2005 December 31 Saturday
Denmark Cuts Back On Immigration
Some European countries are ahead of the United States in making substantial moves to cut immigration. Hjörtur Gudmundsson, writing from Reykjavik Iceland for Brussels Journal (check it out if you've never been there before), reports that Denmark is cutting back on immigration because too many immigrants are on welfare.
The Danish government intends to significantly curb the flow of immigrants from third-world countries next year. The reason for this decision is a new official report on the Danish welfare system which was made public today (December 7). According to Claus Hjort Frederiksen, the Minister for Employment, immigrants from countries such as Somalia, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon are a huge burden on Danish welfare (a similar study was produced in Norway last September). Frederiksen said that immigrants allowed into the country had to have a job waiting for them.
They should go further and just stop the influx altogether.
The Danes have already cut back on immigration.
Since the Liberal-Conservative government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen gained power in 2001 Denmark has not been receiving as many refugees and immigrants as before. Since then the number of annual residence permits granted to asylum seekers each year has dropped from 5,156 in 2000 to 2,447 in 2003. Residence permits for family reunification have dropped from 10,021 in 2000 to 4,791 in 2003, according to the Danish national statistics office.
If anyone has sources for immigration trends in other European countries please post them in the comments. I suspect that Muslim immigration into Europe might be on the decrease due to a fairly quiet tightening of immigration policies aimed at asylum seekers and Muslims. But that's just a guess.
Danish Minister of Refugee, Immigration, and Integration Affairs Rikke Hvilshøj sees the high unemployment rates and low educational attainment of immigrants as big problems.
Hvilshøj also said that high unemployment rates and low education levels remained the biggest problem facing immigrants in Denmark. Only 46% of immigrants from third-world countries were employed, compared to 73% of Danes, and 60% of young immigrants dropped out of high school. Hvilshøj said that Denmark's current economic boom and low unemployment was the time for immigrants to seize the labour market.
The West should keep out the dummies and the Muslims. Western countries ought to institute IQ testing for prospective immigrants. The bar should be set pretty high. Even an IQ of 100 does not allow a person to do all that much. I think 120 IQ ought to be a minimum and would favor an even higher minimum threshold.
A few months back Filip van Laenen also reported on the Brussels Journal web site that immigrants in Norway on welfare are less likely to leave the country than immigrants who were not on welfare.
Interestingly, the welfare dependency ratio grows the longer the immigrants are living in Norway. Ekhaugen analysed the annual situation from 1992 to 2000 of three types of adult immigrants - refugees and asylum seekers; non-western, non-refugee immigrants; and western (OECD) immigrants - arriving in the country between 1956 and 1996 (the author of this article arrived in 1997). She also looked into re-emigration patterns, concluding that “the probability of re-migration correlates negatively with the probability of receiving welfare.” She writes:
“The risk of attracting immigrants whose prime motivation for migrating is receiving rather than contributing is an oft-repeated concern. But at least as important as who comes, is who stays. Decisions of re-emigration may be positively correlated with the immigrant’s self-supporting ability, implying that the host country ends up hosting an increasing number of welfare recipients. Egalitarian welfare states could thus find themselves losing out to other, less egalitarian countries in the competition for labor supplying immigrants.”
Ekhaugen researched the amount of welfare payments received: i.e. social assistance, unemployment benefits, disability pension, sickness benefits and rehabilitation benefits. The payments had to be received during at least one month per year, with the exception of sickness benefits, which were not counted for periods of less than three months to avoid defining too large a group as welfare participants.
The idea that immigrants will solve Europe's demographic problem due to aging populations is naive. Immigrants will make the welfare state burden bigger, not smaller.
Think about that result in the context of Steve Sailer's proposal for Europe to pay Muslims to leave (more here). Obviously immigrants respond to economic incentives. If they were told they could no longer get government-supplied welfare benefits in Europe but could get money if they left then many more would leave.
Update: The refugee influx is dropping in Scandinavia as a whole.
According to a report compiled by the Danish Immigration Service, in all 23,595 refugees had as of the end of October applied for asylum in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, equalling 2,360 individuals a month.
For the whole of 2004, the monthly average was 3,183 refugees a month so the projections for 2005 suggested a 26% drop.
Update II: A Swedish Board of Migration office has been discovered to celebrate deportations with parties.
Civil servants at the Board of Migration in Solna, in Stockholm, celebrated the successful expulsion of an asylum-seeking family in November last year by gathering in the office during working hours and sharing a bottle of champagne.
The gathering became public after an email which was sent to the staff was acquired by newspaper Dagens Nyheter:
"On Friday we'll celebrate along with AM2 at 15.00 in their kitchen. I hope that you can all set aside a quarter of an hour before that in our kitchen when we will make good on [migration officer]'s promise of champagne after a certain family left Sweden."
They were criticised by the usual fools for celebrating deportations.
While a drop in the number of asylum applications is better than an increase there is still
an influx of social parasites into Europe. In a country the size of Denmark even 5 or 6,000
people per year, overtime, creates a substantial fifth column within their society. Every
ten years, even without the higher birthrates of third world immigrants, an additional one percent of the population will be of Muslim/Third world origin.
The problem lies with the international conventions Europe created to ensure 'human rights'
and the inability to deport those who arrive without papers or come from countries whose
legal procedures are anathema to European liberal opinion.
The solution should be to house asylum claimants and 'refugees' in low cost nations.
Australia made such an arrangement with the island nation of Nauru which, having mined out
its guano, needed an alternative source of income. It was cheaper for Australia and once
word got out that unauthorized immigrants would go to a camp in Nauru and stay there it
diminished the influx.
Such camps, with comfortable but spartan conditions, would mollify the 'human rights' crowd
especially if the running of them was turned over the UNHCR or another 'suitable' NGO. I
have suggested to the British government that they establish their own such facility in the
Falkland Islands, perhaps even granting residency to those with desirable skills the right
to settle there since Britain desires to increase the population of those islands.
One other thing that needs to be done is to limit the conditions of asylum. It should not
mean 'permanent residency' as the conditions which made a legitimate refugee flee are not
eternal. Why are not efforts made by the US or EU to negotiate the return of asylum seekers
to their home countries? Surely many, if not most, of these folks could be returned upon
reciept of pledges by their home governments that no action will be taken against them upon
their return. Aid cutoffs or sanctions could be imposed on those governments that violate
their pledge. It is really not credible to believe that many third world governments are
going to go out of their way to 'persecute' some penniless peasant especially if, by doing
so, they risk losing millions in foreign assistance.
I hope this article nails the damned lie, once and for all, that somehow the importation of low-skilled, low-productivity immigrants will somehow "save" Europe from a social security "funding crisis".
As can be seen, the truth is that most of these immigrants are a heavy burden on social welfare, being little more than useless eaters.
It should be recalled that the immigrationists have the burden of proof, in that they propose to change the population. The restrictionist need not prove that an immigration cohort will do evil, as by increasing the aggression on the net taxpayer. One can easily observe how the advocates of such immigration merely assert what was to be proven; that an immigration cohort would subsidize the existing population.
The 3rd country solution for housing refugees is an excellent suggestion. The camps are not the same as the countries around them, in terms of their conditions of life, relative to persecution. There are dozens of countries which are in abject dependence on the rich ones, just to maintain even the pretense of a government. Threatened with an aid boycott from all donor nations with the same refugee problems in general, nearly all of these poor countries would be quite willing to take refugees into a border camp with as much freedom from aggression overall, as exists anywhere in the world. We can give all refugees more freedom than they would have on their own in an American city of freedom for aggression, and pay pennies on the dollar to support them. Indeed private charity could take up all those costs, government need only remove funding from uncooperative regimes. Many new countries emerging gloriously from anarchy have yet to be recognized by the vicious diplomatic services, which worship tyranny and degradation. these can be recognized if they will set up a border cantonment for a small number of refugees. There you have another few dozen countries, maybe hundreds.
The price of socialism (state subsidized care of the sick and elderly) in the West is a declining birthrate.
State supported geezers are the end of civilization - not a more advanced civilization.
By Jorge, I think you have a point!
During the Victorian era and earlier, everyone except the royals depended on their grown children during old age. Everyone had to have enough children to eventually support them--smarties as well as not so smarties.
Somehow many of the royals were able to practice effective birth control without abstinence.
Cheap birth control and the socialist state give the means and the incentive to avoid childbearing. I never really looked at it that way before.
according to the war situation in lebanon I need to have peace world and I thing to search for Immigration and I decide if I go to the denemark because I have Relative their but I can't . please if any one can help me I thank him or her .
hi sir i m 27 year old m, i ve two bechelor degree bechelor in art and
bechelor in education,b.ed,and ii ve four year experienc in teaching in a school,
i want to ask may i get immigratiion of denmark??????or Scandinavia
i m waitiing ur answer...
Dear M asif,
following blog will help u a lot if u r seeking denmark immigration
Oh yeah? i in 3 U.S. counties are dying. Some think it's because of lack of immigrants.
"Immigrants are innovators, entrepreneurs, they're making things happen. They create jobs," said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, at an immigration conference in his state last week. Saying Michigan should be a top destination for legal immigrants to come and boost Detroit and other struggling areas, Snyder made a special appeal: "Please come here."
It's already been said that it might just be precisely IMMIGRANTS that keep the U.S. economy from collapsing.
"These counties are in a pretty steep downward spiral," said Kenneth Johnson, a senior demographer and sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire, who researched the findings. "The young people leave and the older adults stay in place and age. Unless something dramatic changes — for instance, new development such as a meatpacking plant to attract young Hispanics — these areas are likely to have more and more natural decrease."