Comparing the frequency of criminal acts between different demographics or focusing on the individual perpetrators can be very insightful, but also very misleading if not supplemented with other perspectives and facts.
A lot of the extreme antisocial behaviour that has been perpetrated by first or second generation immigrants is often surplus.
That is to say that with the attacks e.g. now most recently in Paris, we cannot realistically assume that some ethnic French people saw the attacks and said "damn, we cannot go on our killing spree now after all this happened", such that we get 130 - 130 = 0 extra deaths relative to a zero-immigration scenario. Nor do we have much of a reason to assume that if no Muslim had ever migrated to France, native French would have come up with a reason to massacre 130 people that they can not come up with now (note how frequent school shootings are in the US despite the significant amount of interethnic violence present in the country).
We cannot realistically assume, either, that 130 people would have died instead in other events in France if the Paris attacks had not happened. Those 130 deaths are very likely an unwelcome bonus.
Rather, we tend to get a double whammy where we also have natives attacking immigrants or people who support massive immigration; so we do not only have to worry about excess violence from radical immigrants, but also from radical natives.
As for the attacks in Köln, these kind of public incidents are extremely rare in the West nowadays, AFAIK; certainly so given the scale. So as far as public sexual assaults go, there is much reason to believe that these attacks are in excess as well.
IIRC, most sexual assaults do not happen in public; but the recent perpetrators in Köln may well be repeat offenders who also commit similar crimes more privately (or, equivalently, they only carried out the attacks because the women were outgroup); such that in sum we may still end up with a surplus of antisocial behaviour here thanks to immigration.
Bookmarks