The Danish People's Party (DF) has strengthened its immigration stance by securing an agreement to pay 'anti-social' foreigners 100,000 kroner to leave Denmark. Refugees and those who come to Denmark under family reunification schemes currently get 28,256 in repatriation support if they leave, of which 11,000 is a bonus. The bonus is usually paid out a year after the recipient returns home and their right to Danish residency expires.
Neither the government nor DF has yet elaborated on what constitutes an 'anti-social' foreigner, but have said that it would be aimed at those who 'can't or won't integrate'. (via Foreigners to get 100,000 kroner incentive to leave Denmark).
Not the first ... not the last time
Its not just the Danes. The French feel let down because "immigrants were supposed to blend harmoniously into society and not exist in separate communities" - and they did not.
Behind this is a centuries old accepted political principle, a 'settled' principle in the Desert Bloc - 'Cuius regio, eius religio' (meaning whose land, his religion; CRER) - the ruler decided his people's religion.
After the Fourth Crusade (1202–1204), Vatican invoked the CRER principle ('Cuius regio, eius religio') during its brief rule over the Byzantine Empire to reject religious objections by the Byzantine subjects. Post Hussite Wars and the 'Reformation', establishing the CRER principle to settle Germany, giving rise to the logic of 'ubi unus dominus, ibi una sit religio' (One ruler, one religion). Just in case someone had religious disagreement, the logic was they could well emigrate - (ius emigrandi).
As the 19th century progressed, slave revolts made slavery impractical. Faced with a reality of 'warm-bodies-shortage', 'liberalism', 'secular' Governments, Marxism, Socialism et al were invented in the 19th century. It is this principle which accounts for the low levels of diversity in the West - and which also accounts for the shrillness with which the West proclaims it 'liberalism' - facts being otherwise.
Melting pot vs Mosaic patterns
The need for 'integration', the concerns over the slow 'assimilation' of the Mexicans in the American melting pot, the Islamo-phobia, the Compulsive Jihadic Syndrome, are all sides of the same cube. The schizophrenic Christian aggression in India combined with hysterical protests against any backlash are symptoms of the same ideological thread.
While the West talks about the respect for the individual, facts are otherwise. Similarly, expatriate populations in the Middle East have to live with disrespect and intolerance of non-Islamic religions.
Lowest diversity vs. Biggest talk
The West today has the lowest levels of ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity – and persecutes whatever little is left, like the Roma Gypsies for example. Would critics like to mention any other country, where such a large minority Muslim population, has greater freedom and opportunity, than in India? Would you like to suggest France instead?
In the thrall of One
The Western concept of nation building requires the cornerstones of Desert Bloc – One God, One Book, One Holy Day, One Prophet (Messiah), One Race, One People, One Country, One Authority, One Law, One Currency, One Set of Festivals. This tyranny of the 'One' is the root of most problems in the world. From this 'Oneness', we get the 'One' Currency, 'One' Language logic – a fallacious syllogism. Once you accept 'One', you will accept all others.
The Indic model
Unlike the Indian social system, where differences are respected and encouraged, the position of the French Government, paraphrases the thinking of the 'desert bloc'. Indians believe that all are वासुदेवाय कुटुम्बकम 'vasudevaih kutumbakam' and ईसा वास्यो मिदं सर्वं 'isa vaasyo midam sarvam' (meaning we are all God's family and God is in everyone and everywhere respectively).