Is it this: “skiter i mänskliga rättigheter.“ (shit on human rights)? As I said, I have no bone – I don’t care one way or the other, but I call bullshit. I think it’d have raised a stink but I’ve never heard of it. He’s voicing his own opinion on how her politics can be voiced. I’ll have to see the precise cite. Also the article was clearly ridiculous and, as you guys are wont, full of Nazi this and Nazi that. Can’t you see how such overexposure water down the term, in the end making it ineffectual and without bite.
Well. Using the Conservative term doesn’t necessarily make you conservative. Their first goal DF was to reduce immigration. They’d have made friends with Beelzebub and sold their mother into an Arab harem for that goal. Recently they’ve been saying they might jump ship and support the other Social Democratic party after the election.
I’m not really Danish. As for criticizing Denmark and the stupid Danes – heck I’m all for it. A dirty, little socialistic piece of shit country, if you ask me, populated by halfwits and idiots. Not as bad as Sweden, but then again who are. (though I must admit all those tall blond blued eyed girls are not bad looking at all).
Yeah. I reckoned so. It’s called humour, quite an interesting concept. I guess you have no word for it in Swedish, but you can look it up in an English dictionary.
Agree absolutely. I’d choose an honest Polish worker over a pampered Danish labour unionist any day of the week.
It’s interesting that you should use Uriasposten as a cite, Rune. Since they too mention her stance on human rights, albeit to claim that she’s been quoted out of context. I suppose it could have been made from whole cloth, but it’s fairly consistent with other things she said.
Digging further, I found these (Danish text) which talk about it in a roundabout way: cite & cite.
You might think I’m on a crusade against Denmark, which I’m not. If you go back and check, I was saying that xenophobia/racism/neo-nazism is rife under the surface of the Scandinavian countries. The difference with Denmark is that they’ve gained foothold in the parliament, whereas in Sweden, so far, they have only managed to get into town councils.
There are loads of problems in connection with immigration and the welfare state. However, making the refugees/immigrants scapegoats for the erosion of the welfare state, something that started in the 70’s and 80’s, depending on country, is dishonest. To single out Muslims, as the Danish People’s Party does, is disgusting. A refugee will be as much burden for the tax payer, no matter if he’s from Croatia or Bosnia. Religion and ethnicity does not figure into the cost when letting a refugee enter.
The nationalist parties are power hungry and are using the uneasy feelings many ethnic Scandinavians feel regarding the influx of immigrants. Their voices are weak, so it’s easy to pick on them.
Please bring quality cites when you come back. Honestly, I don’t know why I even bother. I ask for a cite, and you bring me a controversial think-tank and a rightwing blog with links to Free Republic, Little Green Footballs and Buchanan’s The American Conservative.
Further, I don’t know what to make of your write-up on the Ministry of Interior. Either per capita figures for immigrants (DKK 11.3 billion total) are lower than for natives, - or you mean net cost, in which every type II immigrant would cost between DKK 50.000 to 100.000, with noone paying taxes, a claim which is simply unbelievable. I suspect you left something out of the equation.
I’m afraid we’re going to beat each other to death with cites, so let me just briefly counter your rightwing propaganda with some mainstream facts.
In Norway, the first account on the cost/benefit of immigrants were conducted in 1987, funded by one of the largest newspapers. In 1994 the Parliament, at the request of the far-right party, decided to do an official account, which was completed and released in 1996. Both studies revealed that immigrants were big net contributors to the economy, and that the drain effect was mainly limited to an integration period of 2-5 years. Later, the only county governed by the far-right party decided to use taxpayer money to fund their own study (county-wise), using their own cherrypicked criteria. When even that study revealed a surplus (they tried to keep the result secret by the way), the far-right party stopped talking about doing such accounting, and the topic subsequently vanished from the public debate.
None of these studies are available in English, and only the last one is referred to, briefly, online, as far as I can tell.
Well, basically I think problems are best dealt with in the open. If there is a problem with racism/xenophobia/neo-nazism and what not, elect it to parliment and lets have a throughout look at it. Nothing is gained by trying to supress it. And even Nazis deserve their representation if their views are shared by a large enough segment of the population. Democracy demands it.
It’s the other way round. The welfare state is largely to blame for the sorry state of integration of immigrants into scandinavia. Between the high minimum wages, the high taxes and the many complicated rules and regulations, they aren’t left a chinamans chance for a regular employment. An illeterate peasant transported from the Anatolian high-plain, with bad or no Danish and five years schooling on his back can’t be expected to compete on equal terms with native Danes – yet laws prevent him from leveraging the only advantage he has; a lower hourly wage. And a comparable large unemplyment rate among native Danes, again largely the result of lack of liberalisation, makes it certain that he’ll always come last in the queue. To further his misery, the myriad of laws and regulations make it very hard for him to create a bussiness for himself. Which I expect is why immigrants into the US handle it so much better. But even so there’s no escaping the fact that culture and religion are also important element – espicially for second generation immigrants.
All parties are power hungry, else they have no bussiness being there, and I don’t think people are weak. And I don’t think they should be helped along, guided and cuddled onto the right path. If they think there’s a problem with immigrants their sentiments deserve to be represented in parliment and a voice in public debate.
Look, I’m not going to do a lot to defend the cites – as I said it was google’s not mine, but it hardly matters if the cites come from a right, left, up or down-wing blog – unless you suspect they’ve directly manipulated the quotations. The Rockwool Fund is one of the largest independet think tanks in Denmark and is neither controversial nor right wing – it basically doesn’t get any more dependeable than that. But if you want more cites you’ll have to wait till Monday.
Isn’t it pretty straightforward. The immigrants from the so-called group-II category was a total net expense for the danish state amounting to Dkr. 11.3 billion, whereas the other group was a net income of dKr. 1 billion. The net cost is the average for all the immigrants of that group, i.e. of cource not every last immigrant was costing money but the total summed up was a deficit. For your information here are quotations from the articles I got that from (Jyllands Posten is the newspaper with the largest circulation in Denmark)
Jyllands Posten 30/8-00
*Et omfattende forskningsprojekt fra Rockwool Fonden dokumenterer, at
den ringe tilknytning til arbejdsmarkedet betyder, at 38 procent af al
kontanthjælp i Danmark udbetales til de fem procent af befolkningen,
som er fra ikke-vestlige lande.
Det danske samfunds manglende evne til at få indvandrerne i arbejde
betyder samtidig, at det danske samfund i gennemsnit betaler over
58.200 kroner om året pr. person til indvandrere fra ikke-vestlige
lande, når samfundets indtægter fra og udgifter til vedkommende gøres
op.
Mens 75 procent af danskerne mellem 16 og 66 år er aktive på
arbejdsmarkedet, gælder det kun for 38 procent af indvandrerne og
efterkommere fra ikke-vestlige lande. Tilmed er indvandrernes
tilknytning til arbejdsmarkedet i 1998 ringere end i 1985, viser
undersøgelsen.*
Jyllands Posten 3/12-99 Udlændinge i Danmark koster hvert år det offentlige 10,3 milliarder
kroner, og det tal vil stige med mindst 150 millioner kroner årligt,
når integrationsydelsen sættes op efter nytår.
Det viser en opgørelse over udgifter til indvandrere og flygtninge uden
dansk statsborgerskab, som Indenrigsministeriet offentliggjorde torsdag.
»Det er første gang, at politikere og beslutningstagere får et samlet
overblik over indtægter og udgifter, regler og opgaver på
udlændingeområdet, og meningen med offentliggørelsen er at give et
kvalificeret talmateriale at debattere udlændingepolitik udfra,« siger
specialkonsulent Henrik Torp Andersen, Indenrigsministeriet, der står
bag opgørelsen.
Det er personer fra de såkaldte gruppe II-lande, der omfatter lande som
Pakistan, Libanon, Tyrkiet, Iran, Irak, Vietnam, det tidligere
Jugoslavien og Somalia, der koster samfundet penge. Nettoudgiften er
11,3 mia. kr. En anden gruppe udlændinge, der kommer fra især EU-lande
og Nordamerika, bidrager med en årlig nettoindtægt på en mia. kr.,
viser opgørelsen. Den samlede nettoudgift for samfundet er dermed 10,3
mia. kr.
Til sammenligning bruges der ifølge finanslov 2000 ca. 11,7 mia. kr. på
u-landsbistand, 16,5 mia. kr. til forsvaret og ca. syv mia. kr. til
trafikområdet.
Jyllands Posten 20/4-99
*Forsker: Indvandrere koster milliarder
Af LARS ERIK SKOVGAARD
Danmark får alt for lidt ud af de flygtninge og indvandrere, der bor
her i landet.
For mange af dem står uden for arbejdsmarkedet og samlet koster gruppen
derfor det danske samfund et sted mellem 8 og 9 mia. kr. årligt, viser
nye resultater fra Rockwool Fondens Forskningsenhed.
Det er professor Eskild Wadensjö, der har regnet sig frem til dette.
Tallet er mindre, end tidligere danske undersøgelser fra
Økonomiministeriet. De har anslået prisen for de mange indvandrere til
omkring 11 mia. kr. årligt. Forskellen skyldes især, at den svenske
forsker har trukket omkostningerne til asylfasen fra. Denne udgift bør
henregnes til grænsekontrolpolitikken og ikke som en overførsel til
indvandrere, fremhæver han.
Eskild Wadensjö siger, at de omkring 346.000 indvandrere og
efterkommere efter indvandrere, som i dag findes i Danmark, påvirker
dansk økonomi på mindst tre måder måder: De udgør - for det første - en
udgift for de offentlige kasser. Det er især indvandrere fra lande uden
for Europa, der er dyre. De modtager i snit 63.700 kr. årligt netto fra
det offentlige.
Det tal skal ses i forhold til, at indvandrere fra EU-lande plus Norge,
Schweiz, Nordamerika og Australien ellers bidrager positivt til den
danske samfundshusholdning med netto 12.300 kr. årligt, når man trækker
deres sociale ydelser fra, hvad de betaler til samfundet i form af
skatter og afgifter m.v.
De høje udgifter til indvandrere fra lande uden for EU og Nordamerika
hænger især sammen med, at de i meget høj grad står uden for
arbejdsmarkedet.”*
I do too. But that doesn’t only mean that we should tell about wrong doings from fundamental Muslims or crime among immigrant teenage boys. It also means revealing the bigotry behind some of the oh so well meaning comments from the extreme right.
The newly arrived’s voices (not people) are weak, due to language barriers.
And striving for power is one thing. When it comes at the expense of stepping on the weak and defenseless, it’s another.
Another thing is the “Muslim Threat”. I can’t find statistics for Denmark, but I imagine things not to be too different. Sweden received a total of 46 857 immigrants in 2003. Of these, 6 460 qualified as refugees. And of these, 3521 are from Muslim countries, the largest group being, not surprisingly, from Iraq and comprising 1 283 individuals. Most immigrants came from Europe, with the largest group being Germans, making up about 10 % of all immigrants. Poland and France contributed about as many individuals as Iraq.
[sarcasm]
Yeah, those Islamic hordes are really threating our way of life.
[/]
And 968 people came here from the US. No one claimed refugee status, though…
That’s better. Now, what I want to know is how the numbers add up for immigrants having stayed in Denmark for 1 year, 5 years and 10 years, respectively. I’ll bet that the longer they’ve stayed, the more they’ve contributed.
Look at me, Alien. The government of Norway paid for my education, my parents received child support. Elementary school alone cost the state NOK 50.000 per year for me. We’re talking about millions just so I could grow up to become a productive member of society. As you said to Gaspode: “An illeterate peasant transported from the Anatolian high-plain, with bad or no Danish and five years schooling on his back can’t be expected to compete on equal terms with native Danes.”
The problem with your cites is that no matter how I look at them, they won’t add up. For example, if the net cost of all immigrants is DKK 10.3 billion (as per your cite) and there are 346.000 immigrants (as per your cite), that’s 30.000 per capita, not 58.000. You know as well as I do that these kind of studies are easy to put together and even easier to rip apart. Just imagine the drop in income amongst Danes if they would have to do all the shitty jobs the immigrants currently are doing.
On a sidenote, the following cite (danish) details another report from Rockwool where they claim that second generation immigrants in Denmark are in fact net contributors. It also says that while the work force participation ratio in Denmark is 38% and 76%, immigrants and natives respectively, in Germany those figures are 49% and 65%. It seems that the problems you listed has more to do with Denmark than with the immigrants.
But let’s recap. The Danish government is trying to deport an 88 sick woman who cannot even dress herself, to a country where she has no close relatives. Away from the country where all her children live. The decision is made after appeal, and only a plea from her doctor prevented her from being deported this week. She’s now due in January instead.
I claim that this case is only the tip of the iceberg and that Denmark is heading down the slippery slope. In fact, after the new government introduced the new harsher immigration laws, an average of three polls conducted during 2002 reveals that 46% of the population favor even harsher laws, 39% are satisfied with the current laws, and 15% want more liberal laws. cite (danish)
Luckily, Denmark will never be a world power. But if Denmark, against better judgement, should ever try to paddle across the ocean, I’ll guess we’ll have to line up some Norwegian blue-eyed girls to flash their boobs, and the Danish general will have no soldiers.
This conversation is an eye opener. Here I was thinking you Northern European - Scandanavian types all talked to each other in politically correct, polite and measured, cocktail party tones. The fights you guys had between yourselves back when you were using swords and spears instead of message boards much have been pretty spectacular.
Don’t fool yourself. I’ve partaken with people from the 3 Scandinavian countries and I’ve felt more criticism thrown at each other than at anyone else.
I am just going to hang out here waiting for the jokes about keeping Copenhagen clean and drunk fishermen.
