Tag Archives: Immigration

Signs of the time: Fake U.S. immigration control posters found in Washington

Fake government flyers urging Washington residents to turn in illegal immigrants, which city and federal officials denounced as inciting fear, are posted in Washington, U.S. June 1, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

By Ian Simpson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Residents of at least one Washington D.C. neighborhood woke up on Thursday to find the area plastered with posters urging them to turn in illegal immigrants, but federal authorities denied putting up the signs and denounced them as inciting fear.

The bogus posters bearing the seal of the Department of Homeland Security warned about criminal offenses related to harboring or helping people in the country illegally, and gave phone numbers to report information about them to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“If you see something, say something,” said the flyer, titled “Sanctuary City Neighborhood Public Notice” and written on the ICE letterhead.

Washington is among dozens of so-called sanctuary cities that offer safe haven to illegal immigrants, and local police are under orders not to cooperate with federal authorities seeking to deport residents. An attempt by the administration of President Donald Trump to cut off federal funds to sanctuary cities has been blocked by a court.

Mayor Muriel Bowser said on Twitter that the posters were aimed at scaring residents of the heavily Democratic city and that she had ordered police and the Public Works Department to remove them.

“Tear it down! DC is a sanctuary city,” she said.

Carissa Cutrell, an ICE spokeswoman, said the agency had not put up the posters and called them dangerous and irresponsible.

“Any person who actively incites panic or fear of law enforcement is doing a disservice to the community, endangering public safety and the very people they claim to support and represent,” she said in an email.

Cutrell said she had no information about who might have put up the posters or whether the number of telephone calls to her agency had increased.

(Reporting by Ian Simpson in Washington and by Jonathan Allen in New York; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Trump administration approves tougher visa vetting, including social media checks

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection arm patch and badge

By Yeganeh Torbati

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Trump administration has rolled out a new questionnaire for U.S. visa applicants worldwide that asks for social media handles for the last five years and biographical information going back 15 years.

The new questions, part of an effort to tighten vetting of would-be visitors to the United States, was approved on May 23 by the Office of Management and Budget despite criticism from a range of education officials and academic groups during a public comment period.

Critics argued that the new questions would be overly burdensome, lead to long delays in processing and discourage international students and scientists from coming to the United States.

Under the new procedures, consular officials can request all prior passport numbers, five years’ worth of social media handles, email addresses and phone numbers and 15 years of biographical information including addresses, employment and travel history.

Officials will request the additional information when they determine “that such information is required to confirm identity or conduct more rigorous national security vetting,” a State Department official said on Wednesday.

The State Department said earlier the tighter vetting would apply to visa applicants “who have been determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities.”

President Donald Trump has vowed to increase national security and border protections, proposing to give more money to the military and make Mexico pay to build a wall along the southern U.S. border.

He has tried to implement a temporary travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority nations that a U.S. appeals court refused to reinstate, calling it discriminatory and setting the stage for a showdown in the Supreme Court.

The Office of Management and Budget granted emergency approval for the new questions for six months, rather than the usual three years.

While the new questions are voluntary, the form says failure to provide the information may delay or prevent the processing of an individual visa application.

Immigration lawyers and advocates say the request for 15 years of detailed biographical information, as well as the expectation that applicants remember all their social media handles, is likely to catch applicants who make innocent mistakes or do not remember all the information requested.

The new questions grant “arbitrary power” to consular officials to determine who gets a visa with no effective check on their decisions, said Babak Yousefzadeh, a San Francisco-based attorney and president of the Iranian American Bar Association.

“The United States has one of the most stringent visa application processes in the world,” Yousefzadeh said. “The need for tightening the application process further is really unknown and unclear.”

(Editing by Sue Horton and Lisa Shumaker)

In Texas legislature, tempers flare over immigration crackdown

By Alex Dobuzinskis

(Reuters) – Tensions between Republicans and Democrats boiled over on the floor of the Texas Legislature on Monday as protesters filled the gallery on the last day of the session to denounce a new law cracking down on cities giving sanctuary to illegal immigrants.

With the state House of Representatives in Austin preparing to adjourn, a bystander’s video showed one lawmaker appearing to shove a colleague as about a dozen others rushed together in an angry clutch before tempers cooled and the two sides separated.

Afterward, one of the legislators at the center of the confrontation said in a statement on Facebook that he was physically assaulted by a Democratic colleague while a second Democrat threatened his life.

Republican Matt Rinaldi’s statement said this occurred after he told Democratic lawmakers that he had tipped off federal agents about defiant protesters who were holding signs declaring their illegal immigration status.

Rinaldi did not immediately return calls or emails seeking further comment.

The incident highlights the raw emotions stirred by Republican efforts to put Texas in line with the priority that President Donald Trump has given to combating illegal immigration. Democrats, mostly representing urban centers that have defied federal policy, have condemned the crackdown.

Texas, which has an estimated 1.5 million illegal immigrants and the longest border with Mexico of any U.S. state, has been at the forefront of the immigration debate.

A bill, which both chambers of the Republican-dominated legislature approved on party-line votes and Governor Greg Abbott signed into law on May 7, aims to punish local authorities who fail to honor requests to turn over suspected illegal immigrants to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

It also allows police to ask people about their immigration status during a lawful detention, even for minor infractions like jay-walking.

Democrats have warned that the Texas law could lead to unconstitutional racial profiling. Civil rights groups have promised to fight it in court.

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles, Editing by Frank McGurty and Dan Grebler)

Up to 600,000 immigrants in U.S. South may have path to legal status: analysis

FILE PHOTO: People are taken into custody by the U.S. Border Patrol near Falfurrias, Texas, U.S., on March 29, 2013. REUTERS/Eric Thayer/File Photo

By Alex Dobuzinskis

(Reuters) – As many as 600,000 illegal immigrants in several U.S. states could have a path to legally remain in the country, according to an analysis released on Thursday by a legal aid group.

A statistical review of immigrant screenings done by Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) determined that around 15 percent of the 4 million illegal immigrants in seven southern U.S. states had grounds to apply for legal status based on fears of persecution in their homeland, family ties or other factors.

The percentage of the 11 million illegal immigrants across the country who might be eligible to stay in the United States could be even higher, according to University of California at San Diego political scientist Tom Wong, who conducted the analysis for CLINIC.

“As we ramp up immigration enforcement in the United States, we should take this figure and remind ourselves that we shouldn’t deport first and then ask questions,” Wong said in a telephone interview.

His analysis supports the contention by immigrant rights groups that with assistance from lawyers, significant numbers of illegal immigrants could be allowed to remain in the United States.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Danielle Bennett said the agency could delay a deportation if an immigrant has a pending appeal or application for legal status.

“Before carrying out a removal, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducts a thorough review of each case to determine whether there are any reasons the removal order issued by the immigration court should not be executed at that time,” she said in an email.

President Donald Trump’s administration has warned that the vast majority of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States could be subject to deportation.

CLINIC, one of the largest U.S. providers of legal aid to immigrants, and its affiliates interviewed more than 2,700 immigrants in seven southern states, including Florida, Georgia, Virginia and Texas.

The largest portion of those screened who might attain legal status were those who had a credible fear of persecution in their home country that could form the basis for an asylum claim.

But a majority of applications for U.S. asylum are denied.

Other categories included victims of serious crimes, such as domestic violence or extortion, who cooperated with law enforcement, and immigrants with family ties to U.S. citizens.

“There isn’t a line for a person to get legal status in the country,” said Sarah Pierce, an analyst with the Migration Policy Institute. “There’s a bunch of small pigeon-hole categories. So the first step is to see if someone fits into one of those categories.”

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles and Sharon Bernstein in Sacramento; editing by Patrick Enright, G Crosse)

Exclusive: U.S. starts ‘extreme vetting’ at Australia’s offshore detention centers

An undated handout image from Amnesty International claiming to show the view of inside the living quarters at the country's Australian-run detention centre on the Pacific island nation of Nauru. Amnesty International/Handout via REUTERS

By Colin Packham

SYDNEY (Reuters) – U.S. Homeland Security officials have begun “extreme vetting” interviews at Australia’s offshore detention centers, two sources at the camps told Reuters on Tuesday, as Washington honors a refugee swap that U.S. President Donald Trump had called “a dumb deal”.

The Trump administration said last month the agreement to offer refuge to up to 1,250 asylum seekers in the centers would progress on condition that refugees satisfied strict checks.

In exchange, Australia has pledged to take Central American refugees from a center in Costa Rica, where the United States has expanded intake in recent years, under the deal struck with former President Barack Obama.

The first security interviews finished last week at Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island detention center, two refugees who went through the process told Reuters.

The refugees told Reuters that interviews began with an oath to God to tell the truth and then proceeded for as long as six hours, with in-depth questions on associates, family, friends and any interactions with the Islamic State militant group.

“They asked about why I fled my home, why I sought asylum in Australia,” said one refugee who declined to be named, fearing it could jeopardize his application for U.S. resettlement.

The security interviews are the last stage of U.S. consideration of applicants.

Manus Island is one of two Australian-operated detention centers, which hold nearly 1,300 people who were intercepted trying to reach Australia by boat.

Human rights groups have condemned the intercept policy and the harsh conditions of the camps. Australia says offshore processing is needed as a deterrent after thousands of people drowned at sea before the policy was introduced in 2013.

A decision on the fate of the first 70 people interviewed is expected to be reached within the next month, a different source who works with refugees said.

A spokesman for Australia’s immigration minister refused to comment on the resettlement process.

The U.S. State Department and White House did not immediately respond to questions.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s plans for extreme vetting have extended to those traveling to the United States from Muslim countries.

Australia’s relationship with the new administration in Washington got off to a rocky start when Trump lambasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over the resettlement arrangement, which Trump labeled a “dumb deal”.

Details of an acrimonious phone call between the pair soon after Trump took office made headlines around the world. Australia is one of Washington’s staunchest allies and has sent troops to fight alongside the U.S. military in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The relocation of asylum seekers to the United States is designed to help Papua New Guinea and Australia proceed with the planned closure of the Manus detention center on Oct. 31.

But the fate of approximately 200 men deemed non-refugees is uncertain.

Those not offered resettlement in the United States will be offered the chance to settle in Papua New Guinea or return home.

Australia has already offered detainees up to $25,000 to voluntarily return home; an offer very few have taken up.

(Reporting by Colin Packham; Editing by Bill Tarrant)

U.S. immigration arrests up nearly 40 percent under Trump

President Donald Trump gestures as he addresses the graduating class of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy during commencement ceremonies in New London, Connecticut, U.S. May 17, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

By Mica Rosenberg

NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. arrests of suspected illegal immigrants rose by nearly 40 percent in the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency, following executive orders that broadened the scope of who could be targeted for immigration violations, according to government data released on Wednesday.

The acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Thomas Homan said that arrests by his agency jumped to 41,318 between January 22 of this year and the end of April, up from 30,028 arrests in roughly the same period last year.

Of those arrested almost two-thirds had criminal convictions. But there was also a significant jump – of more than 150 percent – in the number of immigrants not convicted of further crimes arrested by ICE: 10,800 since the beginning of the year compared to 4,200 non-criminal arrests in the same period in 2016.

That increase is a result of recent guidance given by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to implement Trump’s executive orders on interior immigration enforcement and border security signed on Jan. 25, just days after the Republican president took office.

“Those that enter the country illegally, they do violate the law, that is a criminal act,” Homan said on the call, while emphasizing that immigrants who pose a threat to national security or have criminal records are still a priority for the agency.

He said ICE will continue to target people who have been issued a final order of removal by an immigration judge even if they have not committed another crime.

“When a federal judge makes a decision and issues an order that order needs to mean something,” Homan said. “If we don’t take action on those orders, then we are just spinning our wheels.”

While President Barack Obama was also criticized for deporting a large number of immigrants, most of them were recent border crossers apprehended entering the country illegally.

Deportations under Trump have actually fallen by 12 percent compared to the same period under Obama, Homan said, as more people arrested in the interior typically have more complicated cases that can get slowed down in the backlogged immigration court system.

The number of people caught crossing the border with Mexico is down significantly since the begin of the year, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Immigration advocates and some cities with large immigrant populations have raised concerns about the stepped up enforcement in the interior of the country.

On Wednesday, state attorneys general from New York, California, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington state and Washington D.C., issued a report laying out why they have chosen to limit local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration agents.

A section of one of the president’s executive orders aimed to cut off federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities,” was been blocked by a federal judge in California.

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg and Julia Edwards Ainsely; Editing by Alistair Bell)

Life in California’s largest United States immigration detention center

An ICE detainee rests his hands on the window of his cell in the segregation wing at the Adelanto immigration detention center, which is run by the Geo Group Inc (GEO.N), in Adelanto, California, U.S.,

By Lucy Nicholson

ADELANTO, California (Reuters) – Roberto Galan, 33, paid a trafficker $3,000 to smuggle him into the United States from El Salvador for the first time as a teenager in 1997.

Since then, he has been deported twice but has returned each time.

Now he is once again in deportation proceedings, being held at the Adelanto Detention Facility near San Bernardino, California, along with more than 1,800 other immigrants awaiting hearings or deportation after being arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

Galan, who has convictions in California for selling marijuana and possession of a firearm, wears a red outfit at Adelanto, showing he is a “high risk” detainee, one who has committed a serious offense and spent time in state or federal prison. Others wear blue, signifying they have no criminal convictions or very minor misdemeanors on their record, or orange, which denotes a more serious crime but not a felony.

“I don’t want them to deport me … I want to stay in the United States with my family,” Galan said at the center where he has been in custody for 20 months. Galan’s mother, wife and two young children live in the United States legally.

“They feel bad because we want to live together.”

Galan expects a decision on his latest appeal this month.

“I see people trying to stay here, fight their case for two, three, four years, more than four years, and then (they are) denied everything,” he said of the center, the largest immigration detention facility in the state.

After taking office in January, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on border security that, among other measures, called for promptly deporting illegal immigrants after their apprehension, and keeping them in custody until that can be arranged.

A razor wire fence rings Adelanto, which is run by Geo Group Inc, a Florida-based company that owns, leases and manages correctional and detention facilities.

At the facility, some of the detainees could be seen chatting over meals of rice and refried beans, while others sat alone in silence. Two men shared a pair of headphones to watch television, and others played dominoes.

About 240 of the detainees at Adelanto are women. In their dormitory, one curled up on a bed reading a novel while another folded clothes. Two of the women read news reports about a hunger strike at an immigration center in Tacoma, Washington, 1,000 miles to the north.

Adelanto detainees have access to an on-site law library, a medical clinic, religious services, and a recreation area where they can play soccer and basketball. In the center’s visiting area, a large world map hangs on a wall.

The detention facility also has six courtrooms where federal immigration judges conduct removal hearings in person or by video link.

David Marin, a senior ICE official based in Los Angeles, said little had changed in day-to-day operations at Adelanto since Trump took office.

“There have not been any major changes since the change in administration,” Marin said. “We are still focusing on arresting criminal aliens. That’s our commitment to public safety.”

(Reporting by Lucy Nicholson; Writing by Daniel Wallis)

Asylum-seekers fleeing U.S. may find cold comfort in Canada’s courts

FILE PHOTO: A woman who told police that she and her family were from Sudan is taken into custody by Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers after arriving by taxi and walking across the U.S.-Canada border into Hemmingford, Quebec, Canada on February 12, 2017. REUTERS/Christinne Muschi/File Photo

By Anna Mehler Paperny and Rod Nickel

TORONTO/WINNIPEG, Manitoba (Reuters) – Migrants who applied for asylum in the United States but then fled north, fearing they would be swept up in President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, may have miscalculated in viewing Canada as a safe haven.

That is because their time in the United States could count against them when they apply for asylum in Canada, according to a Reuters review of Canadian federal court rulings on asylum seekers and interviews with refugee lawyers.

In 2016, 160 asylum cases came to the federal courts after being rejected by refugee tribunals. Of those, 33 had been rejected in part because the applicants had spent time in the United States, the Reuters review found.

Lawyers said there could be many more such cases among the thousands of applicants who were rejected by the tribunals in the same period but did not appeal to the federal courts.

The 2016 court rulings underscore the potentially precarious legal situation now facing many of the nearly 2,000 people who have crossed illegally into Canada since January.

Most of those border crossers had been living legally in the United States, including people awaiting the outcome of U.S. asylum applications, according to Canadian and U.S. government officials and Reuters interviews with dozens of migrants.

Trump’s tough talk on illegal immigration, however, spurred them northward to Canada, whose government they viewed as more welcoming to migrants. There, they have begun applying for asylum, citing continued fears of persecution or violence in their homelands, including Somalia and Eritrea.

But Canadian refugee tribunals are wary of “asylum-shopping” and look askance at people coming from one of the world’s richest countries to file claims, the refugee lawyers said. (For graphic on asylum process see http://tmsnrt.rs/2nyY8CJ)

“Abandoning a claim in the United States or coming to Canada after a negative decision in the United States, or failing to claim and remaining in the States for a long period of time – those are all big negatives. Big, big negatives,” said Toronto-based legal aid lawyer Anthony Navaneelan, who is representing applicants who came to Canada from the United States in recent months.

The Canadian government has not given a precise figure on how many of the border crossers were asylum seekers in the United States.

But it appears their fears may have been misplaced. Trump’s attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has said that anyone in the United States illegally is subject to deportation, but there is no evidence that asylum seekers with pending cases are considered illegal under the new administration.

“LACK OF SERIOUSNESS”

The asylum seekers will make their cases before Canada’s refugee tribunals, which rejected 5,000 cases last year. The tribunals’ decisions are not made public, so the reasons are not known. An Immigration and Refugee Board spokeswoman confirmed, however, that an applicant’s time in the United States can be a factor in a tribunal’s decision.

Rejected applicants can appeal to Canada’s federal courts, whose rulings are published. The federal courts upheld 19 of the 33 tribunal rejections they heard last year and recommended fresh tribunal hearings for the other 14 cases.

The judges believed those claimants had a good explanation for having been in the United States first. The outcomes of the new tribunal hearings are not known.

The federal court handles only a small portion of all applications rejected by the refugee tribunals. But overall, applicants who have spent time in the United States have a higher chance of being rejected, said multiple immigration lawyers, including two former refugee tribunal counsel, interviewed by Reuters.

Last year, a federal judge upheld a refugee tribunal rejection of Sri Lankan man who had abandoned a pending U.S. claim. The tribunal said the man’s decision demonstrated a “lack of seriousness” and was “inconsistent with the expected behavior” of someone who fears persecution in their own country.

A Chadian applicant lost his 2016 appeal because he did not claim asylum “at the first opportunity” in the United States.

The asylum-seekers who have crossed the U.S border since January are still going through the claim process and many have yet to go through tribunal hearings.

WELL-FOUNDED FEAR?

Canadian officials want refugee applicants to behave the way they think people fleeing for their lives would behave, said lawyer and researcher Hilary Evans Cameron. Living undocumented in the United States for years or abandoning a pending claim, as many people among this latest refugee influx have done, are not seen as consistent with that fear, she said.

Those with failed U.S. asylum claims must prove to Canadian tribunals that the U.S. courts were wrong in their assessment, that their circumstances have changed for the worse, or that they qualify in Canada, several lawyers said.

Crucially, all applicants must show that the often years-old fears that led them to leave their home countries for the United States still exist.

Canada grants asylum if applicants qualify under the United Nations’ definition of someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution based on certain criteria, such as race, religion, nationality or political affiliation.

A federal judge ruled in March that the deportation of a Honduran family, who had lived in the United States for more than three years, could go forward after immigration officials found the family no longer faced a risk in Honduras.

“The longer they’ve been away (from their country of origin), the more difficult it is to establish that they’re a refugee,” said Winnipeg refugee lawyer Ken Zaifman.

Graphic on asylum process http://tmsnrt.rs/2nyY8CJ

(Additional reporting by Julia Edwards Ainsley in Washington; Editing by Amran Abocar and Ross Colvin)

Trump slams federal court ruling on funding for ‘sanctuary cities’

People participate in a protest against President Donald Trump's travel ban, in New York City, U.S. January 29, 2017. REUTERS/Stephanie Keith

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump on Wednesday attacked a federal judge’s ruling that blocked his executive order seeking to withhold funds from “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants, vowing to appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tuesday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco was the latest blow to Trump’s efforts to toughen immigration enforcement. Federal courts have also blocked his two travel bans on citizens of mostly Muslim nations.

“First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!” Trump said in a tweet, referring to the San Francisco-based federal appeals court and its judicial district.

The Trump administration has targeted sanctuary cities, which generally offer safe harbor to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Critics say authorities endanger public safety when they decline to hand over for deportation illegal immigrants arrested for crimes, while supporters argue that enlisting police cooperation to round up immigrants for removal undermines trust in local police, particularly among Latinos.

Dozens of local governments and cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, have joined the “sanctuary” movement.

In his ruling, Orrick said Trump’s Jan. 25 order targeted broad categories of federal funding for the sanctuary cities and that plaintiffs challenging it were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.

An appeal is likely to be heard by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before it goes to the Supreme Court. Republicans view the appeals court as biased toward liberals, and Trump was quick to attack its reputation in his tweets.

It “has a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80%). They used to call this “judge shopping!” Messy system,” he wrote.

The appeals court raised Trump’s ire earlier this year when it upheld a Seattle judge’s decision to block the Republican president’s first travel ban on citizens of seven predominantly Muslim nations.

In May, the court will hear an appeal of a Hawaii judge’s order blocking Trump’s revised travel ban, which placed restrictions on citizens from six mostly Muslim countries. A Maryland judge also blocked portions of the second ban.

Trump has issued sweeping condemnations of courts and judges when they have ruled against him or his administration.

In February, he called the federal judge in Seattle who ruled against his first travel ban a “so-called judge.” During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump accused an Indiana-born judge overseeing lawsuits against the defunct Trump University of bias based on his Mexican ancestry.

(Reporting by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Paul Simao)

Number of migrant criminal suspects in Germany surged in 2016

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere (R) and his Saxony state counterpart Markus Ulbig present the German crime statistics for 2016 during a news conference in Berlin, Germany

BERLIN (Reuters) – The number of migrant criminal suspects in Germany soared by more than 50 percent in 2016, data from the Interior Ministry showed on Monday – a statistic that could boost support for the anti-immigration party five months ahead of a federal election.

More than a million migrants have arrived in Germany in the last two years. Fears about security and integration initially pushed up the poll ratings of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD), but the party’s support has slipped as the rate of arrivals has slowed.

The number of suspects classed as immigrants – those applying for asylum, refugees, illegal immigrants and those whose deportation has been temporarily suspended – rose to 174,438, 52.7 percent more than the previous year.

The number of German suspects declined by 3.4 percent to 1,407,062.

Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said crimes committed by refugees had “increased disproportionately” last year and warned: “Those who commit serious offences here forfeit their right to stay here.”

But he said some migrants committed multiple offences, distorting the statistics, and that most migrants lived peacefully and obeyed German law.

Migrants accounted for 8.6 percent of all crime suspects in Germany in 2016, up from 5.7 percent the previous year.

De Maiziere said one reason for the high crime rate among migrants was likely to be their accommodation situation. In 2016 many were living in makeshift shelters or sharing crowded rooms.

The number of attacks on refugee homes has declined for the first time since data started being collected in 2014. Some 995 were carried out in 2016, compared with 1,031 the previous year.

Crimes motivated by Islamism increased by 13.7 percent, the report showed. In December a failed Tunisian asylum seeker who had pledged allegiance to Islamic State drove a truck into a Berlin Christmas market, killing 12 people.

(Reporting by Michelle Martin; editing by Andrew Roche)