Category Archives: immigration

Fwd: Denmark-cost of Social liberalism & Islam

Salute the Danish Flag – It’s a Symbol of Western Freedom

 By Susan MacAllen

 

In 1978-1979, I was living and studying in  Denmark ..
But in 1978 – even in  Copenhagen , one didn’t see Muslim immigrants.

The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism, one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 – a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.

The rest of  Europe  saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.

Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies – it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arr ival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism.

How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets – all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990’s the growing urban Muslim population was obvious – and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious.

Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of  Denmark ‘s liberal way of life, the Danes – once so welcoming – began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam a s incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

The  New York  Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in  Denmark  would explode In the article they reported:

‘Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.’ ‘Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.

”Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population.

A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.’ ‘Forced marriag es – promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death – are one problem’

‘Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark ‘s Muslim population grows large enough – a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of  Denmark  in 40 years will be Muslim.’

It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws.

An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the  US  : some Muslims in  Denmark  who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while20others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark , a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to  Sweden  – before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa – who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers – and I wonder what she would say today.

In 2001,  Denmark  elected the most conservative government in some 70 years – one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered Immigration. Today  Denmark  has the strictest immigration policies in  Europe  . ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of ‘racism’ by liberal media across Europe – even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)

If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes.. You must pass a test on  Denmark ‘s history, culture, and a Danish language test.

You must live in  Denmark  for 7 years before applying for citizenship.. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into  Denmark  , you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won’t find it so easy any more to move your friends and family to  Denmark  with you.

You will not be allowed to build a mosque in  Copenhagen  . Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in  Denmark  , they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren’t..

In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly o f the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government’s welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. ‘We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration.

The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,’ he said..
 

A large thorn in the side of  Denmark  ‘s imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, ‘The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,’ Hvilshøj says, ‘There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.’ And on Musl im immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, ‘In my view,  Denmark  should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.’

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark , Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen , stating that the family’s thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time – in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.&n bsp;

Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether  Denmark  survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.

And meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in America look at the enclaves of Muslims and illegal Hispanics amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history. We would do well to look to  Denmark , and say a prayer for her future and for our own.

White Europeans: An endangered species?

by Trevor Wagener
Source: Yale Daily News

Europe is a dying continent. I say this not as a criticism, but rather as a statement of fact. In Europe, an acute failure to produce the next generation has created a looming demographic crisis.

According to research by both the CIA and the U.N., every single member of the European Union has a birthrate significantly below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman. In the CIA World Factbook, Germany had a birthrate of 1.36 children per woman in 2007, and Spain and Italy had birthrates of 1.29. At such low levels of fertility, within 100 years, those three nations would have populations 80 percent lower than they are today. And Germany, Italy and Spain are far from alone: Every single industrialized country in Europe has a birthrate below 1.9 children per woman. The average birthrate of the European Union as a whole is approximately 1.5 children per woman — and that number is artificially inflated by the presence of millions of highly fertile non-European immigrants in the major urban centers of Europe.

Even if one ignores the statistical noise presented by the inclusion of millions of outliers, Europe faces a serious problem. Without a major shift in the current fertility trends, industrialized Europe will see its native population decline by about three-fourths over the 21st century. No civilization has ever recovered from such a population decline, and never before has such a decline been entirely voluntary.

Europeans are not becoming less fertile as a consequence of war, or famine, or disease, but rather as a consequence of their Western, consumerist lifestyles. Some, such as social critic Mark Steyn, have suggested that European civilization is in the middle of committing voluntary demographic suicide, and it’s not hard to see why: A civilization that is producing a tiny succeeding generation and shows no signs of attempting to remedy the problem is violating fundamental Darwinist principles of gene propagation.

There is, of course, a counterargument: Europe’s population has not been declining. In fact, most European nations have shown modest population growth thanks to a huge influx of immigrants from developing nations. Some economists have argued that because the infertility of Europeans is balanced by the high fertility of its immigrants, there will be no noticeable effects from the failure of Caucasians in Europe to produce offspring. If the population as a whole remains stable, the argument goes, economic growth will not be affected, and the European quality of life will likely remain constant. Europe could thus theoretically solve its demographic woes by promoting immigration.

Unfortunately, there are some major holes in that argument. Labor capital is not stable: Native Europeans tend to be highly educated and possess a varied skill set due to Europe’s laudable educational system, while the immigrant populations replacing the native populations are by and large less well educated. Crime levels are also not holding constant, and in Europe there has been an anti-immigrant backlash resulting from the widespread perception that immigrants are responsible for the increase in crime. There is also an 800-pound gorilla in the room: Given present trends, within about a century, Europe will cease to be a white, Christian continent.

No one wants to talk about racial or religious issues, but it merits consideration that the vast majority of immigrants to the European Union are Muslims from North Africa, the Middle East and Turkey. By the year 2150, barring a major shift in either native European fertility rates or immigrant nationality, Europe will be a largely Muslim continent with whites and Christians as minorities composing less than 20 percent of the population. Much of Europe has come to terms with that possibility, but a significant portion of the population is uncomfortable about the prospect of a change in Europe’s continental character, warranting wider spread support for xenophobic political parties across the continent.

Europe is divided as to what to do. While the common plans seems to be to encourage immigration and simply ignore the long run, some nations, especially those without enough immigrants to compensate for the declining fertility of natives, like Russia, have started offering cash incentives to women to have more children. These plans have met with very limited success in societies where raising a child costs a small fortune.

An increasing number of Europeans, however, are demanding change, and are willing to accept a declining population and the consequent economic effects in order to preserve what they see as their heritage. In Amsterdam, women have written editorials decrying the pressure native European women have felt from immigrant communities to cover themselves in public. In France, an extremist xenophobic political party came in second place in the 2002 presidential elections as a result of rising fear about the future of France.

Throughout Europe, proposals to limit immigration from the developing world to highly skilled foreigners have been floated in debate. It seems that Europe has decided that it wants to do something about this perceived problem, but is unwilling to do the one thing that would resolve the long-term demographic situation in a manner that would benefit both native Europeans and immigrants: reproduce.

Trevor Wagener is a freshman in Pierson College.

Commentary: Slavery alive and well in U.S. (CNN)

Story Highlights:

  • Glenn Beck says he doesn’t believe there are jobs Americans won’t do.
  • Illegal immigrants aren’t employees, they’re corporate slaves, Beck says.
  • Beck says fines should be much higher on employers that hire illegal worker

NEW YORK (CNN)

— “Jobs Americans just won’t do.”

I can’t stand that line, but more importantly, I don’t even understand it.

Americans spend months at a time at sea fishing for crab or drilling for oil; two of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Americans clean bathrooms, subway stations and crime scenes. Americans man toll booths, pave roads, embalm bodies and inspect sewers. Yet people really expect us to believe that they won’t pick strawberries or oranges?

It just doesn’t add up.

Earlier this week The Wall Street Journal published a story about a shortage of H-2B visas, which are issued twice a year to nonagricultural seasonal employees. Because our government can’t get out of its own way, they recently let an important “returning workers” provision expire resulting in thousands of foreign workers being shut out of the country this summer.

That’s inexcusable. I know this will come as a huge shock to those who only like to hurl insults, but I think we should be issuing more work visas, more student visas, and more green cards. And I think we should cut the red tape and bureaucracy that’s constantly blocking the front door.

But until that happens people are left looking for loopholes and excuses, and “jobs Americans won’t do” is the gold standard.

The Journal article offered an example of a couple that sells food at fairs around California each summer. They say that because of the H-2B visa shortage most of their seasonal employees aren’t able to enter the country.

So why don’t they just hire Americans instead? Good question. Her answer? “This is a hard job.”

I find it pretty hard to believe that there aren’t a few college students who wouldn’t want to drive around California and work outdoors all summer, but let’s assume that’s true. Let’s even assume that none of the other 1.1 million Californians who were unemployed as of April are interested in the job either. Isn’t anyone wondering why?

Well I’m not a labor consultant, but I am a thinker. Maybe the problem isn’t that the job they’re offering is “too hard,” maybe it’s that the wages they’re offering are “too low.”

No one paints the undersides of bridges for fun, they do it for the money. That’s how capitalism works.

How capitalism does NOT work is when we collectively look the other way as companies exploit illegal labor for their own benefit.

The unspoken truth is that these businesses don’t hire illegal aliens because they can’t find American workers, they hire illegal aliens because they don’t want American workers. And it has nothing to do with wages.

Illegal aliens mean no workers’ comp claims, no age, race or sex discrimination lawsuits, no healthcare premiums, no unions, and no demands for raises, vacations or bigger offices. In fact, illegal immigrants are the perfect employees because they’re not employees at all; they’re corporate slaves.

Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell once said, “Blacks were not enslaved because they were black, but because they were available.” Can’t the exact same thing be said for illegal aliens? They’re available and we’re allowing them to be exploited in the name of cheap groceries.

Is the price of fruit really the standard we want to live up to as a country? Is that really who we’ve become?

Many Americans believe that cracking down on the businesses that hire illegal aliens (the current maximum federal fine was recently raised to a laughable $16,000) would hurt these hardworking people too much. A bad job is better than no job, we tell ourselves. But that’s catalogue compassion. If you want to understand the real impact of these decisions you’ve got to get off the couch and go see it for yourself.

Back in 2005, Newsday did an investigation of the living conditions of immigrants in the New York area. In the city of Westbury (median income: $83,000/year) officials found twelve immigrants living in a basement flooded with sewage.

In Southampton (median income: $64,000/year) officials found immigrants living in sheds with no plumbing or heat.

In New Cassel (median income: $62,000/year) officials estimated there were dozens of “shift-bed houses” where immigrants literally rent mattresses for a few hours a day to catch some sleep.

Is compassion looking the other way while immigrants who come here for the dream end up living a nightmare smack dab in the middle of some of our wealthiest communities?

Is compassion ignoring stories that reveal the truth, like the recent raid of a squalid “drop house” in Los Angeles where 57 illegal aliens were being held against their will?

Is compassion not wanting to hear that a woman was raped in that drop house, or that many more would have been if not for the screams of their children disrupting the attackers?

If that’s compassion, then I guess I’m happy to be accused of having none.

The problem with the debate over illegal immigration right now is that special interests have been successful in making us think with our hearts instead of our brains. We’ve been persuaded to believe that real compassion can only be achieved by following their agenda. But look where that’s gotten us. And more importantly, look where that’s gotten the people they’re supposedly trying to help.

If you really want to be compassionate, then help immigrants get jobs here the right way. Help put crippling fines on the employers who knowingly hire illegal workers, help expand and simplify the visa process, and, most importantly, help get people to start thinking with their brains again.

After all, compassion without common sense may feel good but it doesn’t achieve anything. If you need proof then go out and give $1,000 to every homeless person who asks you for change. I bet your heart would be full, but your wallet would soon be empty. And all those people would probably still be homeless.

A New Argument About Immigration

May 28, 2008by Phyllis Schlafly
Many arguments, pro and con, about how to deal with illegal aliens have been passionately debated over the past couple of years, but there are still other arguments that need public exposure. Mark Krikorian presents a new argument in his forthcoming book called “The New Case Against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal.”
The pro-more-immigration crowd argues that today’s immigrants are just like immigrants of a century ago: poor people looking for a better life who are expected to advance in our land of opportunity. Krikorian’s new argument is that while today’s immigrants may be like earlier ones, the America they come to is so very different that our previous experience with immigrants is practically irrelevant.
The essential difference between the two waves of immigrants was best summed up by the Nobel Prize-winning advocate of a free market, Milton Friedman. He said, “It’s just obvious that you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.”
The term “welfare state” does not just mean handouts to the non-working. Our welfare state encompasses dozens of social programs that provide benefits to the “working poor,” i.e., people working for wages low enough that they pay little or no income taxes.
Immigrants of the previous generation were expected to earn their own living, pay taxes like everybody else, learn our language, love America, and assimilate into our culture. Today’s immigrants likewise come here for jobs not welfare.
During those prior major waves of immigration, the United States didn’t have a welfare state. Native-born Americans survived the Great Depression of the 1930s without a welfare state.
The Social Security retirement system was established only in 1935. Most other agencies that redistribute cash and costly benefits from taxpayers to non-taxpayers started with Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society in the late 1960s.
Today’s low-wage immigrants and lower-wage illegals can’t earn what it costs to live in modern America, so they supplement with means-tested taxpayer benefits. And many immigrants don’t learn our language or assimilate into American culture because of the multicultural diversity taught in our schools and encouraged in our society.
Today’s immigrants fit the profile of the people who benefit from our welfare state: the working poor with large families. Krikorian sets forth some dismal figures.
About 30 percent of all immigrants in the U.S. workforce in 2005 lacked a high school education, which is four times the rate for native-born Americans. Among the largest group of working-age immigrants, the Mexicans, 62 percent have less than a high-school education, which means they work low-wage jobs.
Nearly half of immigrant households, 45 percent, are in or near poverty compared with 29 percent of native-headed households. Among Mexicans living in the United States, nearly two-thirds live in or near the government’s definition of poverty.
Costly social benefits provided to the working poor include Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (now called TANF, formerly AFDC), food stamps, school lunches, Medicaid, WIC (nutrition for Women, Infants and Children), public housing, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is one of the most expensive parts of income redistribution. Twice as many immigrant households (30 percent) qualify for this cash handout as native-headed households (15 percent).
Health care is another huge cost. Nearly half of immigrants are either uninsured or on Medicaid, which is nearly double the rate for native-born families. Federal law requires hospitals to treat all comers to emergency rooms, even if uninsured and unable to pay.
Hospitals try to shift the costs onto their paying patients, and when the hospitals exhaust their ability to do this, they close their doors. In Los Angeles, 60 hospitals have closed their emergency rooms over the past decade, which imposes another kind of cost.
Immigration accounts for nearly all the growth in elementary and secondary school enrollment over the past generation. The children of immigrants now comprise 19 percent of the school-age population and 21 percent of the preschool population.
The Heritage Foundation estimated that in order to reduce government payments to the average low-skill household to a level equal to the taxes it pays, “it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, all means-tested welfare, and to cut expenditures on public education roughly in half.” Obviously, that is not going to happen.
Attempts to limit welfare eligibility for illegal aliens by provisions added to the 1996 welfare reform law, SSI, food stamps, Medicaid and TANF all failed. Krikorian concludes that “Walling immigrants off from government benefits once we’ve let them in is a fantasy.”
As Americans are pinched between falling real estate values and the inflation of necessities such as gasoline, they are entitled to know how their tax dollars are being spent. The big bite that social benefits to immigrants (one-third of whom are illegal) takes out of taxpayers’ paychecks should be factored into any debate about immigration or amnesty policy.

Obama’s Black Ambition

If Barack Obama is running on the platform of being black, then he should lose unless the electorate cows in fear meanwhile justifying their own capitulation by hypocritical accusations (e.g., against conservatives for resisting miscegenation). An economist article suggested that American whites are less racist than they used to be (like in the fifties) because whites have had a seven-fold increase in the proportion of interracial children. This argument infers that whites are racist if they don’t intermarry and that whites are therefore racist by virtue of their skin color. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a racist argument, it leads unambiguously to the conclusion that whites are criminal (because it is a crime to be racist).  Don’t you like how the devil turns things upside down? Very nice logic indeed.

A leftist on tv says that she thinks it’s mean that people won’t vote for a candidate because of his race. On the contrary, it’s mean to vote for a candidate because of his/her identity.

 

 

Robin Williams’ New Comedy

 
 Good old Robin Williams:)

Subject: Fw: The Plan
 
 
 
 
 
GOTTA LOVE HIM…A MUST READ…PLEASE DO YOURSELF A FAVOR…READ THIS!
The Plan!
?

Robin Williams, wearing a shirt that says ‘I love New York ‘ in Arabic.

You gotta love Robin Williams……Even if he’s nuts! Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan. Wha t we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message.

Robin W illiams’ plan…(Hard to argue with this logic!)

‘I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here’s one plan.’

1) ‘The US will apologize to the world for our ‘interference’ in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those ‘good ‘ole’ boys’, we will never ‘interfere’ again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany , South Korea , the Middle East , and the Philippines . They don’t want us there. We would station our troops at our borders. N o one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave.  We’ll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are. They’re illegal!!! France will welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in.
If you don’t like it in your country change it yourself and don’t try to hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don’t need any more cab drivers or 7-1 1 cashiers.

5) No foreign ‘students’ over age 21. The older ones are the bombers.
If they don ‘t attend classes,or they get a ‘D’  it’s back home baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don’t like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of their wells filling up their storage sites would be enough.)

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not ‘interfere.’ They can pray to Allah or whomever, for se eds, rain, cement or whatever they need. ! Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given t o the army. The peop le who need it most get very little, if anything.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don’t need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us ‘Ugly Americans’ any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH..learn it…or LEAVE…Now, isn’t that a winner of a plan?

‘The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.’ She’s got a baseball bat and she’s yelling, ‘you want a piece of me?’ ‘

If you agree with the above forward it to friends…If not, and I would be amazed, DELETE it!!

 

 

The curse of multiculturalism





Lebanese youth pack-rape young Australian girls in racially motivated attacks


August 26, 2001


Over the past 12 months gangs of ethnic men and youths have pack-raped at least 50 victims in Sydney’s south-western suburbs. The perpetrators have been described as Muslim youths who are either Lebanese-born, or Lebanese Australians. The victims have all been young Caucasian girls, one as young as thirteen.


The pattern is similar in all attacks. A girl is enticed by one or two men, whose cohorts joined then and then brutally raped her. The victim is often subjected to racial taunts. One was told: “You deserve it because you’re an Australian”. 


Last August, an 18-year-old woman was allegedly raped 15 times by 14 youths who passed her from one group of mates to another after she was lured from a train at Bankstown station. Assaulted by four of the pack in a toilet, the woman was driven to further locations, raped repeatedly and, as final act of humiliation, sprayed down with a hose.


According to NSW Police Commissioner Peter Ryan, the series of attacks is a new and shocking phenomenon probably without precedent in Australian criminology. Mr Ryan said the tension in the city’s west was to some extent a by-product of Sydney’s huge recent immigration. “This is the largest immigrant population of mixed races in the world. It’s going to be extraordinarily difficult to settle that melting pot down”, he said.