I figured the same (the original Welt article thelocal.de quotes does not even say "refugees commit less crime than Germans" btw).

So, "less than 1%" of the "very low six figure" number of total crimes committed by refugees are sex crimes. Ok then, so let's conservatively say it's 100,000 * 0.009 = 900 sex crimes (not sure about what time range that even covers? 1 year? First 9 months in 2015 since the report was compiled in Oct 2016).

There have been 7022 sex crimes (reported) in 2015[1], total.

Using that, the conservative estimate for sex crimes committed by refugees of the total sex crimes committed is: 900 / 7022 = 12.8%

Let's assume (and grossly overestimate really) there were about 1.5 million refugees total in (the end of) 2015 and a total population of 81 million.

So 1.8% of the population was refugees, yet that cohort committed 12% of sex crimes.

But 900 / 1.5M refugees is a at most 0.06% of refugees (not even considering multiple offenders) who commit sex crimes, compared to the total population rate of 7022 / 81M = 0.009%

Downplaying the issue is not helpful. On the other hand, it's not helpful either but actually dangerous to rubberstamp all refugees as sex offenders when only at most 0.06% of them committed a sex crime in 2015.

As pointed out already, there are many mitigating factors to put this into context.

[1] http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/2...

>>"Less than 1 percent of the total crimes committed by refugees are sex crimes"

That seems to mean something different than "less than 1 percent of total sex crimes are committed by refugees".

Precisely. These articles are full of Bayesian conceptual mistakes like this. It's going to be hard to prove anything without the source figures.

The original German article quoting the actual internal police paper is very clear that out of the "very low six digit figure" of total crimes committed by refugees, less than 1% of those "refugee crimes" were sex crimes.

It does not in any way state the what chunk out of the total sex crimes were committed by refugees, indeed.

How about you stop trying to interpret articles that try to interpret reports and instead go straight to the source aka the reports?

Here's the BKA report on "Crime in the context of migrant influx 1st Quarter of 2016": https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Themen/Siche...

That report also puts the number of "sexual assaults", out of all the crimes committed by migrants, at 1.10%.

But I wasn't contesting that at all? I was taking the number of 1.1%, quoted as purportedly "really low", and trying to extrapolate what the number of sexual assaults is among the population at large. Like my last paragraph says, that extrapolation is around 0.8%, still not enough to justify a title "refugees commit less crime than Germans". The report you linked doesn't help me at all, only providing an even larger number than I started with for migrant crimes.

In fact, the report just reaffirmed what I've already heard elsewhere - the vast majority of crimes come not from "Syrian refugees", but migrants from countries without a crisis that would lead to them seeking asylum. This has been a very common criticism of the "floodgate" approach to accepting all immigrants regardless of their ability to justify their refugee status.

>The report you linked doesn't help me at all, only providing an even larger number than I started with for migrant crimes.

The report is the only thing that actually matters in this context because it's the actual data. All your sources are just news-outlets trying to interpret data from sources they don't even share with the reader.

>but migrants from countries without a crisis that would lead to them seeking asylum

And half these countries are not even "Muslim countries", yet they are overrepresented in the crime rates, while people from countries like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are proportionally lower with their crime rates. Which goes straight against the common misconception of "It's their Islamic culture that makes them so criminal and incompatible to our culture!".

> This has been a very common criticism of the "floodgate" approach to accepting all immigrants regardless of their ability to justify their refugee status.

You first have to accept them to check if they actually qualify for refugee status, those that don't qualify don't get the status and thus have to leave the country.

How else would you want to handle this? Leave them all outside the border so they create their own communities, without any infrastructure or law enforcement? Do you seriously think creating these kinds of "slums" would be beneficial to anybody?

>You first have to accept them to check if they actually qualify for refugee status, those that don't qualify don't get the status and thus have to leave the country.

Then what? THEN they go back to the border and they create their own communities? How can you __actually__ make that many people leave?

>Do you seriously think creating these kinds of "slums" would be beneficial to anybody?

No, but the fact is these refugees are not able to contribute to the societies they come to in a meaningful way. For instance, in Germany only 1 in 10,000 refugees that arrived last year are employed. Is accepting a large quantity of people, most of whom do not have the kind of formal education required to be successful in a highly developed economy, beneficial to anybody? What's the end-game for this?

>Then what? THEN they go back to the border and they create their own communities? How can you __actually__ make that many people leave?

I never claimed the system is perfect because there is no perfect system for such complex problems.

>No, but the fact is these refugees are not able to contribute to the societies they come to in a meaningful way. For instance, in Germany only 1 in 10,000 refugees that arrived last year are employed.

That's because they are legally not allowed to work until their status has been cleared. It's not a matter of them "not wanting to work", it's a matter of not having the right status to work.

The other alternative, one that many populist right-wingers are advocating for, is forcing them to work even when their refugee status is still not cleared up.

But that would actually wreck havoc on labor wages because then you'd suddenly have created a whole new class of people that would work far below average wages just to "justify" their stay in the country. Do I really need to spell out what that would mean for the average low-income worker in the country? Average wages would be pushed even lower than they already are, which has already been a growing problem in Germany for over a decade.

There are no easy solutions to any of this, people who claim there are easy solutions are simply deluding themselves about the long-term ramifications of their solutions.

And no: Just "not letting them in" also ain't no solution, these people won't simply "disappear" just because you hide them behind big fences and walls.

No matter how you frame it, "globalizations" and freedom of movement has it's advantages and brings a lot of positive changes. As somebody who crossed the "Iron curtain" several times, when it still existed, I hardly wish those times back. It would be a step back for Europe and humanity as a whole. Fences and walls don't solve problems, they only compartmentalize them.

>I never claimed the system is perfect because there is no perfect system for such complex problems.

Agreed. But my real problem here is that there doesn't seem to be any sort of plan. There are many questions that need to be answered, among these:

1. Should a country accept refugees? If yes, how many?

2. Are these refugees permanent residents? If not, what is the timeline of their departure?

3. How do we integrate thousands of people with very diverse backgrounds into our system?

>That's because they are legally not allowed to work until their status has been cleared.

Finding concrete numbers on this issue is surprisingly difficult. I have found from a few different sources that only 13% of in-status refugees have found work. Again, there are real challenges in integrating refugees, and there is no clear plan for how this is to be accomplished.

>these people won't simply "disappear" just because you hide them behind big fences and walls.

Agreed, and something should be done to help them. But I think that the default shouldn't be to let them in. That's foolhardy, especially when governments don't have clear policy answering the questions that I have asked.

In the absence of a clear plan regarding the status of refugees, I can't help but feel that it is irresponsible to accept all. It will require real, concentrated efforts by a government to make a refugee system work in the interests of both refugees and citizens, although I agree that it is an effort worth making.

I respect your experiences with free movement. We agree that we don't desire for "iron curtains" to be re-established. Coming up with an approach to these problems that works is beyond my skill set -- I only hope to see that those who come up with possible systems are able to clearly articulate their details, strengths and weaknesses, and allow the people to make a choice from a selection of systems.

EDIT: I am also going to add that I am aware that some of these questions have definite legal answers, but given that there is so much turbulence and desire to modify existing legal systems that predate the current refugees-crisis, there is a lack of certainty and dialog regarding policy designed to face today's issues.

For context: thelocal is not a reliable newspaper, you shouldn't base your facts from their articles.