Dissidentpress

October 29, 2007

Immigrant load in Denmark

The Economic Price of Foreign Immigration

Link to almost all English versions of non-Economic files: http://danmark.wordpress.com/category/english-versions/

Link to almost all English versions of Economic files:

http://lilliput-information.blogspot.com and
http://www.lilliput-information.com

Deutsches version, click here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=en&u=https://dissidentpress.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/immigrant-load-in-denmark/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dreasons%2Bfor%2Bimmigrants%26hl%3Dde%26safe%3Dactive

As an opponent of public lies, I made a charge-budget like those earlier used in the public health sector, when the amount of yield and the charge have to be accounted in lack of a better foundation.

This charge-budget is based on the information about anything what so ever from the authorities, and then it is placed together with the greatest care. Unfortunately the account of the immigration-policy is 10 times larger, than those permissions of the state that were shown to the public till 1993.

Now the lie can not be used any longer. This certainly does not mean that the truth then is accepted, and presented by the authorized who’s duty it is to make a honest budget, and to inform truthfully. For the time being you just seek to hold a lower profile – as it is called in the language of signalizing – the critics must be effective prevented then from access to the media and anything else.

That is very easy. In 1995 from 70 to 90 bill. ddK., in 1998 more than 100 bill. ddk. out of 650 bill. ddk. totally in public expenses was used on the presence on the immigrants in Denmark. Our former Prime Minister Poul Schlüter, who is a member of the EU-Parliament, he now and then occurs with the Carnegie Foundation (more about this under ‘The New Man’), decided that the Danes should not know the bill of the binge, which has not been contemplated to stop.

In 2001 150 billions of 750 bill. ddk.

 

Carefully and very simple accountings show that more than half of what the Dane is paying in personal income tax is used for interest payments on a debt that the Dane has not contracted, or it is used on the foreigners in Denmark. 74 p.c. – perhaps 79 p.c. – of the immigrants are on social security/welfare – the authorities mention the figure 40 p.c., but they forget the receivers of social welfare. These are the real figures in the period 1995-1997.

We cannot reach the true result further. Without proper information it is were difficult. In 2000 84 p.c. of the foreigners are living on public welfare. We had to clean the statement for camouflage. Included in the 74 p.c. are children less 18 years and people in retirement not counted in. They just told that I am a racist. I am not. In 1998 our Minister of Economy maintained that the group of foreigners has much smaller part that supply themselves on the labor market. We asked what the others outside the workforce then received – social security, early retirement benefits?

 

They did not answer. And OECD had even to correct our former Minister of Economics when she told in the media that the foreigners were 3½ times more unemployed than the Danes (it was not meant to be known). I can added that the newest information from Danish Rockwool Foundation shows that second and third generation are even more unemployed than their pararents. And the manager at the bureau of Statistics i Copenhagen Claus Woll reporet 25 January 2004 that the femal second and third generation of immigrants gave birth to 10 p.c. more children compared with their parents – accounted for in a 6 year period.

 

The Minister of Social Affaires alarms Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, September 10th 1999. Every third on social security is a foreignerIn 2002 40 p.c.

 

An extract:

30 p.c. of the group which received social security were immigrants (1999). While the Danish unemployed is offered work, more of the immigrant are becoming receivers of social security. The municipalities have to develop more targetoriented offers, says socialminister Karen Jespersen. ‘Immigrants only amount to 6 p.c. of the population, but 30 p. c. of the receivers of social security’ – in 2004 read 13 p.c. receive 40 p.c. That was one of the central statements in the article

* * *

Information of Denmark

Lecture of Danish Economics of Immigration

No. 1

In the extraction of the article mentioned above we will concentrate on:”The immigrants make up only 6 p.c. of the population, but 30 p.c. of those who receive long term social security. “Can this information be explaned better?

1th Immigrants as a group have a larger share of those who receive social security than the Danish have.

2th Immigrants have a larger share in their group who concerning f.e. age are potential members of the group of clients on social security. The distribution of age is very different from the distribution among the Danish.

If 1th and/or 2th were not actual, the 6 p.c. foreigners living in Denmark (13 p.c. in 2006)would also have 6 p.c. (13 p.c.in 2006) of all social security clients. You may say that these 6 p.c. are receivers of longterm social security, as if they made up 30 p.c. of the population.

In 1993 a corresponding official picture was drawn:

Information of the foreigner’s load on number posts can required from Department of Social Security. One of its investigations shows that 87 p.c. of the refugies remain lasting klient of social security, and among the rest 13 p.c. a great number is trying to take an public financed education, if they do not receive another category of public subvention. An accounting from the town Aarhus also shows that the expenses concerning refugies receiving social security have been doubled in a period of five years, and in 1993 these expenses amounted 19 p.c. of the total sum of expenditures spend on social security (cf.The Weekly Newsletter Monday Morning no. 4/1993). This information is of another type. Now you are concentrating on the share of indiduals in the group of receivers of social security. You are contrating on the share of the total expenditures.About the same time the media informed that the 6 p.c that was the share of the foreigners made up then (officially) in Aarhus, received 30 p.c. of the social security. But notice that this problem is not necessarily the same as the mentioned in the extract of the article above.If it had been this this information the Minister of Social Security had given about Denmark another element of explanation should have been added:

 

3. Foreigners receive in average larger or smaller expenditures of social security the the average Danish receiver of social security.

If we concentrate on the possible explanations 1, 2 og 3, and at the same time we take the total public expenditures, it is possible to make a rough estimate, and draw a picture of the load of the foreigners. (The responsibles could have used the citizens number, but they refused.) Here you have to remember that the expenditures include not only the payment, but also the expenditures concerning service by civilian servants. We are so lucky that we have such an account called the functional distribution of public expenditures of the nation. Repayment and reimbursement of payment do not disturbe the account.It has the be underlined that the mentioned 6 p.c. (1999) immigrants refered by the minister do match with the corrected account made by IoD. The naturalized and their children have to be included among others. The article did not succeed with defining a Danish refering to our Constitution.

A Danish is a Danish citizen, when a least one of parents is a Danish citizen, and also born in Denmark.

 

The share of immigrants is not smaller than 10 p.c. in Denmark (1999), possibly a great deal larger.This was also indirectly confirmed by the account of criminality (1994) from commissioner of police. If the 6 p.c. had been correct asylumapplicants would have been 15-18 times more criminal than the Danish, and would have made 84% of all shopliftings, for example. This a wild exaggeration amd they should done much more without time to do it.. If you will read the total documentation in Danish now after 6 years read the article on: http://www.geocities.com/informationomdanmark112/kria.html (calculating)http://www.geocities.com/informationomdanmark112/kraka.html (text) You get back by closing when you finished your reading.

It has also been totally documented in the Danish link: http://www.lilliput-information.com/krim/krim.html and in http://www.lilliput-information.com/krim/krim.html Danish version, only.

You get back by closing when you finished your reading.By the accounting of the foreigners load you have account not just the cost which directly can connected to the target group. They are a burden on all entries like the Danish with a few exceptions.It the special cost that means all the costs which would not had been without the immigrants. Earlier we have seen calculations of the burdens of the students, the our older citizens and of the children. The loadbudget have also been used within the hospital service. Share of the target group, frequency, resource burden is central concepts here.

A couple of examples:

If the target group amounts to 12 p.c. and ressource burden is 1.75 while the frequency is the same (1), you get the proportional 12 p.c. multiplied with 1.75 or 21 p.c.The target group may well amount to 18 p.c. even though the whole group only amount to 10 p.c.Immigrants have a much larger share of the group of children, for example. In October 1998 Aarhus Town Counsel informed that 2 third of all swindle with social security were connected to immigrants. This means 67 p.c. of the swindle was done by 10 p.c. of the citizens. This means the burden is 6.7. If the immigrant receive social security 4 times as frequent as the Danish you can make conclu-sion: The immigrant do this crime with frequency of 1.7 (67/40) in relation to the Danish In this way we will continue through all entries on the public budget.

Statistical Ten years survey 1999 from Denmark’s Statistics include the following table of expenditures (an extract):

Functional distribution. Expenditures in publ. sectors and service

 

(mio.ddk.) by function and year

 

 

Year 1993 1995 1997 1998
Total 549836 603283 637683 652709
Functional distr. expend. total, subtotal 484796 537169 573308 591157
Superior public duties, subtotal 65485 71571 77505 82625
General public duties, subtotal 39436 43456 47743 52544
General administration 16831 18525 19844 21330
The relation to foreign countries 20986 23002 25460 28912
Other 1619 1929 2439 2302
Defence a.o. 17789 18309 19410 19124
Public order and security 8260 9805 10352 10957
Society and social, subtotal 371127 415357 441775 454740
Education, subtotal 68752 73616 83432 88492
The Schools 28756 30922 35279 37796
The youtheducations 13328 16206 18288 19243
Higher educations 13993 15302 16009 16823
Grown up education special educ. 10144 8229 10718 11795
Services related to education 733 651 681 688
Administration 1758 2226 2386 2071
Other 40 79 71 76
Health service, subtotal 50310 52743 57480 59965
Hospitals a.o. 36083 38576 42390 45044
Individual health service 13142 13131 14269 13840
Administration 708 771 793 902
Other 378 266 28 179
Social safety and security, subtal 229277 264128 273839 278843
Safety service 166672 194920 196315 197826
Welfare service 55081 60628 68075 71196
Administration 7501 8522 9376 9722
Other 23 58 73 98
Home a.o. 9310 8877 9469 9770
Relation to home 6994 5674 5721 5857
Society planning 440 887 922 846
Sanitary services 1416 1822 2313 2555
Other 460 495 513 511
Religious, recreative og culturel services
Subtotal 13478 15992 17555 17670
Religious services 3450 4527 5038 5201
Recreative services 4378 4782 5194 5258
culturel services 5509 6506 7076 6937
Other 141 176 248 273
Businesseconomic relations, subtotal 48183 50242 54028 53793
Energy supply 1262 2338 2738 3034
Agriculture, forestry and fishing a.o. 3661 2443 3563 3640
Raw material extraction, industry, entrepreneers
construction 2447 2012 2514 2067
Traffic and communication, subtotal 21666 25584 25309 24842
Roads and transportation 14428 16256 15601 15172
Waterways og harbors 314 423 428 456
Collektiv transport 6917 8884 9257 9193
Other 7 21 23 21
Trade and service plus general
Business development, subtotal 19147 17864 19903 20210
General business development 2019 2515 2233 1327
Trade and service a.o. 17121 15340 17659 18873
Other 8 9 11 11
Nonfunctional distributed, subtotal 65040 66114 64375 61552

 

 

The expenditures above have defrayed all in all. Now we shall try to estimate, how many of these expenditures which are caused by the immigrants. Of the 52 entries of the functional distribution we could take out one single in the year 1998:

Safety service: 197.826 mio ddk. It has got italic and accentuated in the table from Danmark’s Statistics.

If we assume that the foreigners receive the same payment in average as the Danish the result following the Minister of Social Affaires and the information from Danmark’s Statistics…. (but take good care, the entries in the functionel distribution are specified alike in the Ten Years Review every year that secure the camouflage):0.30 * 197.826 mio ddk.= 59.347,8 mio ddk eller 59,3 mia. ddk. or should we use another percent than 30 p.c. You also have to remember that the foreigners do not a very large share of the group in ages of the pensioners.The minister of economy hav had to admit that foreigners are 3½ times as often unemployed than the Danish in average. Do I then calculate (with 6 p.c.?) 3½ * 0.06 * 71.196 mio. ddk. = 15 bill. or should I rather calculate 3½ * 0.10 * 71.196 mio. ddk. =24.9 billions?The unemployment is also accounted and presented in very missleading way in Denmark. Click: http://www.lilliput-information.com/led/index.html to get the documentation in a Danish version.Click back, when you are finish.

The rest of entries could be treated in the same way with consideration of relevance, invariability according to the receivers, to groupshare, frequence and ressourceload for both Danish and immigrants. For example we know that foreigners are represented 3 times as often in the prisons than according to their share of the population. At worst places in the prisons 30-40 p.c. a immigrants.

This means 3*0.06, when we use immigrantshare chosen by the Minister of social Affaires.If the burden – related to the resources – is also larger when account for a immigrant you have to take this into your account too. Another example:In Aarhus they used 1,75 times more on children of the immigrants (ch. the public budget in kindergartens 1989)If we assume that just something like this applyes to the prisons, in the police and in the rest of the juridical system the share of the expenditures will be: 1.75*3*0.06 = 31.5 p.c. Or should I rather calculate: 1.75**3*0.10 = 52.5 p.c.If doubt that there is used so much energy on the foreigners i juridical system, you click:http://www.lilliput-information.com/domv.html (in Danish)Click back, when you are finished. Shall we say 10,957 mio. ddk * 0.315= 3.45 billion dddk. or rather 52.5% * 10,597 mio.ddk.If this calculation is made serious and with precaution you reach the result, the immigrantload in 1998 was more 100 billion dddk.

You will perhaps subtract the taxpayment of the immigrant. That is fine if we just know what we are talking about. 84 p.c. of the immigrant are unemployed. The authorities in Denmark told us in 1995 that the load was 10.3 billions dddk, and fameous Børsens Nyhedsmagasin told us that we earn a lot of money by having them here.

 

 

One of so-called critical parties in our parliament calculated the result to 30 billions ddk. Let us take the last mentioned sum. 30 billions is less than 5 p.c. of the total budget (cf. above). The share of the immigrants are officially in 1999 7.4 p.c. This mean that the Danish is much more expensive to the state. But this is not true. You have just learned that the immigrants are 3½ times more unemployed and 3 times more in prison.

 

Ergo, it is another camouflage lie.

 

 

In period 1993-1998 the public expenditures increased by more than 100 billions.

 

 

Ask the Danes if they agree with you that the Danish in same period have experienced an according rise in service and necessary care.

But take good care, and do ask politely!

When members of Norwegian Stortinget (the Norwegian Parliament) wanted to know more about the immigrant load in Norway they contacted Information on Denmark in the beginning of the 1990s

This report was uploaded for the first time in 2002 to try to informe abroad.

Advertisements

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: