Stevo 666
Well-Known Member
Sure, provided that you're prepared to make up the shortfall in tax that their departure has created.
Starmer's vision quest
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Sure, provided that you're prepared to make up the shortfall in tax that their departure has created.
matticus
Guru
The Search doesn't find it. Is this a fair represnetaion? https://www.infomigrants.net/en/pos...es-to-signal-to-migrants-they-are-not-welcome
There's some ... strong words in there! Just skim-reading, but this caught my eye:
...another divisive immigration law also made headlines in Denmark and beyond: The introduction of the so-called "Ghetto Law" allows authorities to intervene and forcibly remove foreigners from neighborhoods if the ratio of non-Western foreigners in those areas exceeds 30 percent.
...
Several foreign governments have accused Denmark of racism and xenophobia in response to the law, which likely is the reaction the country had wanted to illicit with its overall campaign focusing on keeping migrants away.
Last edited:
Stevo 666
Well-Known Member
Here's the article:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...r-can-learn-denmark-harsh-immigration-stance/
Can Qquote a few bits if it's paywalled.
icowden
Squire
You'll notice that he did use the arrested person's name. Which is what you suggested would constitute prejudice.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
Stevo 666
Well-Known Member
Nope, just a report on how Denmark deals with immigration and how we might learn a few lessons from it. But sounds like you don't really want to know.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
I do, I'm just not able to get beyond the paywall. So what's the craic?
matticus
Guru
Thanks.
Sir Keir Starmer’s claim that the UK risked becoming an “island of strangers” unless it introduced stricter immigration controls provoked outrage on the Left, amid claims that the Prime Minister was echoing the words of Enoch Powell.
Olivia Blake, the Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam, suggested the phrase could “risk legitimising the same far-Right violence we saw in last year’s summer riots”.
Zarah Sultana, a former Labour MP who sits as an independent, said it was “sickening” that Starmer was “imitating Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”, adding: “It adds to anti-migrant rhetoric that puts lives at risk. Shame on you, Keir Starmer.”
Yet rather than empowering the far-Right, Starmer may be neutering it.
“There is no doubt in my mind that traditional political parties taking immigration seriously is the reason why we don’t have large far-Right parties in Denmark,” says Kaare Dybvad Bek, the Danish immigration minister.
“I think that is true for most European countries – if you take immigration back under democratic control, then you restrict how much the far-Right can grow.”
Dybvad Bek is a member of the Social Democrat government in Denmark, a Left-leaning administration that has expanded access to abortion, promotes green energy and is a firm supporter of the country’s generous welfare state.
Yet there is one area in which they stand apart from other European parties on the Left: immigration. The Social Democrats have a “zero refugee” policy under which ministers actively look for ways to discourage people from coming to Denmark.
For a long time, Denmark’s immigration policies were regarded by neighbours with unease or even outright disgust. Now, many other countries are looking to them for inspiration.
The Nordic country known for “hygge” – a cosy and warm atmosphere – is also pushing for a tougher stance across the EU to make the bloc as a whole less attractive for those seeking refuge. Ministers want an EU-wide approach to outsourcing asylum processing.
One of the most outlandish initiatives pursued to make Denmark unappealing was to make it legal to confiscate valuables from refugees to make them pay their way.
Under what has become known as the “jewellery law”, the Danish state can strip asylum seekers – be it Syrians, Ukrainians or Afghans – of valuables worth more than 10,000 kr (£1,129), including wedding rings.
The government had used these powers 17 times by mid-2022, although exactly which items were seized is not known.
“The jewellery law is an apt example of something that has very limited practical value in terms of revenue streams into the Danish state and public finances, but it had a lot of symbolic value when it was proposed and also adopted,” says Ditte Brasso Sørensen from the Danish think tank Europa.
Another policy that many see as emblematic of the Danes’ controversial approach to immigration and integration is the “ghetto law”, since re-christened to the “parallel societies” policy by the government.
It gives the government powers to forcibly move people in areas where at least 50pc of the residents are of non-Western origin if, for example, crime and unemployment rates are high.
To do so, authorities can tear down or sell off social housing and replace it with private properties, student flats or businesses.
Entire apartment blocks in Copenhagen and Aarhus, the second-largest city, have been marked for demolition. The EU’s top court ruled the law was discriminatory in February.
Vote winner
While judges disapprove, voters back the policies. The Social Democrats have won the last two elections in Denmark, in 2022 and 2019.
The latest polling shows they are still by far the most popular party, commanding 22.9pc of the vote – nearly 10 percentage points ahead of the second-biggest rival.
Meanwhile, the Danish People’s Party – typically described as far-Right – accounts for only 4.4pc, down from 21.1pc a decade ago.
“The Danish Social Democrats are quite pro-industry, and they’re quite harsh on migration. I think that combination has put them in a very different place than other social democratic parties in Europe,” says Sørensen.
They are certainly in an enviable position in comparison to Labour, which has sunk to 22pc in the polls, far behind Nigel Farage’s Reform UK on 29pc. The Conservatives, who were criticised for failing to get a grip on immigration, have meanwhile been relegated to third place in the same polls.
It is Denmark’s approach to people who seek asylum, rather than those pursuing legal immigration, that sets it apart from other countries, says migration expert Jean-Christophe Dumont at the OECD. And its tough laws appear to work.
“Denmark receives fewer asylum seekers than comparable countries. In 2023, they received only 400 asylum seekers per million inhabitants compared to about 10 times that number for Germany,” Dumont says.
Dybvad Bek, the Danish immigration minister, says: “What we can see now is that we have one of the lowest numbers of asylum seekers in Europe. What we have done differently to many other countries, I think, is that we are very effective at returning people.
“We have very few people without the right to stay who have not been returned. We monitor people from their first rejection to the airport.”
Denmark has been able to take a different approach to immigration than its EU peers because it has an opt-out clause giving it the power to set its own policies. This dates back to its decision to opt out from the adoption of the euro and certain parts of EU police and justice policy.
It uses these powers with gusto. As early as 2021, the government said it would deport some Syrian refugees to areas it deemed safe in the country, which was then still in the throes of a deadly civil war.
Rejected asylum seekers receive no financial support and are only entitled to food and shelter until they leave.
They are also offered 20,000 DKK (£2,258) if they withdraw their application within two weeks after the initial refusal. A further 20,000 DKK in “repatriation support” to restart their lives at home is offered, no questions asked. Denmark literally pays migrants to leave.
‘We’re not racist’
The way Dybvad Bek and the Social Democrats see it, having a strict immigration policy is essential to maintaining the welfare state. The system relies on everyone pulling their weight. It falls apart if you accept lots of newcomers who need financial support.
He has little time for critics who accuse their approach of being thinly veiled racism.
“We’re not in any way racist. We acknowledge that people must be treated the same regardless of race. We treat people exactly the same regardless of where they are from.
“But it is completely reasonable to say you don’t want mass immigration of people with a completely different culture.”
In fact, it is Left-wing to be opposed to mass immigration, he suggests.
“If you’re upper class, immigration is a positive for you. Then you have access to lots of cheap labour to clean, drive you around or whatever you want. Therefore, I think it is important to realise as a social democrat that immigration affects those already struggling in our society. This has been our starting point and that is why we have a strict immigration approach.”
His advice to Starmer and other leaders struggling to fend off rivals like Farage?
“You must first make your own assessment of the challenges with migration and then adopt a policy that is your own and where you set out what kind of society you wish to see … rather than constantly chasing the Left or the Right. I don’t think it is possible to change things in the long-term otherwise.”
Whether Starmer has a long-term vision for British society remains to be seen. In opposition, he said Labour must make a “stronger and wider case on immigration”.
Now multicultural Britain risks becoming “an island of strangers”.
Olivia Blake, the Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam, suggested the phrase could “risk legitimising the same far-Right violence we saw in last year’s summer riots”.
Zarah Sultana, a former Labour MP who sits as an independent, said it was “sickening” that Starmer was “imitating Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”, adding: “It adds to anti-migrant rhetoric that puts lives at risk. Shame on you, Keir Starmer.”
Yet rather than empowering the far-Right, Starmer may be neutering it.
“There is no doubt in my mind that traditional political parties taking immigration seriously is the reason why we don’t have large far-Right parties in Denmark,” says Kaare Dybvad Bek, the Danish immigration minister.
“I think that is true for most European countries – if you take immigration back under democratic control, then you restrict how much the far-Right can grow.”
Dybvad Bek is a member of the Social Democrat government in Denmark, a Left-leaning administration that has expanded access to abortion, promotes green energy and is a firm supporter of the country’s generous welfare state.
Yet there is one area in which they stand apart from other European parties on the Left: immigration. The Social Democrats have a “zero refugee” policy under which ministers actively look for ways to discourage people from coming to Denmark.
For a long time, Denmark’s immigration policies were regarded by neighbours with unease or even outright disgust. Now, many other countries are looking to them for inspiration.
The Nordic country known for “hygge” – a cosy and warm atmosphere – is also pushing for a tougher stance across the EU to make the bloc as a whole less attractive for those seeking refuge. Ministers want an EU-wide approach to outsourcing asylum processing.
One of the most outlandish initiatives pursued to make Denmark unappealing was to make it legal to confiscate valuables from refugees to make them pay their way.
Under what has become known as the “jewellery law”, the Danish state can strip asylum seekers – be it Syrians, Ukrainians or Afghans – of valuables worth more than 10,000 kr (£1,129), including wedding rings.
The government had used these powers 17 times by mid-2022, although exactly which items were seized is not known.
“The jewellery law is an apt example of something that has very limited practical value in terms of revenue streams into the Danish state and public finances, but it had a lot of symbolic value when it was proposed and also adopted,” says Ditte Brasso Sørensen from the Danish think tank Europa.
Another policy that many see as emblematic of the Danes’ controversial approach to immigration and integration is the “ghetto law”, since re-christened to the “parallel societies” policy by the government.
It gives the government powers to forcibly move people in areas where at least 50pc of the residents are of non-Western origin if, for example, crime and unemployment rates are high.
To do so, authorities can tear down or sell off social housing and replace it with private properties, student flats or businesses.
Entire apartment blocks in Copenhagen and Aarhus, the second-largest city, have been marked for demolition. The EU’s top court ruled the law was discriminatory in February.
Vote winner
While judges disapprove, voters back the policies. The Social Democrats have won the last two elections in Denmark, in 2022 and 2019.
The latest polling shows they are still by far the most popular party, commanding 22.9pc of the vote – nearly 10 percentage points ahead of the second-biggest rival.
Meanwhile, the Danish People’s Party – typically described as far-Right – accounts for only 4.4pc, down from 21.1pc a decade ago.
“The Danish Social Democrats are quite pro-industry, and they’re quite harsh on migration. I think that combination has put them in a very different place than other social democratic parties in Europe,” says Sørensen.
They are certainly in an enviable position in comparison to Labour, which has sunk to 22pc in the polls, far behind Nigel Farage’s Reform UK on 29pc. The Conservatives, who were criticised for failing to get a grip on immigration, have meanwhile been relegated to third place in the same polls.
It is Denmark’s approach to people who seek asylum, rather than those pursuing legal immigration, that sets it apart from other countries, says migration expert Jean-Christophe Dumont at the OECD. And its tough laws appear to work.
“Denmark receives fewer asylum seekers than comparable countries. In 2023, they received only 400 asylum seekers per million inhabitants compared to about 10 times that number for Germany,” Dumont says.
Dybvad Bek, the Danish immigration minister, says: “What we can see now is that we have one of the lowest numbers of asylum seekers in Europe. What we have done differently to many other countries, I think, is that we are very effective at returning people.
“We have very few people without the right to stay who have not been returned. We monitor people from their first rejection to the airport.”
Denmark has been able to take a different approach to immigration than its EU peers because it has an opt-out clause giving it the power to set its own policies. This dates back to its decision to opt out from the adoption of the euro and certain parts of EU police and justice policy.
It uses these powers with gusto. As early as 2021, the government said it would deport some Syrian refugees to areas it deemed safe in the country, which was then still in the throes of a deadly civil war.
Rejected asylum seekers receive no financial support and are only entitled to food and shelter until they leave.
They are also offered 20,000 DKK (£2,258) if they withdraw their application within two weeks after the initial refusal. A further 20,000 DKK in “repatriation support” to restart their lives at home is offered, no questions asked. Denmark literally pays migrants to leave.
‘We’re not racist’
The way Dybvad Bek and the Social Democrats see it, having a strict immigration policy is essential to maintaining the welfare state. The system relies on everyone pulling their weight. It falls apart if you accept lots of newcomers who need financial support.
He has little time for critics who accuse their approach of being thinly veiled racism.
“We’re not in any way racist. We acknowledge that people must be treated the same regardless of race. We treat people exactly the same regardless of where they are from.
“But it is completely reasonable to say you don’t want mass immigration of people with a completely different culture.”
In fact, it is Left-wing to be opposed to mass immigration, he suggests.
“If you’re upper class, immigration is a positive for you. Then you have access to lots of cheap labour to clean, drive you around or whatever you want. Therefore, I think it is important to realise as a social democrat that immigration affects those already struggling in our society. This has been our starting point and that is why we have a strict immigration approach.”
His advice to Starmer and other leaders struggling to fend off rivals like Farage?
“You must first make your own assessment of the challenges with migration and then adopt a policy that is your own and where you set out what kind of society you wish to see … rather than constantly chasing the Left or the Right. I don’t think it is possible to change things in the long-term otherwise.”
Whether Starmer has a long-term vision for British society remains to be seen. In opposition, he said Labour must make a “stronger and wider case on immigration”.
Now multicultural Britain risks becoming “an island of strangers”.
matticus
Guru
bloody amateur!
CXRAndy
Guru
Back to the Rwanda plan then
View: https://x.com/Notts14967093/status/1923342812994580755?t=NNgk-KVxI7JeX_sJO76NVw&s=19
View: https://x.com/Notts14967093/status/1923342812994580755?t=NNgk-KVxI7JeX_sJO76NVw&s=19
briantrumpet
Senior Member
This is a good thread on the position Labour have placed themselves in. Essentially it could be read that Starmer is framing Reform as the party Labour will be up against, in the hope that enough people will hate Reform enough to reluctantly vote for Labour, in an acho of the GTTO vote in 2024. But it's a very risky strategy, because he's pishing off all the people who hoped that Labour would be an antidote to the 14 years of Tory shift to Farage's pitch.
https://bsky.app/profile/zoejardiniere.bsky.social/post/3lpbsdnvesc2b
Meanwhile, the Tory Party is getting even more irrelevant, neither in power, nor effectively in opposition. In that respect, Starmer is correct.
https://bsky.app/profile/zoejardiniere.bsky.social/post/3lpbsdnvesc2b
Meanwhile, the Tory Party is getting even more irrelevant, neither in power, nor effectively in opposition. In that respect, Starmer is correct.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
My mother-in-law had Alzheimer's, she did "live a worthwhile life", until the last couple of years, during which she was VERY distressed.
My wife, her daughter, now has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's, she is still at the "worth while life stage", but, it will not last for much longer.
It is not a pleasant way to go.
You continually fail to appreciate that SOME people dont want to "be looked after", they want a CHOICE.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
No, 80s weren't bad, 60s weren't bad (because I was young and responsibility free), late 90s onwards have been pretty good 🙂
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
I didn't notice a breakdown showing legals vs illegals, in your figures, but, does it matter, either way, they are still people. To me, three quarters of a million people is a lot of people (not to mention, a lot of house, cars, school places, doctors appointments, etc).
