![JChimirie66677's tweet photo. Shabana Mahmood flew to Copenhagen last week. She came back convinced she had found the answer. On Thursday she announced it: Britain will pay failed asylum-seeking families up to £40,000 to leave. She called it the Danish model. Denmark would barely recognise it.
This is the political equivalent of visiting a Michelin-starred restaurant, asking for the recipe, and coming home with the napkin.
Denmark's success on immigration is not built on paying people to go away. It is built on making sure they don't want to come in the first place, and on removing them efficiently when they do. The payment scheme exists in Denmark as a minor instrument inside a much harder overall architecture. Mahmood has extracted the instrument and left the architecture behind.
Here is what the Danish model actually consists of. Political consensus across left and right that the system must deter arrivals, not attract them. Asylum treated as temporary by default, with regular reassessments and a clear expectation of return. Benefits for new arrivals cut below standard welfare levels. Family reunification tightened. Rapid decisions. Rapid removals. Return agreements with origin countries treated as a diplomatic priority. Integration demands that are explicit and enforced: learn the language, work, respect Danish law. Denmark didn't find a magic policy. It decided what it wanted its system to do and then aligned everything around that goal.
What has Mahmood adopted from this? The leaving payment. One tool from the toolbox, with the toolbox left in Copenhagen.
And even on its own terms the comparison doesn't hold. Denmark offered up to £30,000 per person – three times the British rate. But the figure is beside the point. The payment works in Denmark because it sits inside a system designed to make staying impossible. Strip that system away and the number becomes irrelevant. What remains is a cash offer to people who have already been told they have no right to be here. That is not the Danish model. It is one line from the Danish model, lifted out of context and dressed up in Scandinavian branding for political cover.
Now consider the pull factor. The people crossing the Channel in small boats are overwhelmingly single young men. That is what the data consistently shows. This scheme is explicitly targeted at families. So where are these families coming from? And what signal does a publicly announced £40,000 family payment send to anyone considering the crossing? Come as a family, fail your claim, take the money. Labour's Alex Norris went on television to insist this would not act as a magnet. He would say that. The incentive structure says otherwise.
There is something deeper here too. Mahmood has been warned by her own department that the system creates perverse incentives – that people place children on dangerous boats precisely because families are harder to remove. Her answer to that perverse incentive is to attach a £40,000 reward to it. The deterrent and the incentive have changed places.
Mahmood is at least trying. The 30-month asylum review, the welfare restrictions, the Article 8 changes – there are genuine moves here that previous governments avoided. But trying is not the same as succeeding, and borrowing Denmark's reputation without borrowing Denmark's methods is not a policy. It's a press release.
The 150 families sitting in Home Office hotels got a text on Thursday morning giving them seven days to decide. The Home Secretary spent a week in Copenhagen and came back with a payment card and a photo opportunity. Denmark took twenty years to build the system she is claiming to have copied. Someone is getting a good deal here. It isn't the British taxpayer.
"On Thursday [Shabana Mahmood] announced it: Britain will pay failed asylum-seeking families up to £40,000 to leave. She called it the Danish model. Denmark would barely recognise it."](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HCqehTXWIAALWFf.jpg)
Olivia
Online
Brookdub
@brookdub
Unwavering support for any political party is ignorant and dangerous.
Joined February 2009
6.1K Following
1.3K Followers
32.3K Posts
BREAKING: Mohamed Bakkali, the logistical mastermind behind the Paris and Bataclan attacks, was granted penitentiary leave by a Brussels court and could eventually be released indefinitely for “good behavior.”
- 129 people massacred.
- They cut off testicles and shoved them into the victims's mouths.
- They stabbed pregnant women in the womb and raped them.
- They beheaded people.
- They gouged people's eyes out.
Now they want to potentially release him.
Shabana Mahmood flew to Copenhagen last week. She came back convinced she had found the answer. On Thursday she announced it: Britain will pay failed asylum-seeking families up to £40,000 to leave. She called it the Danish model. Denmark would barely recognise it.
This is the political equivalent of visiting a Michelin-starred restaurant, asking for the recipe, and coming home with the napkin.
Denmark's success on immigration is not built on paying people to go away. It is built on making sure they don't want to come in the first place, and on removing them efficiently when they do. The payment scheme exists in Denmark as a minor instrument inside a much harder overall architecture. Mahmood has extracted the instrument and left the architecture behind.
Here is what the Danish model actually consists of. Political consensus across left and right that the system must deter arrivals, not attract them. Asylum treated as temporary by default, with regular reassessments and a clear expectation of return. Benefits for new arrivals cut below standard welfare levels. Family reunification tightened. Rapid decisions. Rapid removals. Return agreements with origin countries treated as a diplomatic priority. Integration demands that are explicit and enforced: learn the language, work, respect Danish law. Denmark didn't find a magic policy. It decided what it wanted its system to do and then aligned everything around that goal.
What has Mahmood adopted from this? The leaving payment. One tool from the toolbox, with the toolbox left in Copenhagen.
And even on its own terms the comparison doesn't hold. Denmark offered up to £30,000 per person – three times the British rate. But the figure is beside the point. The payment works in Denmark because it sits inside a system designed to make staying impossible. Strip that system away and the number becomes irrelevant. What remains is a cash offer to people who have already been told they have no right to be here. That is not the Danish model. It is one line from the Danish model, lifted out of context and dressed up in Scandinavian branding for political cover.
Now consider the pull factor. The people crossing the Channel in small boats are overwhelmingly single young men. That is what the data consistently shows. This scheme is explicitly targeted at families. So where are these families coming from? And what signal does a publicly announced £40,000 family payment send to anyone considering the crossing? Come as a family, fail your claim, take the money. Labour's Alex Norris went on television to insist this would not act as a magnet. He would say that. The incentive structure says otherwise.
There is something deeper here too. Mahmood has been warned by her own department that the system creates perverse incentives – that people place children on dangerous boats precisely because families are harder to remove. Her answer to that perverse incentive is to attach a £40,000 reward to it. The deterrent and the incentive have changed places.
Mahmood is at least trying. The 30-month asylum review, the welfare restrictions, the Article 8 changes – there are genuine moves here that previous governments avoided. But trying is not the same as succeeding, and borrowing Denmark's reputation without borrowing Denmark's methods is not a policy. It's a press release.
The 150 families sitting in Home Office hotels got a text on Thursday morning giving them seven days to decide. The Home Secretary spent a week in Copenhagen and came back with a payment card and a photo opportunity. Denmark took twenty years to build the system she is claiming to have copied. Someone is getting a good deal here. It isn't the British taxpayer.
"On Thursday [Shabana Mahmood] announced it: Britain will pay failed asylum-seeking families up to £40,000 to leave. She called it the Danish model. Denmark would barely recognise it."
![JChimirie66677's tweet photo. Shabana Mahmood flew to Copenhagen last week. She came back convinced she had found the answer. On Thursday she announced it: Britain will pay failed asylum-seeking families up to £40,000 to leave. She called it the Danish model. Denmark would barely recognise it.
This is the political equivalent of visiting a Michelin-starred restaurant, asking for the recipe, and coming home with the napkin.
Denmark's success on immigration is not built on paying people to go away. It is built on making sure they don't want to come in the first place, and on removing them efficiently when they do. The payment scheme exists in Denmark as a minor instrument inside a much harder overall architecture. Mahmood has extracted the instrument and left the architecture behind.
Here is what the Danish model actually consists of. Political consensus across left and right that the system must deter arrivals, not attract them. Asylum treated as temporary by default, with regular reassessments and a clear expectation of return. Benefits for new arrivals cut below standard welfare levels. Family reunification tightened. Rapid decisions. Rapid removals. Return agreements with origin countries treated as a diplomatic priority. Integration demands that are explicit and enforced: learn the language, work, respect Danish law. Denmark didn't find a magic policy. It decided what it wanted its system to do and then aligned everything around that goal.
What has Mahmood adopted from this? The leaving payment. One tool from the toolbox, with the toolbox left in Copenhagen.
And even on its own terms the comparison doesn't hold. Denmark offered up to £30,000 per person – three times the British rate. But the figure is beside the point. The payment works in Denmark because it sits inside a system designed to make staying impossible. Strip that system away and the number becomes irrelevant. What remains is a cash offer to people who have already been told they have no right to be here. That is not the Danish model. It is one line from the Danish model, lifted out of context and dressed up in Scandinavian branding for political cover.
Now consider the pull factor. The people crossing the Channel in small boats are overwhelmingly single young men. That is what the data consistently shows. This scheme is explicitly targeted at families. So where are these families coming from? And what signal does a publicly announced £40,000 family payment send to anyone considering the crossing? Come as a family, fail your claim, take the money. Labour's Alex Norris went on television to insist this would not act as a magnet. He would say that. The incentive structure says otherwise.
There is something deeper here too. Mahmood has been warned by her own department that the system creates perverse incentives – that people place children on dangerous boats precisely because families are harder to remove. Her answer to that perverse incentive is to attach a £40,000 reward to it. The deterrent and the incentive have changed places.
Mahmood is at least trying. The 30-month asylum review, the welfare restrictions, the Article 8 changes – there are genuine moves here that previous governments avoided. But trying is not the same as succeeding, and borrowing Denmark's reputation without borrowing Denmark's methods is not a policy. It's a press release.
The 150 families sitting in Home Office hotels got a text on Thursday morning giving them seven days to decide. The Home Secretary spent a week in Copenhagen and came back with a payment card and a photo opportunity. Denmark took twenty years to build the system she is claiming to have copied. Someone is getting a good deal here. It isn't the British taxpayer.
"On Thursday [Shabana Mahmood] announced it: Britain will pay failed asylum-seeking families up to £40,000 to leave. She called it the Danish model. Denmark would barely recognise it."](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HCqehWiXIAEDsC-.jpg)
Violetta Mailyan, a doctor in California, has been found GUILTY of carrying out a $45 MILLION fraud scheme where she falsely billed Medicare for unnecessary Botox injections before altering patient records to cover her tracks.
She now faces up to 20 years in prison.
This is just ONE fraudulent doctor. Imagine how many more are committing fraud.
A neuroscientist who spent 20 years proving that reading on screens damages your brain sat down to read her favorite novel and discovered that the damage had already happened to her.
Her name is Maryanne Wolf.
She runs the Center for Dyslexia at UCLA and is one of the most cited reading scientists alive. The experiment she ran on herself is sitting inside a book she published in 2018.
Here is the one fact that breaks how most people think about reading.
Humans were never born to read. Yes, you read that right. There is no reading center in the brain. There is no gene for literacy. Every reader builds a custom circuit inside their own skull by repurposing brain regions that originally evolved for vision, language, and recognizing objects.
Wolf calls it the reading brain circuit. The circuit is not a given. It is built by use. And because it is built by use, it can be unbuilt by disuse.
The circuit she spent her career mapping is not the one that just turns letters into sounds. Sitting on top of that is something she calls the deep reading circuit. Both hemispheres firing. Multiple lobes coordinating.
The visual system, the language regions, the memory centers, the emotional and motor systems all firing in a choreographed sequence that takes the brain a few seconds longer to run than skimming does.
Those few extra seconds are where everything important happens. Background knowledge pulls up. Analogies form. Inferences fire. The mind takes the perspective of the character. Critical analysis runs in the background while emotion runs in the foreground. New thoughts get generated on top of the author's thoughts. The decoding is the entry ticket. The deep circuit is the show.
Skimming does not fire this circuit. There is no time.
In 2018 Wolf ran a private experiment on herself. She decided to reread Hermann Hesse's Magister Ludi, a dense novel she had loved as a young woman. She was the world's leading expert on the reading brain. She assumed her own circuit was intact.
It was not.
She opened the book and could not get through it. Her words, not mine. She wrote that she hated the book. The sentences felt like snakelike constructions that confuse meaning instead of revealing it. 6She described the experience as someone pouring thick molasses over her brain every time she picked it up. She wrote one sentence that should haunt anyone who reads it. "I now read on the surface and very quickly, in fact, I read too fast to comprehend deeper levels."
The woman who built her entire career on the deep reading circuit had quietly lost access to her own.
The mechanism is brutal in how simple it is. Eye-tracking research from Ziming Liu at San Jose State shows that when people read on screens, almost all of them fall into the same pattern. They read the first line. Then their eyes word-spot down the page in an F shape. They sample. They do not read. Whatever you stop using, your brain stops maintaining.
The data is the part most people have never seen. In 2018 Pablo Delgado ran a meta-analysis of 54 studies covering more than 170,000 participants. Same text. Half on paper. Half on screen. The screen group lost by 0.21 standard deviations. Replicated by Clinton at 0.25. Replicated by Kong at 0.21. Researchers gave it a name. They call it the screen inferiority effect.
The worst part is what happened over time. The gap has grown larger in studies done after 2010, not smaller. Digital natives do not outperform older readers. They underperform them on the same texts. More exposure makes it worse, not better.
Screen readers are also more confident they understood than paper readers. They think they got more out of the text than they actually did. The skimmer does not know they are skimming. They believe they are reading.
The stakes Wolf keeps coming back to are not academic. The deep reading circuit is the same circuit your brain uses to take another person's perspective. To weigh complex civic information. To read a contract, a ballot question, a medical disclosure and notice what is actually being said underneath what is written.
If the circuit atrophies, those capacities go with it. Not metaphorically. Structurally.
You are not getting dumber. You are not losing intelligence. You are quietly losing access to a specific circuit that takes longer to fire than your phone is willing to wait for.
The expert who spent 20 years warning the world ran the experiment on herself and barely made it back.
Most people are not running the experiment at all.
@DailyMail Asain? ASIAN???? You mean Paki/Muslim?
So you sum up their sentences and expand their races to 'Asian' so god forbid Paki/Muslims don't get offended.
Pathetic pricks
@DailyMail Not Asian. Call them what they are, Pakistanis.
@DailyMail “Asian” being used deceptively again. You are not journalists. You are enablers.
@HistorianUSA1 @DSWildBloom86 She’s truly too stupid, indoctrinated and hive-minded to be charged with educating American youth. Scary to thing how many more just like her are shaping young minds. @elonmusk
Qatar has financed indoctrinating programs at all levels of education and teaching all over North America. It was strategic, deliberate and occurred over many years.
🚨 HEZBOLLAH INDOCTRINATING CHILDREN
Alireza Jafarzade says Hezbollah terrorists are using youth programs to radicalize children, mirroring tactics long used by the Iranian regime to spread extremist ideology and advance its military agenda.
Do you agree with this?
@CUNY graduates & degrees may become potential destructive and costly liabilities to employers and academic collaborators. It was not the Islamists who created and strengthened CUNY. But it will be Islamists and their enablers who will irreparably destroy CUNY.
CUNY Law graduation disrupted by graduating students who, in unison, called on the school to divest from Israel, remove NYPD from campus, and more:
HOA bans American flags for being "triggering."
This is illegal.
This violates the 2005 Freedom to Display the American Flag Act.
Federal law protects your right to fly the U.S. flag on your property.
HOAs can only make reasonable rules on size/placement. Not ban it.
If your HOA tries to ban it, heres what to do:
Cite the 2005 Act and refuse to comply.
Document everything.
Send a cease-and-desist via attorney.
Your flag. Your right. 🇺🇸
🚨NEVER FORGET: On 22 May 2017, Islamic extremist Salman Abedi detonated a bomb at Manchester Arena, killing 22 & injuring 1,017 after an Ariana Grande concert. Aided by his brother, this attack scarred a nation.
This is all the awareness Islam deserves. ☪️ancer.
Never forgive.
Our most notorious Somali, Ilhan Omar, is now
facing FEDERAL SUBPOENAS after she flat out lied about her $30 MILLION net worth and was likely involved in the $250 MILLION FRAUD scandal in Minnesota.
Who's ready to see her go down?
And I don't mean on her brother...
White people should not be allowed to sit on stoops in Bed-Stuy!! @arooj_aftab
@FerricWilliam @realMaalouf @RubenBhodl The real problem now are the 3rd world invaders, particularly but not limited to Muslims who are desperate to USE any longtime POC community to gain their goals.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
ۦٰ۫گـﹷﹻﹻ۬ﹻۧ۬ﹻ۬ـ༈ـﹻۧ۬ﹻؤُنـﹻۧ۬ﹻٰ۬ﹻٰ۬ﹻ༈ـﹻۧ۬ﹻ۬ﹻـآنۦٰ۫
Seen from Germany
性瘾小王子
Seen from Canada
Mara/Prestinez dietro di me 🐻🐴🐕 
Seen from Italy
﮼فيصـل …
Seen from Saudi Arabia
M.3 ClipMule (แอคเก่า 105 k)
Seen from Thailand
follow@Colikiawan_21
Seen from Indonesia
Alejo Ospina
Seen from Kuwait
Muhammet Fatih Akdeniz
Seen from Turkey
ثــقاٱفاٱت إبـاحـ‘ــيـهۃ 🔞
Xcross Cutter
Seen from Thailand
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.2M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.6M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
109.2M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
106.9M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.3M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.6M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
86.9M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
80.7M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.3M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.4M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
68.7M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.6M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.5M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
61.3M followers
X
@x
60.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60M followers