PDA

View Full Version : Does Mass Immigration Boost The Economy?



Northern Paladin
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 08:46 AM
Does mass immigration boost the economy of the host nation?

Jack
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 02:23 PM
No, it doesn't. Labour shortage encourages investment in labour-saving technology. Hence the Japanese have the world's most advanced robotics industry, and why Australia would flatten a large section of the American agricultural industry if there was a free-trade agreement.

Agrippa
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 03:02 PM
No, it doesn't. Labour shortage encourages investment in labour-saving technology. Hence the Japanese have the world's most advanced robotics industry, and why Australia would flatten a large section of the American agricultural industry if there was a free-trade agreement.

Right. Not to mention that most of the time you need cheap workers for a short time, but they usually stay forever...

And not to forget the situation on the job market, the wages, which will suffer very much from too much (mass) immigration.

Finally not to speak about the possible result if its about crime, social problems, schools, quarters etc...

So mass immigration is (if for anybody) just good for the plutocracy if they want to crush unions and social structures, but for almost nothing else with the exception of very special situations.

Tricknologist
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2004, 02:04 AM
I posted this on another part of this forum, and since it is relevant to the topic I'll repost it here.

This is an essay I wrote for an English class last spring. I know, it ignores the jewish problem, but it had to be turned in to a liberal proffesor for a grade.





Importing Poverty



Earlier this year President Bush came out with his guest worker program. The idea behind it was to, “match willing foreign workers with willing U.S. employers when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs” (O’Meara). His program would allow illegal aliens to remain in the country for up to three years if some one offers them employment and allows for more foreign workers to be brought in if an employer was willing to sponsor them. However, this comes at a time when 2.5 million people have lost their jobs since 2001 and the average salary for U.S. workers has fallen from $44,570 to 35,410 (O’Meara). Naturally this has led to speculation behind President Bush’s motives.

Since the revising of our immigration laws in 1965 America has had a level of immigration that has been unprecedented in its history. According to the Census Bureau, there are over 31 million foreign born people, or 11% of the total population, living in America (U.S. Census). And further more there are more than 68 million more people living in this country than in 1970 despite the fact that native born Americans on average have a below replacement fertility level (CFIS). Out of the 31 million foreign born people living in America, an estimated 8-12 million of them are in the country illegally, or about one third of the foreign born population (CFIS). Which means that the number of illegal aliens roughly coincides with the total number of unemployed, which is 8,774,000 (Bureau of Labor Statistics).




2

Seven years after the passage of the 1965 immigration laws that led to the current levels of mass immigration our unemployment hit a record high of over five million (Bureau of Labor Statistics). And despite a minor down turn the two following years it has not only stayed at over five million, but has averaged around seven and a half million ever since (Bureau of Labor Statistics). When this is coupled with the fact that since 2001 the average American salary has dropped by $9000, and the fact that since 1973 the adjusted income of the average American has dropped by 10% (Goad 119), it leads to some disturbing conclusions. Modern mass immigration in general and President Bush’s guest worker program in particular are nothing more than a cynical attempt to drive down American wages while spouting platitudes about economic recovery and the value of diversity. This proposal is about driving down the wages of Americans for the sake of big business and the motives are no different than the motives that gave us slavery not to long ago. The reasons are to create a vast supply of cheap labor and it is even better if these laborers come from impoverished areas, and when you throw in the fact that our new immigrants come from very different nations than most native born Americans it makes it very easy to play divide and conquer.

The motives behind the guest worker program are no different than the motives behind slavery. The idea is to replace an independent middle class with a dependent servile class. The main difference is that rather than dragging the new laboring class here in chains, they will be imported and kept in line through their poverty. The only people who benefited from slavery were the five percent of the population that owned slaves, the rest had priced them selves out of the market by being a “free” laborer in a slave based economy (Goad 73). With President Bush’s guest worker program the only people who will benefit will be those who stand to profit by reducing working and middle class Americans to a third world standard of living. The majority of Americans don’t want to be responsible for importing people in slave like conditions, nor do they want to be displaced and replaced in their own country. But this will be the inevitable consequence of Bush’s guest worker program.

The idea behind creating a surplus of labor is very basic economics; it is a question of supply and demand. As a quantity of a good or service increases the price will decrease. There are several determinants of supply, resource prices, technology, taxes and subsidies, prices of other goods, price expectations, and the number of sellers in the market (McConnell and Brue 48). If one of these changes then a change in supply will occur, which will effect the supply of every good and service. One example of a change in supply is if the demand is constant but the supply increases. This would create a new equilibrium of supply and demand with a lower equilibrium price and a higher equilibrium quantity, price and quantity are inversely related (McConnell and Brue 52). "Price is an obstacle from the standpoint of the consumer, who is on the paying end. The higher the price, the less the consumer will buy” (McConnell and Brue 47). Big business, who is the consumer of the labor services of its employees has a self serving interest in lowering the wages that it has to pay. If America can be flooded with people who will create more of a supply of labor than there is a demand available, then the market will drastically reduce the price for labor. And this is the reason why we have had an average of seven and a half million unemployed since the passage of the 1965 immigration act. President Bush’s guest worker program is nothing but an attempt to flood the market with cheap labor in order to find the lowest common denominator in regards to wages.

Flooding the market with an infinite supply of labor for a finite amount of
work is bad enough, but when those workers come from impoverished
countries to begin with it makes the problem even worse. Prior to 1965 our immigration came almost exclusively from Europe, where standards of living were similar to in the United States. This was enforced by the Chinese exclusion Act of the late 1800’s, which was passed after a series of riots in California protesting the use of Chinese labor in near slave like conditions to artificially lower wages. Afterwards the national origin system of the 1920’s and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 continued to keep close control over immigration (CFIS). However today, according to the U.S. Census, around 83% of foreign born people living in America are from other areas and these are usually some of the poorest areas on Earth (Census). Latin America provides over half of our foreign born residents with sixteen million people and Asia provides another quarter of those with eight million (Census). The wages and standards of living in most of Latin America and Asia are far lower than that of the United States. As an example there is Mexico, since the United States shares a common border with Mexico they supply a large part of foreign born residents and most of the illegal residents. According to the CIA World Facts Book, Mexico has a per capita GDP of $8,900 and about 40% of its population lives below poverty level (CIA). While in the United States the per capita GDP is $36,300 and only 12% of the population lives below poverty level (CIA). With the importation of cheap labor from areas that have third world living conditions, how long will it take before those conditions are replicated here?

The law of supply states that, “As price rises, the quantity supplied rises; as price falls, the quantity supplied falls” (McConnell and Brue 47). When big business offers wages that are higher than those paid in the third world it will create a huge supply of laborers from those areas that are willing to accept those conditions. And as more and more wages are being driven down below the level needed to provide basic needs, less native born Americans are willing to take those jobs. This is the real meaning behind the claims that “immigrants only take jobs that Americans won’t do”. What it really means is that immigrants will accept wages and living conditions that are unacceptable to Americans. And when people who will accept those kind of working conditions make up a large part of the workforce then it will drive down the wages for everyone.

The other major reason behind the guest worker program is simply to divide and conquer. If the new immigrants that are driving wages down are ethnically and linguistically very different than native born Americans, then it is relatively easy to keep them divided against each other rather than seeing the source of the problem. Immigrants rather than big business get blamed for lowered wages and standards of living because they are easier to identify. While Americans who have a problem with their way of life being destroyed are cynically accused of racism. In the ultimate act of irony, immigrants are often taught to view the same middle class America that they were brought over here to eliminate as their oppressors. The fact that working and middle class America does not have the power to oppress any one is often ignored.


6

There are two main arguments for the guest worker program; the first is that it will lead to economic recovery and the second is to accuse its opponents of being racist. The economic argument is absolutely false. The only Americans that stand to benefit from this program are those that are in a position to profit off of the sharp drop in wages. And the open ended nature of the program insures that practically all Americans that aren’t in that group will have to compete for jobs with people who are used to making $8,900 a year or less. Starting a jobless post 9/11 economic recovery by announcing that the borders will be thrown open while there are almost nine million unemployed in this country is stupid. Claiming that it will improve the economy is down right dishonest.

The racism charges on the other hand, no matter how cynically applied, will be much more effective in getting the opponents of the guest worker program to shut up. And that is what they are designed to do, shut people up. Of course those charges will only be made against those Americans that want to preserve their way of living, and the people who take advantage of third world living conditions to produce slave like working conditions will do most of the accusing. There’s quite a bit of profit to be made in manipulating the poor in order to eliminate the middle class. Though very manipulative, this will be the most effective measure to stifle debate on the guest worker program. And with so many people looking at being unemployed or under employed, the supporters of President Bush’s program need to stifle as much debate as possible.

Bush’s guest worker program is nothing but an attempt to drive down wages and reduce most Americans to a standard of living that is equivalent to slavery. There is nothing in it that will benefit the average American in any way. With almost nine million unemployed, does this country really need to match up “willing foreign workers with willing U.S. employers”? The motives behind this program are blatantly transparent, and the fact that it is being promoted by an American president just shows how much influence that big business has over our government. If this program is passed then America will go from being the only super power to a third world nation in a few years. Most Americans do not want to be displaced and replaced in their own country. Most Americans don’t want their standard of living reduced to the lowest common denominator of the third world. Most Americans don’t want to be responsible for importing a new servile underclass in near slave like conditions. President Bush’s guest worker program is nothing more than attempt to exploit the poverty of other parts of the world in order to drive down wages here. There is really nothing more to it than that, and any claims otherwise should be looked at with utter cynicism and contempt.




Works Cited



U.S. Census. American Fact Finders. 5 Apr 2004. 3Apr 2004.

http://factfinders.census.gov/home/....html?_lang=eng (http://factfinders.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=eng)

Central Intelligence Agency. World Fact Book. 18 Dec 2003. 3Apr 2004.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

Center for Immigration Studies. Common Topics in Immigration. 24 Mar 2004.

3 Apr 2004. http://www.cis.org/

Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 5Apr 2004. 3 Apr 2004.

http://www.bls.gov/

Goad, Jim. The Redneck Manifesto. Touchstone. 1997.

McConnell and Brue. Macroeconomics 15th ed. McGraw-Hill. 2002.

O’Meara, Kelly Patricia. “Do Borders Matter To President Bush”. The Nation.

18 Feb 2004. 6 Mar 2004. http://web.lexis-nexis.com (http://web.lexis-nexis.com/)

JohnKeppler
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 10:15 PM
Mexicans bring poverty, disease, crime, and higher taxes for working- and upper-class whites. Yet this influx of 8,000 immigrants per day is welcomed by our jewish-controlled, corrupt, government. God bless America :|

Telperion
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 12:26 AM
I have never come across any credible econometric studies offering evidence that mass immigration boosts the economy generally. There may be some sectors (e.g. the housing/construction sector) that see an uptick in activity as a direct or indirect consequence of mass immigration, but when this is set against the enormous burden that immigrants place on social services, the net impact of mass immigration on economic welfare is surely neutral at best, and more likely negative.

In any case, the distributive effects of mass immigration (e.g. increasing the number of low-wage workers, and thus competition for native citizens seeking low-wage jobs, to the benefit of corporate managers and shareholders) would render this disastrous policy normatively undesirable on economic grounds alone.

Oskorei
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 12:32 AM
For Sweden, I've seen the figure 240 Billion Swedish Kronor (about 26 Billion dollars) as the total cost for immigration during the average year. This is 1/3 of the total State Budget.

Telperion
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 12:39 AM
No, it doesn't. Labour shortage encourages investment in labour-saving technology. Hence the Japanese have the world's most advanced robotics industry, and why Australia would flatten a large section of the American agricultural industry if there was a free-trade agreement.
Indeed, by keeping industries such as agriculture labour-intensive where they would otherwise become more capital intensive, mass immigration in the long-term discourages the development of domestic high-technology sectors that could provide higher-wage jobs. That obviously has negative distributional consequences, as well as negating the broader economic benefits associated with technological innovation.

Telperion
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 12:42 AM
BTW I've moved this thread to the Economics forum, as it doesn't really belong in the lounge.

Jack
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 04:41 AM
Right. Not to mention that most of the time you need cheap workers for a short time, but they usually stay forever...

And not to forget the situation on the job market, the wages, which will suffer very much from too much (mass) immigration.

Finally not to speak about the possible result if its about crime, social problems, schools, quarters etc...

So mass immigration is (if for anybody) just good for the plutocracy if they want to crush unions and social structures, but for almost nothing else with the exception of very special situations.
Here's the thing:

These immigrants not only pour across the borders (I'm going to use the US as an example as I'm sure we're all at least roughly familiar with their situation), and bring their families in too. They breed. They get paid, if they get jobs. This is a good thing, generally, insofar as the economy is concerned - and this is what we're discussing. They get paid and the buy products. Their kids also get benefits such as education, healthcare, etc. This places a massive burden on the economy - we're not talking about a few families here, we're talking about millions. In addition, these immigrants - Mexicans - don't speak English, and so social services in areas they come to dominate have to be restructured and speak in Spanish. They also form gangs, and are generally violent, not only because of the biological predisposition (all races, other than east Asians, have higher tesosterone levels and lower intelligence. Given the will to self-perpetuation, which I'm taking as a self-evident fact, this means they will know what they want, use less intelligence, and with a higher 'will to power' it means they'll take it the easier ways possible - theft, violence, robbery etc.) but because of hostility and resentment they take towards white America which they see as having stolen - incorrectly - large chunks of land from Mexico. By having millions of Mexicans pour across the border, the average wage gets depressed. In addition, the strain they pose on social services drives up taxes required to fund said social services, hence budget deficets higher than usual (this, combined with the massive monetary expenditures such as the insurrection war in Iraq, causes big problems). Given that currency isn't tied down to any relatively stable resource, such as gold, savings are whittled away due to monetary expansion, and rising taxes causes businesses to collapse, large numbers of people to lose jobs, who naturally have massive resenment towards these invaders - or colonists, if you wish to see it from that perspective. Sections of this unemployed and barely-employed native population, with their hostility towards the colonists, spills over into the practical effects of violence, which increases the need for spending on police and other federal enforcement agencies such as BATF and the FBI to deal with organised crime. The businesses which encourage cheap labour - which is, in summa, not so cheap - manipulate special interest groups such as both the Republican party, which sees cheap labour as a good thing, and the Democratic Party, which sees massive voting blocs who can be appealed to in times of elections in order to reinforce their political control over the State, in order to increase taxes on the general population while taxes on the rich drop. Two groups benefit - large corporations which can sustain losses courtesy of low taxes, and special interest groups such as political parties and political action committees. Minority ethic groups also take advantage of slowly rising violence as well as appealing to the tolerance morality accepted by those who are not immediately effected by these problems, to reinforce anti-discrimination laws etc. Businesses also offshore to avoid the massive taxes due to such problems, hence the Californian industrial base of the US has vapourised, only to reterritoralise itself in China and other cheap-labour, monoethnic (i.e. relatively stable, even if totaliatarian) socities.

Everyone loses, but not to the same effect. And the special interest groups (i.e. parties, PAC's) don't have enough foresight to see what's happening, and certain minorities (i.e. colonists) love it. Other minorities, such as blacks, hate it, but they also hate whites for historically-distorted reasons, so they both support (insofar as it can roll back 'white dominance') and oppose these occurances.

Nativism is the only real solution.

Susisaari
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 10:42 PM
I have never come across any credible econometric studies offering evidence that mass immigration boosts the economy generally.


That depends on the kind of immigrants, and on the kind of welfare policies and tax policies that are in place in the country that receives those immigrants.

The Faroe
Thursday, January 6th, 2005, 10:00 AM
Does mass immigration boost the economy of the host nation?Overall that depends on the quality of immigrants we’re talking about, or more to the point wherefrom they come, their culture, religion and race.

Both Danish & Swedish surveys (countries with large welfare systems are at a special risk – but I suspect it’s the same throughout the west) have showed that immigrants from third world countries are a net drain on the public coffers, whereas native Danes/Swedes and immigrants from other western countries are a net surplus.

Three surveys have since the 90’ies been produced in Denmark. All coming to the same dismal conclusions: immigration is, from an economic perspective, a dismal failure.

The first survey from 1997 was produced with the express intend to counter the arguments from anti-immigration groups (read Dansk Folkeparti) that immigration costs the state an average of Dkr. 84,000/immigrant/year (US$10.000). Which they succeeded with of a sort, concluding third world immigrants came at an average price of only Dkr. 54,000/immigrant/year (US$10.000). However that smaller number was criticised for omitting a number of expenses and omitting to take into account the use of public facilities such as public infrastructure, public transport, libraries, schools and education, jails, police, juridical and investigation resources, etc. as well as public financial obligations such as payment on foreign debt, etc. Also they were clearly not successful in proving their real, if tacit, intent, namely their party-program: that immigrants is an absolute economic necessity in the face of declining native birth-rates and a looming pensioner crisis (which, of course, has not prevented them from continuing with this absurd and undocumented claim).

In 1999 a survey from the Indenrigsministeriet (Homeland office) documented than immigrants cost the Danish state more than Dkr 11.3 billion yearly, a number that was projected to rise by Dkr. 150 million yearly. It is the immigrants from the so called class-II countries, which include countries as Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, the former Yugoslavia and Somalia which cost money. Another group, mainly from the EU and North American paid Dkr. 1 billion to the state coffers. For comparison was there in 2000 paid Dkr. 11.7 billion in foreign aid (Denmark was the larges donator per capita in the world) and Dkr. 16.5 for the defense and Dkr. 7 billion for infrastructure.

In 2000 a survey from the Rockwool Fund conducted by the Swedish scientists Eskild Wadensjö documented that the low employment rate of non-western immigrants meant that 38% of all social security payments went to that 5% immigrant group, and that every non-western immigrant cost the Danish state in excess of Dkr. 58.200 or Dkr. 63.700 depending on how you sum the numbers. Moreover, these numbers had grown increasingly worse from 1998 to 1985, showing this is an increasing problem. To finance this drain, by 2006 Denmark would have to raise the lowest tax rate by 6% or cut expenses on other posts by Dkr. 26 billion to finance the immigration. Whereas western immigrants contributed with an average Dkr. DKr. 12.300. Perhaps even more important, it also documents that second generation immigrants with parents from non-western countries are still a drain (though reduced) on public finances.

Again the minister of interior estimates that the current decline in immigration, since the instatement of the newest government, has resulted in a net plus of about Dkr 4.3 billion and further should Denmark relapse to old liberal immigration policies in 2006 that, that would come at a price of Dkr. 1.2 billion.

Re Sweden:
Lars Jansson wrote the book ”Mångfald eller välfärd” (“Multiculture and welfare” – if my Swedish is worth anything) which concluded the cost for Swedish society amounted to SEK. 267 billion. For this service he has been vilified by the ostensibly neutral Swedish state-owned media as well as boycotted by the public libraries.

There certainly are some massive problems re. the burgeoning percentage of older citizens and how they’re going to be financed. I have no idea how that one is going to land. Actually I have, I expect it is going to crash. And not in a pretty way either. Personally I’ve ceased paying into the public pension fund. I don’t expect it’ll be there when I grow old anyway. Instead I have some private savings outside the reach the reach of the tax authorities and then I invest in my children. People are going to become increasingly reluctant to pay an exorbitant tax for other people’s parents who couldn’t be bother to raise any children themselves. And if you ask me, rightly so - any old person wilfully foregone children, should not expect other people’s children to support them when they grown old – and would be foolhardily to bet on it.

Oskorei
Thursday, January 6th, 2005, 11:52 AM
The first survey from 1997 was produced with the express intend to counter the arguments from anti-immigration groups (read Dansk Folkeparti) that immigration costs the state an average of Dkr. 84,000/immigrant/year (US$10.000). Which they succeeded with of a sort, concluding third world immigrants came at an average price of only Dkr. 54,000/immigrant/year (US$10.000). However that smaller number was criticised for omitting a number of expenses and omitting to take into account the use of public facilities such as public infrastructure, public transport, libraries, schools and education, jails, police, juridical and investigation resources, etc. as well as public financial obligations such as payment on foreign debt, etc.
True. The cost of criminal immigrants is very hard to measure, but since they are heavily over-represented as murderers, rapists and robbers, the cost is probably sizable, also in economic terms. In Sweden, the system stopped doing statistics on the ethnicity of criminals once it showed too clearly that they were over-represented in the more "disgusting" crimes, but informal sources claim that more than 70% of the inmates in many prisons are non-Swedes.

Also the National Democrats made their own study about the ethnicity of gang-rapists, which shows clearly the over-representation of immigrants (here in Swedish: http://www.nd.se/rapport/rapporten.asp ). In economic terms alone, the costs of rehabilitating a rape-victim, must be severe.

fenriSS_
Sunday, January 9th, 2005, 01:27 AM
I heared that 200 000 jews cost the german state 1,3 billion a year!, this jews was from east europe. How can they get so much money?

Oskorei
Sunday, January 9th, 2005, 07:34 PM
I heared that 200 000 jews cost the german state 1,3 billion a year!, this jews was from east europe. How can they get so much money?
1,3 billion divided by 200,000 equals 6500 (I guess the cost was in Euros?). It's about the same sum that the average immigrant costs Sweden per year.

The reason they are so expensive is that many of them don't work, so they get their incomes from welfare of different sorts.

The Faroe
Monday, January 10th, 2005, 10:07 AM
True. The cost of criminal immigrants is very hard to measure, but since they are heavily over-represented as murderers, rapists and robbers, the cost is probably sizable, also in economic terms. In Sweden, the system stopped doing statistics on the ethnicity of criminals once it showed too clearly that they were over-represented in the more "disgusting" crimes, but informal sources claim that more than 70% of the inmates in many prisons are non-Swedes.

Also the National Democrats made their own study about the ethnicity of gang-rapists, which shows clearly the over-representation of immigrants (here in Swedish: http://www.nd.se/rapport/rapporten.asp ). In economic terms alone, the costs of rehabilitating a rape-victim, must be severe.Aw. Those figures are bad indeed (…and as we all know, economics being the smallest of the problems). Is the average Swede aware of how bad it is? And does he have any alternative option to vote accordingly in elections?

The last time (2001) a Danish survey tried to document the ethnicity of rapist the conclusion was that immigrants from third world countries were grotesquely overrepresented by between 1300% (67% of all rapes) and 1500% (76% of all rapes). The survey was, as the left is wont in such cases, met with indignant cries of racist and unacceptable exposure on ethnic minorities rather than indignation on the findings of the report or any suggestion on how to deal with the evident problems. Indeed the critique of the survey’s ethnic classifications and its unsavoury findings has resulted in a stop of such surveys rather than any serious attempt to address the crimes themselves. Other surveys have showed that immigrants are behind nearly a 100% of all gang rapes. Also quite revealing is the fact that a near total of the victims are ethnic Danes, and that the rapes, especially gang rapes, are often accompanied by clear racist and/or misogynists insults. This same trend is repeated throughout Scandinavia and the whole west. But again Sweden seems to have come off worse than most other.

One of the problems is of course that the immigrants are often blatantly racists and misogynists but more to the point is the absurdly leniency of Scandinavian criminal justices system – and as always there’s no lack of apologist trying to blame everybody but the immigrants themselves. I have two daughters and have made my mind clear on the subject and taken preparations. Should such a thing ever happened to any of them I will not contact the police which cannot anymore be relied upon to ensure justice, but will have to take matters into my own hands. Such is what we have been reduced to.

Here’s an article (Danish – from the newspaper with the widest circulation. I'll translate on request) about Sweden:
http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=2447670


Er der overhovedet noget, som kan hidse folk op mere? Vi skal nøjes med at svare for os selv - og ja, der er fortsat adskilligt, der kan oprøre os. Og få os til at handle ved fx at skrive kronikker og forsøge at organisere kræfterne blandt ligesindede.
Et af de fænomener, som lige nu og her fortjener udelt opmærksomhed, er den grove forbrydelse mod kvinder, der betegnes voldtægt. Det gælder voldtægt i almindelighed og gruppevoldtægt i særdeleshed. En krænkelse af så alvorlig karakter, at der skal slås hårdt ned. Ikke mindst fordi det er en type overgreb, som er stigende i antal, og som må ses i snæver sammenhæng med tilvandring og mislykket integrationspolitik.
Vi kan ikke løse alle verdens problemer, men vi nægter at se stiltiende til fra sidelinien, mens vores samfund skridt for skridt undermineres af et kultur- og værdisæt, der ikke regner kvinder som ligestillede, fuldgyldige borgere. Og beskyldninger for racisme og fremmedfjendtlighed bider ikke mere på os. De er moraliseren, stillet overfor ødelæggelser af unge kvinders liv. Det er nemlig en dokumenteret kendsgerning, at unge indvandrere er grotesk overrepræsenteret i såvel enkeltmands- som gruppevoldtægter. Den senest offentliggjorte politistatistik for året 2001 så således ud: Indvandrerandelen på landplan: 67 pct. I Københavnsområdet: 76 pct. Offentliggørelsen vakte protester, og vi har da heller ikke siden set nogen voldtægtsstatistik, som var specificeret etnisk.
Nogen gange kan det hjælpe at holde en analysegenstand ud i strakt arm for at skabe en saglig, ikke-emotionel distance. Og særlig voldtægt er et ømt og følelsespræget emne. Derfor vil vi i denne kronik beskrive (masse)voldtægter begået at unge indvandrermænd ikke i Danmark, men i Sverige hvor disse forbrydelser har antaget nærmest epidemisk karakter.
I Danmark anmeldes ca. 500 voldtægter om året. I Sverige 2.500. Politiet, kvinderådgivninger og Aftonbladet skønnede i 2002 at mørketallet er det tidobbelte, altså 25.000 voldtægter på hovedsageligt svenske kvinder om året. Vi lader lige tallet stå et øjeblik............
Skulle Danmark have den samme voldtægtsfrekvens relativt, ville vi have omkring 1.500 anmeldte, og måske totalt 15.000 voldtægter om året. Det har vi heldigvis ikke - endnu.
I Sverige er det begrædeligvist lykkedes i alt for høj grad at holde indvandrerdebatten under låg, og en indvandringskritiker er pr. definition "en fremmedfjendtlig" eller rent uden racist. Med en fra oven opmuntret "statsfeminisme", som har stor opbakning imedier og Riksdag (seks ud af syv Riksdagspartilederekalder sig "feminister" ), skulle man tro, at der fandtes en særlig omsorg for udsatte kvinder, men det er langtfra tilfældet. Kun i 5 pct. af de anmeldte voldtægtssager rejses der tiltale, og kun i en brøkdel af dem fældes der dom. Når en voldtaget kvinde endelig er nået så langt i processen, er dommene så milde, at ingen regner dem for noget. Retsvæsnet er slet ikke indrettet til "det nye Sverige", men bygger stadig overvejende på mildhed, behandling og rehabilitering.
Det skulle være overflødigt at nævne, at mange traumatiserede kvinder slet ikke orker at indgive anmeldelse. I praksis må man konstatere, at voldtægt i Sverige er fuldkommen gratis for forbryderne. Risikoen for sanktion er lille, meget lille, og derfor klinger den officielle statsfeminisme uendeligt hult. Det oldgamle begreb "kvinnofrid" synes at tilhøre en fjern fortid.
Det er vores påstand, der efterhånden kan dokumenteres med talrige artikler, bøger og statistikker, at etnicitet og kultur har relevans i kriminalitetsstatistikkerne. Dokumentationen er mulig i den danske offentlighed, som ikke er så (indirekte) censureret som den svenske. I Sverige spiller medieklaveret anderledes. Spørger man en svensk journalist, hvornår etnicitet bør omtales i avisreportager og efterlysninger, får man svaret: »Når det er relevant«. Åbenbart er det i voldtægtssager aldrig relevant, for hovedparten af gerningsmændene er indvandrere og efterkommere, og det nævnes af princip aldrig. Derved kan offentligheden da heller ikke bidrage til opklaringen - som den kan herhjemme - og medierne gør sig til medskyldige i, at grove forbrydere slipper fri for straf.
Man kan kun gisne om, hvorfor de har denne kyniske og hykleriske politik, men en undersøgelse fra Göteborgs Universitet i 2002 kaldte svenske journalister for »Verdens mest magttro journalistkorps«, og det forekommer ikke fjernt at antage, at svenske journalister gerne vil være magten tilpas. Hvordan det? Ved de facto at skjule for svenskerne, hvad politikerne via hæmningsløs indvandring har gjort ved landet både socio-økonomisk og kriminalpolitisk: De har skaffet Sverige en voldtægtsfrekvens, som er værre en USA's - og en samlet kriminalitet som ligger på USA's niveau.
Men det er ikke bare svenske journalister, som er behagesyge og hykleriske. BRÅ - Brottsförebyggande Rådet (det der svarer til vores Det Kriminalpræventive Råd og i Sverige i folkemunde kaldt: Brottsförnekande Rådet) - camouflerer og sminker statistik, så det er vanskeligt at komme til frem til et dækkende billede af den samfundsmæssige virkelighed. I en serie artikler i Aftonbladet i 2002, klager forskere på BRÅ over, at Rådet udøver regeringsbestilt arbejde. »Det er en katastrofe overalt på BRÅ«, udtalte psykiatriprofessor Sten Levander. »BRÅ's opgave er at fabrikere forskning som justitsministeren synes om«. Den også i Danmark kendte professor og romanforfatter, Leif G. W. Persson, arbejder på BRÅ, og siger: »Vi bedriver ikke fri forskning, men vinkler rapporterne så de passer regeringen«.
Det kan både undre og ikke undre, at der fifles med voldtægtsstatistikkerne i Sverige. Hvis sandheden om emnet kom frem, ville folk nemlig blive overordentligt oprørte - "skitförbannade". Som det er nu, er det imidlertid "kun" ofrene og deres pårørende, som føler smerten.
Vi mener, at ind-under-gulvtæppet strategien er et udtryk for en afskyelig kynisme og et foragteligt hykleri. Det er lykkedes BRÅ at påstå, at bare et par og fyrre pct. af voldtægterne i Sverige begås af indvandrere. Når man kender de danske procenter, forekommer dette fuldstændig absurd, al den stund at Sverige har 2,8 gange flere indvandrere pr. capita end Danmark. En realistisk svensk indvandrerandel må nødvendigvis ligge på mellem 80 og 90 pct. af de begåede voldtægter, når gennemsnitstallet i Danmark er ca. 70 pct. Men BRÅ har blandt andet opfundet hokus-pokus begrebet "utrikesfödde", hvilket straks sorterer alle naturaliserede og efterkommere fra og signalerer det officielle, knæsatte dogme: Kultur spiller ingen rolle spiller, det gør kun sociale forhold. Løgn, latin og manipulerende statistik.
For yderligere at slå den beske pointe fast, skal vil gøre opmærksom på en rapport, som partiet Nationaldemokraterne for nyligt har udgivet. Titlen lyder: "Invandrarna, våldtäkterna och sanningen - en rapport om övergrepp i det mångkulturella samhället".
Reagerer venligst ikke med automatpiloten a la: Nåh, det er en pendant til Dansk Folkeparti, så behøver vi ikke at høre, hverken hvad de siger, eller hvad deres argumenterog dokumentation går ud på. Nationaldemokraterne gør det arbejde, som svenske aviser ikke gør: De møder op i retten og rapporterer det, som aviserne ikke vil nævne: Etniciteten.
Klik ind på linket, læs selv og dan en egen mening. Vi kan ikke her gengive rapportens metoder og begreber i detaljer, men må nøjes med konklusionerne: Seksuelle overgreb på piger og kvinder begået af indvandrere er et voksende problem. Hverken politi, skole, medier eller myndigheder fortæller sandheden, fordi de er bange for, hvad der ville ske, hvis hele sandheden kom for en dag. Tallene viser, at mænd med indvandrerbaggrund begår flere voldtægter end svenskere. 93 gerningsmænd er blevet undersøgt. Af dem havde 67 indvandrerbaggrund, dvs mindst en udenlandsk født forælder. Det giver en overrepræsentation af mænd med indvandrerbaggrund på 2,4 gange. Endvidere udvælger voldtægtsmændene primært svenske piger som ofre. Af de i alt 49 voldtægtsofre, hvor en mand med indvandrerbaggrund var gerningsmand, havde 30 svensk baggrund.
Mænd med baggrund i bestemte regioner begår flere voldtægter end andre. Af de 67 gerningsmænd med indvandrerbaggrund kan 30 henføres til Mellemøsten/Nordafrika-regionen, 13 til Latinamerika og 7 til øvrige Afrika.
Denne kronik er først og fremmest en henvendelse til vores politikere på alle niveauer, men samtidig opfatter vi den som et led i en oplysning af den danske befolkning om, hvilke kræfter vi er oppe imod, og at strudsepolitik vil føre os lige lukt ud i svenske afgrunde. Tillige sigter vi efter både bredt at indfange det massive kultursammenstød som følge af årtiers tilstrømning af integrationsuvillige muslimer og at dæmme op for en intens antidemokratisk og mandschauvinistisk kampagne, iværksat af kræfter fra især Pakistan, Saudi-arabien og Tyrkiet. Og som i stigende grad omfatter voldtægter.
Når svenske kvinders situation bør interessere, er det fordi Sverige, som Demokrati- och integrationsminister Mona Sahlin så rigtigt sagde, er 40-50 år "forud" for Danmark med hensyn til multikultur. "Mångfald", som det indsukret hedder.
Voldtægtstallene synes nøje overensstemt med antallet af indvandrere. Vi konstaterer, at kvinder i det "statsfeministiske Sverige" er delvist retsløse - nærmest jaget vildt, som ikke længere tør færdes så frit, som de var vant til før i tiden. Hver eneste dag forøves 6,8 anmeldte voldtægter, og måske helt op til 68 voldtægter. (mørketallet inkluderet).
Hvis voldtægtsforbrydere bliver fanget i Danmark, kan de se frem til en fængselsdom på ca. tre år. Svenske voldtægtsforbrydere slipper statistisk set næsten helt fri. Tåler vi som samfund, at det er så billigt at ødelægge en ung kvindes liv? Måske på livstid? Svaret er et klingende nej.
Derfor bør strafferammen udvides til mindst det dobbelte. Dertil kommer, at hvis man overhovedet skal forvente sig nogen præventiv effekt, der kan spare yderligere tragedier, bør repatriering af de groveste voldtægtsmænd være en naturlig selvfølge. Denne sanktion synes desværre at være noget nær det eneste, som visse afstumpede voldtægtsforbrydere har respekt for. "Vården" - behandlingen - bør selvfølgelig tilkomme ofret og ingen andre. Sverige burde for sine kvinders skyld ligne Danmark, og vi skal under ingen omstændigheder gå i de svenske fodspor.
Kender politikerne og de offentlige myndigheder deres besøgelsestid? Eller bliver næste skridt den selvtægt, som folk tyer til, når systemet svigter den almindelige borger?

Oskorei
Monday, January 10th, 2005, 05:03 PM
Aw. Those figures are bad indeed (…and as we all know, economics being the smallest of the problems). Is the average Swede aware of how bad it is? And does he have any alternative option to vote accordingly in elections?
Our media is even more politically correct than your (as mentioned in the article you posted. I did not know that there was a study that proved that Swedisg journalists are the most "power-loyal" in the world, thank you for that information). People who have to live close to immigrants have a more realistic view of them, but many Swedes/voters still don't encounter them that much. And among the young, a common response to violent and expansive immigrants seem to be submission ("identifying with the oppressor" as it is otherwise called among scientists. They wear hiphop-clothing, try to get immigrant boyfriends, listen to hiphop, et al).

The number of parties are not that good either. We have two more or less Danish Folkeparti-like parties, but none of them have a good, charismatic leader. And none of them give a very trustworthy impression either to be honest. I voted for one of them in the abscence of alternatives anyway. They get maybe 2% of the votes as best, but it is slowly increasing. We also have a couple of National Socialist parties/organizations, but I doubt that any of those will attract the masses anytime soon, and I disagree with much of their politics.


One of the problems is of course that the immigrants are often blatantly racists and misogynists but more to the point is the absurdly leniency of Scandinavian criminal justices system – and as always there’s no lack of apologist trying to blame everybody but the immigrants themselves. I have two daughters and have made my mind clear on the subject and taken preparations. Should such a thing ever happened to any of them I will not contact the police which cannot anymore be relied upon to ensure justice, but will have to take matters into my own hands. Such is what we have been reduced to.
If that is any comfort, I'd think that your daughters are more safe than many other girls. Since they are informed from home on how society works, the risk of them visiting immigrants in their home is much reduced. Most victims (not all of course) were brainwashed by their own leaders and media into believing that immigrant males were just like any Swede/Dane, just a little more exotic.


Here’s an article (Danish – from the newspaper with the widest circulation. I'll translate on request) about Sweden:
http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=2447670
Again, thanks for the article.

BTW, the only ethnic generalization that is allowed here in Sweden would be "Danes are disgusting racists" and possibly "Americans are flagwaving and warmongering idiots" ;)