Aggregated public profile · Not an official account.

Nadja Natalie Isaksen wrote that she had seen pictures and videos which, in her opinion, showed several people completely or partially masked at a counter-demonstration in Copenhagen the Saturday before. She also wrote that followers had contacted her about the matter via Facebook and email. Isaksen referred to Section 134 b of the Danish Penal Code, which according to her prohibits covering one's face at public meetings, gatherings, and processions if it prevents identification. She wrote that violations can be punished by a fine or imprisonment for up to six months. She stated that she had asked the Minister of Justice questions about both the general enforcement of the provision and the police's actions during the demonstrations in Copenhagen, including whether anyone had been charged. If no one had been charged, she wanted to be informed why. #Maskeringsforbud #Demonstration #Justitsminster (translated)

Nadja Natalie Isaksen wrote that 500 Syrians had been granted early retirement by the Social Democrats alone since the fall of Assad and the end of the war in December 2024. She asserted that they thereby automatically met the employment requirement for permanent residency and Danish citizenship, and added that it had previously been promised that they would only be in Denmark temporarily. #Syrien #Førtidspension #Indvandringspolitik (translated)

Nadja Natalie Isaksen wrote that several demonstrations were held over the weekend, where the Dannebrog was raised in one and burned in the other. She also mentioned that a demonstrator stuffed the burned flag into their underwear. Isaksen wrote that she saw the Dannebrog as a symbol of Denmark's history, Christian cultural heritage, and community, and that it pained her to see the flag being burned and mocked. She believed that it should be punishable to burn flags from all countries. According to her, it was not punishable to burn the Dannebrog, while burning flags of other countries and tearing a page out of the Quran could be punished with up to two years in prison. She stated that she had posed questions to the Minister of Justice and urged him to make it punishable to burn or mock the Dannebrog. #Dannebrog #Danmark #flag (translated)

Nadja Natalie Isaksen criticized the media's coverage of 112-year-old Kirsten Schwalbe and her deceased husband being listed in the Bovrup registry with DNSAP's membership details. Isaksen wrote that Schwalbe had set the record for the oldest Dane ever just the Wednesday before, and that she had shared anecdotes from her life through TV MIDTVEST. Isaksen emphasized that Nazism was a terrible ideology, but did not believe that justified the media confronting a 112-year-old with matters from 85 years earlier. She wrote that several media outlets had contacted Schwalbe, and that a journalist from TV MIDTVEST had mentioned that the encounter with the issue had left her in a vulnerable state. According to Isaksen, the Bovrup registry contained information about individuals who had been deceased for at least ten years. She therefore believed it should be investigated how Schwalbe's name had become publicly available and pointed out that political affiliation was a particularly sensitive piece of personal information. Isaksen wrote that Schwalbe had subsequently told TV MIDTVEST that she felt bad about having been a member of the party, did not sympathize with the Nazis, and regretted not having investigated what she was signing. According to Isaksen, Schwalbe had explained that the signature was needed to allow the couple to buy a house, and that she had let the men handle such matters back then. Isaksen praised TV MIDTVEST for taking good care of Schwalbe and for giving her the opportunity to tell her version. She wrote that she hoped the media coverage had not caused Schwalbe to withdraw from the public eye and encouraged people to instead cherish her stories. #KirstenSchwalbe #Danmark #Mediekritik (translated)

Nadja Natalie Isaksen wrote that 31-year-old Anas Hamad was placed in an institution and had disappeared during an accompanied outing to Fields. She asked why he had been allowed to go to the shopping center and why two officers were spending time escorting him. #MENAPT #AnasHamad #missingperson (translated)

Nadja Natalie Isaksen wrote that Mohamed Abdirahman Kahn came to Denmark from Ethiopia in 2015 as what she described as an alleged refugee, leaving behind his wife and five children. According to Isaksen, volunteers from the Red Cross — among them Birgit Kjølby, Lis Foverskov, and Carl Erik Foverskov — helped with the application for family reunification and raised 15,000 kroner for plane tickets. Allerød Municipality provided the family with a fully furnished home, and according to her, they were reunited on Christmas Eve 2017 after three years of separation. Isaksen wrote that the family decided to return to Ethiopia in 2022 and were granted 1,038,278 kroner for return assistance as well as plane tickets costing 70,184.31 kroner. The first installment of 582,581.50 kroner was paid out, she wrote. The following year, Mohamed reportedly regretted the return and was allowed to return to Denmark on a temporary stay. She claimed that only a small amount had been repaid and that he, as a flex jobber, would not be able to repay the debt. Isaksen criticized Allerød Municipality for allegedly not having included the costs of the plane tickets in the owed amount. She wrote that she would investigate whether municipalities had overlooked similar circumstances in other cases. She also stated that Mohamed had applied for permanent residence and planned to apply for citizenship, and that he might also seek early retirement. According to Isaksen, debt to the Danish state under the applicable rules did not hinder permanent residence or citizenship. Isaksen wrote that she had asked the social democratic minister Morten Bødskov several times whether individuals with debt to the state should be able to obtain permanent residence or citizenship, and that he had sidestepped the question twice. She said she would now raise the issue in the Parliament. The post described Mohamed as an example of what Isaksen believed was wrong in Denmark. #Danmark #Flygtninge #Socialpolitik (translated)

Nadja Natalie Isaksen wrote that she hoped voters would remember Christian Johan Zedig's name in the next election. She connected him with others she described as victims of decades of failed immigration policy. https://t.co/4VmvGkTccm #valg #udlændingepolitik #danskpolitik (translated)

Nadja Natalie Isaksen shared an open letter from Johan Zedig to Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and wrote that she hoped Frederiksen would meet with Christian's family. In the letter, Johan Zedig stated that his son Christian, who was a police officer, was assaulted and killed in Copenhagen. According to the father, Christian intervened during a football match to restore order. He claimed that the person who attacked his son had a history of violent crime and that the assault was planned. Johan Zedig requested a face-to-face meeting with Frederiksen, where she would explain how the punishment for a murder could be 12 months in prison. He described the family as being in mourning and wrote that Christian's death should not be in vain. He suggested that the meeting take place at Astrid Lindgren's World in Sweden. #Danmark #Rettigheder #Retssystem (translated)

Nadja Natalie Isaksen wrote that she had been in court the day before to see Nkumba Ludovic Tshiembe and hear his explanation. She wanted to assess his body language herself and get a sense of whether he regretted it, as she believed it could not be properly evaluated through the media coverage. She described it as unbearable to see Christian Johan Zedig's family in court and his wife crying. According to Isaksen, the wife said the case had destroyed everything. She wrote that the pain of Christian's family was hard to understand solely through media coverage, and that lawmakers should therefore attend court to see the consequences of the policies adopted by the Parliament. Isaksen called the one-year sentence unfair. She wrote that Tshiembe, in her impression, appeared affected, often looking down at the table or covering his face with his hands, and had difficulty looking at Zedig's wife. She recounted that Tshiembe had said that he felt terrible, but added that it could not bring Christian back. She believed that Tshiembe should be stripped of his Danish citizenship and permanently expelled. She referred to the fact that he had been convicted of aggravated assault and rape in 2014 and attempted murder in 2017, and wrote that the two girls would otherwise have had their father today. #Retten #Uretfærdighed #Justits (translated)

Nadja Natalie Isaksen wrote that the trial against an African man in the case of lethal violence at Islands Brygge began today. She stated that the victim was Christian Zedig, who was a husband and father of two small girls, and that the accused faced 8-10 months in prison. Isaksen also wrote that the case had received extensive media coverage, including from Swedish media, and that she was the only member of Parliament present. #Retssag #Danmark #Dødsvold (translated)

The name everyone should remember. He is known as the reckless driver from Aarhus and previously stated in 2021: "I drive very recklessly myself. I am known as a reckless driver around here. I run red lights all the time." He seems almost proud. He should be ashamed. On June 18, 2021, he hit police officer Stefan Nymann at over 80 km/h and disabled him for life. Stefan was thrown into the air, went into a coma, and was in life-threatening condition. Mohamad left him on the road and was wanted for two days. Stefan suffered around 50 brain hemorrhages, serious lung damage, a hip fracture, and damaged nerves in his brain. Today he is brain damaged, partially paralyzed, and sitting in a wheelchair. He has impaired vision, severe speech problems, and primarily receives food through a feeding tube. In court, the shameless Mohamad pleaded not guilty. In June 2022, he received four years in prison for ruining Stefan's life. During his sentence, he received another sentence of eight months for, among other things, violence, threats, and deprivation of liberty. Nevertheless, he was released on probation in 2024. Completely crazy with that history. And it turned out to be a huge mistake. Just six months later, he committed an attempted robbery along with three other men. Armed with an axe, tear gas, and a crowbar, they approached a 21-year-old man and demanded 200,000 kr. If he did not pay in cash, he would "pay with blood." When he refused, they abducted him. The abduction was stopped two hours later when the police halted the vehicle. The Western High Court has just increased Mohamad's sentence from two years to two years and six months. Now you’re probably thinking: Isn’t he going to be deported? No. Mohamad Tarek Younes was born in Denmark and has Danish citizenship. He likely got it as a secondary person when his father was granted our Danish citizenship in 2001. What a gain for Denmark. #vanvidsbilist #retssystemet #kriminalitet (translated)

The residents of Kærshovedgård and other departure centers should not have free dental care. That is my clear stance. After a call from Berlingske, where the journalist questioned me for over 30 minutes in every conceivable way, I feel we should lay the facts on the table. I had a clear impression that a political narrative had been set up in advance, into which my answers were to be forced: that my stance was to be portrayed as both inhumane and heartless. But the matter is actually quite simple. The residents of, among other places, Kærshovedgård should leave Denmark. They should not be here. Either because they are rejected asylum seekers or because they have been convicted of serious crimes and expelled from Denmark. Most of them repeatedly. They can roam freely in society. I do not believe they should have free dental care. I believe they should go home. And in light of the fact that since 2016 we have spent over 4.7 million kroner on dental treatment for residents, it is reasonable to examine how that money is used. I must simply refer to reading the Aliens Act § 42 a, section 2. Here, the key word is: "necessary." According to the law, it is indeed expenses for necessary health services that are covered. Dental treatment may be included, but that does not mean that every conceivable service at the dentist is necessary. Therefore, I have asked the minister whether public funds have been used for unnecessary expenses such as anesthesia. For one treatment, anesthesia may be unnecessary, while for another, it may be painful or irresponsible to forego it. So this is not about whether the residents may or may not receive anesthesia. It is simply about whether the Aliens Act § 42 a, section 2, is actually being complied with. Thus, it is entirely legitimate to investigate whether public funds have been used for something that was not necessary, including whether anesthesia is routinely offered to patients without reservation and without regard to the rules. Fundamentally, this is NOT about whether residents in departure centers may receive anesthesia. It is also NOT about whether anyone may go to the dentist. The question is who should pay the bill. It is absurd that Danes are paying dental bills for people who are to go home. It should not be controversial to think so. After all, there is no one preventing voluntary organizations or others from raising funds for dental treatment for the residents if they cannot pay themselves. For example, the Red Cross offers swimming pool trips to the residents of Kærshovedgård. Perhaps dental assistance could be something one chooses to prioritize instead. #Udlændingepolitik #Sundhedspolitik #Tandlægehjælp (translated)

HØJESTERET HAR TALT Den 4. september sad jeg i Højesteret og fulgte sagen om en arabisk kvinde, der havde snydt sig til dansk indfødsret i 2015. I 2013 havde hun i ansøgningsskemaet nemlig afgivet en tro- og loveerklæring på, at hun ikke havde begået kriminelle forhold. I 2016 blev hun og ægtefællen imidlertid sigtet for at have udøvet grov vold mod sin på tidspunktet 4 årige datter. I 2017 blev hun og ægtefællen dømt for volden mod datteren. Det betyder, at kvinden, da hun ansøgte om dansk indfødsret, fortiede, at hun havde begået strafbare forhold og dermed afgav en falsk erklæring til myndighederne. Spørgsmålet for Højesteret var, om frakendelse vil være i strid med Danmarks internationale forpligtelser, herunder EMRK artikel 8. Højesteret har i dag stadfæstet, at hun frakendes sin danske indfødsret. Det glæder mig. Dommen er rigtig. Men efter min opfattelse bør loven ændres. Hvis en ansøger ikke opfyldte betingelserne, da Folketinget vedtog loven om indfødsret, bør indfødsretten anses for aldrig at være gyldigt erhvervet. Nullitet fra begyndelsen, ex tunc. Det bør skrives klart ind i indfødsretsloven og kommende love om indfødsrets meddelelse, så forventnings- og indrettelseshensyn ikke kan bruges til at fastholde en indfødsret opnået på et urigtigt grundlag. For man skal ikke kunne opnå ved domstolene, hvad man aldrig ville have fået af Folketinget, hvis sandheden havde været kendt. Det er alene Folketinget, der efter grundlovens § 44, stk. 1, bestemmer, hvem der kan opnå dansk indfødsret. Sprogkravet og indfødsretsprøven bør samtidig skærpes markant. Ved min overværing af sagen i retten undrede jeg mig meget over, hvordan hun kunne opfylde sprogkravet og bestå indfødsretsprøven, når en arabisk tolk måtte oversætte hele retsmødet for hende. Højesteret bemærker da også i dommen, at hun kun forstår og taler dansk i meget begrænset omfang. For hvis hun efter 27 år i Danmark ikke kan begå sig på dansk, hvordan kunne hun så opfylde kravene for 12 år siden. Måske er der givet dispensation. Det mangler jeg fortsat svar på. Og det leder mig hen til, at det bør være sådan, at ansøgernes identitet kontrolleres biometrisk ved deltagelse i prøven, så myndighederne senere kan kontrollere, om den, der tog prøven, er den samme som den, der får udstedt et dansk pas. Men altså, vi bør bare lade være med at massedele vores indfødsret ud som bolsjer. Jeg minder om, at der pt. er over 19.000 ansøgninger om dansk indfødsret. Det er hovedrystende. #Indfødsret #Danmark #Rettigheder

De i weekenden daglige bønnemøder fra middag til aften på Gammeltorv og andre brændepunkter i Danmarks hovedstad. Kommunen nægter at gøre noget ved det. Det eneste, der er at gøre, er at lægge pres på ved at klage til Københavns kommune og politiet på 114. Problemet er bare, at forbipasserende går forbi bønnemøderne, som var det helt normalt og i orden. Det er det ikke. Jeg og Dansk Folkeparti vil gøre alt for at stoppe det, men der er brug for pres fra jer derude. Klag, klag, klag. #København #DanskPolitik #Bøn

Tillykke til de nye førtidspensionister siden Mette Frederiksen blev statsminister: Tyrkiet 5.456 Irak 2.460 Libanon (inkl. palæstinensere*) 2.083 Syrien 1.903 Somalia 1.587 Iran 1.267 Pakistan 1.160 Bosnien-Hercegovina 1.025 Sikke en gevinst for Danmark! #Førtidspension #Danmark #MetteFrederiksen

Den 19. april 1995 fremsatte den socialdemokratiske justitsminister Bjørn Rømer Westh et lovforslag i Folketinget om at give Sam Mohabbat dansk indfødsret, efter at hans forældre havde opholdt sig her i landet i ni år siden 1986. Sam Mohabbat havde allerede iransk indfødsret, var ikke statsløs, og ingen internationale forpligtelser gav ham ret til dansk indfødsret. Alligevel blev lovforslaget velvilligt vedtaget med 112 stemmer fra S, V, KF, SF, RV, EL og CD mod blot 6 stemmer fra FP. Ifølge artikel 988 i Irans indfødsretslov kan man alene fortabe sin iranske indfødsret, hvis Ministerrådet i Iran godkender det, forudsat at man har aftjent sin iranske værnepligt. I praksis er det en ren teoretisk mulighed, der aldrig anvendes. Artikel 989 fastslår specifikt, at en iraner, der erhverver udenlandsk indfødsret, altid anses for at være iraner. Kun med Ministerrådets dispensation kan en iraner anerkendes som udlænding. Jeg har ikke kunnet finde oplysninger om, hvorvidt det nogensinde er sket i praksis. Det er ubestridt, at Sam Mohabbat har ret til iransk indfødsret og ikke kan blive statsløs uden dansk indfødsret. Sam Mohabbat er medlem af Hizb ut-Tahrir og idømt ni måneders ubetinget fængsel for terrorbilligelse begået den 10. oktober 2023. Og her bliver sagen interessant. Det følger af indfødsretslovens § 8 B, stk. 1, at den, der dømmes for en strafbar handling og derved har udvist en handlemåde, som er til alvorlig skade for statens vitale interesser, ved dom skal frakendes sin danske indfødsret. I bestemmelsens forarbejder, der findes i lovforslag nr. L 127 af 10. februar 2022, de almindelige bemærkninger pkt. 2.2.2., er terrorbilligelse eksplicit oplistet som et eksempel på en handling rettet mod statens vitale interesser. I Indfødsretsudvalget, almindelig del - svar på spørgsmål 107 i folketingsåret 2024-25 indrømmede den tidligere udlændingeminister Kaare Dybvad Bek, at det i vurderingen af, om der er udvist en handlemåde til alvorlig skade for Danmarks vitale interesser, ikke er afgørende efter indfødsretsloven, hvilken straf der idømmes. Derudover giver indfødsretslovens § 8 B, stk. 3, udlændinge- og integrationsministeren mulighed for administrativt at fratage en person den danske indfødsret, hvis vedkommende har udvist en handlemåde, som er til alvorlig skade for landets vitale interesser, forudsat at personen ikke derved bliver statsløs. Sam Mohabbat vil ikke blive statsløs. Alligevel har de skiftende socialdemokratiske justitsministre og udlændingeministre siden terrorbilligelsen i 2023, trods klokkeklar lovhjemmel i indfødsretsloven, undladt at sikre, at anklagemyndigheden nedlagde påstand efter stk. 1 om frakendelse i straffesagen om terrorbilligelse, samt undladt at tage initiativ til administrativ fratagelse efter stk. 3. Efter afsoningen sidder Sam Mohabbat offentligt i podcasten "Det Islamiske Perspektiv" med Isam Bachiri og fortæller romantiserende om, at han ikke kan beskrive, hvad man får ud af at sidde i fængsel for islams skyld, og om det bånd, man får til Allah ved at begå strafbare handlinger for islam. Det er hverken lovhjemmel eller internationale forpligtelser, der står i vejen for, at udlændingeminister Morten Bødskov tager initiativ til at indlede en fratagelsessag. Det er alene socialdemokratisk vilje, der mangler. Den vilje havde Socialdemokratiet ellers i 1995, da det gjaldt om at give ham dansk indfødsret. #Indfødsret #Terror #Danmark

NU SÆNKES BELØBSGRÆNSEN IGEN Til valget i 2019 lovede Mette Frederiksen, at beløbsgrænsen ikke ville blive sat ned, så længe Socialdemokratiet havde noget at skulle have sagt. Morten Bødskov var lige så klar i mælet: »Der kommer ikke til at blive rykket ved beløbsgrænsen.« Alligevel blev beløbsgrænsen sænket i 2022. Og nu sænkes den igen! Denne gang ned til 322.000 kr. årligt for i alt 16 lande: USA, Storbritannien, Singapore, Kina, Japan, Australien, Canada, Indien, Brasilien, Malaysia, Montenegro, Serbien, Nordmakedonien, Albanien, Ukraine og Moldova. Socialdemokratiet påstår hårdnakket, at regeringen ikke sænker beløbsgrænsen, fordi der ikke pilles ved de eksisterende ordninger. Man har nemlig i stedet været smart og oprettet en helt ny ordning med en meget lavere beløbsgrænse. Og vupti, så mener Socialdemokratiet i ramme alvor, at beløbsgrænsen ikke er blevet sænket. Det er ren ordkløveri. Om man sænker grænsen på en eksisterende ordning eller opretter en ny ordning med en langt lavere grænse, er resultatet det samme: Det bliver lettere og billigere at hente arbejdskraft til Danmark. Det betyder noget, hvilke lande arbejdskraften kommer fra, og hvor tæt landene ligger på Danmark sprogligt og kulturelt. Danmark har ikke meget sprogligt eller kulturelt til fælles med fx Indien eller Malaysia. Samtidig har flere af landene meget store muslimske mindretal. Alene i Indien bor der omkring 200 millioner muslimer. Malaysia har et muslimsk flertal, og Albanien har ligeledes en stor muslimsk befolkning. Og når døren åbnes til folk fra UK, så er det bekymrende, for det er bl.a. i UK, vi ser enorme problemer med indvandrere. Fælles for dem alle er, at de nu får lettere adgang til Danmark med hele familien, fordi de nu skal tjene langt mindre end før på den nye ordning. Socialdemokratiet fastholder, at der ikke er tale om en lempelse af udlændingepolitikken. Det er jeg lodret uenig i. Desværre stemte et bredt flertal i Folketinget loven igennem. For loven stemte regeringen + LA, Kons, EL og ALT. Imod stemte DF, DD, BP, Nadja Natalie Isaksen (UFG) og Emilie Schytte (UFG), hverken for eller imod stemte Cecilie Liv Hansen (UFG) og Jacob Harris (UFG)). Loven træder desværre i kraft 1. januar 2027. #Beløbsgrænse #Udlændingepolitik #Danmark