In Denmark, Harsh New Laws for Immigrant ‘Ghettos’
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
There used to be a couple of areas in the city where I live, in cheaper community housing like this
https://www.alabubolig.dk/S%c3%b8g-bolig/Afdelinger.aspx?mod...
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.
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.
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.
1: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/assimil... 2: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-near-to... 3: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/business/international/fo... 4: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-12371994 5: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-...
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.
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).
I am not sure black people in France are not afraid of police. If you exclude ugly episodes like this one:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-polic...
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:
https://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=...
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).
This is almost exactly this rule except with more restrictions.
1. Stop creating refugees, Stop waging wars and stop invading countries.
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.
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.
That's such a tired cliche. It is put out all the time, but there's no proof, just more anecdotes and whatever.
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?
[1] https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/06/30/confusion-over-i...
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.
Also, here are some facts for what you call "pure nonsense" https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/06/dutch-muslims-are-beco...
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.
Describe that "Dutch culture" please. I take issue when people start talking about culture of a country as if the whole country shares one.
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.)
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/05/a-surpris...
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.
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.
I do not see religion mentioned
"or mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter"
Not too surprising, I think Denmark has religious freedom specified in their constitution as do Norway.
You can not believe in that particular religion, but still it probably wouldn't hurt anyone knowing the reasons & beliefs behind those particular days.
I'm pretty sure Danish religious and cultural education is quite even handed compared to others such as say Polish.
Religious freedom is not a license for ignorance.
Remember that Denmark is already quite secular.
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?
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc...
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.
I would personally would like to see Israel’s prime minister going to Denmark to protest, the way he did in Poland.
I can't see how the first half of that isn't a violation of ECHR Article 8.
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.
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."
Otherwise I can decide not to school my children.
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.
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.
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.
I'd like to hear your comments about the contents of this video please https://youtu.be/fhBvzliBey4?t=1m30s
(The headline article mentions that several of those interviewed are refugees, presumably from the previous civil war in Lebanon.)
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.
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.
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?
Racism is a real problem but bringing it up all the time doesn't solve anything and actually discredits arguments against real racism.
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 don't see how it would be possible to believe this at all, given the abundant examples to the contrary.
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?
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.
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.
[0] - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01068128
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.
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":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
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.
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.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540895/Young-Britis...
Funny how everybody seem to ignore your second point -- about bombing.