A quick skim of the article indicates that the policy is largely the same as the welfare policies that apply to native Danes. I did however love the bluntness of flat out stating that it was mainly to deter Migrants.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
I think Angela is slowly realising that refugees might not integrate quite as smoothly as she hoped. They don't seem to know how to behave around western women. How could she be so naive?
I love the smell of twin V16's in the morning..
I love the smell of twin V16's in the morning..
There's a few holiday camps she could send them to for r&r![]()
READ AND UDESTAND
I wonder how many of those refugee's had money in overseas accounts before leaving their countries. If so, I think they should have to use those assets before expecting welfare from countries taking them in. The Danes have to utilize their assets before being eligible for national welfare.
I have read that Sweden is spending 38% of its' welfare on immigrants. If that is correct, I can understand how the Swedes/Danes/Germans etc are getting slightly pissed off.
" Rule books are for the Guidance of the Wise, and the Obedience of Fools"
I don't get what they are supposed to do when they do arrive. Not many will speak English let alone German or Danish. The majority will end up doing menial work for minimal pay or stay on benefits, they might be grateful to just be somewhere "safe" for a few years but they might get a bit disenchanted when their kids get picked on at school and they feel like second class citizens. Before you know it 2nd and 3rd generations turn against us.
German government have done their sums I'm sure and realised there manufacturing industry could do with a fresh batch of cheap labour. Not so sure they have thought it through long term. Fresh migrants might be willing to work for buttons but thier kids and grandkids want equal standing.
I love the smell of twin V16's in the morning..
@an entirely money related issue and the follow up ignorance.
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
The central issue is not entirely (and certainly not only) money related. People who have no financial investment in a society have no emotional investment in the stability of that society. If your position in a society, and your attitude towards that society, is that you are entitled to withdraw from its social capital (and capital in this context does not mean only money but does include money) but do not have to contribute to replenishing and improving that society, then you are basically a parasite.
As the original article stated, the Danes are applying no less and no more rigourous scrutiny to (Illegal) immigrants finances than they do to their own citizens who have, by contrast, contributed for years, or even decades to building Danish society.
If the open borders people got their way, functioning societies and successful states would in quite the short-term break down into swamps of poverty; outright force would rule (for a good 'modern' example on how that works out, take a look at Somalia), and the impoverished and ill whom the socialists profess to care so much about, would quickly die off. Only a functioning successful state has surplus production that enables it to look after the impoverished and the ill.
Before I answer I'd like to make something clear. Given that this is KB, I don't expect that you, or anyone else for that matter, will accept this rider. I fully understand your position having spent the vast majority of my life expressing very similar views on the same subject i.e. dirty bastards should do something for a living. That dirty bastards is not limited to refrugees/immigrants, but also included the career bludger and anyone else considered as a drain on society. As I said, I don't expect you to accept that. Anyhoo...
I class myself as having no financial investment in society, yet I most definitely have emotional investment in the stability of ALL societies... even those societies that convention states that I have no part in i.e. I've never lived in them and therefore don't contribute towards them. As you say, there are parasites running amok who believe that they are entitled to stuff that someone else doesn't believe they should be entitled to, but they are at all levels of the "pyramid". The Kardashains spring to mind as an example of the more affluent.
True, and it is an entirely financial measure that sets the level of entitlement afforded.
I agree that that would likely happen. However the only reason that that would happen would be because of money. There is no thing as a successful functioning state with surplus production as they are ALL (bar 5 reported, Macao, the Virgin Islands, Brunei, Liechtenstein, Palau) in debt. Given that they are ALL in debt, someone is going to have to lose i.e. be unemployed or earn a shit wage given that there isn't enough money for business etc... and it's hardly surprising that social capital is "lost" given that it has been replaced by a $ rated entitlement system. Generally the least well equipped in society are paid barely a living wage because it has been decided that that is all that those least equipped should be entitled to. Parasitic behaviour takes advantage of these less entitled and the reward for such behaviour is money.
Removing the money removes the vast majority of the issues we would suffer, including issues that affect and drive social capital. Meh, this is KB![]()
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks