I used to live in Tingbjerg, and could witness firsthand how the immigrants abused the welfare there. The laws may seem harsh, but on the other side you have people who take pride in cheating the social security system.
This was perceived as a huge problem for the housing associations renting out the apartments, so they've been doing a bunch of different things, including hiring social workers, courses to try to get people in a job, networks, giving the buildings a serious makeover destroying some and building new in an effort to get a better mix of low-rent and high-rent inhabitants. But also getting permission to decline new renters on welfare payments.
In the end, all housing associations where I live managed to get off the ghetto lists, so aren't affected by this new law.
I think the new law is probably more about signaling a hardliner attitude than actually solving problems.
On the other hand, no doubt people gathering in small closely-knit enclaves ends up being a problem for many of those living there. In a nutshell, if you need a job, networking with people who don't have one doesn't help.
How much is it actually a problem as far as crime is concerned? I know some countries where it's really bad but haven't heard of this issue in Denmark so can't comment.
Ok, I don't want to go down the road of "this is backwards and shouldn't be happening in Denmark" and I'm already tired of comments saying "it's about time, wish they did that in my country"...
So I'm asking the smart people of HN. What could be good solutions for the problem they are trying to fix?
Children of families that come from other countries don't speak the language when they enrol in 1st grade.
Not sure why you think the problem lies with immigrants. Particularly in Denmark where, more often than not, you find the children of recent immigrants to be very strongly integrated.
Consider the possibility that the anti-immigrant hysteria has nothing to do with immigrants. Just like the Jews in 1940s Germany what you have are countries scapegoating a well-defined minority.
What's really going on? Likely it's a potent combination of wage stagnation, rising inequality, declining social welfare, and falling birth rates [1]. Anti-immigrant bias is just a plank here. Certainly if the Danish economy was growing like it was in the 60s you would not see so much "reasonable concern" about immigrants. (No, instead, then the government was importing immigrants as fast as possible.)
Create a culture of migration. The United States and Canada are examples of countries where integration is wonderfully successful [1][2][3]. New citizens to the United States and Canada are welcomed in huge stadiums adorned with flags, families celebrate by making signs, and most everyone would agree that a new citizen is just as much a member of the country as any native born person. Attitudes among native born persons really make a difference, where even the United States' fairly conservative Republican party touts its immigrant supporters at their conventions.
Leaders in Europe have recognized the need for this attitude in the past, but they've acknowledged that it hasn't quite worked out [4][5]. Making the transition from a country with very long family lineages just requires a lot more convincing of the local population.
> most everyone would agree that a new citizen is just as much a member of the country as any native born person
This is already the case in Europe though; if anything, the racism/discrimination situation seems better than the US, since you don't have to fear for your life if you're black and see a cop.
I'm not sure there is a "nice" solution when some people immigrate for the sole reason of freeloading on the welfare system. I've noticed that in France where some people do not even wish to integrate (the tools are there if you want it), and prefer to stay within their community, relying either on welfare, or will often transition to living off crime (drugs, etc).
Being black nevertheless means that police stops you very often, speaks at you with some rudness ("tutoiement") and police in general is white and close to far-right mindsets:
With all due respect blacks are afraid even in their own native land of africa, and similarly muslim in many muslim countries. That along with economical betterment is one of the key reasons why ppl immigrate in first place.
USA partly managed this internally but it started from migrants not received them.
Even then there are major ghettos and cultural differences there.
It is not at all about local populations being welcoming or not but about migrants not wanting or being able to assimilate.
Clustering together exacerbates the problem.
You can't compare to USA migration (esp. what happened in the past). Because there was no social security for the immigrants. So you were quite free to enter the country and work, but you had to take care of yourself.
Contrast to eg. Denmark where immigrants can enter the country and do absolutely nothing, and get a full upkeep with free housing, schools and health care.
And here the problem is that some of these people like it that way and don't even try to get a work and teach their children how to get work (eg. by learning the local language and other social norms, like that women are considered equal).
A good measure would be to break up Ghettos. Stop putting all low-income people in one part of the city and then cry when it leads to problems. Mix your districts. Worked wonders here.
Second, there is no problem with mandatory pre-school. For everyone. If you just make it for one specific group that is discrimination instead of trying to solve a problem. Pre-school is good for everyone, there should be no reason to not send everyone there.
This is a mentality based on economics purely. That doesn't work well in practice. Economics might even lead as motivation for one to migrate (as it often does), but culture/religion play a pivotal part in creating difficulties in further assimilation. What do you get then? Exactly what you have in Europe: ethnic division and people living in a country with distaste for it, but benefiting economically from it.
A better question is what could possibly lead you to believe that immigrants "have a distaste" for their new home countries? You certainly didn't actually talk to any immigrants.
Perhaps this is the real problem: people who spin these bigoted fantasies around immigrants?
Certainly any objective review of the facts would not explain the sheer panic and accusations of the anti-immigrant crowd [1]. So how and why do people come to believe such nonsense?
"Pure nonsense" based on my daily experience living in the Amsterdam region for the past 10 years. And by the way, I include myself and many other white richy type immigrants living in the country in the issue of not identifying with the culture. You cannot fix that by physically mixing everyone in (I already live around mostly native Dutch).
Most people are here because the economic environment is good. Immigrants like us are good for the capitalistic system and what it creates as a consequence, but not always good for the country and its culture.
I had read this article before finding this thread, didn't go out looking for something that matched my vision.
As stated in the article:
‘Young Muslims, who are the least likely to describe themselves as strict Muslims, are most negative about the Netherlands and almost half do not feel at home.’
But you may go ahead and continue do downvote me to oblivion.
> And by the way, I include myself and many other white richy type immigrants living in the country in the issue of not identifying with the culture. You cannot fix that by physically mixing everyone in (I already live around mostly native Dutch).
Describe that "Dutch culture" please. I take issue when people start talking about culture of a country as if the whole country shares one.
Most countries in Europe have their own distinct national culture since our borders were mostly made to match cultural and language differences. Americans might not appreciate what it means to have a shared national culture with unique traditions and strongly shared values fostered over millennia but to us it matters a lot.
> What do you get then? Exactly what you have in Europe: ethnic division and people living in a country with distaste for it, but benefiting economically from it.
That's such a tired cliche. It is put out all the time, but there's no proof, just more anecdotes and whatever.
2. If the above point is no longer true. Understand that you are a democratic country and there by ordinary citizens are responsible for the actions of the government. If you created a problem you have to now deal with it.
3. You can give them education, have programs for assimilation and treat them well. But most importantly both cultures will have to eventually learn to be tolerant to each others cultures and learn to assimilate with each other.
The other things are your regular humanity at play here. You have to treat people as people. And that's not very hard to do.
I live in Norway and we have similar problems with some immigrant children starting in the regular school without speaking Norwegian. It drains resources and takes away from the children that has learned to speak the language.
Denmark and Norway is quite similar and it's extremely common to have the children in daycare while both parents work. This is common across the board and low-income families get this for free (at least here).
Daycare is a good place to learn the language and obligatory daycare could be a solution to this.
HOWEVER,
I am very disturbed by the statement that they will be forced through religious practices. In Norway, all religious activitys in daycare / school are optional. My children are not participating in these things since we are atheist, so are many others due to various reasons.
I hope that the article is misrepresenting this and that is the same way in Denmark. Maybe some Danes can enlighten us.
Christmas and Easter are really not religious holidays though. Half the traditions date back to paganism/pre-christian culture and those are also the ones that are most important to scandinavian culture.
Christmas is even still called "Jul", which is also of pagan origin.
So it depends on what they mean, they shouldn't be forced to go to church for a christmas sermon, but I don't see anything wrong with having them walk around a christmas tree and sing about santa for instance.
To me, christianity has become pure culture. I really don't mind singing about jesus anymore than I mind singing about trolls or Odin. I think that's the way it should be. In a way, by going out of your way to avoid christianity, you are taking it more seriously than you're taking Norse mythology.. and if both are just superstition, why would you?
Wouldn't that be considered general culture though, considering most people in that country still celebrate those holidays?
You can not believe in that particular religion, but still it probably wouldn't hurt anyone knowing the reasons & beliefs behind those particular days.
They will not be forced to attend church or believe anything, but they will learn what a church is or the related traditions. Probably some other such as orthodox, Jewish and Islam basics.
I'm pretty sure Danish religious and cultural education is quite even handed compared to others such as say Polish.
I live in the Netherlands and we have ways to deal with people moving into the country whose kids don't speak Dutch. In every county and/or cities, the local elementary schools pool their non-Dutch speaking children in one or several classes, focusing on Dutch for the first 1-2 years the children live here, or however long is necessary to get them up to speed.
This is also a solution and one which works also for those not born in the country but are moving in when they are older.
It does put a drain on the school system though and at least here in Norway the budgets are pretty tight already. And considering we do not pool students like you it also means that the rest of the class has to wait or that you have to leave those that do not speak the language behind the curve.
I guess it still comes down to prioritisations of the politicians. A combination of training in daycare and making separate pools in the school would be good.
It was about time, but I am not sure the situation in Denmark is bad enough to warrant this - I wish other countries had this though, like France where the complete rejection & hatred of French values & culture by "ghetto" residents is quite worrying.
This law makes sense to me (and I say that as an immigrant myself).
Immigrants are flocking to Denmark because it is a stable, prosperous society with generous benefits. But that stability and prosperity wasn't conjured up from thin air. It was built by the Danes for a homogenous group of people. If you want to join them, I find it perfectly reasonable for Danes to demand assimilation into Danish culture.
If you have problems with that, then don't go to Denmark. But it is wrong to fail at building your own country, seeking refuge in a better place and yet insisting on playing by your own rules in the new place.
In ghettos they see less need to learn the local language, as everyone speaks their own language and all services are provided without needing to learn much.
Considering that immigrants chose to go to x country, I see no racism in making them integrate, otherwise that country will become like the old one pretty soon. Now jailing parents for "forcing" kids to visit the old country and other measures are out of line and most likely not needed. Just learn the local language, go to school and learn /abide by the values. Or else...this country is the wrong match for you. Try another country or go back to the old one.
The ghetto issue is separate and the only solution seems to be to force resettle people. Immigrants gravitate towards cheap housing and people speaking the same tongue which makes integration harder.
You could skip this issue by skipping a generation of course.
As an Israeli who had gone through an education system almost exclusively dedicated the history of Eastern European Jews and the holaucaust, I think it’s wonderful that we can now have real time and in color footage documenting how a so called “enlightened” and “advanced” society, pigs out and turns into brainless pack of animals that follows orders.
I would personally would like to see Israel’s prime minister going to Denmark to protest, the way he did in Poland.
"Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,”
I can't see how the first half of that isn't a violation of ECHR Article 8.
>>"I can't see how the first half of that isn't a violation of ECHR Article 8. "
The law says ..."except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
It looks like this is subject to the decision in Wunderlich v Germany which appears to be ongoing; I had no idea that homeschooling was illegal in Germany, it's perfectly legal in the UK provided that the parents provide adequate education.
>>it's perfectly legal in the UK provided that the parents provide adequate education.
and "adequate" is the key word. The letter and the spirit of the law makes it clear that the state has a very legit interest in educating people--including and maybe, especially, immigrants.
It isn't, because it isn't private life when it is managed by government. The spirit of Article 8 is to not mess with private life, not to place no limits on it.
Specifically, it is a time bound on private life and private time which is not disallowed. This is a restriction "in accordance with law". The restriction is not unreasonable nor hard to comply with.
As an immigrant from a Muslim majority country into a European country, I find this approach very troubling.
I completely agree that most of the immigrants have a lot of trouble integrating into the host countries but I believe it’s as much as a problem of the hosting culture as it is the of the immigrants coming in.
It’s not just the Muslims, though they might be the most pronounced case (just because the sheer number of immigrants), immigrants from India, China, and even Eastern Europe face similar issues.
Anytime there is going to be a mass immigration to a specific place there is going to be a concentration of immigrant communities in certain places, it happened with the Irish and Italians in the US, and still happening with a lot of different areas in America (Michigan is one of the heaviest populated areas by Christian Arabs). The reason being is that when you first immigrate to a new place it’s a lot easier to stick to the people you know and share behaviors with than to go out and make a new social circle.
However, the culture of the host society plays a big role in the acceptance of foreigners, for example, people in the US and Canada are usually a perceived to be lot friendlier than most typical Western Europeans, it’s a lot easier to chit-chat with an American than to a Dutch, German, or French person..., It is also very easy to get to know people in the US, meanwhile unless you’ve really gotten to know each other it’s very difficult to get close to a typical European. Norwegians usually joke that if two people get on the bus one of them is going to set at the front and the other all the way in the back.
Another culture tidbit that could contribute to this is that conformity plays a very huge part in the European culture, and they just confirm to a very different set of values than the ones where these immigrants are coming from, find someone walking naked down the street, that’s completely normal but finding a women wearing burqa on a beach and suddenly a lot of heads are turning. Although this might also happen in the US but with the American stress on individualism it’s always reassuring that it’s OK to be who you are, rather than the typical European mindset of why don’t you just take it off and be like everyone else.
Also The Hollywood effect, immigrants coming to America usually have a base understanding of what to expect coming in from watching movies, TV shows or even the news and are usually touched in one way or another by the American culture, meanwhile it’s very difficult to understand the culture subtleties when you don’t understand the language and haven’t been exposed to this culture before and add that to the stress on conformity as mentioned before and very quickly you become an outcast in your social circle.
My point is that brute forcing people to integrate is simply the incorrect approach to solve this issue, culture intricacies needs to be studied and incompatibilities with the immigrant and host culture needs to be addressed to reach an effective solution, otherwise what you’ll have is a very angry socially inept minority that could sing Jingle bells.
This is the best comment I've read here so far, and interesting to learn you're also a Muslim. You're clearly very well educated too.
I do have concerns though in relation to political Islam. Watching some videos hearing from "the horses mouth", I find troublesome to expect any possible integration from the many millions of Muslims already living in the EU. As the following video shows, it's the common Muslim who thinks like what the Western only attributes to the radical Muslim.
The few Danes in Lebanon are almost certainly doing alright. It's the refugees in Lebanon that aren't; there's 1.5 million Syrian refugees there, which is causing similar social and economic tensions on a much larger scale.
(The headline article mentions that several of those interviewed are refugees, presumably from the previous civil war in Lebanon.)
I posted that comment to be snarky, but your earnest response has compelled me to elaborate on the motivation behind the crassness.
I imagine any Dane in Lebanon is doing quite well because, barring the exceedingly unlikely but not impossible chance of human trafficking, Danes in the Levant are there by choice and persons of considerable means (or privileged volunteers subjecting themselves to unnecessary hardship for a plethora of potential reasons). Denmark hasn't experienced a war since 1945 and hasn't had a home front war since ~1860. They don't generate refugees, and by and large neither do their neighbors. This is not magic. This is not a product of colonialism, or racism, or slavery. This is because certain cultures made a concerted effort to stop repeating a cycle and chose to operate differently. Having the means to do this was a lucky break in history (Nazis loved the Danes but the Danes never publicly reciprocated so they got all that sweet Marshall Plan cash) as well as some incredibly forward thinking
and talented people who wanted their ethnostate to be happy, healthy, and productive. The last place Europe sent a bunch of refugees (outside of Europa) was Palestine. This led directly to a diaspora of Arabs and others out of the Levant. Guilt opened Europe's borders, foolishness propped the door open, and cognitive dissonance will claim it is the right thing to do. Denmark, or any country, that attempts to transfer culture through enforced education (as opposed to child rearing, intermarriage, social pressure, or the quite effective but completely contemptible method of attempted genocide) is doomed to fail. It is just a matter of time.
The author of the article tried very hard to paint the immigrants as hapless victims with a sthole on one side and stty people on the other, a poor young mother desperate to be accepted by the country she wishes to be a part of. And this may be true for her. It could be true for many of the immigrants in Europe currently. But history is very clear about what mass migration does to native populations, regardless of the initial power dynamic between immigrant and native, nevermind the motivation for immigration (European immigrants to North America were fleeing widespread violence, scant economic opportunity, and oppressive religious suppression as well). Color, Creed, and chronology are irrelevant. The advantage lies with the more aggressive in almost all conflicts, regardless of whether or not each participant acknowledges that the fight is occurring.
> Denmark hasn't experienced a war since 1945 and hasn't had a home front war since ~1860.
Yes
> They don't generate refugees, and by and large neither do their neighbors.
Not since the war, no.
> This is not magic. This is not a product of colonialism, or racism, or slavery.
.. no. The refugees fleeing the Levant absolutely are doing so as a result of colonialism, and the more modern phenomenon of "spheres of influence". The Syrian civil war wouldn't be happening without the colonialism of the 21st century, including Russia trying to preserve its Mediterranean naval base.
Certainly Libya wasn't sending any refugees to the West until the West bombed it.
> Denmark, or any country, that attempts to transfer culture through enforced education (as opposed to child rearing, intermarriage, social pressure, or the quite effective but completely contemptible method of attempted genocide) is doomed to fail.
Enforced culture transfer may not work, but voluntary culture transfer works extremely well. That's why American culture is so prevalent across the world to the extent that some countries have minimum "native content percentage" media laws.
At the risk of being downvoted to oblivion, it's simply not possible to maintain a first world civilisation with third world people.
Instead of allowing immigration and destroying western society why don't we just stop bombing these peoples homes so they don't need to move to start with?
Several "Third World" cultures were doing pretty well and would be still be faring fine if the "First World" hadn't depredated them over the course of the last couple centuries. It's pretty arrogant - colonial - to assume that societies must resemble our own to be credibly successful.
Are you trying to say the place of birth somehow decides what capabilities you are born with as a human being? Are you saying people born in third world countries are different than people born in first world countries? Because that seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous.
In the case where place of birth dictates culture and customs, then yes in that sense there is a difference. Culture is a very difficult thing to change.
What we get is culture clash, where people are essentially born with different values, customs, and ways to behave in society.
There is very good internet lore, which sort of describes this phenomenon called "The Eternal September":
What Europe is experiencing right now, is essentially the same as what the internet experienced during Eternal September; the ability and capacity to assimilate has been exceeded, and therefore yes, there is a very real possibility of destruction of the western culture and values.
As for stopping the bombing and destruction of these countries, you simply cannot argue with that proposition.
It's actually quite perplexing that politicians are putting so little effort into solving the root cause, instead preferring the virtue signalling easy route, without seemingly any thought to the actual cultural and societal consequences of their actions.
> Where people are essentially born with different values, customs, and ways to behave in society.
When I went to school there was a pretty high number of second generation muslim immigrants, but even there you already saw their strict values eroding. Where their parents were mostly strictly religious, most kids (not all) went partying and drinking, didn't care about wearing veils.
A girl from back then, became my neighbour last year and she couldn't care less about religion anymore, they have decent jobs and live life like everyone else here. I'm certain not every immigrant or their kids will adjust as fast, but it's a matter of time, if not this generation, the next. What 'strict' values will my neighbours kid still have from their 'home' country? They won't even be brought up with their religion anymore.
> the ability and capacity to assimilate has been exceeded
Has it? Can this be quantified in some way? Just like my anecdote, is this a personal feeling? As I don't feel that way at all.
>When I went to school there was a pretty high number of second generation muslim immigrants, but even there you already saw their strict values eroding.
I certainly wouldn't take that happening as a given. If you bend over backwards to attempt to accommodate their culture in the west, you aren't giving any incentive to join your culture and worldview.
The people, no. The cultures? I believe so. If you're taught your entire life that X is completely acceptable, and you arrive as an immigrant and don't want to adapt your beliefs/values to your new country's then it is a problem.
Replace X with anything that you would find inappropriate in your current country - forced marriages, India's caste system, etc and I think you'll see what I mean.
I didn't get that from his comment at all. Sounds like you're conjuring up a straw man here. 30,000 babies and 30,000 adults with a lifetime of experiences are two very different things. It's perfectly possible to believe that immigrants from heavily-Muslim countries cannot realistically integrate with first world societies without believing racist rubbish like genetic inferiority.
>It's perfectly possible to believe that immigrants from heavily-Muslim countries cannot realistically integrate with first world societies without believing racist rubbish like genetic inferiority.
I don't see how it would be possible to believe this at all, given the abundant examples to the contrary.
Just a note to add to the racist sibling comment. The stuff about cousin marriage is hysteria from people who don't understand the probability calculus. It's possible for P(child_of_cousin_marriage|abnormality) to be quite high without P(abnormality|child_of_cousin_marriage) being much greater than P(abnormality) -- as in fact it isn't.
I did take calculus in high school, but I barely remember it. So I don't understand your notation, if you could explain in a bit more layman terms it would be great. As I understand it, the chance for birth defects goes from around 1% to 3-4%, about the same as a woman in her late 30s/early 40s having a child. I'm not sure if this would compound over generations though, it seems like it would.
I don't really think that my comment was "racist". Just talking about how culture affects genes and vice versa. Was it not bad that the old European nobles were inbred as well?
>I did take calculus in high school, but I barely remember it
Probability calculus, not calculus in the sense of integration and differentiation.
>So I don't understand your notation
P(x) is the background probability of x. P(x|y) is the probability of x given y.
>I'm not sure if this would compound over generations
It's already had plenty of time to compound over generations, to whatever extent it does.
>the chance for birth defects goes from around 1% to 3-4%, about the same as a woman in her late 30s/early 40s having a child.
Indeed, which shows how silly your theory is. I mean, are you really suggesting that a slightly higher incidence of e.g. cystic fibrosis in Pakistani communities somehow makes it more difficult for them to integrate? That's such utter nonsense that you shouldn't be surprised if people infer some kind of malicious intent behind your comment.
>It's already had plenty of time to compound over generations, to whatever extent it does.
I'm not sure what you mean, most westerners don't make a habit of marrying their cousins.
Because of this compounding it means that the risks would be much higher than 3-4%, which is what we see in the data.
>I mean, are you really suggesting that a slightly higher incidence of e.g. cystic fibrosis in Pakistani communities somehow makes it more difficult for them to integrate?
It seems as though birth defects aren't the only way that inbreeding negatively affects offspring. It also appears to lower intelligence[0], while also increasing mental health issues.
>Because of this compounding it means that the risks would be much higher than 3-4%, which is what we see in the data.
This is pure speculation on your part, as far as I can see. Do you have any data to back this up? It's also not the case that all Pakistanis routinely marry their cousins generation after generation. (The prevalence of cousin marriage is very variable within different Pakistani communities.)
>It seems as though birth defects aren't the only way that inbreeding negatively affects offspring. It also appears to lower intelligence[0], while also increasing mental health issues
You're cherry picking an old paper with a bad methodology. The result could easily be explained by the IQ of the parents being correlated with their likelihood of entering into a cousin marriage. As IQ is largely inherited, this would then lead to a difference in IQ between the two groups of children, even when controlling for SE status.
Such a simplistic view. No one is bombing Mexico, for example.
Illegal immigration in Europe has been often attributed to economic migrants, not refugees.
I don't consider cultures nor religions as races, simple as that. The original comment didn't mention any races, so I interpret his "third-world people" as meaning those people's cultures instead of their skin color.
And yet you decided not to list any of those countries and instead called the poster racist. I'm not saying you are wrong about there being some definite examples that support your position, but do you think there may also be some counter examples that go against it? Which side, your argument or the opposite, has the preponderance of evidence? This is how an honest and productive argument should proceed: assertion(s) is made, rebuttal is introduced with supporting evidence, back and forth commences until no new evidence can be introduced, contenders stop posting, posterity decides. But that is too dangerous, isn't it? There is always the chance that the unthinkable might just end up being the most plausible. And whenever the status quo is predicated on perfection of specific perception there is no benefit to be gained by entertaining forbidden notions. Because you declined to suppor your own argument coupled with the personal attack ("racist" should be a technical description but thanks to comments like yours that ship has sailed), you have surrendered any technical moral high ground for a breastworks of Virtue Signaling that seems tactically sound at the moment. Pray to the gods you may have abandoned that your enemy doesn't discover ideological "tracked vehicles" before your team does.
