The detractors of the law, by default, are more than happy with the redistributing of wealth of those who reject their money being pissed down the drain. 

hobbits-clapping with AFP
04:57 updated: 08:00
Lars Løkke Rasmussen “has to be elected in Denmark, not by international media”.  [News Oresund/Flickr]

Despite widespread condemnation, Denmark’s parliament is expected to vote today (26 January) in favour of drastic reforms curbing asylum seekers’ rights, including delaying family reunifications and confiscating migrants’ valuables.

The country has insisted the new law is needed to stem the flow of refugees even though Denmark and Sweden recently tightened their borders, a move that prompted Germany and Austria to turn back new arrivals heading for Scandinavia.

While international outrage has focused on a proposal allowing police to seize cash and valuables from refugees to help pay for their stay in asylum centres, rights activists have blasted a proposed three-year delay for family reunifications which they say breaches international conventions.

The plan has “a particularly bitter connotation in Europe, where the Nazis confiscated large amounts of gold and other valuables from Jews and others,” The Washington Post wrote.

More here.

3 Responses

  1. We must not forget that the international condemnation is done by old, political correct parties. Those, who will not survive the next election.
    Since the widespread fascist political correct press is also boycotting any free opinion, and now even Facebook is joining that party that would make even Goebbels proud, don’t underestimate the widespread people sentiment in Europe. And that is even before any further mass terrorist actions and mass rapes.
    Times are changing but for now we have to embrace the extremists, for they bring truth in the heart and mind of the political correct!

    1. We need to embrace those who are truly demonstrating for western classical liberalism

  2. Can someone pinpoint the exact year that “family reunification” became some sort of right, either for refugees or any other kind of migrant? When my father immigrated to Canada from Ireland as a young single man in the late 1960’s, he didn’t immediately bring the rest of his extended family with him. In fact, none of his parents, siblings or even cousins ever immigrated to Canada. And when it came time to get married, he didn’t send back to the old country for a bride, as so many Muslims do. He found himself a local gal. But now if Ahmed can’t bring his illiterate 80-year-old great aunt Zainab within two weeks of his making landfall, it’s a violation of his rights? Even in the case of non-threatening immigrants (ie non-Muslims) such family reunification still retards the integration process enormously and saddles the host country with less productive residents than they’d have had otherwise if they chose purely on the basis of merit and likelihood to succeed. For the life of me, I can no longer see any obligations that new immigrants have to western countries, only rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.