Denmark's extreme immigration policies include separating immigrant toddlers from their parents every week to teach them 'Danish values'

The New York Times detailed the strict laws in Denmark that single out the country’s growing non-white immigrant population.

The government designates areas populated by such immigrants as “ghetto neighbourhoods,” and requires toddlers who live in them to spend 25 hours a week learning “Danish values.”

While many immigrants see themselves as thriving, the largely homogeneous society doesn’t always think their presence is positive.

A New York Times story published Sunday profiles the strict rules immigrant children in Denmark are subject to by law. Denmark has welcomed an influx of mostly Middle-Eastern immigrants and refugees in recent years, but the society, which is 87% white, native Danes, has struggled to adapt to changing demographics.

Children born in “ghetto neighbourhoods” are mandated after their first birthdays to spend 25 hours away from their parents every week to learn “Danish values,” including instruction on Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter, as well as Danish language education. Parents who opt to keep their children at home risk losing access to government benefits.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/denmark-strict-immigration-policies-ghetto-ne...

Who remembers when the Eurocrats with their smug superiority lectured us down under about not welcoming hordes of indigestible country shoppers? It was about the time of the Tampa incident and a few years either side of that time. Can we now call out the Danes as being xenophobic? Can we highlight that they appear to be wary of vile cultures entering their country? Can we ask them just what is wrong with hordes of muslims entering their country.

salad in wrote on Jul 8^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:


The short answer is "Yes," but if you do, you are a bigot islamophobe nazi racist, who should be re-educated in progressive-humanist values, because they have everyone's best interests at heart.

If a Nazi decided that Hitler was a prophet, would we be obliged to let him in?

Ah, so if they promise not to spread the word, we have to let them in?

The US supreme court upheld Trumps' travel ban.

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2018 at 12:25pm:


You stole my example.

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2018 at 12:45pm:


That is not a ban on muslim immigration. It is a ban on several countries who happen to be predominantly muslim (and would presumably also affect any non-muslim applicants from those countries). The vast majority of muslim-majority countries are not affected - including the home country of most of the 9/11 attackers.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 9^th, 2018 at 12:49pm:


FD probably won't give a straight answer, but he's been giving subtle hints for quite a while now. In an ongoing discussion on immigration vetting, he thinks its reasonable to single out muslims and interrogate them on how their Islamic beliefs gel with our western democratic values. If they don't, chuck-em out - we shouldn't be obliged to accept people who are incompatible with our fundamental values. Fair enough then. But of course FD argues tirelessly day in day out how fundamentally hostile the core Islamic doctrine is to our values. You'll notice too how his latest favourite trick is to constantly equate Islam with nazism and challenge us to do unto Islam what we would surely do unto Nazism. Thus his rhetorical questions about whether we would suddenly start embracing nazis if they started referencing Hitler as a prophet of God and so forth. Thus we quickly understand what FD's real agenda is - a zero tolerance on muslims - with the important exception of those muslims who are demonstrably "fake" muslims - or those "muslims" who clearly reject the core tenants of Islam. Its like 'I have no problem with muslims - just as long as they can prove they're not really muslims'.

Of course FD won't admit this - as he won't be caught dead calling for freedom of religion to be curtailed. It would kinda expose him as a hypocrite. Personally, I think FD's slowly repositioning himself in the long term. Its clear the whole "standing up for freedom for anyone who is not a white-supremacist-bigot-Islamophobe" thing is a tough gig for FD, and we see him struggle with it in the way he feels compelled to constantly spinelessly apologise for those here who are so demonstrably anti-freedom, and reflexively turn the attack on those who call them (and him) out. It seems to be a common ailment amongst these self-styled freedom warriors - this curious habit of theirs to seemingly only ever be concerned about white bigots' rights, and not anyone elses. I think its inevitable that such cognitive dissonance will resolve itself by ending the pretense - and eventually we'll see FD 'come out' as the freedom hater we all know he wants to be.