Denmark Plans to Limit "Non-Western" Residents in Disadvantaged Areas

[Debater Slayer]

Denmark plans to limit 'non-western' residents in disadvantaged areas

From the article:

Denmark has announced plans to crack down further on disadvantaged neighbourhoods by reducing the number of “non-western” residents, scrapping the controversial term “ghetto” in its proposed legislation.
In the bill – a review of existing legislation on combatting “parallel societies” – the interior ministry proposed that the share of residents of “non-western” origin in each neighbourhood be limited to a maximum of 30% within 10 years.

Denmark has for years had one of Europe’s most restrictive immigration policies, which the Social Democratic prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, has continued since coming to power in June 2019.

The interior minister, Kaare Dybvad Bek, said in a statement that too many non-western foreigners in one area “increases the risk of an emergence of religious and cultural parallel societies”.

He said, however, that the term “ghetto”, used to designate disadvantaged neighbourhoods, would be removed from the new legislation.

“The term ghetto is misleading ... I think it contributes to eclipsing the large amount of work that needs doing in these neighbourhoods,” he said.

On the surface, the proposal seems like an effective and bold solution to the proliferation of harmful cultural practices among a subset of migrants--especially ones from the Arab and Muslim world--as has been a side effect of Sweden's and Germany's relatively lax immigration laws.

However, I can't help wondering how prone to abuse this concept is; I hope Denmark employs it wisely and efficiently without going down the rabbit hole of conflating racism with cultural self-preservation, and vice versa. One thing I will say, though, is that it is good to see that Denmark is clearly not under the illusion that certain cultures aren't toxic in many ways, be it in terms of some of their prevalent values or traditions.

 

[PureX]

I think the only flaw in this idea is the labeling. It's not about "non-westerners". It's about de-concentrating people who are socially and economically disadvantaged to avoid creating pockets of intense poverty and crime.

It's not a new idea. The city of Chicago has been doing this for decades, after having spent prior decades doing it the wrong way around, only to create horrifically dense concentrations of poverty and crime in big public housing projects, as a way of keeping it 'out of sight and out of mind' of the rest of the city's residents. So for the last 30 years they have been tearing down those projects and spreading the poor throughout the rest of the city's neighborhoods to avoid creating powerful criminal enclaves, and hopefully help the poor to assimilate better into the city's mainstream.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think the only flaw in this idea is the labeling. It's not about "non-westerners". It's about de-concentrating people who are socially and economically disadvantaged to avoid creating pockets of intense poverty and crime.

You seem fairly sure that the cultural backgrounds of a subset of migrants have nothing to do with the problem. To what factors would you attribute the sexist attitudes (which sometimes result in sexual assault) demonstrated by some refugees in Sweden, for example?

 

[PureX]

You seem fairly sure that the cultural backgrounds of a subset of migrants have nothing to do with the problem.

They have plenty to do with the problem. But foreign ethnicity is not the problem, itself. The problem itself is the disadvantage they have in assimilating into 'normal' society. And the fact that it will take some time for them to overcome it. And while that is happening, it is a very bad idea to allow so many of them to be concentrated together. It tends to create pockets of poverty and crime that only make their assimilation harder.

To what factors would you attribute the sexist attitudes (which sometimes result in sexual assault) demonstrated by some Syrian refugees in Sweden, for example?

Those assaults will be far less common if you keep them from concentrating and encouraging "old" behavior.

 

[Nakosis]

Denmark plans to limit 'non-western' residents in disadvantaged areas

From the article:


On the surface, the proposal seems like an effective and bold solution to the proliferation of harmful cultural practices among a subset of migrants--especially ones from the Arab and Muslim world--as has been a side effect of Sweden's and Germany's relatively lax immigration laws.

However, I can't help wondering how prone to abuse this concept is; I hope Denmark employs it wisely and efficiently without going down the rabbit hole of conflating racism with cultural self-preservation, and vice versa. One thing I will say, though, is that it is good to see that Denmark is clearly not under the illusion that certain cultures aren't toxic in many ways, be it in terms of some of their prevalent values or traditions.

I imagine cultural deprogramming for assimilation a monumental task. They have a different set of ingrained moral values.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I imagine cultural deprogramming for assimilation a monumental task. They have a different set of ingrained moral values.

Yeah, and what compounds the problem is that not all ingrained moral values from certain cultures present a threat to human rights. While I believe that seeking to deprogram and leave behind certain moral values is a necessary endeavor for any civilized society, I don't think it is reasonable or justified to seek to throw the baby out with the bathwater and expect migrants to abandon all of their ingrained moral values even if some of said values aren't harmful.

 

[Altfish]

It is going to be extremely difficult to implement. The people that are being talked about are minority groups, often with their own language, food, religions, culture, etc.
It is natural for them to congregate in an area. But when they gather together the infrastructure of shops, clubs, etc. can flourish to support this group.

Integration must be encouraged and mixing again is beneficial, if prejudice, hatred and suspicion are to be avoided.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Brilliant idea. I hope they can make it work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Brilliant idea. I hope they can make it work.

How come it is a brilliant idea?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How come it is a brilliant idea?

To keep migrants from forming impoverished ghettos that are isolated from the rest of the society? It's in the OP.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just get to your point.

Well, I reconsider, so I deleted my post.

 

[Kooky]

Lots of people here seem to be very, very certain that the poor state of these areas is entirely the fault of immigrants, despite seemingly lacking any sort of relevant evidence or data to back that up. Where do you get this idea from, folks? Are you privy to information the majority of us isn't?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I understand the rationale. In practical terms, these things are hard to implement effectively, and even run the risk of being counter productive if done poorly. So, hopefully it's done well, and to everyone's benefit.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Lots of people here seem to be very, very certain that the poor state of these areas is entirely the fault of immigrants, despite seemingly lacking any sort of relevant evidence or data to back that up. Where do you get this idea from, folks? Are you privy to information the majority of us isn't?

1) Not "entirely" but to one extent or another, albeit not always.

2) The statistics about sexual assault in Sweden, for example, point to a cultural problem within specific migrant communities. It is unreasonable to conclude that all migrants have harmful beliefs, but it is also unreasonable to dismiss the link between the toxic beliefs of a subset of migrants and undesirable actions resulting from said beliefs.

 

[Kooky]

1) Not "entirely" but to one extent or another, albeit not always.

2) The statistics about sexual assault in Sweden point to a cultural problem within specific migrant communities. It is unreasonable to conclude that all migrants have harmful beliefs, but it is also unreasonable to dismiss the link between the toxic beliefs of a subset of migrants and undesirable actions resulting from said beliefs.

Neither of these points have anything to do with the subject of the article, nor with the questions I raised.

(edit) The article talked about measures supposed to mitigate ghettoization and the clustering of poor households, and I was specifically raising the question of why people assumed that this was primary the fault of the immigrant population living there - rather than, say, other economic, cultural, or political factors at play. This has nothing to do with the stereotypical association of Middle Eastern, South Asian and African ethnicities and religions with crime, poverty, sexual assault and terrorism.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Neither of these points have anything to do with the subject of the article, nor with the questions I raised.

(edit) In case you missed it, this article talked about measures supposed to mitigate ghettoization and the clustering of poor households, and I was specifically raising the question of why people assumed that this was primary the fault of the immigrant population living there - rather than, say, other economic, cultural, or political factors at play.

I don't think "ghettoization" is limited to the economic aspect, though. The article explicitly mentions countering the formation of "parallel societies" as one of the objectives of the new law:

The interior minister, Kaare Dybvad Bek, said in a statement that too many non-western foreigners in one area “increases the risk of an emergence of religious and cultural parallel societies”.

To that end, it makes sense to me that it specifies non-Western demographics as a group of interest as far as the law is concerned.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Lots of people here seem to be very, very certain that the poor state of these areas is entirely the fault of immigrants, despite seemingly lacking any sort of relevant evidence or data to back that up. Where do you get this idea from, folks? Are you privy to information the majority of us isn't?

No, there is lots of information readily available, and sifting through it is...well...challenging. There is a lot of emotion and bias in these sorts of topics.
To me, it appears that the criteria are as follows (for an area to be defined as a ghetto, or whatever term they are now using);

The proportion of immigrants, and non-western descendants, exceed 50%.
Plus two of the following indicators:
- high unemployment
- a conviction rate three times the national average
- low income levels
- low education levels.

Any place meeting this criteria for 4 years is then classified in a more extreme way.

Take away the immigrants, and non-western descendants criteria, and it makes more sense to me. If migration is having a negative impact, it would be seen in those statistics anyway.
But as it stands, it appears to me like an area with more than 50% native inhabitants would never be defined as a ghetto, and I'm not sure why that would be the case.

Further information (it translates well to English) : Udsatte områder og ghettoområder (trafikstyrelsen.dk)

 

[Kooky]

I don't think "ghettoization" is limited to the economic aspect, though. The article explicitly mentions countering the formation of "parallel societies" as one of the objectives of the new law:


To that end, it makes sense to me that it specifies non-Western demographics as a group of interest as far as the law is concerned.

That still claims that these parallel societies are the migrants' fault - and not, for example, a result of being stranded in a hostile environment that strengthens bonds with the already familiar.

It's interesting, however, that he specifies non-Westerners, as if Westerners - such as, say, Irish and Italian immigrants in the US - have never formed parallel societies or immigrant communities. Don't you think?

 

[Kooky]

But as it stands, it appears to me like an area with more than 50% native inhabitants would never be defined as a ghetto, and I'm not sure why that would be the case.

I could tell you, but that would likely make me a persona non grata on these forums, so I'm going to let you folks figure out the reason by yourselves.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's interesting that he specifies non-Westerners, as if Westerners - such as, say, Irish and Italian immigrants in the US - have never formed parallel societies or immigrant communities. Don't you think?

It depends on the specific issue being addressed. In Denmark's case, it doesn't have a problem of parallel societies of Italians or Irish people where problematic cultural and religious practices thrive, so it seems logical that they are instead focusing on other demographics.