Immigration: the state of Denmark
RICHARD NORTH
For the moment, the Iran situation looks stable enough for me to return to the miserable state of our own domestic politics, and address some of the outstanding issues.
One such which caught my eye was a piece in the The Times on Monday which told us: “Kemi Badenoch takes inspiration from Denmark on migrant integration”, the sub-head reading: “The Conservative leader said she had looked at Copenhagen’s model for assimilating immigrants, which has been criticised by human rights groups”.
Badenough, apparently, had been speaking at a Policy Exchange gig, and the event was also picked up by the Telegraph, its piece telling us: “Kemi Badenoch opens door to ‘ghetto law’”, with its sub-head advising us that: “The Tory leader had been studying Denmark laws where majority-foreigner areas can have social housing demolished or put into private homes”.
Some may be encouraged to see the leader of the opposition confronting some of the core issues relating to immigration, but the reality of her intervention in the debate is that it simply demonstrates how far behind the curve she is.
In fact, Denmark has been progressively introducing so-called “ghetto laws” since 2010, and by 2018 had developed an ongoing programme to remove all the 22 areas officially designated as ghettos by 2030.
As the policy progressed, laws were passed that allow the state to demolish apartment blocks in areas where at least half of the residents had a “non-western” background but, in the nature of things, the “human rights” lobby were taking it to court complaining of discrimination.
The issue actually went to the ECJ which ruled in February this year that the Danish government had contravened Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000, as its actions were interpreted as direct discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive.
While Badenough might argue that she is able to claim yet another Brexit bonus, the same result could have been achieved via the ECHR (Article 14 and others), so unless she ends up denouncing the Convention she won’t be very much further forward.
Despite being a policy that is already doomed to fail, Badenough backs “that sort of thing”, saying: “I think integration is not enough. I say assimilate, I think assimilation should be the target, and if people don’t assimilate, then they integrate”.
This comment, though, demonstrates that she is not only behind the curve, but on another planet. Assimilation is taken as a state where immigrants adopt the host country’s culture, values, and norms, often at the expense of their own cultural identity. It emphasises blending in, where immigrants are expected to conform to the dominant culture, potentially abandoning their language, traditions, or customs.
For the vast majority of the UK’s immigrant population, though, that is totally out of the question, It is not even a vague aspiration – even if immigrant communities sought this goal, the sheer numbers have long since overwhelmed the absorptive capacity of the indigenous population, rendering it a practical impossibility.
As for integration, this is effectively multiculturalism, where immigrants maintain aspects of their cultural identity while adopting elements of the host country’s culture. This is described as a two-way process where both immigrants and the host society adapt, supposedly contributing to a diverse but cohesive society, built on foundations of mutual respect.
I got this definition off Twitter’s AI programme. Grok 3, and that is no more likely to happen than Badenough’s fabled assimilation. We are looking at a process where increasingly assertive immigrant communities are seeking (and securing) cultural dominance in the ever-expanding areas that they occupy, while gradually subverting civic society and the democratic process, moulding them to serve their sectarian needs.
Writing last year just of the Mirpuri baradari kinship groups, academic Patrick Nash observed that they “represent one of the most underappreciated threats to democratic governments in the 21st century”.
The diasporas are gaining increasing political and electoral influence over Western societies. In the UK, for example, foreign policy towards South Asia is now “strongly influenced by a skilful and far-reaching Pakistani lobby” whose members ‘constitute an important – perhaps even decisive – political constituency in some marginals”.
British politicians have even taken to campaigning in the immigrants’ home countries during UK elections to canvass support from transnational group elders and party leaders with influence over their British diasporas.
While Nash describes this as a clear and present danger to the integrity of domestic elections, it seems that the Danish tabloid, BT agrees, running an opinion piece on immigrants headed: “They should not be integrated. They should go home”.
Referring a recent population projection that shows that immigrants and their descendants could make up over 50 percent of Denmark’s population by 2096, the piece calls for action, declaring that “Remigration is necessary”.
It acknowledges that some immigrants are a huge asset to the country, while there are others who neither contribute nor have adopted Danish values. But regardless of whether foreigners contribute or the opposite, the piece says: “it should be completely uncontroversial to believe that the majority of the population in Denmark should be Danish”.
This is endorsed by the Danish People’s Party’s immigration spokesman, Mikkel Bjørn, who says “it is simply not acceptable if we end up in a situation where Danes are a minority in their own country”.
And that, says the piece, is why remigration is necessary. A complete stop to immigration from the Middle East and full speed ahead in sending people from the Middle East without Danish citizenship out of Denmark.
Simultaneously, the Danish government, preparatory to taking over the rotating presidency of the EU, states that it will make stricter immigration a top priority for the EU during its presidency, seeking to use its hard-line stance on migration as a model for the bloc.
The minister for European affairs, Marie Bjerre, says that the Danish government aims for “concrete proposals and innovative solutions” to curb irregular migration and reduce arrivals into the EU. It will also move forward with talks to update rules on safe third countries and safe countries of origin, measures designed to make it easier for member states to reject asylum claims and return people more swiftly.
“We need a more secure, stable and resilient Europe”, Bjerre said at a news conference in Copenhagen. “And you don’t have that if you don’t have control over the flow of people into Europe”.
Such is the state of our domestic politics though, that all the leader of the opposition can do on the most pressing issue of our times is offer decades-old nostrums. If they were ever going to work, that window of opportunity has long passed.
Clearly, Badenough has no real understanding of the scale or nature of the problem, and she is not going to bring voters rallying to her standard with such lame, half-baked ideas. Yet, with Reform progressively opting out of the immigration debate, there is nothing much else on offer.
Nevertheless, there are answers. But if the politicians won’t implement them, who will?
This article (Immigration: the state of Denmark) was created and published by Turbulent Times and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Richard North
See Related Article Below
Kemi Badenoch opens door to ‘ghetto law’
The Tory leader had been studying Denmark laws where majority-foreigner areas can have social housing demolished or put into private homes
Kemi Badenoch has opened the door to controversial “ghetto laws”, calling for more “active integration” of immigrants.
The Conservative leader said she had been examining laws in Denmark, under which the government can evict social housing residents in poor areas where more than 50 per cent of the population is “non-Western”.
The rule is backed by some Danish politicians, who say it prevents the ghettoisation of immigrant communities and encourages foreigners to mix with locals.
But opponents challenging it at the European Court of Justice claim that it is discriminatory.
The Danish laws mean that majority-foreigner areas, known officially as “parallel societies”, can have social housing demolished or turned into private homes by the Government.
Asked whether she would consider a similar policy for the UK, Mrs Badenoch told an audience at the Policy Exchange think tank on Monday that she had “looked at it” and would be talking about it more.
She said: “I think integration is not enough. I say assimilate, I think assimilation should be the target, and if people don’t assimilate, then they integrate.
“But we’ve had so many, so many people, so high numbers, people from lots of different places, which is not what immigration used to look like, and I think we need to move from passive to active integration.”
Saying her ideas were “along the lines” of the Danish policy, she added: “We need to do what works for the UK, it’s not exactly the same situation, we have a much bigger population, and so many other things that would require adjustments, but that sort of thing, yes.”
Mrs Badenoch was speaking to Lord Moore, the crossbench peer and Telegraph columnist, as part of Policy Exchange’s project to mark the centenary of Margaret Thatcher’s birth.
The Telegraph: continue reading
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply