• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NYT Denmark Struggles With Its Migrants

Status
Not open for further replies.

Antiochus

Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/world/europe/denmark-migrants-refugees-racism.html

Denmark, a small and orderly nation with a progressive self-image, is built on a social covenant: In return for some of the world’s highest wages and benefits, people are expected to work hard and pay into the system. Newcomers must quickly learn Danish — and adapt to norms like keeping tidy gardens and riding bicycles.

The country had little experience with immigrants until 1967, when the first “guest workers” were invited from Turkey, Pakistan and what was then Yugoslavia. Its 5.7 million people remain overwhelmingly native born, though the percentage has dropped to 88 today from 97 in 1980.

Bo Lidegaard, a prominent historian, said many Danes feel strongly that “we are a multiethnic society today, and we have to realize it — but we are not and should never become a multicultural society.”

The recent influx pales next to the one million migrants absorbed into Germany or the 163,000 into Sweden last year, but the pace shocked this stable, homogeneous country. The center-right government has backed harsh measures targeting migrants, hate speech has spiked, and the anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party is now the second largest in Parliament.

Some of the same hostilities were reflected this weekend in Germany, where voters in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s home state embraced anti-immigrant candidates — an emphatic rejection of her refugee policy.

There is new tension between Danes still opening their arms and a resurgent right wing that seeks to ban all Muslims and shut Denmark off from Europe. Mr. Christensen, the retired banker, supports emerging proposals for his country to follow Britain in exiting the European Union.

There is tension, too, over whether the backlash is really about a strain on Denmark’s generous public benefits or a rising terrorist threat — or whether a longstanding but latent racial hostility is being unearthed.

Analysts say that the public voiced little opposition after 5,000 Poles and 3,300 Americans, among other Westerners, emigrated to Denmark in 2014, but that there has been significant criticism of the nearly 16,000 Syrian asylum seekers who arrived that year and the next. They and other migrants were not invited, and many ended up here by accident, intercepted on their route to Sweden.

Critics complain that these newcomers have been slow to learn Danish — though the Immigration Ministry recently reported that 72 percent passed a required language exam. Some Danes bristle at what they see as ethnic enclaves: About 30 percent of new immigrants lived in the nation’s two largest cities, Aarhus and Copenhagen, where Muslim women in abayas and men in prayer caps stand out among the blond and blue-eyed crowds on narrow streets.

Perhaps the leading — and most substantive — concern is that the migrants are an economic drain. In 2014, 48 percent of immigrants from non-Western countries ages 16 to 64 were employed, compared with 74 percent of native Dane
s.

Muslims do not assimilate as easily as Europeans or some Asians, said Denmark’s culture minister, Bertel Haarder, partly because, as he put it, their patriarchal culture frowns on women working outside the home and often constrains freedom of speech.

“It’s not racism to be aware of the difference — it’s stupid not to be aware,” Mr. Haarder said. “We do them a blessing by being very clear and outspoken as to what kind of country they have come to, what are our basic values.”

But much of the difference remains unspoken. This is a country where pedestrians wait for a green light to cross even when no cars are in sight, a contrast to the bustling streets of Middle Eastern capitals.

Birgitte Romme Larsen, a Danish anthropologist who has studied refugees and asylum seekers in rural areas, mentioned an African refugee who did not realize that closing his curtains during the day was interpreted as being unduly secretive. Other newcomers were not aware that congregating and talking loudly at a grocery might offend Danish sensibilities.

“These implicit expectations cannot be written into an integration folder” migrants receive, Ms. Larsen said.

This brings a very, very interesting question: Should the MidEastern migrants defer to their host country's norms, or should the host country defer instead to Middle Eastern norms in order to show "tolerance and understanding? Or perhaps, should both sides attempt to "meld" their cultures together and create a new one that is less stringent than the old Danish one yet more rigorous and tamed than the Middle Eastern one?
 

Piecake

Member
immigrants don't defer to their new country's culture. They bring their culture with them because that is who they are. They are looking for a better life. They aren't looking to be Danish. This goes for all immigrants.

Assimilation will happen, but it will take a few generations and it will never be perfect assimilation because of religion.

The only sensible option for nations with immigrants is to accept that immigrants mean a multicultural society, that those cultures will have some influence on the dominant culture, but the dominant culture will always remain dominant.
 
Asylum seeking immigrants are no doubt going to be an economic drain initially. That usually balances out after a few years and/or the onset of the new generation.
 
Danish should expect certain minimum requirements from the immigrants like language and gainful employment. Beyond that, they should accept that there are going to be cultural differences. The Danish certainly don't need to accept Arabic culture at all! They just need to not commit hateful acts.
 

Hypnotoad

Member
This brings a very, very interesting question: Should the MidEastern migrants defer to their host country's norms, or should the host country defer instead to Middle Eastern norms in order to show "tolerance and understanding? Or perhaps, should both sides attempt to "meld" their cultures together and create a new one that is less stringent than the old Danish one yet more rigorous and tamed than the Middle Eastern one?

Why would they need to do that? They are one of the most successful, egalitarian and prosperous societies in the world. Denmark has benefited by migrants from western countries (as have the migrants themselves) without having to adapt their culture because of religious or other sensibilities.

Let's look at some key findings by Prof. Peter Nannestad of Aarhus university

Immigrants from non-western countries and their descendants have been net-beneficiaries of the Danish welfare state for a long period due to, primarily, lower labour market participation rates and higher unemployment rates compared to both
immigrants from western countries and native Danes. While this may in principle change with the passing of time, as of now there is little evidence to suggest that immigrants from non-western countries and their descendants will approach a position
in the labour market that is comparable to the position of native Danes. Typically immigrants from non-western countries are still net beneficiaries of the welfare state even after more than ten years’ stay in the country. The educational achievement of
second-generation immigrants from non-western countries indicates that a considerable part will end up in the group of unskilled workers which is facing ever decreasing demand in the Danish labour market.

Unlike immigration from western countries, non-western immigration continues to be and is likelt to remain a net economic drain on Denmark. Migrants themselves benefit enormously by the social services being provides, as well as the security, stability and opportunies compared with their home countries. I don't see with the Danish people should adapt to them.
 
Denmark doesnt have to adapt to them but they should hopefully have some programs designed to get new arrivals up to speed. Refugees wont just magically wake up one day and become integrated.
 

Erevador

Member
The miracle of these Scandinavian paradises can be easily punctured. These countries have extremely kind social safety nets because they have had a flawlessly cohesive and rigorously capitalist society in which a huge portion of the citizenry are able to pay generously into the system that is generous to them in turn.

It should be a surprise to no one to learn that not all immigrants are created equal. Highly skilled engineering students from South Korea are obviously quite different from illiterate religious extremists from areas that are wracked with medieval warfare. These countries are now facing mass influxes of exactly the kind of population that they are completely unprepared to absorb, a population that, not incidentally, may itself be quite hostile to being absorbed.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
The miracle of these Scandinavian paradises can be easily punctured. These countries have extremely kind social safety nets because they have had a flawlessly cohesive and rigorously capitalist society in which a huge portion of the citizenry are able to pay generously into the system that is generous to them in turn.

It should be a surprise to no one to learn that not all immigrants are created equal. Highly skilled engineering students from South Korea are obviously quite different from illiterate religious extremists from areas that are wracked with medieval warfare. These countries are now facing mass influxes of exactly the kind of population that they are completely unprepared to absorb, a population that, not incidentally, may itself be quite hostile to being absorbed.

An inherent problem in capitalism is that if your population begins to constrict, economic disaster is inevitable. Social services can't be sustained without weakening these services, aggressively promoting fertility, revamping the tax system, or accepting more immigrants.

Liberal capitalists see migrants as the "lesser evil" because migration doesn't affect citizens as directly as the other options, and also makes a nation seem friendly and virtuous. Poor immigrants are great for employers, because they'll work for lower wages than natives and are less likely to negotiate.
 

Pancake Mix

Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Don't immigrate if you can't adapt to the standards of your prospective new country, simple as that.
 

Erevador

Member
An inherent problem in capitalism is that if your population begins to constrict, economic disaster is inevitable. Social services can't be sustained without weakening these services, aggressively promoting fertility, revamping the tax system, or accepting more immigrants.

Liberal capitalists see migrants as the "lesser evil" because migration doesn't affect citizens as directly as the other options, and also makes a nation seem friendly and virtuous. Poor immigrants are great for employers, because they'll work for lower wages than natives and are less likely to negotiate.
Yes, that's one of the major conversations of our time, that case for immigration. One can certainly make the case, for example, that there is no great reason why Hispanic Catholics from Mexico should be unable to be absorbed in large numbers and be high quality contributors in the US.

The record of mass immigration into Europe in recent years is considerably more difficult. And in this case, we're dealing with asylum seekers who come with a wide variety of unique problems that make them very likely to be more of a drain on the system than an asset. This is fairly apparent to anyone who's looking at what's happening in Europe today. These asylum seekers arrive with massive problems (illiteracy, huge health issues that are a strain on state healthcare, extremely divergent social values), and quickly develop more as they self-segregate into ghettos and fail to integrate into wider society.

The combination of illiteracy and extremely low-skill means that even if a few of them may be a boon to employers seeking low-cost workers, the majority of them will not be conventionally employed and will not be contributing to their society. This is a recipe for a wide variety of societal catastrophes, which we're seeing materialize as we speak.
 

patapuf

Member
Asylum seeking immigrants are no doubt going to be an economic drain initially. That usually balances out after a few years and/or the onset of the new generation.

If we are talking specifically asylum seekers that's not really true. It takes longer than "one generation" sometimes much more than one and at worst it becomes a self perpetuating cycle of the new generation being dependant on social services because the old one is.

Taking them in is humanitarian, not to boost the economy. You target people that integrate much more easily into the economy for that.

edit: I'm not against taking in asylum seekers, but it's not a long term move to boost the economy. Thinking of it that way doesn't really help anyone.
 

brian577

Banned
So those damn Irish should stop celebrating that pagan St. Patrick holiday and convert away from their false Romanism and embrace the true divine grace of God, right?

Irish values are pretty much the same as any other Western country. It's a little different when the host country's values are practically alien to these migrants.
 

Cocaloch

Member
Irish values are pretty much the same as any other Western country. It's a little different when the host country's values are practically alien to these migrants.

The phrase "Beyond the Pale", the Pale being the English controlled area surrounding Dublin, means something is bizarre and alien because it is Irish.
 

patapuf

Member
Irish values are pretty much the same as any other Western country. It's a little different when the host country's values are practically alien to these migrants.

I'm not american, but my impression is that there's not really "irish communities" that have specific set of "irish values" that are significantly different from the rest of american society, despite initial rejection. Looks like assimilation to me.
 
So those damn Irish should stop celebrating that pagan St. Patrick holiday and convert away from their false Romanism and embrace the true divine grace of God, right?

Irish had centuries of oppression from the English with relation to culture, religion and their lands, your attempt at sarcasm is silly.
 
I'm not american, but my impression is that there's not really "irish communities" that have specific set of "irish values" that are significantly different from the rest of american society, despite initial rejection. Looks like assimilation to me.

They are one of the original groups of American immigration that built that country .... part of what American society is was influenced by the Irish, the same as the Italians, Jews etc.

Your comparison is flawed.
 

Cocaloch

Member
I'm not american, but my impression is that there's not really "irish communities" that have specific set of "irish values" that are significantly different from the rest of american society, despite initial rejection. Looks like assimilation to me.

There actually still are some noticeable Irish enclaves in the US still, and many more were extremely noticeable until rather recently. Most 19th century immigrants would have been Irish speakers and actually kept it up for a number of generations. You're also talking about a 2 or 3 century long assimilation process.
 

patapuf

Member
They are one of the original groups of American immigration that built that country .... part of what American society is was influenced by the Irish, the same as the Italians, Jews etc.

Your comparison is flawed.

I'm sure it is, these kind of topics are usually pretty hard to generalise as they are heavily dependent on cultural context of the time, of the people immigranting and the country of immigration.

There actually still are some noticeable Irish enclaves in the US still, and many more were extremely noticeable until rather recently. Most 19th century immigrants would have been Irish speakers and actually kept it up for a number of generations. You're also talking about a 2 or 3 century long assimilation process.

Do you have something i can read about that?
 

Erevador

Member
Irish were oppressed by the English and hated for their religion. Irish immigrants to the US were excellent workers who nonetheless faced discrimination. Despite that, they were ultimately able to integrate seamlessly into the society that had initially regarded them with suspicion. The religious differences between them and the majority population were, in actual effect, largely cosmetic and meaningless.

The situation we see in Europe today is not analogous to that one. These are extremely tolerant societies which are colliding with migrants who are often fundamentally opposed to the majority of the dominant values of the society which they are entering.
 

Cocaloch

Member
Do you have something i can read about that?

Uh not off the top of my head, this is well out of my period. I could refer you to a number of sources on the extant Cape Breton Scottish-Gaelic culture which I would think is somewhat relevant.

Irish were oppressed by the English and hated for their religion. Irish immigrants to the US were excellent workers who nonetheless faced discrimination. Despite that, they were ultimately able to integrate seamlessly into the society that had initially regarded them with suspicion. The religious differences between them and the majority population were, in actual effect, largely cosmetic and meaningless.

The situation we see in Europe today is not analogous to that one. These are extremely tolerant societies which are colliding with migrants who are often fundamentally opposed to the majority of the dominant values of the society which they are entering.

You are so wrong about the bolded. The religious difference was the crux of the issue, both at home and in the new world for both the Anglo-Scottish culture and the Irish. I'd also argue the Irish, who were for the most part at least partially Anglicized though the assimilation process that began with Cromwell, didn't really integrate seamlessly so much as form a cerolized, though admittedly still predominately Anglo, society in a process that took over two centuries on this side of the ocean and much longer if you look at the quite relevant precursors.
 

patapuf

Member
Uh not of the top of my head, I could refer you to a number of sources on the extant Cape Breton Scottish-Gaelic culture which I would think is somewhat relevant.

I'll look it up, i knew there were lots of tension initially, just not that this was a thing "recently" as well.
 

Erevador

Member
You are so wrong about the bolded. The religious difference was the crux of the issue, both at home and in the new world for both the Anglo-Scottish culture and the Irish.
Perhaps you misunderstand me. The religious differences were the cause of the discrimination, but didn't mean that the Irish (if they hadn't been discriminated against) were inherently unlikely to be able to integrate into the core values and practices of the societies they were entering. The discrimination was irrational hatred on the part of those who hate Catholics, just as Jews have often been the subject of conspiracy theory and completely drummed up suspicion.
 

kruis

Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
Don't immigrate if you can't adapt to the standards of your prospective new country, simple as that.

Unfortunately that's not why many non western people immigrate to countries thousands of miles from their homes.
 

Alx

Member
immigrants don't defer to their new country's culture. They bring their culture with them because that is who they are. They are looking for a better life. They aren't looking to be Danish. This goes for all immigrants.

It definitely doesn't go for all immigrants (speaking as a son of immigrants), and I don't think it should be so. Immigration isn't just "I want more money, give me some of yours", going to a country means becoming an inhabitant of that country, which means fitting in its society. It doesn't mean getting rid of your own roots, but if it's frowned upon to cross an empty street on a red light or close your curtains at specific times, you should be aware of it and if possible adapt to it. It's already true for tourists, it's even more important for immigrants.
It's not "losing your identity" to change when confronted to new cultures, it's building it (and yes it goes both ways, and locals also have things to learn from immigrants).
 
If the Danish actually had children they probably wouldn't be accepting anyone into the country. However their birth rate is 1.7 like Canada and has been like that since around 1970 So their population is shrinking. All of Europe is shrinking and the statisticians know this which is why they have been pulling in people where they can find them.
 

kruis

Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
If the Danish actually had children they probably wouldn't be accepting anyone into the country. However their birth rate is 1.7 like Canada and has been like that since around 1970 So their population is shrinking. All of Europe is shrinking and the statisticians know this which is why they have been pulling in people where they can find them.

Which is crazy if most of the non western immigrants don't assimilate and rely on welfare/benefits to a larger degree than the native population.
 
Well Denmark being the country were the said they should pull refugees gold fillings out I'm not suprised that integration is slow.
 
It definitely doesn't go for all immigrants (speaking as a son of immigrants), and I don't think it should be so. Immigration isn't just "I want more money, give me some of yours", going to a country means becoming an inhabitant of that country, which means fitting in its society. It doesn't mean getting rid of your own roots, but if it's frowned upon to cross an empty street on a red light or close your curtains at specific times, you should be aware of it and if possible adapt to it. It's already true for tourists, it's even more important for immigrants.
It's not "losing your identity" to change when confronted to new cultures, it's building it (and yes it goes both ways, and locals also have things to learn from immigrants).

So, American culture is still the same as it was in 1780?
 

Replicant

Member
immigrants don't defer to their new country's culture. They bring their culture with them because that is who they are. They are looking for a better life. They aren't looking to be Danish. This goes for all immigrants.

This is nonsense. I immigrated to my current country because I feel their values match mine a lot more than my previous country. I want the freedom of sexuality, speech, and media.
 
I'm still baffled that for all of America's faults, no one seems to integrate immigrants better than America does.

The whole country being made up of immigrants going back to the original founding of 13 British colonies might have something to do with it. But waves of immigration from every part of the world have entered the US since it's inception and all have been integrated.
 

kruis

Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
I'm still baffled that for all of America's faults, no one seems to integrate immigrants better than America does.

The whole country being made up of immigrants going back to the original founding of 13 British colonies might have something to do with it. But waves of immigration from every part of the world have entered the US since it's inception and all have been integrated.

Every part of the world? Until the 70/80ies almost all of those immigrants were Europeans. The US started using "green cards" in order to stem the flood which meant that new immigrants had to bring their own money, had to be self sufficient and have jobs in order to support themselves. And the US took in far less non western immigrants/refugees than Europe did.
 

YoungFa

Member
I'm still baffled that for all of America's faults, no one seems to integrate immigrants better than America does.

The whole country being made up of immigrants going back to the original founding of 13 British colonies might have something to do with it. But waves of immigration from every part of the world have entered the US since it's inception and all have been integrated.
I guess the natives would disagree.
 

Erevador

Member
I'm still baffled that for all of America's faults, no one seems to integrate immigrants better than America does.

The whole country being made up of immigrants going back to the original founding of 13 British colonies might have something to do with it. But waves of immigration from every part of the world have entered the US since it's inception and all have been integrated.
Bill of rights enshrines universal secular values in a way that is both inclusive and instructive. Freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.

Emphasis on the individual discourages tribalism, ensuring the supremacy of individual rights over group rights.

US lays out its values very clearly, and doesn't waver or second guess them.

America is an open source idea. A nation of immigrants founded by a bunch of philosophically sophisticated men who were smart enough to build their idea of national identity on universal human principles, rather than hereditary or historical identity.
 

Pusherman

Member
I can certainly understand concerns about employment and ghettoization, though I'd expect those problems to hurt the newcomers even more than the native population, but I'm a little confused on what it means to integrate into and adopt a culture. Isn't excercising your freedoms of religion and expression to stick to your own faith, and wear your own style of clothes and speak your preferred language perfect examples of living by Western values? Or are Western values about more superficial things like a specific language, a certain way of dress and a limited range of religions.
 

YourMaster

Member
You are so wrong about the bolded. The religious difference was the crux of the issue, both at home and in the new world for both the Anglo-Scottish culture and the Irish.

How so? There has often been heated conflict between different brands of Christianity, but the fast majority of conflicts are purely cosmetic. (E.g. 'What is the nature of Christ'). I would even go so far as to argue that there aren't really that many practical differences between western atheist and western Christians. (For example they celebrate the same holidays, just with different religious interpretations).
Islam results - for many - in concrete difference in day to day life however, like how to treat a woman, gay person, ex-moslim or Jew.
 

Keasar

Member
But much of the difference remains unspoken. This is a country where pedestrians wait for a green light to cross even when no cars are in sight, a contrast to the bustling streets of Middle Eastern capitals.
This' true?

Here in Sweden I know it isn't frowned upon to cross the street if you don't see any cars coming from any direction. You can't however just start walking anyway during a rush hour as people seem to do in the middle east and expect people be okay with you weaving between cars, that I know at least will stress people the fuck out here. :p

I think it is very expected though that when you move to a country, you're supposed to try and adapt to the culture of that country when it comes to behavioural norms and social rules.
 

Weckum

Member
I'm still baffled that for all of America's faults, no one seems to integrate immigrants better than America does.

The whole country being made up of immigrants going back to the original founding of 13 British colonies might have something to do with it. But waves of immigration from every part of the world have entered the US since it's inception and all have been integrated.

Well, the US had its problems too with the Irish and Italians and all that. It takes time. It's not easy, but it takes time.

And the sentiment in the article in the OP is true for many countries in Europe, sadly.
 

keuja

Member
I'm still baffled that for all of America's faults, no one seems to integrate immigrants better than America does.

The whole country being made up of immigrants going back to the original founding of 13 British colonies might have something to do with it. But waves of immigration from every part of the world have entered the US since it's inception and all have been integrated.

America did well but at the same time never had the same type of immigration that Europe is encountering now. The two situations are not really comparable. Western Europe countries have success integrated tens of millions of immigrants as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom