Immigration Majority of Palestinian refugees who came to Denmark in 1992 now have a criminal record

Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
10,115
Reaction score
3,561
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
In 1992 Denmark accepted 321 Palestinian refugees. The Danish government checked what happened to them in 2019 and it turned out that 64% of them had acquired a criminal record.


I obviously don't support Nigel Farage, who was one of the biggest supporters of Brexit. But that doesn't mean that the statistics is quoting are wrong in this case. Farage's problem is the solution he proposed. Brexit didn't solve the immigration crisis in the UK. Actually it made it worse as EU workers who had to leave the country were replaced by non-European immigrants who had to fill the vacant jobs.

With the current Israeli-Palestinian war, many people I wondering why Palestinians from the Gaza strip are not seeking refuge in neighbouring Egypt, with which it shares a border. It turns out that the Egyptian government doesn't want them. And neither do other Arab countries in the region. In fact Palestinian refugees have been expelled from other Muslim Arabic countries several times before. Here is why.

 
Last edited:
I obviously don't support Nigel Farage, who was one of the biggest supporters of Brexit. But that doesn't mean that the statistics is quoting are wrong in this case. In 1992 Denmark accepted 321 Palestinian refugees. The Danish government checked what happened to them in 2019 and it turned out that 64% of them had acquired a criminal record.


With the current Israeli-Palestinian war, many people I wondering why Palestinians from the Gaza strip are not seeking refuge in neighbouring Egypt, with which it shares a border. It turns out that the Egyptian government doesn't want them. And neither do other Arab countries in the region. In fact Palestinian refugees have been expelled from other Muslim Arabic countries several times before. Here is why.

That is not the whole explanation.

Why not ask the question: why are palestinian refugees still living in Jordan, Lebanon etc?
Part of the reason is certainly that Israel won't let these people return.
And now if Egypt For example accepted refugees, there is no guarantee they will ever be able to return. Perhaps Israel won't let them. Taking in refugees is doing Israel a big favor. And Israel has no obligation to solve the problem.
 
Europe is not lost
There is always eastern europe
And they would not tolarate
What western europeans can
They would fight for land and culture
Like lions and the islam would lose there
 
That is not the whole explanation.

Why not ask the question: why are palestinian refugees still living in Jordan, Lebanon etc?
Part of the reason is certainly that Israel won't let these people return.
And now if Egypt For example accepted refugees, there is no guarantee they will ever be able to return. Perhaps Israel won't let them. Taking in refugees is doing Israel a big favor. And Israel has no obligation to solve the problem.

Another way to look at this is that Palestinians are ethnic Arabs and Muslims. So why wouldn't Arabic Muslim country want them? If they have no problem controlling their birth rates and see their population grow, what difference does it make that more people like them are coming to live in their country? It's certainly not because there isn't enough space or because their social security is overly generous.

You could say that they would be doing a favour to Israel by taking them in, but is it better or kinder to refuse to give them asylum when they need it? Is it better to let them starve or being killed by staying in the Gaza strip? Of course not. No, if they prefer to let them die it must be because they really do not want them. Unfortunately it is this kind of people who ultimately end up seeking asylum in Europe, because their own "brothers" won't have them. It's not all of them of course. There are plenty of Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon as you said. But the Arabs that get turned down by Arabic countries are the most troublesome bunch that nobody wants, and these are exactly the refugees that will seek their luck in Europe.

It's a bit like that with Moroccan immigrants in Belgium too. Not all of them, but there are some who have been there for three or four generations and are nowhere near integrating. These are the ones that cause the terrorist attack in Brussels and Paris. Whenever I meet Moroccan people from Morocco they seem so nice and civilised in comparison to the second, third and fourth generation immigrants we got here. Sometimes I wonder if Morocco didn't just empty its prisons in the 1960s and sent all these undesirables to Europe so that they wouldn't have to pay for their incarceration and save plenty of tax money. They must have been laughing so hard when European countries accepted them.
 
Last edited:
Another way to look at this is that Palestinians are ethnic Arabs and Muslims. So why wouldn't Arabic Muslim country want them? If they have no problem controlling their birth rates and see their population grow, what difference does it make that more people like them are coming to live in their country? It's certainly not because there isn't enough space or because their social security is overly generous.

You could say that they would be doing a favour to Israel by taking them in, but is it better or kinder to refuse to give them asylum when they need it? Is it better to let them starve or being killed by staying in the Gaza strip? Of course not. No, if they prefer to let them die it must be because they really do not want them. Unfortunately it is this kind of people who ultimately end up seeking asylum in Europe, because their own "brothers" won't have them. It's not all of them of course. There are plenty of Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon as you said. But the Arabs that get turned down by Arabic countries are the most troublesome bunch that nobody wants, and these are exactly the refugees that will seek their luck in Europe.

It's a bit like that with Moroccan immigrants in Belgium too. Not all of them, but there are some who have been there for three or four generations and are nowhere near integrating. These are the ones that cause the terrorist attack in Brussels and Paris. Whenever I meet Moroccan people from Morocco they seem so nice and civilised in comparison to the second, third and fourth generation immigrants we got here. Sometimes I wonder if Morocco didn't just empty its prisons in the 1960s and sent all these undesirables to Europe so that they wouldn't have to pay for their incarceration and save plenty of tax money. They must have been laughing so hard when European countries accepted them.
Yes, Europe has become a refugium peccatorum.
 
Another way to look at this is that Palestinians are ethnic Arabs and Muslims. So why wouldn't Arabic Muslim country want them? If they have no problem controlling their birth rates and see their population grow, what difference does it make that more people like them are coming to live in their country? It's certainly not because there isn't enough space or because their social security is overly generous.

You could say that they would be doing a favour to Israel by taking them in, but is it better or kinder to refuse to give them asylum when they need it? Is it better to let them starve or being killed by staying in the Gaza strip? Of course not. No, if they prefer to let them die it must be because they really do not want them. Unfortunately it is this kind of people who ultimately end up seeking asylum in Europe, because their own "brothers" won't have them. It's not all of them of course. There are plenty of Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon as you said. But the Arabs that get turned down by Arabic countries are the most troublesome bunch that nobody wants, and these are exactly the refugees that will seek their luck in Europe.

It's a bit like that with Moroccan immigrants in Belgium too. Not all of them, but there are some who have been there for three or four generations and are nowhere near integrating. These are the ones that cause the terrorist attack in Brussels and Paris. Whenever I meet Moroccan people from Morocco they seem so nice and civilised in comparison to the second, third and fourth generation immigrants we got here. Sometimes I wonder if Morocco didn't just empty its prisons in the 1960s and sent all these undesirables to Europe so that they wouldn't have to pay for their incarceration and save plenty of tax money. They must have been laughing so hard when European countries accepted them.
Why should space and money certainly NOT be a problem? Especially in places like egypt , where even the natives don't really like it?The problem of too much immigration is not the ethnicity and also not just religion. That's the case in Europe and also in near east or north africa. I doubt Egypt would have the necessary resources.
Religion certainly plays a role here too but it's too simple to reduce it in that way.
 
Egypt is on the verge of economic collapse. It is an overcrowded country ruled by a military junta that heavily depends on Western aid. Egypt has a population of about 110 million people but its economy and infractructure cannot sustain more than 40 million. Accepting Palestinian refugees means disaster, not purely on economic grounds but also because Gazans overwhelmingly support Hamas and the latter is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Remember what happened to Morsi?

As for the question, why the surrounding Arab countries won't accept Palestinian refugees, one can ask a counter-question: why should they accept Israel's policy of ethnic cleansing? Besides, they face the same economic burdens as Egypt with the sole exception of the gulf states but their rulers don't want any destabilisation for their systems nor do they want to feed a work-shy Arab population. They already have enough of that at home which is why they import slave labour from South Asia.

GB News is obviously heavily biased but there is truth in Palestinian "refugees" being prone to crime. The criminal clans in Germany are either Lebanese or Palestinian. Going back to the Palestinian problem itself, one must say that the Palestinians are far from being the innocent victims they're portrayed to be by many people. I understand that Israel is committing terrible crimes against the civilian population of Gaza. It is a settler colonial country which is a crime in itself because ethnic cleansing is the logical consequence of a country like that. Every people in the world is entitled to self-defense and resistance to being displaced "by all means necessary" (according to the UN) and that includes armed resistance. Israel has absolutely no right to claim "self-defense" and no other country in the world would be able to get away with the crimes Israel is currently committing. Compare what Israel actually does with what Russia is accused of in Ukraine. International law has become a farce and Western hypocrisy exposed.

But let's not ignore some of the problems created by the Palestinians themselves. First of all, there is the issue of their abnormal birthrate. We hear how there are 2.4 million people cramped in a relatively small area like Gaza and that half of its population are children not older than 14. Well, how come? Almost 50% of its population is unemployed (70% among the young). They are fed by the UNRWA and as long as that is the case, the "good Muslim" can boast with having 6 or more children. In the 1960s the average was 11 children per Palestinian family. There are five times more Palestinians today than in the 1960s, so where exactly is that genocide? They're breeding like that in Europe as well. Take the case of "German" politician Saswan Chebli whose family came to Germany in 1970. Her father's request for asylum had been denied three times and he was repeatedly deported to Lebanon, yet he kept coming back illegally. He and his wife arrived with 2 children and while they were being "tolerated" in West Berlin's asylum shelters, they managed to get another 11 (!) children. Saswan Chebli herself is a very controversial figure in German politics, another token migrant who went into politics to advance her own financial interests. She was infamous for sporting 15.000 Euro watches. How much she was suffering with her people. She was also claiming that Sharia law is compatible with Germany's constitution and generally coming to its defense because it regulates the relationship "between God and man." I don't know how that is compatible with the social democratic party and its main principles. She was also notoriously incompetent as Secretary of State and was accused of treating the people who worked under her "like garbage."

The PLO is a deeply corrupt organisation. Mahmoud Abbas is said to be a semi-billionaire who owns a couple of mansions. Arafat also died a very rich man. The "Palestinian cause" seems very lucrative. They are so easy to be bought off. But it's a very complicated matter and I don't claim to be an expert. All things considered, the Palestinians already have a state and that's Jordan. It emerged from the partition of Mandatory Palestine as its Arab component. But I understand that people refuse to be expelled from their land. After all, the UN partition plan of 1947 didn't say anything about the Palestinians leaving Gaza and the West Bank. The reason the Arabs rejected the plan is its unjust distribution of land. A Jewish minority was awarded with 51% of the land, if I remember correctly.

But even if you recognise the unjust treatment of the Palestinians, you can't avoid the impression that they are a people uncapable of governing themselves. Too much tribalism and corruption. Let's assume Palestine is granted its statehood. Will this become a democratic, peaceful and prosperous society or just another economic black hole and source of constant destabilisation, ruled by fanatics who will turn to building an army hell-bent on getting their revenge "from the river to the sea?"
 
Last edited:
Rest a sure nobret
The palestinian- israeli conflict
Will never end
None of the sides want to give up

P.s
I am going nowhere and haters can ×××× off
 
Last edited:
Why should space and money certainly NOT be a problem? Especially in places like egypt , where even the natives don't really like it?The problem of too much immigration is not the ethnicity and also not just religion. That's the case in Europe and also in near east or north africa. I doubt Egypt would have the necessary resources.
Religion certainly plays a role here too but it's too simple to reduce it in that way.

I think you misunderstood me. Egypt has a population of 112 million, of which 30% live in poverty. What impact would a few thousands Palestinian refugees have on this number. Almost nothing. A drop in the ocean. What's more Palestinians are slightly better educated in average than Egyptians. According to the latest data from the World Bank, in the West Bank and Gaza 45% of the adults have a tertiary education against 38% in Egypt. The GDP per capita is similar in the two countries. If Egypt really wanted to limit its population it would better educate its women about contraception and family planning. That could potentially reduce the population by several millions in the next few years. Refusing a few thousands refugees is a political act. It has nothing to do with the Egyptian government actually trying to reduce population pressure.
 
Egypt is on the verge of economic collapse. It is an overcrowded country ruled by a military junta that heavily depends on Western aid. Egypt has a population of about 110 million people but its economy and infractructure cannot sustain more than 40 million. Accepting Palestinian refugees means disaster, not purely on economic grounds but also because Gazans overwhelmingly support Hamas and the latter is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Remember what happened to Morsi?

See my reply to Gourd above for my opinion on this.

As for the question, why the surrounding Arab countries won't accept Palestinian refugees, one can ask a counter-question: why should they accept Israel's policy of ethnic cleansing?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for decades and things aren't improving a bit. It is clear that the Israeli will not stop until they have regained control of all the areas they claim. Whether they are right or wrong is debatable, and I don't think that either side has the moral upper hand, so that debate is moot. What is certain is that the Israeli side has a clear advantage when it comes to money, resources, technology and military (with or without US support), so they are going to win this conflict in the long term. There is no doubt about it. The Palestinians have two choices:

1) Accept that Israel cannot be defeated and move to a neighbouring country. I don't recommend that they move there as refugees, but as legal immigrants while finding employment or setting up their own business. That's their choice. But they could have a good life in that other Arabic/Muslim country, free from daily fear and conflict with Israel. After all many Jews left Eastern Europe and Germany for the USA between the 1880s and the 1930s to make a new life there to escape anti-semitism from the Russian Empire then Nazi Germany. Of course they didn't want to leave everything behind: their home, friends, job, memories... But millions of Jews did it anyway and generally prospered in the US.

2) Second choice, Palestinians fight tooth and nail against the Israeli and the conflicts continue for many more decades with suffering on both sides, but mostly on the Palestinian side. I think this is the worst solution for the Palestinians themselves, but most of them are too stubborn or bloody-minded to see it.

Personally I have no sympathy for the Palestinians. When I was in my early 20s I visited Israel and Palestine because I had a historical interests in ancient cities. I was travelling alone and minding my own business as respectfully as possible, but I was almost killed by Palestinians throwing big stones at me when I was walking in the street. I was neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until then.

Otherwise I agree with everything you wrote.
 
I found this research article from American Law and Economics Association: Does Immigration Cause Crime? Evidence from Spain

The paper is 27 pages long. It has this interesting table on the homicide rates by nationality in Spain vs in their country of origin. Algerians have by far the highest homicide rate of any nationalities reported, but what really caught my attention is the huge difference with how they behave in Algeria itself. Algerians in Spain commit 58 times more murders than in Algeria! The same is true for Moroccans, whose homicide rate is 61.6 times higher in Spain than in Morocco. The question is why? The living conditions, social security, etc. are all better in Spain. It's not inevitable among poorer immigrants either. Colombians and Ecuadorians are better behaved in Spain than in their home countr

See my reply to Gourd above for my opinion on this.



The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for decades and things aren't improving a bit. It is clear that the Israeli will not stop until they have regained control of all the areas they claim. Whether they are right or wrong is debatable, and I don't think that either side has the moral upper hand, so that debate is moot. What is certain is that the Israeli side has a clear advantage when it comes to money, resources, technology and military (with or without US support), so they are going to win this conflict in the long term. There is no doubt about it. The Palestinians have two choices:

1) Accept that Israel cannot be defeated and move to a neighbouring country. I don't recommend that they move there as refugees, but as legal immigrants while finding employment or setting up their own business. That's their choice. But they could have a good life in that other Arabic/Muslim country, free from daily fear and conflict with Israel. After all many Jews left Eastern Europe and Germany for the USA between the 1880s and the 1930s to make a new life there to escape anti-semitism from the Russian Empire then Nazi Germany. Of course they didn't want to leave everything behind: their home, friends, job, memories... But millions of Jews did it anyway and generally prospered in the US.

2) Second choice, Palestinians fight tooth and nail against the Israeli and the conflicts continue for many more decades with suffering on both sides, but mostly on the Palestinian side. I think this is the worst solution for the Palestinians themselves, but most of them are too stubborn or bloody-minded to see it.

Personally I have no sympathy for the Palestinians. When I was in my early 20s I visited Israel and Palestine because I had a historical interests in ancient cities. I was travelling alone and minding my own business as respectfully as possible, but I was almost killed by Palestinians throwing big stones at me when I was walking in the street. I was neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until then.

Otherwise I agree with everything you wrote.
So you startet to support Israels efforts to expulse the palestinians completely because you visited a region loaded with aggressions towards westerners as a western tourist and then got stones thrown at you?

For me honestly it doesn't really matter what happens there in the end as long as Israel openly declares that it wants this land and that then it takes control without any western support facing all the consequences. And if the West or part of the West continues the support it will be clear that these supporters also want this expulsion.
 
So you startet to support Israels efforts to expulse the palestinians completely because you visited a region loaded with aggressions towards westerners as a western tourist and then got stones thrown at you?

You're a twisting my words. I said I was neutral in the conflict before Palestinians threw stones at me. This event made me more anti-Palestinian, but I didn't say I was necessarily pro-Israeli. If I really have to choose one side I would go for the Israeli who have never done me any harm (and also because so many great minds in history are/were Jews, although many of them lived before the conflict and I doubt that many would be happy about how the Israeli government is behaving today).

By the way I've travelled to over 50 countries, including many Muslim countries, and the only two countries where I experienced physical danger from the locals (for no reason at all) were Palestine and Egypt. To tell the truth I found Egyptian people to be generally much more obnoxious than Palestinians. And this was true of Egyptians I have met in Egypt and abroad. I did meet a few Palestinians who were actually friendly. Not so much in Egypt (and I visited the whole country from Cairo to Abu Simbel). If there is one country where I never want to set foot again it is Egypt. Never had any really negative experience in other Muslim countries such as Tunisia, Turkey, Muslim parts of India and southern Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia.

For me honestly it doesn't really matter what happens there in the end as long as Israel openly declares that it wants this land and that then it takes control without any western support facing all the consequences. And if the West or part of the West continues the support it will be clear that these supporters also want this expulsion.

Personally I think that the West should not support either side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One reason is that there are both lots of pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinians among Westerners. Another reason is that both Israeli and Palestinians have committed a lot of wrongdoings and neither side is innocent or morally superior. Frankly it is not my conflict and I prefer to take a step back.
 
That is not the whole explanation.

Why not ask the question: why are palestinian refugees still living in Jordan, Lebanon etc?
Part of the reason is certainly that Israel won't let these people return.
And now if Egypt For example accepted refugees, there is no guarantee they will ever be able to return. Perhaps Israel won't let them. Taking in refugees is doing Israel a big favor. And Israel has no obligation to solve the problem.
interesting point here.
 
The 'promise land' and the 'eternal Russian lands' have kind of a similar taste to me. The accomplished fact as a rule? That said, yes, none of the Palestinians and Sionists sides has to be chosen, but who is playing the above mentioned game todate? Is there some referee on the ground?
 

This thread has been viewed 3625 times.

Back
Top