Category: Immigration

High Hurdles

Foreign Affairs, Immigration

Speaking of the Swedes, I see that they’re following their Danish cousins and getting serious about immigration and citizenship:

The right-wing coalition government in Sweden has announced plans to significantly increase the threshold to obtain citizenship in the country, including a prohibition on migrants who fail to learn the native language.

The Swedish Ministry of Justice said this week that a series of new citizenship requirements will take effect by June 6th of this year. The ministry said that the measures will seek to “strengthen the importance of citizenship and increase incentives for individuals to become part of Swedish society, which also strengthens the Swedish community.”

According to the MoJ, the government will require migrants to live in the country for at least eight years to become eligible for citizenship, up from the current five-year standard.

It will also become necessary to demonstrate “self-sufficiency”, with a monthly income of around 20,000kr ($2,250).

Finally, prospective citizens will now have to demonstrate the ability to speak Swedish and knowledge of Swedish society.

All good stuff, and all quite reasonable qualifications to joining what is, after all, one of the more civilized nations of the world.

The only thing I’d add — were I a Swede at that level of power and influence — would be a limit on non-citizen residence to eight years:  in other words, if you don’t become a citizen after eight years, then out you go.  Once again, quite reasonable.

Lessons Learned

Immigration, Politics

For the longest time, I would have been one of the loudest voices opposing the idea that we Murkins should copy anything much from the Scandi countries — okay, maybe some of their darkest noir crime TV shows, but not much else.

However, I think that when it comes to immigration policy, there’s much to be learned from the Danes.  Watch the video to see how they fixed their erstwhile ruinous position on immigration.

What interests me the most is that highly-restrictive immigration controls, so often a feature of conservative (what they call right-wing) parties, have become very much a part of the Social Democrat (what we would call left-wing) party policy.

You see, the Danes are if nothing else, highly pragmatic in their pursuit of what they consider the ideal society.  And yes, while a strong welfare state is the sine qua non  of Danish society, they also understand that without social cohesion, a welfare state is not a tenable system.  Those two pillars — the welfare system and social cohesion — form the foundation of their society, and what the Danes realized, long before any of their European neighbors did, that untrammeled immigration of Third Worlders of the Arab Muslim and African persuasion was rending their social cohesion asunder, and undermining their cherished welfare state.

You have to hand it to them for swinging their immigration system by 180 degrees:  in fact, it’s harder to immigrate into Denmark than it is into the United States because the Danish requirements for residency are unbelievably restrictive, including such concepts as civic indoctrination and the linking of conformity to any kind of welfare.  If you don’t fit in, the Danes will force you to fuck off back to your shithole country of origin, with neither remorse nor pity on their part.

And naturalized Danish citizenship is almost impossible to come by without lengthy permanent residency and complete assimilation via a rigorous civics examination process.  (Fail that test, and you’re on the next plane back to Shitholistan.)

I would really, really like to see that happen Over Here.

I’ll leave it to y’all to decide, though, how likely it is that the foul Democrat-Socialist Party of today would perform a similar change in their position on immigration.  And quit laughing.

We need more attitude like this:

“If you don’t share our values, contribute to our economy, and assimilate into our society, then we don’t want you in our country.”

No, that wasn’t the Danish PM.  That was President Donald J. Trump, December 2025.

Deep Freeze

Illegal immigrants, Immigration, Trumpism

No, this isn’t a post about winter weather.  It’s about this:

President Donald Trump’s deputies have shut down the legal migration pathways for people from 19 countries, pending the completion of security checks and interviews.

And about damn time too.  When the “huddled masses” want to come over here to avail themselves of our freedoms, solely to commit crimes… we owe it to ourselves to try to stop them before they get going.

(After these ingrates commit their little nefarious wealth redistribution games, however:


…I think you get the picture.)

Just to be clear, the nineteen affected countries are:

Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

Basically, a bunch of Muzzy and Commie countries, the lot of them, and while some of their citizens may be fleeing those shitholes for all the right reasons — and I have a great deal of sympathy for their plight, for obvious reasons — all refugees and prospective citizens should absolutely require serious (i.e. non-Biden-style) vetting to make sure that the ungodly don’t try to sneak in to, say, set up a drug network, rape women, embezzle the welfare system or murder National Guardsmen.

When I think of all the hassle and scrutiny we went through with New Wife’s citizenship a couple of years back — she having done nothing other than teach children for nearly forty years — it sticks in my craw that during that same Biden presidency, a whole bunch of criminal scumbags were given the keys to the house because… well, just because.

And yes I know, some genuine refugees are going to be inconvenienced by this deep freeze.  But that’s the nature of laws:  the innocent get shafted by the need to contain the criminals (see for an example: every single useless gun control law).

Well, Now

Immigration, Legal Stuff

Seems as though there’s a teeny hole in the Constitution after all:

Twenty-five Republican attorneys general have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, challenging birthright citizenship.

“The idea that citizenship is guaranteed to everyone born in the United States doesn’t square with the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment or the way many government officials and legal analysts understood the law when it was adopted after the Civil War.

“If you look at the law at the time, citizenship attached to kids whose parents were lawfully in the country. Each child born in this country is precious no matter their parents’ immigration status, but not every child is entitled to American citizenship. This case could allow the Supreme Court to resolve a constitutional question with far-reaching implications for the States and our nation.”

I have to say that this little feature always nagged at me (despite being a one-time immigrant myself).  The idea that anyone born in the U.S. had automatic citizenship seemed on its face to be unreasonable — I mean, I think that we are the only country in the world that allows for this in our legal system.  (There might be a couple of others, but I suspect that these might be countries where nobody wants to live anyway.)

Whatever, I’d like to see this whole “anchor baby” situation disappear.  The child should be a citizen of the home country of either the mother or the father (if known).  If nobody knows who the father is (a regrettably-common feature of modern-day life) and the mother were to die during or soon after childbirth, then I might be prepared to accept automatic citizenship for the baby, if only for humanitarian reasons.

Anyway, I’m glad to see that the issue may soon be resolved one way or the other.  I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out who might oppose this initiative by the various attorneys-general.

Welcome Mat?

Immigration

Here’s an interesting conundrum.  As Jews in Britishland are becoming increasingly (and justifiably) afraid of, well, being Jewish in Britishland, you have this mindset:

Truth is, I don’t know a single Jewish family in London who doesn’t speak openly and often about leaving. These are dyed in the wool Brits, who love this country. But they are watching the England they know disintegrate around them.

If ever there’s a group of people crying out for refugee status, therefore, it’s this lot.

Ordinarily, of course, there is always the option for them to move to Israel — and if ever there was a raison d’être  for the state of Israel to continue to exist, this is surely it — but what about those who don’t want to move to some piece of desert in the Middle East?  (In my opinion, not an unreasonable position.)

Well, for those who would prefer another option, how about right here in the U.S. of A. (you know, the huddled masses of people yearning to breathe free business)?

I mean, in the main these are wealthy and successful citizens, unlikely to require any welfare assistance and perfectly capable of buying their own health insurance, unlike some immigrant ethnic groups I could name.

Now granted, there are several downsides for us to throw out the welcome mat for this lot.  For a start, they are mostly of the Lefty persuasion (like so many Jews are in this country, inexplicably), and we have to ask ourselves whether we want more of that kind of person coming here.  (We don’t — well, I’m pretty sure that most conservative Americans, i.e. most of us, feel that way — and it has nothing to do with them being Jewish.)

We could overcome this issue, however, and make the change less jarring by resettling this bunch in a state where the government is more like the one they’d be leaving behind, e.g. Chicago’s northwest side (the “N. California Avenue axis“) where many Jews (Reform and Orthodox) already live, but with a stipulation of ten-year residence there before they can relocate to Florida.

If not Chicago, then I would suggest Detroit’s Boston-Edison area, with the same 10-year residency requirement.  Okay, Boston-Ed is right next door to Dearbornistan, but unlike in Chicago, these new settlers would be able to buy guns to protect themselves.  (If they don’t want to own those nasty gun things, they deserve everything that happens to them.)  Detroit probably needs a chapter of Lox And Loaded, anyway.  And given that, like Chicago, Detroit is a reliably-Democrat stronghold already, the appearance of a score or so thousand more Democrat voters there wouldn’t make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

Or if they refuse the offer, we could just say, “Enjoy that Middle Eastern desert thing, guys.”

Suggestion

Immigration

This article caught my attention:

Britain’s ‘ghost’ island: Tragic reason why last residents of remote archipelago left 95 years ago today

He’s talking about St. Kilda in the Outer Hebrides, and I believe the answer may be found on this map:

…which makes me think of only one thing:  future internment camp for illegal aliens.

Yeah, tell me you didn’t think of that too.