Good morning everyone. Just wrote a long post but lost it so apologies if it appears again. I have only skimmed thread since last night so far, so don't know if this has been addressed:
The more this becomes about immigration and not about women
This is a untenable position because this argument strips away the important inter-related aspects of the context of the incident, and the posters on this thread have rightly recognised this. The reason why it's untenable is because by splitting the incident into discrete, stand-alone parts, it becomes very easy to disengage from or render as unimportant some aspects of the incident over others. Although some feminisms get a short shrift on these boards, feminists have long drawn attention to this in relation to many behaviours. If you shift the debate, in this case (and obviously, different aspects are differentially important at different times) from 'crime of sexual assault, gender, immigration, ethnicity' to 'crime of sexual assault', then, by focusing only on the crime aspect of the incident, you are actually shifting the spotlight away from the perpetrator's identity, thus rendering this as relatively unimportant. Some would say that's a pretty effective patriarchal strategy 
This is why, in my ideal world, on an ideal march, my slogan would not be "Reclaim the night" or "Women against sexual violence" but "Change the perpetrator, change intolerant religions beliefs" (but snappier).