America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Thursday, September 16, 2021
MUSLIMS OVERRUN EUROPE AND THEIR WELFARE LINES - Denmark Wants Migrants to Work 37 Hours a Week
Denmark Wants Migrants to Work 37 Hours a Week
Guess who's outraged at such an unjust requirement?
Denmark has done something sensible – and remarkably, its left-wing politicians have been the ones promoting the measure – by proposing that migrants be required to work 37 hours a week in order to receive welfare benefits. If they refuse, they will be stripped of their benefits and, presumably, will either capitulate and go to work, or leave Denmark, in order to move to another European country that might take them in, or to return to their countries – overwhelmingly Muslim — of origin.
A report on this commonsensical measure is discussed here: “Denmark proposes making migrants work 37 hours a week to earn benefits because ‘there are too many, especially with non-Western backgrounds, who do not have a job,'” MailOnline,
Denmark has proposed making migrants work 37 hours a week to earn welfare benefits because “there are too many, especially with non-Western backgrounds, who do not have a job’.
Economic migrants in Europe – delicately alluded to as those “with non-Western backgrounds” — are almost all from Muslim lands: Syria, Iraq, Morocco, Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey. They have seen a good thing in the generous welfare benefits that European welfare states provide, and have flooded into Europe, by land and sea, legally and (mostly) illegally, characterizing themselves as “refugees” in need of “asylum” – one million of them being admitted, in 2015 alone, to Germany — in the hope of settling in the midst of Western Infidels whom they have been taught to despise, but who provide them with free or subsidized housing, free education, free medical care, family allowances, and more.
Many of these migrants have been quite content with all these benefits, and see no reason why they should be made to go to work to earn them. The unemployment rates for Muslim migrants all over Europe is many times higher than the rates for both the indigenous Europeans, and for other, non-Muslim migrants. It costs billions of dollars to support the tens of millions of Muslim migrants now in Europe, who are provided with subsidized or free housing, free education, free medical care, and more. That is money that is not available for other social programs, such as aid to the elderly. Danes, who had once been so naively welcoming to these migrants, have been mugged by experience, and now back a proposal to force economic migrants, after they have enjoyed three years of benefits, either to find a 37-hour-a-week job, or to accept whatever employment is offered by the government. They must now “earn” those benefits that until now they have been pocketing with such a maddening sense of entitlement.
The proposal by the minority Social Democratic government, a traditionally left wing administration that has adopted right wing anti-immigration policies, would require migrants who have been on benefits for at least three years to find work.
Note that it is the left-wing administration of the Social Democrats who are pushing this proposal; they see themselves as stewards of the welfare state, and do not want it to be exploited, or drained of needed resources, by people who never contributed to it in the first place, but simply arrived in Denmark to profit from its munificence, and while in no hurry to find employment, continue to take advantage of every benefit the Danes provide.
It [the Social Democratic Party] said the programme was necessary because many women of foreign descent do not work, especially those with roots in the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey.
The required-work program is necessary for two reasons. First, Muslim women are discouraged by their husbands and fathers from working outside the home. They are supposed to be homemakers, and to be mothers of large broods, demographically expanding the power of Islam, but not to go out to work where, conceivably, they might have to interact with male Infidels, and would certainly become more independent of their menfolk, and that would never do. The Social Democrats understand that Muslim women must be prodded, even forced, by the law to enter the workforce and at the same time,they need to be protected by the law from their husbands, who have been so intent on keeping them home, by making such work a requirement. Second, Muslim males in Europe have shown little inclination to find work; the benefits they receive are so generous that they see no need to work. They are unembarrassed about this. In their understanding of the world, they are living on what the infamous British imam Anjem Choudary called the “Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.” The benefits they receive from the Infidels – like the Danes – are a form of proleptic Jizyah. Now the Danes, both on left and right, are fed up with this state of affairs, and are about to institute a mandatory work requirement.
‘If you come to Denmark, you have to work and support yourself and your family,’ the proposal stated.
‘If one cannot support oneself, one must have a duty to participate and contribute what is equivalent to a regular working week to receive the full welfare benefit.’
The bill provides, for those unable to find work, the possibility of jobs – menial, of course — offered by the government. Everyone is thus eligible for employment, no matter how low their level of skills. As long as they put in 37 hours a week, they can continue to receive welfare benefits. But a refusal to work, because the job offered is not to a migrant’s liking, will not be tolerated.
Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has claimed the policy is intended to help migrants integrate into Danish society, with plans to encourage them to learn the language, but the proposal has been widely criticised as unfair.
Who has “widely criticized” the proposal as “unfair”? Not the Danes, who from left to right support it. It’s the migrants themselves, and their local advocates, who find it “unfair” that they should be made – after three years of idleness – to finally go to work and earn their benefits rather than continue to be supported by the hard-working Danes. It’s not a stand that has won many supporters. If it passes in Denmark, similar measures are likely to be proposed, and adopted, throughout Europe, where the same problem is found of Muslim economic migrants who do not wish to work.
The proposal by the minority Social Democratic government supported the proposal with the claim many women of foreign descent remain outside the labour market, especially those with roots in the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkey.
These are all Muslim lands. Everyone in Denmark knows it is not “migrants” in general, but Muslim males, who prevent “their women” from seeking work outside the home. But if they wish to live in Denmark, they will have to conform to Danish laws and Danish mores, and that includes the strict equality of the sexes that Danes insist upon.
The programme would start with those who are able to speak some Danish and they would be given skills training by the local government.
Not much knowledge of Danish would be needed for the kinds of jobs many of these Muslim migrants are likely to qualify for: sanitation workers, street sweepers, busboys, taxi drivers, stockboys, and suchlike. These are jobs that they could fill right now even if they can barely communicate with Danes. If some manage to learn enough Danish — language lessons are offered free by the Danish government — they could become sales clerks, or man telephone banks. Some could receive enough “skills training” to work as hospital orderlies or even as nurses; some could be trained in the simples of computer skills, to input information into databases.
What matters is not what these Muslim migrants do, but that they be made to do something, for a certain number of hours per week that in Denmark is considered to be full-time employment, so as to earn the generous welfare benefits that they came to Denmark to enjoy without planning to work. One more time: these include free or greatly-subsidized housing, free medical care, free housing, family allowances. The requirement that all of these migrants, adult males and females, be required to work at least 37 hours a week, will have good effects. First, those who remain unwilling to accept these new rules, and refuse to work, or to work for the full 37 hours, will have their benefits reduced or, ideally, ended entirely. Such a result should encourage some of them to leave Denmark, to settle in another, generous and still undemanding Infidel state or perhaps to return to their Muslim countries.
Second, the word will quickly go out to economic migrants thinking of moving to Denmark that a new work requirement makes that country suddenly far less desirable, and that they had best find other countries to settle in, where they can continue, without working, to live off the government, which is to say, the indigenous taxpayers.
No date has yet been set for the 179-seat parliament to vote on the proposal.
Although the Social Democrats do not have a majority, they would be likely to get support from centre-right politicians to pass it.
Though traditionally left wing, Frederiksen’s party adopted right wing anti-immigration policies when she took power in 2019 and is now targeting zero asylum claims.
I take this to mean that Frederiksen’s left-wing party is aiming ultimately to admit “zero” Muslim asylum seekers. And if “asylum seekers” are not to be admitted, then surely economic migrants, who do not tug at our heartstrings as some “asylum seekers” do, will also be barred. If such legislation is passed, it is likely to serve as a model for other European countries to emulate, countries that may be reinforced in their own attempt to halt all Muslim migration, and even to send back to their countries of origin those who refuse to work a full work week. It would constitute a revolution in European immigration policy: not a case of “fewer” Muslims being admitted but, rather, of none at all. And the work requirement, if it spreads from Denmark to the rest of Europe, will certainly cause some – perhaps many – of the Muslims already in European countries to leave. Particularly upsetting to them would be if they are forced to take the only jobs for which they are adequately prepared, that is, menial work that they deem, because they are the “best of peoples,” beneath them.
Frederiksen has blamed the crackdown on immigration on the need to protect Denmark’s welfare system so it can continue to accommodate migrants already in the country.
It is clever of Mette Frederiksen to depict her proposal as necessary “to protect Denmark’s welfare system.” New – largely Muslim – immigrants need to be discouraged from arriving, which is what a work requirement would do. These potential new immigrants, if not discouraged, would become at once a terrific financial burden on the welfare state (as Muslim migrants already settled in Denmark have been) so that native Danes receiving welfare benefits would no longer be adequately supported. The same work requirement that is to be applied to new immigrants should also apply to those immigrants – overwhelmingly Muslim – who are already in the country, and have enjoyed years of living on the Danish dole while feeling no need to be employed.
The proposal has been widely criticised as unfair [by the far-left], with Mai Villadsen, a member of the opposition Red-Green Alliance, branding the idea ‘foolish’.
She argued that it could lead to a downward pressure on the wages of other workers.
‘The foundation of our welfare society is a strong safety net,’ Ms Villadsen wrote on Twitter.
No, Mai Villadsen has it wrong. First, there will be no “downward pressure” on the wages of menial workers, which Is what most of these Muslim migrants will be, since the Danish government sets the minimum wage.
Second, the benefits of a “strong safety net” should only be made available to those who have in the past been contributors, through their taxes, to the welfare state. Those Danes who have fallen into economic hard times, through no fault of their own, such as small business owners forced to close during the coronavirus pandemic, or rendered obsolete through technological advances, as well as those who have special expenses (e.g., for the care of a child with a disability), and those Danes who are elderly, and after decades of work find upon retirement that their pensions prove insufficient, are the people who have earned the right to be supported by a “strong safety net.” Those who have arrived, as economic migrants, to take full advantage of a welfare system to which they have not contributed one thin dime or kroner, have no reason to complain when a work requirement is imposed on them, and that only after three years of willed idleness have passed. The “safety net” needs to be paid for; the migrants who refuse to work, even at the simplest jobs, are leaching the welfare system of revenue it needs for those Danes who have paid for decades into the system.
The proposal was tabled by the Social Democratic government who claim women of foreign descent remain outside the labor market.
Women’s equality for Muslim women includes the right to join the labor market, to work outside the home, to have all the rights that Danish women possess. Muslim women seem far readier to work than Muslim men; for the women, working is not merely a source of income but provides the sense of independence that they long for, and that in Muslim countries is denied them.
The Social Democratic government stated in the proposal, ‘if you come to Denmark, you have to work and support yourself and your family.”…
Could anyone except the Muslims be outraged by such an obvious requirement? Nothing could be fairer, nor more infuriating to Muslims who believe the world of Infidels owes them a living.
If there are not enough 37-hour-per-week jobs available from private employers, it is not beyond the ability of the public sector – the various governmental agencies – to offer full-time jobs, albeit menial ones, to migrants. And of course, it is possible that migrants could take on more than one job – many Americans work two or three jobs to make ends meet – to fulfill the 37-hour requirement.
What should we call this insistence of the Social Democrats in Denmark, that “if you come to Denmark, you have to work and support yourself and your family”?
I’d call it Common Sense.
Can the Largest Amnesty in History Pass in a Budget Bill? $1 Trillion Price Tag, Amnesty for Criminals, Explosion in Legal Immigration
Washington, D.C. (September 15, 2021) - Major policy changes deserve rigorous debate by our representatives in Congress and the public. Yet an amnesty for an estimated eight million people has been slipped into a reconciliation bill in order to avoid hearings and quickly advance the bill with only a simple majority in the Senate.
Here are some of the likely reasons the bill sponsors avoided the normal legislative process:
The Reconciliation Bill’s Amnesty Carries a Price Tag of $1Trillion The amnesty for 8 million illegal immigrants contained within the budget reconciliation bill would generate a total cost to Social Security and Medicare Part A of roughly $1 trillion in present value. Under current law, illegal immigrants are net contributors to Social Security and Medicare because they partially pay in to entitlement programs, but most cannot legally receive benefits. By granting eligibility for benefits, however, amnesty would transform illegal immigrants from net contributors into net beneficiaries, imposing steep costs on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Jason Richwine, a resident scholar at the Center for Immigration Studies, said, “Because most of the entitlement costs associated with amnesty would occur outside the typical 10-year budget window of the Congressional Budget Office, it is imperative that Congress ask the CBO to do a special analysis of long-term entitlement costs when it scores the amnesty provisions of this reconciliation bill. Otherwise, the most significant costs of the amnesty will be hidden.”
Reconciliation Bill Extends Amnesty and Eventual Citizenship to Criminals The bill grants green cards to a large number of illegal aliens, even those who are removable on criminal grounds, even if they are inadmissible. Criminal exceptions to the amnesty are included in the bill, but then waivers negate their significance. The DHS secretary is given the ability to waive applicants’ criminal, smuggling, student-visa abuse, and unlawful voting grounds of in admissibility “for humanitarian purposes or family unity” or “if a waiver is otherwise in the public interest.” The secretary can also waive any of the criminal grounds of inadmissibility. The bill also prevents the secretary from “automatically treat[ing] an expunged conviction as a conviction”. Convictions will no longer be a bar to a green card as the bill allows convictions for offenses – regardless of how heinous or violent – to be wiped off the applicant’s record.
Andrew Arthur, the Center’s resident fellow in law and policy, said, “If House leadership wants to grant amnesty to alien criminals, they should at least have the decency to let the American people, let alone their fellow partisans and colleagues in the GOP, know what they are up to. And if they did not intend to offer a massive, unending amnesty to criminal aliens, they should have taken their time in drafting their proposal — and not be attempting to jam through haphazard language drafted hours before it was presented to committee members.”
Legal Immigration Will Explode The reconciliation bill also substantially increases permanent, legal immigration. The bill disregards current immigration law and the congressionally set ceilings by “recapturing unused immigration visas” between fiscal years 1992 and 2021. The unused visas come back to life and nullify the per-country cap restrictions Congress implemented to encourage diversity and assimilation. Treating these visas as entitlements provides an estimated 703,455 green cards, and this does not even include the fiscal year 2020 and 2021 numbers. The bill also revives the green cards of aliens who won the visa lottery in fiscal years 2017-21 but failed to receive the visa and be admitted. These lottery winners have an indefinite window to (re)-obtain their visa. But that is not all – the bill also offers an exemption from the green card annual numerical limits and the per country cap if a supplemental fee is paid. The provision allows applications to be filed all the way up to the last day of fiscal year 2031, a deadline likely to be extended indefinitely as it is rare for any temporary program to actually be permitted to expire.
Robert Law, the Center’s director of regulatory affairs and policy, said, “If these provisions become law, an already overwhelmed USCIS will be flooded with amnesty applications and special legal immigration carve-out petitions on top of standard immigration benefit requests. The backlogs will skyrocket, ensuring that it will take decades before the final adjustment of status application is adjudicated and all of the aliens who file will be eligible for a work permit. Unlike an employment-based green card, which generally requires a showing that the wages and conditions of Americans are not adversely affected, this work permit allows the alien to take any job, at any wage, and there are no protections for either Americans or the alien.”
Tony Blinken Confirms Child Brides Evacuated with Older Men from Afghanistan
Secretary of State Tony Blinken confirmed reports during a Senate hearing on Tuesday that young children were transported from Afghanistan with older men as child brides.
During the hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) grilled Blinken about the numbers, citing data form the World Health Organization that over 50 percent of wives in Afghanistan were married as child brides.
Blinken said he did not know the exact number of underage girls who were evacuated with older men or how many were separated by officials after they landed.
Cruz cited reports of a State Department document seeking “urgent guidance” from other agencies about the issue after child brides were brought to Fort McCoy in Wisconsin, noting that tens of thousands of Afghans were evacuated from the Kabul airport.
Blinken insisted the entire government was following the issue with “extreme vigilance” to uncover and separate child brides of older Afghan men, but he tried to downplay the numbers.
“To my knowledge, a limited number of cases where we have seperated people because we were concerned…” Blinken began.
“How many?” Cruz interrupted.
“The cases I’m aware of? A handful,” Blinken replied.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is also investigating reports of child brides, according to Yahoo News.
“The concern is, we’re seeing a lot of family units with very young girls. These girls are brought into the U.S. as wives,” a government official said to Yahoo News. “It’s not a small number.”
Analysis: Afghan Population in U.S. Explodes, Majority Live on Welfare
The Afghan population in the United States has exploded in recent decades as a majority of Afghan immigrants in the U.S. live on at least one major form of welfare, funded by American taxpayers.
New analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reveals that the number of Afghans living in the U.S. has shot up to 133,000 in 2019 — more than three times the 44,000 Afghans who lived in the U.S. before the start of the Afghanistan War in 2001.
California remains home to the largest Afghan population in the U.S. with about 54,000 Afghans residing in the state, while about 24,000 live in Virginia and 10,000 live in Texas.
(Center for Immigration Studies)
(Center for Immigration Studies)
“We also found that a large faction, by no means all, struggle in the United States,” CIS Director of Research Steven Camarota said in remarks.
Specifically, Camarota’s research found that more than 65 percent of households headed by Afghan immigrants use at least one major form of welfare — that is, food stamps, cash assistance, or Medicaid. If other forms of welfare were included in this tally, like free school lunch and public housing, “these high rates of welfare use would almost certainly be much higher,” Camarota notes.
Compare Afghan immigrants’ rate of welfare use to that of native-born Americans, where less than 25 percent of native-born American households use one major form of welfare.
Afghan immigrant households use more than three times the food stamps as native-born American households. In 2010, about 19 percent of Afghan immigrant households used food stamps, but that total has skyrocketed to 35 percent in 2019.
(Center for Immigration Studies)
(Center for Immigration Studies)
Likewise, the number of Afghan immigrant households that live in or near the U.S. poverty line is close to 51 percent. This is significantly higher than that of households headed by native-born Americans, where about 27 percent live in or near poverty.
More closely, about 1-in-4 households headed by Afghan immigrants live in poverty compared to less than 2-in-16 households headed by native-born Americans. The share of children in Afghan households who live in poverty is more than twice that of the children who live in American households.
(Center for Immigration Studies)
(Center for Immigration Studies)
As the Afghan population in the U.S. has increased, the less likely it is for Afghans to hold a bachelor’s degree. For example, in 2005, the number of Afghan immigrants with at least a bachelor’s degree was about the same as the number of native-born Americans with at least a bachelor’s degree — roughly 29 percent.
By 2019, though, the education gap between Afghan immigrants and native-born Americans has hugely expanded. Today, more than 35 percent of native-born Americans hold at least a bachelor’s degree and only 26 percent of Afghan immigrants.
Afghan immigrants continue to have high school drop-out rates, more than 22 percent, compared to native-born Americans, with less than seven percent.
(Center for Immigration Studies)
(Center for Immigration Studies)
Where Afghan immigrants do beat native-born Americans is in birth rates. In 2019, for instance, native-born American women had about 56 births per 1,000 compared to Afghan immigrant women who had 155 births percent 1,000.
This indicates that Afghan women in the U.S. have nearly three times the birth rate of native-born American women.
The research comes as President Joe Biden’s administration executives a massive resettlement operation from Afghanistan to the U.S. Over the next 12 months, Biden is hoping to bring 95,000 Afghans to the U.S. for permanent resettlement at a cost of at least $6.4 billion to taxpayers.
In a 21-day period from August to September, Biden brought more than 48,000 Afghans to the U.S. — a population more than four times that of Jackson, Wyoming.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Democrats Justify Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants by Arguing It Will Increase Deficit
Dems hope reconciliation end-around can achieve amnesty through party-line vote
Immigrants on the U.S.-Mexico border / Getty ImagesJoseph Simonson • September 13, 2021 4:50 pm
SHARE
Democrats are trying to grant mass amnesty to illegal immigrants by arguing that amnesty's $140 billion price tag qualifies as a budget issue—a legislative maneuver that will allow millions of people to achieve legal status through a party-line majority vote.
According to Politico, Democratic congressional staffers argued on Sept. 10 that because mass legalization will add to the deficit, the provision should be included in a reconciliation bill nominally meant to fund the federal government for the next year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Democratic plan to legalize eight million immigrants will add $139.6 billion to the budget deficit by 2032, almost entirely due to increased use of entitlement programs and tax credits.
"Democrats' central argument to the parliamentarian is that offering green cards to certain undocumented immigrants would unlock federal benefits for them, causing effects on the budget that they say are a substantial, direct and intended result," Politico reported.
The Democrats' argument contradicts the rhetoric of amnesty supporters, who often point to the cost-saving measures of a mass amnesty program. During the 2020 campaign, Joe Biden attacked then-president Donald Trump for "costing taxpayers billions of dollars" on border security measures, said Trump's hardline stance against immigration was "bad for our economy," and cited the "$23.6 billion from 4.4 million workers without Social Security numbers" who "contribute in countless ways to our communities, workforce, and economy."
To include a provision into the massive reconciliation plan, Democrats need to prove that it would have a significant impact on the federal government's debt, spending, or revenues. Democrats are opting to pass Biden's $3.5 trillion budget through the parliamentary trick to avoid a GOP filibuster, a move Republicans call an abuse of the process.
Senior GOP aides who spoke with the Washington Free Beacon balked at the argument, with one calling it "obvious desperation." Another called it "pathetic" and added that the Senate parliamentarian might have felt "insulted" by the proposal.
Many illegal immigrants who work in the United States already pay into Medicare and Social Security through payroll taxes. With permanent residency, they would now be able to fully partake in those programs. The immigrants covered by the Democratic proposal would include Temporary Protected Status holders, farmworkers, "essential workers," and those enrolled in the Dreamer program.
Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough rejected a Democratic scheme to include a $15 minimum wage into the pandemic relief bill. MacDonough called the wage's potential impact on the budget "merely incidental."
Democrats were careful to say that the proposed bill would not grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens. Federal immigration law, however, states that anyone with a green card can apply for citizenship after five years. And left-wing activist groups such as the National Immigration Law Center have called the proposal a "pathway to citizenship."
OVER 70% OF THOSE EMPLOYED IN SILICON VALLEY ARE FOREIGN BORN. JOE AND HIS MARKY WANT TO MAKE THAT 110%
Nonetheless, open border advocates, such as Facebook Chairman Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming.
Two weeks ago, the Biden administration, which is mostly a replica of the Obama administration, “gifted” the Afghan radical Islamist Taliban that enabled al-Qaeda training-camps, whose “graduates” attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, at least $85 billion worth of weapons and piles of cash.
No comments:
Post a Comment