Is Denmark abandoning its liberal, tolerant values? The Danish government is rolling out a controversial new plan to rid the country of so-called “ghettos” (neighbourhoods with high levels of immigration, unemployment, and often crime rates). There are 25 legally-designated ghettos located throughout the country, housing some 60,000 people. However, the plans have come under fire for de facto treating people differently (even if they are Danish citizens) based on whether they have a migrant background or not.
Critics argue the new anti-ghetto strategy is discriminatory, and will frustrate integration efforts by alienating ethnic minorities. Supporters, however, argue that these measures will prevent “parallel societies” from developing in Denmark, ensuring that everyone shares the same basic principles, values, and language.
Are Denmark’s so-called “anti-ghetto” laws wrong? The strategy will include increased investment in the 25 ghetto neighbourhoods, alongside a raft of new measures to make them more attractive to ethnic Danes and to encourage people from migrant backgrounds to move and disperse throughout the country. One of the more controversial measures includes a requirement that children living in these areas (who might otherwise stay at home with a parent or caregiver until they are old enough to start school) must attend childcare for at least 30 hours each week after their first birthday.
What do our readers think? We had a comment from Paul (Παυλος) who thinks that forcing migrant children into childcare at a young age sounds like a good way to (in his words) “reprogramme” them to fit in with European culture. Is this policy discriminatory and illiberal? Or is it a good way to support integration and tackle social problems that disproportionately affect children from migrant backgrounds?
To get a reaction, we put Paul’s comment to Martin Ågerup, President of the Centre for Political Studies (CEPOS), a Danish think tank that espouses a liberal, free market philosophy. What did he think of the new law?
Let me first point out what this new law implies in this area: parents who do not send their children from the age of one year to first nursery and then kindergarten lose certain transfer payments. So it is not direct but indirect compulsion, I still find it problematic for several reasons. Children are not owned by the state. Parents are responsible for their children unless and until individual parents prove incapable of living up to that responsibility, manifested in concrete ways. On top of that this indirect compulsion only applies to citizens in certain areas classified (in a rather problematic way) as ‘ghettos’. So the law of the land applies differently to different citizens based on their home address.
I agree with the aim of the proposal: children of immigrants from cultures which are very different from our own should be expected to assimilate in some ways, including learning Danish fluently, abide by the laws of the country and understand Danish culture. However, it is paradoxical and probably counterproductive to try to achieve this by a top down process in which some of the very principles of liberal democracy are being challenged.
For another perspective, we put the same comment to Mina Jaf, Founder and Director of the NGO Women Refugee Route. Born in Iraqi Kurdistan and now a naturalised Danish citizen, how would she respond to Paul’s comment?
I would say that Paul needs to rethink ‘Danish values’ a bit more. What I was introduced to as ‘Danish values’ was freedom of speech and being the person you are. I would tell him that he shouldn’t focus so much on making assimilation out of Danish values, but rather include the children themselves to say what integration means for them and being part of Danish values.
We also had a comment come from Alfonso, criticising the very idea of “values” classes; he says he didn’t think that Western countries (including Denmark) had actually come to an agreement about what their values are. How would Martin Ågerup respond to this criticism?
Should migrants be legally required to integrate? Are Denmark’s “anti-ghetto” laws wrong? And what do “Danish values” actually look like in practice? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
27 comments Post a commentcomment
As a mum who enjoyed staying at home with her children my instinct is to be shocked at the thought of very young children being forcibly separated from their mum for 30 hours a week. During the Labour Government of 1997-2010 funding was directed at a Surestart programme (baby-3 years) operated, initially, in our poorest areas. ‘Classes/gatherings of young mums n kids could attend professionally run events such as…baby massage, mums n toddlers, food and nutrition… I observed young mums from the wealthier areas of town attending events in the Surestart Centres in the very poorest areas. (They having the means to afford travel). I think the young mums learnt from each other (by observation) as much as from the interventions of professional staff the different ways of caring for the very young. From my limited experience I think Denmark will be missing out on being able to affect the behaviour/outlook of the older generation/immigrants by separating children from the age of 1 from their main carer. Could also be an opportunity to improve Danish language of immigrants. Many families in UK pay for nursery care for their child so they can go back to work ….and they make this work for their family.
Should migrants be legally required to integrate?
Migrants should not be given the right to enter and reside in Western countries unless they are ‘already,’ prior to settling, accepting the lifestyle of the country they wish to live in and raise their children in. Why are they moving to ‘any’ European country they do not wish to be a full part of? Or, for their children to be a full participating citizen of? Why are Western schools accepting children into school who are required to wear a scarf over their hair, for example, in order to be modest? What is modest about covering your hair? Why are boys not required to be modest? Why is their hair not glued stinking to their head in order for them to be also modest?
A child is not sexual. Modesty is not a requirement of children. At nine years old a girl is not sexual and even if she is pubic, she is not legally open for male attention and therefore not in the category of having to behave ‘modestly.’ The problem lies with the male of the sect if he sees a child as sexual fodder. How dare Western politicians in our society impose this horror on our Western children. Why was this allowed in the first place? Are they out of their minds?
We do not want enforced subjugation imprinted on our girls and boys by creating acceptance of such behavioural practice. No school age child should be required or allowed to wear a symbol of female subjugation. The only way such permit should be accepted is if all male children up to the age of eighteen are likewise required to wear this symbol to keep them just as modest. And to put this on the head of a baby is psychological abuse of that child.
Nuns, who cover out of choice do not take on a habit at the age of 6 months. Thereon required throughout their infancy into adulthood. Nuns can only choose to wear the habit after they are adults accepted into the convent as full blown religious servants of Christ. So don’t come back with the bent statement of must be allowed to wear what they choose. Children do not choose to wear a headscarf unless their parents insist it is against the code of female modesty not to do so. Or, worse, threaten them should they resist. As I wrote above, boys too must be put under this edict, if it is a requirement of Godly chastity. They are just as open to sexual abuse as girls and at just as early an age. Are they not?
Not only should migrants be refused entry to Europe if they are happy to be subjugated and have their daughter subjugated. But, those who live within a Western environment who are intent on living this form of illegal separation of sexes, and, refuse equality, must be required to make their life in countries where the practice they wish to continue with, is found acceptable. It cannot be acceptable to pollute our Western children with the idea that girls and women who do not adhere to this requirement, are in some way cheap and deserving of savage treatment.
Integration means unification. So, yes, if immigrants want our money and way of material life, then they must be prepared to accept our lifestyle in order to obtain acceptance and unity within it. This is a Western culture and the people of the West are happy with their choices regarding the rights, laws and expectations they have evolved into. Why else would an immigrant want to live here in Europe or the West in the first place? It can only be to alter our way of life to their way of living. There is no other explanation.
A 1 year old isn’t really fit for education yet. Most can’t talk yet and aren’t even potty-trained. So I doubt how beneficial it would be. Plus you rob the parents of their time with their children. And you put an excessive burden on society.
I think it would be more sane and economical to educate pregnant and new parents on how to properly raise their children. So they can apply what they learned on their children 24/7.
Denmark should be strongly commended for this common sense initiative.
First of all this is not ‘forced integraton’. Forced integration is what China is doing to the Uighurs, with internment camps legalised for the purposes of ‘re-education’ and all kinds of measures to stamp out Muslim and Uighur identity forcibly implemented, such as the banning of beards.
What is happening in Denmark is ensuring that the values that are common to a modern European society are understood and, at a more fundamental level, that people speak and write Danish as fluently as the indigenous population. This is the most magic requirement for finding a job.
I live in Brussels which has abysmally failed to integrate a large swathe of its Muslim community. In effect parallel communities have emerged, where even into the second and third generation the spoken first language remains Arabic, and there is a widespread failure among a very introverted youth subculture that is detached from the challenges of the modern labour market to obtain educational certificates that lead to employment above a certain income level.
Perhaps the most striking consequence of Brussel’s failure to integrate its communities is the vast disparity in prices between different communes only a few KM apart in a city of only 1,2 million people, reflecting the unwillingness of many people to live in several of the 9 communes that make up the city. It’s not just Moloenbeek , and it’s not (definitely not!) just a transport issue.
Denmark is setting an example that I sincerely hope will succeed.
Danes and any other country with a similar problem- together with their politicians and the political correct EU- have all underestimated the difficulties or/and even failed to consider the impossibility to smoothly & successfully integrate “certain” migrant groups.
One does not need to repeat again and again which non Europeans will never integrate- creating satellite/island communities strewn & growing all over the country & the continent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Denmark
DE/EU-Q: Should migrants be legally required to integrate?
Please- all “Regulators in Chief”- Messr. Juncker, Tusk, Schulz, Danish Ministers & politicians’ etc- why not come forward & tell: how you suggest solving such accumulated political concoction? Should, should, should……….afterwards!
It is always the doing of the past & present political elite who is creating a mess! Here you got it! C’est la vie compañero!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1tj2zJ2Wvg
Now you are asking us? The voices & votes for change that have been politically marginalized, paralyzed & regulated away!
………..one thing bees and wasps have in common is that some species are solitary and others are social. https://www.diffen.com/difference/Bee_vs_Wasp
The very fact that there are ghettos in Denmark should leave Danes sleepless. What the law proposes is an extreme solution but the problen islt’s trying to solve is also extreme!
If someone choses to live in a society that is different from its own – because of the values it professes – must consider the fact that isolating oneself from that society isn’t a good living. If those immigrants in Denmark feel that the new country they’ve chosen to live in is suffocating them, then they must consider leaving. You cannot pretend to cherry pick the system and barricate yourselves in ghettos!
Having said this I think the problem is bigger than the leftist think. The values that these immigrants bring with thenselves are different from those endorsed in Danmark and elsehere in EU. Europe is consodered to be a decadent society, I would dare say even a degenerated and moraly corruptes society. Whatever you offer them they will refuse to abide to it. That’s why they live in ghettos and will never accept any intrusion into their lives.
It’s too late for this kind of intervention!
Should non migrants? The question is a red herring.
How? By law? Is this a joke ?
No, migrants should not be legally required to integrate. But they are legally required to provide for themselves and finance their migration. Nothing wrong with fighting the centralisation of social and economic problems in urban areas, just don’t do it with discrimination.
Yes, of course the migrants must required legally to integrate in Europe or then to leave
and the borned “Europeans” must be the same: do your best to be European or leave :)
You do know the left will call you a racist for saying that don’t you ?
Ivan Why racist? Europe was not the land of the white people during many centuries.
Only when Britain and Holland started to create their Empire, all over the world, they changed the idea of European people by white people… in that way the black, brown and yellow people will never would be equal to the white people.
excuse my intrusion. But all this simply cannot be called racism or discrimination. Its not about a race or certain minority. Its about people that drag down society. People who refuse to integrate.
Alexandru Yes. Of course that we must have some tolerance for the degree of integration. But we must be intolerant for the people that completely refuse to integrate in our historic trend and today values.
No, it’s not wrong. It enhances upward movement in social status in a tolerant and fair society. If there are no ghettos, there is no peer pressure to remain uneducated and adjust to oppression (especially if one is a woman).
I think it’s a good idea, simply because the island that I come from has in its history be repopulated several times due to war, diseases etc but the newcomers while keeping some of their traditions chose to integrate to be able to better their situation. Or you needed to be Christian or Muslim to prosper at different points in our history. The people adapted and now we have s strong national identity. Multicultural societies just don’t work.
At its core it’s positive. It may have some problematic elements. Discriminating in terms of law enforcement based on address seems questionable. However while one commentator protests that children are not owned by the state, he neglects to add that neither are they owned by their parents, and nothing inherently makes indoctrination by parents any less of a human rights violation than indoctrination by the state would be. Stopping parents from isolating their children from the world is a sound policy. I would question why it shouldn’t be applied to all citizens in equal measure, though.
The question is: what is integration? My understanding is that integration is different from subjugation. Integration programs fail because people in power (willingly?) confuse both. People do not want to be forced but seduced.
Calling someone racist is a very lower way of show your lack of arguments and vision about this problem. And them aren’t european people racist between themselves? And being racist is something that never happens on African people or Asiatic people, against other continents or between them selves? Really? That’s why I know many Europeans adopting children from Africa or Asia. Have you seen the opposite?
By the way integration means that you go living to different culture to improve yourself, to work and respect everyone already there. Not to impose yourself and your wAys and believes on others, by force, still demanding to be well payed and housed for free and giving lots of problems back to host culture.
The old saying, “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”- springs to mind. It has always been the polite and respectful way of thanking the host countries.
Well, I don’t see any commentary stating that its not an easy problem. It seems opinions are clear and solutions are obvious. I may lack some brain technology. In the beginning I was under the impression that this situation was a dilemma. Whatever you do, you will create benefit at a cost. Also no comments address practical concerns for these policies to exist. So far it seems that a country opened its doors. The premise was that foreigners were invited to join the party? The party was not acommodating though and a lot of the guests are left out. Now the country recognizes (maybe late in the night) that a few guests are grouping in a way that makes the majority uncomfortable. Who is responsible? you join a party and if people there are not acommodating, you leave or you stay and try to push for the party to suit you? To what degree is the host responsible for acommodating you? Is the host responsible for not ensuring conditions before-hand to make sure everyone would have a good time? Are guests also responsible for behaving in a proper way when they are not at their house? I do believe in responsibilities before rights. It seems that we only talk about rights nowadays without focusing much on responsibilities for everyone involved. I dont have a formed opinion yet, but Im actually curious on how people far more informed than me are approaching this issue.
@ Angelo
Should migrants be legally required to integrate?
It is much easier to assimilate and solve than you think Angelo. That is why history is one of the most important subjects to take on board. You learn from experience and history is experience.
History tells us mass migration from outside any border creates chaos. The chaos is determined to change the invaded society from its existing strategy to the strategy of the usurper. It is a take over of an entire land mass by invasion rather than by battle.
Here is a small example. There have been a few but this follows more clearly the European version we have today. The invasion of barbarianism. But take note, it was weak leaders who betrayed the Roman people that brought about its demise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46ZXl-V4qwY
Yes.
Should migrants be legally required to integrate?
Coming to a town or city near you. Keep your doors wide open to let them in, it is for the good of your country and your family expansion.
Does anyone want to associate with this handsome crowd of migrants who have no trouble integrating with children?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6294939/Huddersfield-Asian-sex-gang-jailed-200-years.html
Yes, they should be.
Skilled migrants get jobs and integrate. Unskilled migrants rely on welfare or crime. Meritocratic immigration (like in Australia) should be welcomed, unmeritocratic immigration should be regarded as disingenius.
The vast majority of immigrants don’t share European values of equality or free speech. Those values are anathema to a lot of them.
Does it help the unskilled migrants accepted into Europe? Yes. Does it help their home nations? No. Does it help Europe? No. Stop putting the few before the many!