income that year, a heavy burden in a country which already has some of the highest
levels of taxation in the world.
At the same time, the number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled in just
above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six times as
common today as they were a generation ago. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya,
Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm,
who has investigated violent crimes in one court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted
rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents. Swedish politicians want to
continue Muslim immigration because it boosts the economy, yet the evidence so far
indicates that it mainly boosts the number of gang rapes. Meanwhile, research shows
that fear of honour killings is a very real issue for many immigrant girls in Sweden.
100.000 young Swedish girls live as virtual prisoners of their own families.
An ever growing group of non-western immigrants in Norway is dependent on welfare.
This was the conclusion of a study by Tyra Ekhaugen of the Frisch Centre for Economic
Research and the University of Oslo. Ekhaugen's research contradicted the often heard
assertion that Norway's labour market depends increasingly on immigrants. The study
indicated quite the reverse. If the present evolution continues, immigration will
increase the pressure on the welfare state rather than relieving it because many
immigrants do not join the tax-paying part of the population. "Non-Western immigrants"
in Norway are recipients of social security benefits ten times as frequently as native
Norwegians. If we remember that "non-Western immigrants" include Chinese, Indians
and other non-Muslims who are known for (and statistically proven to be) hard working,
this speaks volumes of the heavy burden Muslims constitute on the welfare state.
Journalist Halvor Tjønn from newspaper Aftenposten, one of the few genuinely critical
journalists in the country, in June 2006 cited a report from NHO, the Confederation of
Norwegian Enterprise. NHO stated that the current immigration policies were a serious
threat to the country's economy. Norway is the planet's third largest exporter of oil, next
to Saudi Arabia and Russia. Yet according to NHO, there is a risk that much of the profit
Norway earns from oil could be spent on paying welfare for a rapidly growing immigrant
population. The most profitable immigration would be high-skilled workers who stay for
period of limited duration, but at the same time not too brief. A Danish think tank has
estimated that the net cost of immigration was up to 50 billion kroner every year, and
those were cautious estimates. Denmark could thus save huge sums by stopping
immigration from less developed countries. A study found that every other immigrant
from the Third World -- especially from Muslim countries -- lacked the qualifications for
even the most menial jobs on the organised Danish labour market.
Professor Kjetil Storesletten at the University of Oslo said that the net contribution of
immigrants to the economy was probably negative in Norway, too. "Admitting immigrants
with low levels of education leads nowhere. We cannot continue the immigration policies
we have followed until now," said Storesletten. In Norway, social benefits and salaries for
low-skilled workers are among the highest in the world. At the same time, the salaries for
highly skilled workers are comparatively lower and the taxes are high. This compressed
salary structure is the result of decades of Socialist policies in Scandinavia. It leads to
attracting people with lower skills and little education, but also makes the countries less
attractive for researchers and scientists. Still, the agency that handles immigration to
Norway, UDI, in 2005 thought that the country must make it more attractive for both
skilled and unskilled workers to move to Norway. "We need more immigrants,"
claimed UDI chief Trygve Nordby. "Too few dare to say that we have a large need for
non-professional workers as well," he said. UDI, in turn, should be able to have more
flexibility in deciding cases, and process cases more quickly and efficiently. As it turned
out later, the bureaucrats of UDI were in fact so "flexible" that they had been running
their own, private immigration policies, and that the agency's liberal interpretation of
asylum rules had "stretched the boundaries" of the law. UDI violated both the law and