As usual, the Danes are far ahead of the rest of the West when it comes to dealing with Islamization and other problems brought on by mass immigration.
When reading the report below, notice that they will deport not just criminals and illegals, but also immigrants who are “anti-social” and those who “can’t or won’t integrate”.
This is truly revolutionary, and is a welcome first step towards the necessary separation and quarantine of Islam away from the civilized world. More power to the Danes!
From The Copenhagen Post:
Foreigners to get 100,000 kroner incentive to leave Denmark
Immigrants who can’t or won’t integrate into Danish society will get a bonus if they return home
The Danish People’s Party (DF) has strengthened its immigration stance by securing an agreement to pay ‘anti-social’ foreigners 100,000 kroner to leave Denmark.
As part of the on-going budget negotiations, the government’s traditional ally DF said it secured the agreement late last night.
Refugees and those who come to Denmark under family reunification schemes currently get 28,256 in repatriation support if they leave, of which 11,000 is a bonus. The bonus is usually paid out a year after the recipient returns home and their right to Danish residency expires.
The new deal would see 100,000 kroner given as a bonus if a foreigner returns home and gives up their residency rights in Denmark.
Neither the government nor DF has yet elaborated on what constitutes an ‘anti-social’ foreigner, but have said that it would be aimed at those who ‘can’t or won’t integrate’.
– – – – – – – – –
According to DF party leader Pia Kjærsgaard, the move will save the state a significant sum in local costs which are administered by local and regional councils.
‘Society will save a lot on an immense number of charges and problems. We already know that there are problems with nursing homes and have been problems with hospitals and health charges,’ Kjærsgaard said.
As part of the agreement local councils will have access to a 20 million kroner pool of funds to help motivate foreigners to return to their home countries and will be fully refunded for repatriation costs compared to the current 75 percent refund they receive today.
But opposition parties are shocked by the news saying it sends a clear signal to foreigners that Denmark wants to see them leave the country.
At the weekend’s negotiations, DF also secured a further agreement to crack down on immigration.
Ten million kroner of the budget will be set aside to improve passport control at Danish borders with the purchase of scanners that can check Interpol databases for stolen travel documents.
Hat tip: Kepiblanc.
Message to TB: This saves you the trouble of translating the Danish version!
If they have citizenship or permanent residence, they can take the money and bolt to the UK.
There is also the small matter of the Lisbon treaty, which comes into law early December. How is Denmark they going to finesse this, short of leaving the EU?
But opposition parties are shocked by the news saying it sends a clear signal to foreigners that Denmark wants to see them leave the country…
a clear signal? Well, duh? Would they prefer a murky one, shrouded in p.c. phony, why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along hypocrisy.
This is being offered to people who have demonstrated in some wise that they don’t like Denmark. So the country is offering them a way to go home. What could be fairer that that?
“Shocked”??…right. Someone ought to shock those opposition parties. They need a live wire applied to whatever part of their anatomy that might best wake them up out of their 20th century stupor.
This new proposal will many unintended consequences. It’s already been reported by the Radical Left Party that many of the foreigners who will avail themselves of this opportunity are those who already intended to leave Denmark. There are many – Denmark has great difficulty hanging on to qualified labor. Also, the Danish government isn’t saying how this money will not end up going into terrorist hands, and then ironically enough be used to attack Denmark. This is yet another example of a proposal by Dansk Folkeparti that scores easy points with the party faithful but wasn’t all that well thought out.
That message is certainly loud and clear. Not very PC, but a strong message that trouble makers and anti-integrationists will be invited to leave. I wondered which EU nation would be the first. This just might start the domino effect.
DP111: As we have said here repeatedly, the entire European Union needs to be dismantled for European civilization to survive this century. All of it. I have received some requests for writing an essay about the differences between traditional English and British concepts of law and politics vs. that of the EU. If I have time I will try to do so.
I have great respect for the British Parliament and English Common Law. They were important factors in what once made Britain unusually dynamic even by Western European standards. However, by medieval times parliaments existed in other European countries, too. What is unique about Britain, at least compared to larger countries such as France, is that their parliament not only survived but was expanded in importance during the early modern era. It is all the more sad to see what a Politically Correct totalitarian nightmare Britain is today. As bad as the EU is, I don’t think all of Britain’s problems are caused by the EU alone.
It is a little bit misleading to see the EU as “Continental European vs. British politics.” The truth is that the EU is an extremely dangerous and exceptionally repressive organization which has no precedent in pre-Communist European history. It most closely resembles the former Soviet Union, or China at best, and in certain respects it is even worse than the latter.
It is is true that ordinary Europeans in the pre-democratic era for the most part did not choose their leaders, but European leaders even then at least tried to uphold a semblance of law and order and protect their territories against outside aggression. As long as you paid your taxes they usually left you alone and didn’t indoctrinate your children to hate themselves and their culture.
When you try to save a house that’s on fire you do that if you can, but preventing the fire from spreading to neighboring buildings should take priority. According to the same logic I hope that Western Europe can still be saved, but we should also try to prevent the former Communist countries in the eastern half of the Continent from being destroyed as well, and to to so we must get rid of the EU. I hope I can at some point visit London, Paris, Berlin and Amsterdam and still find something that actually looks like a European city, but if we cannot ensure this then let us at least save Prague, Budapest and Krakow.
“They need a live wire applied to whatever part of their anatomy that might best wake them up…”
Wouldn’t work, Dymphna. Heck, Muslims regularly do that on first dates.
I don’t think this incentive will have its desired effect. The same scheme was introduced in Norway some time ago, but it was eventually scrapped because it didn’t work. I believe the sum given to ‘refugees’ in Norway willing to return to their native countries was Nok 15 000. Several hundred Kosovo-Albanians and Bosnians accepted the money and left Norway, only to return once the money had run out or when they eventually realised that life was much sweeter it Norway.
What are the Danish government going to do when the first Somalis and Iraqis return to Denmark after having squandered the 100 000 and re-applies for political asylum?
What’s next? Is the Danish Government going to pay criminals not to commit crimes or pay unruly immigrants kids to not misbehave and beat up native Danish kids? I think that the politicians who proposed this scheme had too many ‘morgen bajere’ on the particular day they launched this idea.
Fjordman
There is saying that things have to get a lot worse before they get better. In that respect, it is better to get to the bottom fast, and then recover. Britain is most certainly on a fast ride to the bottom. OTH, there are signs that people in the UK are getting increasingly Islamophobic. SIOE has taken off in Britain. Then there is EDL and others, not mentioning the BNP. London is showing signs of a fight back on the streets. Deplorable as violence is, it is the one and only way to settle an existential matter. I believe that as violence picks up, many Muslims, specially the non-violent ones, will leave, for their home Islamic countries – many of them immeasurably richer then when they came in. As the Muslim population starts to decrease, the Jihad will be demoralised, and the out immigration will then accelerate as a consequence.
The EU is quite another kettle of fish. It is the slow revolution, a slow coup, and so no one has noticed. It is also insidious; it has hollowed the institutional structures of the nation states, but left the external structure intact.
However, after the Lisbon treaty, it will become increasingly difficult to hide the fact that the EU has become an overarching power. I expect trouble, particularly in Britain.
In the meantime, support our efforts to take “freedom and liberal democracy” to Islamic nations, such as Afghanistan and Iraq. I can think of no nobler effort then this, for them and most of all, for us.
I believe this will work.
Of course, we need to be discriminating toward exactly who gets this pay-to-leave check. It has a high number on it – but the cost of having them wreck havoc here is much higher.
That opposition parties oppose the idea is to be expected, and is a further indication that this would work well. Another yet unnoticed way this works is that it shows radicals that if they get too extreme, we’ll want them out.
Implementation is key to this becoming a workable tool.
How is Denmark they going to finesse this, short of leaving the EU?
I for sure wouldn’t mind 🙂
It’s important to remember that the proposal explicitly implies that the recepient gives up his permit of residence. He can’t just bolt to the UK (legally, that is).
It has already been done ages ago in France. I think it was under Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s presidency. That would be more than 30 years ago.
The sum was 10 000 francs, which was quite important at the time. It was the equivalent of one million “old” francs (pre-1960), and therefore became known as “le million des immigrés” (“The immigrants’ million”). That would be 1 500 euros, something like 2 200 dollars (much more if you factor in inflation).
I don’t know how many picked up the offer (not an overwhelming success, I guess), but obviously the problem has not gone away. Far from it.
Regarding the Danish proposition, if anti-social behaviour gets you a monetary prize, there is an incentive to criminality. No such link was included in the French measure.
Henrik R Clausen
1. Will it be voluntary?
2. If they are criminals – what then? Is there any compulsion involved.
3. Compulsion will lead to endless court battles, eventually ending up in the EU courts. It will be a decade at the least before anything happens.
What about the Lisbon treaty? There are express provisions in it for any form of discrimination.
One way the EU will work in our favour, is if there is serious public unrest. Public unrest frightens the hell out of EU apparatchiks, as their own existence and need, can be called into question.
British democracy was always a democracy in name only, the ceding of power was between the monarchy and the parliament, that concession of power did not extend to the common man (who is in fact powerless) it is this deficit in crown democracy that has allowed institutions and quangos to usurp the will of the people and render their vote worthless.
The Lisbon treaty will be the death warrant of crown parliamentary democracy, both legitimized by deficit they will endure the same fate.
I’m not sure where you get your information from, 4symbols, but you seem to be missing something from your analysis. The English parliamentary system evolved into a form of democratic government by the consent of the governed and for a while it worked, and was democratic. More important though, even when there was a deficit of this democratic representation, there was still respect for the rule of law. Until the middle of the 20th century our institutions were governed by the constant belief that all men – including the monarch – were equal before the law and this placed a great restraint on the excesses of the use of state power that we saw in other, less enlightened nations.
The problem we face now is a resurgence of Frankish-continental legislation by regulation, which is foreign to England and always has been, for this reason: On the continent, where nations were traditionally governed by arbitrary fiat, the regulatory power of the law brought freedom from tyrannical kings and despots. The law that proscribed all that wasn’t legislated about was used to prevent the worst excesses of the king, governor, duke, baron or whomever. Law was used to enforce the fair treatment of the vilaine and serf.
In England, and the kingdoms that preceded it, such laws were not needed. The briton was a freeman, bound to no other man except by his own consent; the king had power only by consent of the people he governed (most overtly recognised by Charles the Second, who had good reason to keep the mob in good favour) and the law, when it was brought down from on high, was seen as a chain that restrained the ancient freedoms of the common man. The English culture Required little regulation because, as a culture, it was what we would now call law-abiding, but might better be described as just. When the Normans invaded and began implementing their legal system here it was a step down for the English freeman, who suddenly found themselves bound to barons and princes and “owned” under an alien system of government. Since then the battle has been between the regulatory inclinations of that continental style of government and the restoration of traditional English liberties. When Parliament enforced its will on the King it took a step back towards that latter state, and the history of England from that point was – generally – a return toward the civil society of the free and just. However, the temptation toward regulation – the laying of the chain of law – still exists in the upper echelons of society and rises up every so often. We’re seeing it happen now with a return to the sort of absolutist thinking displayed under the Stuarts, but with a sheen of democratic accountability to fool themselves into thinking they fool the masses.
Make no mistake though, the fact that the executive currently acts as if it is above the law is not because of the institutions it grew out of but because of the current ascendency of that alien influence in the conflict between the temptation towards rule by fiat and the heart of the freeman that beats in every English chest. It’s a conflict that goes right through English society, and can be seen most obviously when you hear, in conversation, someone saying “there ought to be a law”. Everyone says there ought to be a law, but until recently they understood at a visceral level that the law would become another chain in time and so there were very few laws. They weren’t necessary. They still aren’t, and at some point the right of the people to their ancient liberties will re-assert itself.
Whether we remain a monarchy of a parliamentary democracy after that is a different matter, but the belief that the English monarchy as an institution (never mind the person on the throne) and the EU are of the same stuff strikes me as a little, shall we say, contrary to the facts of the matter?
Not a chance.
The Germans tried that back in the eighties and gave many Turks up to DM 70.000.00 to move back.
They all went on a long holiday and then returned with their extended families and in some cases the whole tribe.
The Germans also don’t accept dual nationality, but the Turks simply gave up the Turkish passport, got German nationality, and then went back and applied for a Turkish passport again. Turkey supports such deceit of course.
Remember: War is Deceit, said Mohammed, prophet of Islam, and Allah has dissolved treaties with the kuffars.
Mohammedans have no intention to honor treaties with infidels. We either treat them like they treat their (remaining) minorities or we will be their slaves and our women war booty.
Graham Dawson (Archonix)
What I was trying to allude to is what must be an inherent flaw in British parliamentary democracy that allowed the abdication of power to the European Union, to cede this amount of political power to an alien institution must be beyond even the powers of the executive. Ultimately power is only given in trust it belongs to the people and future generations it should be held not relinquished to a third party.
The only comparison I was making is that both institutions are constitutional flawed, one showing its true nature in its death throes the other in its birth pangs.