts
regarding immigrants (especially muslim ones as you brought up): how are they compared to us and
how they can relate to the values of our society? Are they a danger? To address these issues,
however, we need to answer this question before: who are we? Our model is the liberal and secular
society that unlike illiberal societies, like Saudi Arabia, respects the individual ,it is an open society
where an individual can be considered integrated if respects these rules:
1) Nothing prevents to seek in religion "the sense" of life and death, because science is not able to
define it. Religions make sense, and define it within the boundaries of the faith. If not, if you could
answer the question of sense outside the faith, even science could offer a sense.
2) You can not prove (attention to "prove" not "reveal") that the response to the offer of "sense" of a
religion is better than that offered by another. Admitting this, we respect the Other.

3) And here comes the tricky part. We are not, as it might seem, in the field where everything is the
same. If religion provides meaning, but you have no way to assert that one religion is better than
another, here it is that you must accept the separation of the spiritual from the secular field. Where
everyone can act as they please.
4) In this way, all that does not harm to another is lawful. Because someone else is an individual,
limitations on his freedom are not allowed, as is the case with the female gender human in some
religions, thisi is the antithesis of the Saudi society where the individual is not integrated if he
accept the liberal values but when he renounces to his religion and converts to the state religion.
Who are they?
It is often said that Muslims are not compatible with our liberal values making the mistake of
equating the entire Muslim world to Saudi Wahhabism when in fact it is completely wrong, rather it
is the other way, the Muslim world is very diverse and quarrelsome and absolutely not homogenous.
The Muslim immigrants are mostly Moroccans, Tunisians and Algerians, countries where religious
freedom does exist.furthemore: Morocco has recently banned religious offices from politics then if
in countries like Italy there are only four officially recognized mosques in Morocco there are many
churches, cathedrals and Christian schools in the face of a smaller Christian population percentage
to the Muslims currently present here in western Europe, the veil is forbidden in school in Tunisia,
in Algeria 34 % of parliamentarians are women; it is true that they are very religious country than us
.cpuntries where there are still blasphemy laws (abolished in most western countries some
decades/years ago except some american and Eastern Europe states) but what it has been said until
now makes these people at least compatible with a liberal society. I want to focus more on muslim
immigrant by quoting some figures: France, the European country with the highest percentage of
Muslim immigrants, (being a borderline case I analyze the data on this country in order to cover all
intermediate situations) a fifth of Muslims has already become an atheist and only 5% of Muslims
attend mosque regularly, muslims have also opinions on socio-cultural issues such as homosexuality
similar to that of French natives, similar data in Germany. For these reasons rather than Islamization
it is correct to talk about 'atheization'.
[SOURCE] 10 Myths About Muslims In The West
Add what is going on in Saudi Arabia Atheism explodes in Saudi Arabia, despite state-enforced ban
and you understand that talking about Eurarabia and destruction of our culture is foolish, the
cultural invasion is almost on the opposite direction.

Let's DEBUNK the three thesis on which the RIGHT WING XENOPHOBE propaganda relies: 1) *Europe is a chistian or/and white nation so muslims should not be allowed* . This
argument is easily refuted by studying the real values on which Europe is based and which have been described by some previous comments. 2) *Muslim are anti-democratic
terrorists* . This argument is debunked by this [Check: ' 10 Myths About Muslims in the West ' by Huffingtonpost ] 3) *Immigrants have a natural propensity for crime so they should
not be allowed* .A survey of the existing economic literature on immigration and crime describes the existing literature in 2014 as showing that "the results for Europe are mixed for
property crime but no association is found for violent crime" [Check: ' Immigration status and property crime: an application of estimators for underreported outcomes ' by izajom ] in
fact studies on amnesty programs in the United States and Italy suggest that legal status can largely explain the differences in crime between legal and illegal immigrants, most likely
because legal status leads to greater job market opportunities for the immigrants [Check: '.Crime and immigration' by IZA World of Labour' ; 'Legal Status and the Criminal Activity of
Immigrants' by American Economic Association ; 'Effects of Immigrant Legalization on Crime' by American Economic Association ; 'Clicking on Heaven's Door: The Effect of
Immigrant Legalization on Crime' by Social Science research network ; 'Understanding the Role of Immigrants Legal Status: Evidence from Policy Experiments' by Ideas]. We know
in fact that the facts in Cologne have been magnified by biased media, especially american ones: they were not 1000 men but about 80 men, they were not refugees but a gang of
North African illegal immigrants already known by the police, not actual rapes (like these instead [Check: Immigrants Aren't Responsible for Rape Culture ' by VICE]) but pickpockets
covered by violence. Legal refugees (like legal immigrants) have instead crime rates and rape rates even lower than Germans [Check: ' Police: refugees commit less crime than
Germans ' by Thelocal], illegal immigrants instead are known for higher crime rates because they can't find legal jobs and don't benefit social support. Actually muslim immigrants
(legal + illegal ones) are slighlty less prone to rape than other immigrant ethnicities according to data. Sweden's rape case s a myth too [Check: ' How Anti-Immigration Activists
Misuse Rape Statistics by Debunking Denialism]. Conclusion: immigrants are not a cultural/natural crime problem, economic reason are to blame.