Newly released crime figures showing that foreign nationals — despite composing 15 percent of the population — made up a record 53 percent of suspects in Germany’s gang rape cases in 2025 have reopened a debate the political establishment has spent years trying to contain: the relationship between mass immigration, public safety and the protection of women.
Germany, according to FOCUS ONLINE, recorded 751 cases under the special statistical category used to identify rapes allegedly committed by more than one person. According to from the federal government’s response to an AfD parliamentary inquiry, hundreds of the identified suspects did not hold German citizenship.
574 non-German suspects, representing 53 percent of the total, while another account of the same government data listed 578. Either way, foreign nationals constituted a majority of suspects despite representing a minority of Germany’s population.
Among the foreign-national suspects, Syrians formed the largest group, with 110 identified by police. They were followed by 64 Afghans, 46 Iraqis and 44 Turkish citizens.
Around 80 percent of the victims reportedly held German citizenship. For critics of the country’s migration regime, that statistic has become impossible to separate from the wider question of who has paid the price for more than a decade of open-border politics.
The figures refer to suspects identified during police investigations — not people convicted in court. The government has also cautioned that “group rape” is not a distinct criminal offense or standardized category in the ordinary police statistics, but is produced through a special analysis of rape cases in which suspects were recorded as not acting alone.
Those distinctions matter in any serious reporting. But they do not make the underlying figures disappear, nor do they answer the political question now confronting Germany: why are foreign nationals so heavily represented among suspects in some of the country’s most brutal sexual crimes?
The AfD has demanded that authorities go further by recording not only citizenship but also migration background. The party argues that the present system increasingly conceals the full effects of immigration because naturalized offenders and dual citizens can simply appear as “German” in official crime statistics.
That issue has become more politically significant as Germany has accelerated naturalization. A foreign-born offender who acquires German citizenship does not cease to be counted as German merely because the crime may raise questions about integration, migration history or failed assimilation.
AfD lawmaker Stephan Brandner said the persistence of such offenses demonstrated a political and institutional failure. “Although the issue has been on the political agenda for years, there is clearly a lack of effective political and legal measures to prevent these crimes,” he said.
Brandner also pointed to figures indicating that 72 percent of suspects in solved cases were already known to police. “This demonstrates a blatant failure of the judiciary, security authorities and politics,” he said.
His prescription was equally direct: “This requires consistent prosecution, faster procedures, harsher sanctions and — in the case of foreign perpetrators — consistent termination of residence. Only in this way can women be effectively protected from such acts.”
For the German right, this represents common sense: foreigners who commit rape, serious sexual violence or other grave crimes should lose the privilege of remaining in Germany and face deportation after serving their sentence wherever the law permits.
The new statistics have emerged alongside an expanding investigation in Nuremberg that has deepened fears of organized sexual exploitation resembling the grooming scandals that scarred Britain. Police say vulnerable teenage girls were allegedly targeted around the city’s central railway station with attention, gifts and drugs before being exploited for sexual acts.
Bavarian authorities created the EKO Kajal investigative commission to pursue sexual crimes against girls and young women as well as the distribution of narcotics and medication to minors. The operation has continued to expand, with ten suspects held in pretrial detention by early July.
In one recent case, police alleged that a 21-year-old Syrian national raped two girls aged 15 and 18 in a Nuremberg apartment. Investigators also alleged that a 40-year-old Syrian man had given the girls narcotics the previous evening — accusations that remain unproven in court.
The pattern alleged by investigators is chillingly familiar. Men are accused of approaching vulnerable girls, gaining their trust with affection, clothing, cosmetics or other gifts, and then introducing some to hard drugs whose addictive power allegedly becomes a weapon of control.
Senior prosecutor Heike Klotzbücher described the alleged method starkly: men gain the girls’ confidence “with gifts and drugs,” and once addiction takes hold, “sexual acts are demanded in return.” It is the language not of isolated street crime, but of systematic exploitation.
Emma Schubart, a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, said the Nuremberg allegations bear troubling similarities to Britain’s grooming-gang scandals. “It’s a severe failure in both countries,” she said, arguing that ineffective migrant screening is followed by equally ineffective integration.
“The first step that both authorities in the U.K. and in Germany really are not doing is screening migrants effectively,” Schubart said. “But then, once the migrants are already here, the integration policy is completely lacking.”
She also rejected the comfortable establishment defense that socioeconomic deprivation alone explains disparities in sexual offending. “Socioeconomic factors matter, but they absolutely do not fully explain the disparities,” she said.
Britain has already shown where institutional cowardice can lead. In Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Oxford and other towns, official investigations found that police, councils and social workers repeatedly failed vulnerable girls while fears over “community relations” helped create a culture of hesitation and silence.
Baroness Louise Casey’s 2025 national audit found that inconsistent definitions and poor ethnicity data made it impossible to establish the full national scale of group-based child sexual exploitation. Yet it also found disproportionate representation of Pakistani-heritage suspects in some local datasets and cases — a reality that could no longer simply be wished away.
Germany now faces its own test. Will its leaders confront uncomfortable evidence honestly, or will they once again retreat behind euphemisms, accusations of xenophobia and statistical technicalities while women and girls are left to bear the consequences?
Alice Weidel brought that question directly to the Bundestag when she spoke about the Nuremberg allegations and the consequences of migration policy for internal security. “Violent, sexual and crude offenses are not ‘cold statistics,’ but daily companions of fear and ‘concern for our children,’” the AfD leader said.
AfD co-leader @Alice_Weidel asks German MPs, “What have you done to our country?” after exposing the migrant grooming gangs taking underage German girls as sex slaves in Nuremberg.
She’s met with laughter from politicians of the legacy parties. pic.twitter.com/uR9NfEScSt
— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) June 11, 2026
According to the official parliamentary record cited in the reporting, laughter and heckling could be heard as Weidel described allegations that underage girls had been driven into drug dependency and sexual exploitation. For many Germans, that reaction symbolized the moral bankruptcy of a political class more eager to mock the messenger than confront the victims’ reality.
There are competing interpretations of the broader relationship between immigration and crime. Germany’s ifo in 2025 that its district-level analysis from 2018 to 2023 found no correlation between a rising foreign population and overall local crime rates, with researchers pointing to age, sex, urban concentration and other demographic factors.
But general crime rates do not erase specific overrepresentation in particular offenses. Nor does stating that most migrants are not criminals answer the legitimate public concern raised when foreign nationals repeatedly appear at disproportionate levels in some categories of violent or sexual crime.
The right-wing argument is therefore not one of collective guilt. It is that Germany has a duty to distinguish between peaceful immigrants and foreign criminals — and that the latter should not be protected by an ideological immigration system that places endless procedural obstacles between serious offenders and deportation.
The failure goes beyond individual crimes. Germany’s globalist establishment spent years insisting that borders were obsolete, mass migration was an unquestionable good and anyone demanding deportations or remigration stood outside respectable political debate.
That consensus is now breaking down under the weight of reality. Women do not become safer because politicians refuse to mention nationality, and children are not protected by pretending that every discussion of migration-related criminality is itself a greater moral offense than the crime being discussed.
For the AfD and the broader remigration right, the answer is increasingly clear: secure the borders, end mass asylum abuse, deport foreign serious offenders, reverse failed settlement patterns and restore the principle that Germany exists first and foremost to protect its own citizens.
Remigration, in that sense, is not collective punishment and should not be treated as such. It is the lawful removal of foreign criminals and those without a right to remain, combined with a broader reversal of migration policies that have produced parallel societies, integration failures and an intolerable public-safety burden.
The central question is no longer whether mass immigration has consequences. It is how much more evidence the German people are expected to endure before their government finally puts their safety, their daughters and their country first.
