Probably the biggest migrant story of the past few days was the news that German authorities had seized six residential properties from citizens of Hamburg to house foreign migrants.
Similar expropriation has been attempted in the past in other parts of the country such as Berlin, but has always been stopped in it’s tracks due to being deemed unconstitutional.
Not only have the property rights of Germans been flouted, but they are being made to pay for the renovation of the seized properties prior to use by the state, according to the Gatestone Institute:
“A trustee appointed by the city is now renovating the properties and will rent them — against the will of the owner — to tenants chosen by the city. District spokeswoman Sorina Weiland said that all renovation costs will be billed to the owner of the properties.”
The article goes on to add that the German state has been seizing commercial properties for two years, but only recently have they begun targeting private citizens in this way.
This activity is sanctioned by modifications to Hamburg law dating back to 2013.
“The expropriation is authorized by the Hamburg Housing Protection Act (Hamburger Wohnraumschutzgesetz), a 1982 law that was updated by the city’s Socialist government in May 2013 to enable the city to seize any residential property unit that has been vacant for more than four months.”
Less than 1% of Hamburg properties are estimated to fall within the legal parameters required for confiscation – nonetheless, it is a disturbing development that European governments are now taking from their own people to give to opportunists (6 of 10 migrants in Germany have no legitimate claim to refugee status).
This is certainly one surefire way to legitimise accusations of demographic replacement.
Hamburg Free Democrats (FDP) leader Katja Suding added that “such coercive measures will only fuel resentment against refugees.”
This news has reignited fears over talk in 2015 of awarding German police the right to forcibly enter private properties to assess their suitability for housing migrants.
These plans were thwarted by Berlin FDP two years ago, and prior to the party warning of the constitutional contradictions therein, the plans had remained shrouded from the public by the German Senate.
Property seizures have taken place in Italy also – watch this elderly hotel owner attempt to prevent security services from moving a bus of migrants into his establishment.
Elsewhere in Germany, a court has decided that a migrant man who has been resisting deportation for 13 years following refusal of asylum in 2004 should only be provided with necessities, and should have his welfare removed.
During his time in Germany, the Cameroonian leech has avoided being sent home by refusing to cooperate with German authorities or speak to the Cameroonian embassy.
According to Deutsche Welle, there have been 19 attempts to have the migrant in question sign the paperwork required to acquire him a passport and send him on his way – on all occasions the man has resisted.
As a consequence, the welfare allowance afforded to the man has been gradually reduced and will now no longer be paid to him – instead he will only have access to food stamps and vouchers for accommodation.
The man took the matter to the Federal Social Welfare Court this year and demanded to be paid – his demands were met with rejection, just as his asylum request was so many years ago!
This may have set an important precedent, paving the way to a sanction system and some protection for the tax paying public against those who would dearly like to live comfortably at their expense:
“While the decision is not binding for all courts in Germany, it will likely serve as a guideline for similar cases in the future. German activists say that each of Germany’s 16 states currently has its own rules on sanctioning rejected asylum seekers.”
Sweden (that utopia of free speech) has sunk to a new low in the enforcement of the country’s questionable ‘hate crime’ laws.
Reportedly, a 70-year-old native woman is to be prosecuted for ‘hate speech’ for a Facebook post in which she mentioned crimes being committed outside her house at the time of writing.
It is fair to say that when witnessing a person defecating in the street and setting fire to cars (as this witness did), most people would take to social media to make friends and family aware.
However, since the culprits were migrants, the Facebook post in question is to be considered a criminal offence.
The Fria Tider article noted that “the penalty is imprisonment for a maximum of two years” – which is notably more than a number of migrant rapists have received for their crimes in recent months.
It was also publicised this week that the Stockholm attacker (and illegal alien) Rakhmat Akilov is suspected to have had links to a jihadist network within Sweden.
Examination of the terrorist’s social media activity leading up to the atrocity revealed that a number of contacts involved in the spread of propaganda among migrants lived in the country.
According to The Local, the terrorist also had accessed an Uzbek extremist training website (showing the construction and use of weapons and explosives), and propaganda by the degenerate Abu Saloh – the leader of an Uzbek terror group operating in Syria with ties to Al-Qaeda.
The investigation into the Stockholm truck attack, which took place on April 7 and killed 11-year-old Swede Ebba Akerlund along with multiple others – is ongoing.
Ebba was 11 and hearing impaired – she was dismembered on impact during the truck attack in Stockholm last month.
Remaining in Sweden, the country’s Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson has admitted that the number of migrants being accepted are to have a grave impact on the Swedish economy.
In three years time, an expected deficit of £3.5 billion is due to hit public services in Sweden.
This means that the Scandinavian nation is going to be making some big cuts to it’s famous health service and other public luxuries.
“It is quite obvious that we have big problems.”
60,343 new arrivals (mostly from Somalia) were granted citizenship last year, and population growth at this level is only to be expected to come with consequences.
All this after the country’s National Audit Office announced last November that it believes the government “underestimates public spending”.
Many migrants pretend to be Christian so as to claim asylum because of religious persecution.
However, the population problem has done nothing to halt the barrage of criticism to rain down upon the Swedish Migration Agency for questioning migrants on Christianity to test their claims of being converts – according to one lawyer, the Biblical knowledge queries “are not relevant and are far too complicated.”
These religious test were given to those claiming to have faced religious persecution in their home countries, yet a number of lawyers and church officials have come out in protest of such tests.
According to The Local:
“Some Swedish parishes have begun preparing handbooks of facts aimed at asylum seekers in order to assist them.”
A group of pro-migrant protesters kicked down fences and made a nuisance of themselves at the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre in Bedfordshire last weekend.
The groups shouted the sort of obtuse slogans now well associated with their ilk: ‘no human is illegal’,’migrant sex workers welcome’ and ‘queers against borders’.
They also carried signs bearing the slogan ‘no racist deportations’ – apparently enforcing British border laws amounts to racism now.
The Green Party had organised the demonstration – presumably one of their campaign promises this election will be to grant asylum to those who have no real need of (or claim to) it, such as those held within the Removal Centre awaiting deportation.
Green Party activists think that deporting fraudulent asylum seekers is racist.
On a more serious note, last Sunday a caller to LBC Radio shared the story of her rape with host Katie Hopkins – and how the crimes were covered up by police at the time.
The Rotherham woman, Emma explained that she was raped when she was just 13-years-old by Pakistani men (during the reign of the now infamous Rotherham Muslim rape gang).
According to her account, Emma reported her abuse 14 years ago, but upon mentioning the names of the perpetrators was made to feel like a racist for reporting the disgusting crimes:
“I sat and gave video interviews with the police, I was willing to work with them. I never once looked at my perpetrators for what race or religion they were. But as soon as I said the names, I was made to feel as though I was racist and I was the one who had the problem.”
During the interview Emma explained how she had been groomed and repeatedly raped by the men, and that she had been blackmailed into silence for fear that her mother would be gang raped if she were to report her abuse.
Once Emma had finally told her parents about what was happening to her and subsequently been demonised and rejected by the police, their last and only resort was to leave the country.
“Nobody wanted to stop it, and that was the only way they could stop it.”
Emma told Katie Hopkins that she had been groomed, raped and blackmailed by the Rotherham Pakistani gang.
Emma says that numerous police and social service workers asked her not to comment on the ethnicity of her rapists at the time.
Sadly this is not an uncommon tale among the victims of the Rotherham rape gangs.
For a period of 30 years beginning in the 1980’s, the systematic sexual abuse of English girls at the hands of Pakistani Muslim men went almost entirely unchallenged.
Eventually, over twenty-five arrests were made in relation to crimes which affected at least 14,00 under age girls.
The period has become a shameful blemish on the public service ‘professionals’ (I use the term loosely) who failed those young women.
But hey, ‘refugees welcome’ right?