Polecat - I’ll leave your vitriol aside, which I suspect hides something quite putrid, but that’s just my suspicion.
However, can you find a single quote, by me, in this thread, where I put forward my own opinion? The question arose about how this came by, I reported why. I have never in this thread argued for open borders, I haven’t had anything to say about the 88 year old Pakistani woman. I have claimed that there is a lot of xenophobia/racism brewing under the surface, but haven’t attached my own value to that.
But you come on to me like I’m some sort of sanctimonious overly PC prick. Why?
Hyperelastiv - no, you didn’t. You said:
implying that the amount of immigrants will affect how Swedish or Christian I am.
It’s true that I’ve taken to eating the occasional falafel. I did leave the Church of Sweden, formally, 23 years ago, but that was way before we had all these Muslims, so I doubt their arrival had anything to do with it.
Let me ask some of you: Should the West try to reduce immigration as much as possible? If yes, am I right in assuming (you feel) it has nothing to do with racism, but because they don’t share our values? Or is it purely an economic consideration?
No. The West should establish regulations which maintain a sustainable level of immigration. These regulations should not discriminate based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
Understand that I am arguing against open borders, not immigration in principle.
Suppose everyone in, say, Japan, decided to move to Sweden next month. Also suppose that these new Swedish-Japanese started reproducing at a rate two or three times that of the native-born Swedes. You, personally, might be able to get away with continuing to speak Swedish and eat Swedish food, but your grandchildren would probably not understand you very well and would always be asking you why you don’t eat more rice. Eventually, there wouldn’t be any more Swedes, except in historical villages and museums. Wouldn’t that bother you, or do you think being Swedish is not something worth preserving?
And this quote really is pretty much the bottom line to a lot of the arguments being bounced around in this thread. There are real world sustainable limits to immigration rates, even if that immigration may have long term benefits. If you have one of the most generous welfare state economies in the world, you had damn sure be pretty well aware of the demand limits that welfare state can reasonably sustain, and additionally, you need to be jealous with those benefits unless the population has an unlimited capacity for taxation.
The naiveté of some of the posters in this thread is stunning. There are entire industries set up in third world countries to facilitate immigration to more advanced countries by hook or by crook. The main reason people are coming to the more advanced countries is not because the jackboots are after them in their native land, but because they want a higher economic standard of living.
In countries with very generous welfare systems, it is entirely likely that first generation immigrants from third world counties will be a net drain on the economy. Native citizens have every right (and arguably, even a duty) to be careful and selective about who they let in, and whom they let stay if they wish to sustain their standard of living. One little Pakistani granny is not going to break the Danish economy, but the people in charge of determining residency do not have the luxury of cherry picking the most sympathetic cases for exceptions, and would rightly point out that a bright line has to be drawn somewhere or the regulations will have no authority.
If you are content to leave the disagreeable business of protecting your economy and your borders to others, do not whine and howl with indignation when they have to make hard decisions.
Actually they do have that luxury. As has been mentioned in this thread, the law gives a possibility to make exeptions based on special circumstances. I’m not sure what the exact text of the Danish law is (the corresponding one in Norwegian law says something about “strong humanitarian reasons”, AFAIK). So, in other words, the people handling this case didn’t have to consider some kind of if-we-let-her-stay-millions-of-old-women-will-descend-on-Denmark slippery slope. They could have said: “We’re making an exception in this specific case, as the law allows us, because anyone with half a brain and a quarter of a heart can see that sending this specific person out of Denmark would be unreasonable and cruel.” They didn’t. So I’ll join Alien in his/her “Fuck you” - not to all of Denmark, but definitively to the people in charge of this case.
I’ll add some "fuck you"s for similar cases in Norway and Sweden, too. Our laws might not be quite as draconian as the Danish ones, but there’s no shortage of pettyness and lack of a minimum of compassion in how the rules are interpreted here, either
Fair enough, Hyperelastic.
It’s just that the argument “We’d better watch out, or the same thing will happen to us that happened to the Injuns” is one of the most frequently used by the extreme right.
We have open borders since 1st of May this year, to countries which don’t have our level of welfare. There was a big concern about “social tourism” from Poland, the Baltic States, Slovenia.
And you know what? It didn’t happen.
Oh goody. How Could I have missed this little nugget of a thread for so long?!
Not that I’d rule it out, but I seriously doubt that. First, if you want to style yourself an authority on the Danish political system you really should get your facts straight: the Danish People’s Party (yrk! a disgusting name if there ever was one) is not part of the government. It’s part of the parliamentary support for the government which sometimes vote with the government, sometimes against. Second, her English is terrible so I suppose it’s your paraphrase. Third, how about a cite. Oh… And fourth, I fully agree. Fuck the Human Rights – as they’re used and abused by partisan and dogmatist in certain quarters, like they’ve been handed down by a burning bush from atop the mountain; eternal, unalterable, sanctified, the truth and above all indisputable. Fuck that, the Human Rights are laws invented by man and as such imperfect. They should be continually examined, challenged and changed to reflect what we, The People, want them to be. Further Man is above and not a slave to paragraphs (as this story should illustrate very well!) – a vigorous fuck you to the laws, any laws, is perfectly understandable and healthy attitude to have. However some people treat any critical eye on the hallowed Human Rights as something comparable with blasphemy and any trespasser sentenced to eternal banishment from the salons of good society. Case in point: The Gaspode; who seem to think the mere fact that a politician expressed herself negatively about some paragraphs titled The Human Rights is somehow in itself unpardonable. ….and I suppose gaspode, that you haven’t forgotten that Danish People’s Party are socialists, goddamn socialists even?
I know nothing of the story beyond what I have skimmed here, but, notwithstanding the liberal accusation of racism, xenophobia and what have you nots (you damn danephobes! – yikes, read up on the difference between race and culture will you), but as there already are laws in Denmark to handle cases like this, the story sounds more like a result of a petty bureaucrat fuck-up, than a failure of laws. I suppose we all can agree that bureaucrats are a race of men unto themselves, more lowly than gene-modified slugs more contemptible than parking meter controllers, and recollect Genesis where Eve bit the apple and GOD cursed woman unto painful birth and man to bureaucrats, but I seriously doubt Denmark has been especially more riddled by this curse of humanity than any other nation.
This is correct. The current dichotomy in Denmark re. immigration can be boiled down to a choice between an open-borders/closed-welfare system of the right vers. Closed borders/open-welfare of the left. Unfortunately the Danes have, like a slave to his fetters, been hopelessly addicted to their welfare state and are likely to give it up when it can be pried from their dead cold fingers - which I recon is how it’s gonna be soon enough.
Oh. clairobscur, Denmark has disappointed me too - daily. Though no-where near as much as France and Germany. Sweden on the other hand has not disappointed me in the least. And Gaspode the restrictions put upon the new members of the EU is an absolute travesty, but you might want to look into which political wing and groups were most adamant against giving the eastern European barbarian hordes free and unrestricted roam before you slip into your evil-right conspiracy track.
Stunningly, you’re turning the facts completely upside down. Quite the opposite, welfare must be reduced absent immigration. Decling birth rates in the West are reducing overall population figures and even more so the support ratio. That will lead to less available benefits because there are less people working and paying taxes. In fact, if we want to retain the support ratio we’re talking about the need of millions of new immigrants annually in both the US and Europe.
There’s a difference between immigrants and refugees. All refugees are immigrants (whether their stay is temporary or permanent), but not all immigrants are refugees.
Immigration is a tool the West can use to resupply their declining work forces. As such, immigration is, as it should be, a purely economic instrument. To what extent a nation should cherrypick the best educated and healthiest people (or use race, culture or religion as criterias), that I suspect is the heart of this debate. Just not forget that people have been migrating for centuries, America wouldn’t even exist as we know it today without immigration.
As for refugees, I maintain that the West has an obligation to protect people fleeing from dictatorship and unlawful prosecution. Actually, in far too many instances the West is directly responsible for the existance of a refugee problem, by lending political support to dictatorships. Currently, Europe is dealing with a flow of refugees from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, to countries once on the verge of democracy who now have fallen into dictatorship. I guess I don’t have to tell which country has military bases there, and which two countries are part of the Coalition of the Willing.
The way you phrased your sentence - “its’ entirely likely that first generation immigrants from third world counties will be a net drain on the economy” - reveals your bigotry bigtime. I can tell you that there are studies in several European countries establishing that immigrants are net contributors to the economy. However, I doubt that any of them are in Engslish, and since you made the claim, you bring the cite. Cite?
aw. Stating a theoretical possible is a sure sign of bigotry? Just like that, huh. Well, I guess that reveal yourself as a man with a wonderful open mind. Not that it has much to do with the OP. (from memory) A survey conducted by a pro-immigration party in Denmark revealed that: Danes contribute on average Dkr. 14,000 to the state. Immigrants from western countries an average of Dkr. 12,000. Immigrants from non-western countries constitute on average a drain of Dkr. 54,000. These numbers do not include certain expenses. Calculated otherwise the cost reach an average of Dkr. 64,000. Generally immigrants from non-western countries are not an economic boon. This is mostly due to the constrains of the welfare state. I have learned they do considerable better in the US.
Hello Rune I’ve been waiting for you to join this thread. What color are you today?
I guess you missed the part where it says this woman was turned down on appeal also.
Well, here’s your chance. Why don’t you tell us exactly how you, The People want human rights laws to be, instead of just blurting out that this has to change. Are you up for the challenge? Seriously, I’m really interested.
I agree with astro, and I’d go as far to say that even second and third generation immigrants can be a drain on the economy. I don’t have a cite, just an anecdote: My father employs three pakistanis. They send about 75% of the money they earn back to their family in Pakistan.
I can support that with another anecdote: This second and third generation immigrant family is definitively a drain on our economy. Darn Danes and Brits!
And I raise you with another anecdote. Damn Frogs, Chinese and Australians. (The newest Australian addition is commonly referred to as the shopping-goose.)
My mistake, I’m sorry. Theydo wield quite an influence on the Danish domestic policy, including immigration laws.
It’s from a Swedish newspaper, so you’ll probably disregard it: cite.
I hate to invoke Godwin, but using the term ‘socialist’ doesn’t make something socialist, as NSDAP clearly demontrated.
And if they indeed are socialist, why did they help the conservatives form government.
You, like many other Danes, don’t seem to be able to handle critisism very well when it comes from Swedes, do you? It’s always about how we Swedes are so oppressed by political correctness, mandatory rules and prohibitions, not daring to say what we really think for fear of repercussions.
You do know what they say about glass houses, don’t you? The only legislation that’s more liberal in Denmark is the one regarding alcohol. In most other areas you’r on par or worse than us when it comes to restrictive legislation. Lukkeloven, is just one case in point.
You Danes have been troubled by your national inferiority complex for so long that whenever a Swede dares say anything negative, you start frothing at the mouth.
A Danish race? That’s new.
Did I say anything about what end of the political range it came from? No I didn’t.
It came from the ruling party, the Social Democrats, being preassured by the unions. So what? I just said that the open borders didn’t lead to any Barbarian Invasion from people less fortunate than us.
Oh. I don’t know. This time of the year I’m white as a fainted lily. Last time Gaspode refused to talk to me he said I was “somewhat brown” (shame on you Gaspode for using racial features as an insult… umm…) Are you implying I often change colours? Undoubtedly I’m to the right of Attila the Hun on many subjects. Though mostly I think I’m libertarian.
Perhaps, but I was of the impression that she on appeal was granted a stay until January and her case could be re-evaluated – bite me if I’m wrong but I think the minister is going to step in and let her stay – in which case you’ll of course open a thread “I adore the Danes”
I didn’t say it should change. I said there’s nothing wrong with discussing it or criticizing it. And how in particular the way some people have raised them to a new religion making all debate impossible if not immoral is awful. But I’m sorry, I’ll have to decline. I’m not a lawyer and have little interest in and less knowledge of law. I have no structured thoughts on what I’d consider good Human Rights laws. General I’m not sure I like the idea of human right laws at all. I consider the principle of common law better that those of Roman law and I tend take democracy serious to the degree where I can’t readily see why we need laws that limit the peoples freedom to decide what the heck they want. But open a GD – it’s an interesting question.
Here’s some – hastily scraped together… On a close look there have been made three surveys since 1997. Which all came to the same conclusion, which I’m paraphrasing here.
The first survey in 1997 was produced with the express intend to counter the arguments from anti-immigration groups that immigration costs the state an average of Dkr. 84,000/immigrant. Which they were successful with of a sort, concluding only a price of Dkr. 54,000/immigrant were paid, but that small number was criticised for omitting certain expenses and omitting taking into account the use of public facilities such as infrastructure, jails, etc. Also they were clearly not successful in proving immigrants were an economic necessity.
In 1999 a survey from the Indenrigsministeriet (Homeland-ministry?) documented than immigrants cost the Danish state more than Dkr 11.3 billion yearly, a number that was projected to rise by Dkr. 150 million yearly. It is the immigrants was from a group called II-countries, which include countries as Pakistan, Libanon, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, the former Yougoslavia and Somalia which cost money. Another group, mainly from the EU and North American paid Dkr. 1 billion to the state coffers. For comparison was there in 2000 paid Dkr. 11.7 billion in foreign aid (Denmark was the larges donator per capita in the world) and Dkr. 16.5 for the defense and Dkr. 7 billion for infrastructure.
In 2000 a survey from the Rockwool Fund conducted by the Swedish scientists Eskild Wadensjö documented that the low employment rate of non-western immigrants meant that 38% of all social security payments went to that 5% immigrant group, and that every non-western immigrant cost the Danish state in excess of Dkr. 58.200/Dkr. 63.700 depending on how you sum the numbers. Moreover were these number worse in 1998 than in 1985. In 2006 we’d have to raise the lowest tax rate by 6% or cut expenses on other posts by Dkr. 26 billion to finance the immigration. Whereas western immigrants contributed with an average Dkr. 12.300. It also documents that second generation immigrants with parents from non-western countries are still a drain (though reduced) on public finances.
The Danish Krone was from 1997 to 2000 (before the US decided to switch from dollars to zhloty) around 1/8 of a dollar.
All the sites are only endorsed by google - not me. I’ll see if I can dig up some more quality cites later on.
I believe I’ve seen in passing a similar survey from Sweden.
google gives this…
Lars Jansson wrote the book ”Mångfald eller välfärd” which concluded the cost for Swedish society amounted to Skr. 267 billion. I know nothing of him or that book, but there it is. Can’t say the Danish numbers are against all Swedish and Norwegian numbers. http://dansk-svensk.blogspot.com/2002/09/lars-jansson-vad-kostar-indvandringen.html
No-one is arguing the money is everything. But when arguing economics lets at least try to look at the numbers with an unbiased mind.