Denmark's new laws for immigrants in "ghettos"

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-countries-where-its-most-dangerous-to-be-a-christian/

Of the 215 million Christians who experience persecution, the most vulnerable are girls and women. Every day six women are raped, sexually harassed, or forced into marriage to a Muslim under threat of death due to their Christian faith, the report says. Open Doors USA documented 2,260 such incidences against women—a number they say only covers “those who had the courage to report such an incident, and is estimated to be a mere fraction of those actually raped and harassed in this way.”

https://www.christianitytoday.com/n...-persecution-open-doors-world-watch-list.html

Parents have to send their children to Buddhist schools, where children must learn about Buddhism and participate in its rituals, Open Doors said. And Christians often are refused permits to rent a place to hold worship services.
 
It is ridiculous to force children to learn about religious holidays like Christmas and Easter, no matter whether they are immigrants or locals. Freedom of religion means that the state has no right to impose religious values through compulsory education.

On the other hand, I don't see what is the problem with having free language lessons for little children. I also don't think it's a problem for immigrant toddlers to go to free nursery school if it can facilitate their adaptation. Most (non-immigrant) parents nowadays pay to leave their children in nursery schools while they go to work. It's especially true in Scandinavia where a high proportion of women work and women are often reluctant to give up their career because they have children. With that in mind, I completely understand the Danish government's decision to offer ghetto immigrants to place their children in nursery schools 5 hours per day on week days. That is what most Danish people do with their own children from 1 year old.
 
Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments. Other Danish citizens are free to choose whether to enroll children in preschool up to the age of six.

I don't know, but I don't think they spend 2 weeks teaching about Christmas and Easter.
It suffices to explain them what Christmas and Easter tradition means for the average Danish people.
In fifteen minutes, this can be done.

Again, this whole article seems very suggestive to me, just like the wording “ghetto children” must be separated from their families.
 
Good to see something productive happening in Europe regarding immigration issues.
 
Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance without government influence or intervention. It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or belief.[1]
Freedom of religion is considered by many people and most of the nations to be a fundamental human right.[2][3] In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths. Freedom of belief is different. It allows the right to believe what a person, group or religion wishes, but it does not necessarily allow the right to practice the religion or belief openly and outwardly in a public manner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...article-9-freedom-thought-belief-and-religion

https://migrationdataportal.org/themes/migrant-integration#definition


Definition

There is no consensus on a single definition for integration. Definitions share commonalities, but remain highly context or country specific. Nevertheless, migrant integration may be broadly defined as:
The process by which migrants become accepted into society, both as individuals and as groups….[Integration] refers to a two-way process of adaptation by migrants and host societies…[and implies] consideration of the rights and obligations of migrants and host societies, of access to different kinds of services and the labour market, and of identification and respect for a core set of values that bind migrants and host communities in a common purpose (IOM, 2011).
 
What a conundrum. Immigrants want to move into a society that they feel they would have freedom, but they don't want to adapt to that society, but continue to embrace the values that they are escaping. Children from many countries are "separated" from their children for 8 hours a day for education. Maybe the article is simply looking at the very worst interpretation of the facts, and that as Maciamo said, they are simply trying to provide a way for these children to be more successful in their new home.

I for one love to learn about the history behind other religious traditions, and reject or embrace new ones.
 
Maybe it is not a bad idea when done right. All children should be exposed to general curriculum, and general ideas and values, through public schools in every country. This should include not only emigrant kids but also conservative christian and jewish groups too, like amish, hutterites or hasidic jews.
 
Maybe it is not a bad idea when done right. All children should be exposed to general curriculum, and general ideas and values, through public schools in every country. This should include not only emigrant kids but also conservative christian and jewish groups too, like amish, hutterites or hasidic jews.

Then that measure, if it is really a good idea and benefitial to all children, should be enforced upon all families with little children. That would even help in the process of integration and assimilation of the post-immigration generations, because if there is something that is much more powerful than schools to provide that intensive assimilation it is a strong network of friends and acquaintances of native stock as children grow up.
 
I'm sure the laws won't specify any specific religion or ethnicity.
But the problem is those who don't do any effort to integrate in the home country and it is those who will be targeted.
They cling together in 'ghettos' where they speak their home languages and share their own values and morals which are sometimes totaly incompattable with the modern western values. They try to shield their children from any outside influence.
If a native does not comply with the basic values of the country and e.g. is discriminating or racist or hatefull, he'll be sanctioned too.
And keep in mind, we are not talking about all immigrants here, only the minority that refuses to integrate.

Are you really sure that all or even most people went to live in immigrant-majority communities, so called "ghettos", because of their own choise to refuse to integrate? Is it really possible to affirm that by definition (after all it's a law, laws are abstract and general, there's no escaping that) people who live in ghettos are those who are not just insufficiently integrated into the broader society, but resistant against that integration? I have my doubts, but I'd like to know what you think, since you live in Europe. I mean, if the problem is that there are parents and families that actively oppose integration efforts then it should be better to target them directly, not just put a generic (and thus necessarily unfair) label on all people who just happen to live in a certain neighborhood and not in another.

I have a strong impression that most people who live in ghettos are not dwelling there mainly because they wish to avoid integration (these communities usually aren't the nicest places), but instead that what happens is that the ghetto-like social life and everyday routine, surrounded by other immigrants all the time and with few close contacts with the natives, simply bars immigrants and their children from the kind of social, economic and cultural interactions that are totally indispensable for any meaningful integration or hopefully assimilation to happen along the time.
 
Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance without government influence or intervention. It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or belief.[1]
Freedom of religion is considered by many people and most of the nations to be a fundamental human right.[2][3] In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths. Freedom of belief is different. It allows the right to believe what a person, group or religion wishes, but it does not necessarily allow the right to practice the religion or belief openly and outwardly in a public manner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...article-9-freedom-thought-belief-and-religion

https://migrationdataportal.org/themes/migrant-integration#definition


Definition

There is no consensus on a single definition for integration. Definitions share commonalities, but remain highly context or country specific. Nevertheless, migrant integration may be broadly defined as:
The process by which migrants become accepted into society, both as individuals and as groups….[Integration] refers to a two-way process of adaptation by migrants and host societies…[and implies] consideration of the rights and obligations of migrants and host societies, of access to different kinds of services and the labour market, and of identification and respect for a core set of values that bind migrants and host communities in a common purpose (IOM, 2011).

The way I understand freedom of religion is that the state cannot force anyone to learn about a specific religion in compulsory education or any state-funded schools.

In Belgium most state-funded schools are Catholic, which was a gross infringement of freedom of religion as most children had to learn about Catholicism at school until 18 years old (the age of compulsory education) regardless of their background or personal beliefs. Politicians have finally found a solution to this issue a few years ago. Now all state-funded schools must propose a variety of religion courses (Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Islam) as well as moral, and "philosophy and citizenship" for those who don't want any religion or moral. This means that even Catholic schools must now teach any of those if some students request it. That is freedom of religion.

IMO, Denmark infringes Human Rights is they compel toddlers and pupils to learn about Christianity in a proselytising manner. Now if it is just briefly explaining the cultural significance of holidays like Christmas, that is perfectly fine. As long as they don't tell that that they should believe that Jesus is the son of God.
 
Are you really sure that all or even most people went to live in immigrant-majority communities, so called "ghettos", because of their own choise to refuse to integrate? Is it really possible to affirm that by definition (after all it's a law, laws are abstract and general, there's no escaping that) people who live in ghettos are those who are not just insufficiently integrated into the broader society, but resistant against that integration? I have my doubts, but I'd like to know what you think, since you live in Europe. I mean, if the problem is that there are parents and families that actively oppose integration efforts then it should be better to target them directly, not just put a generic (and thus necessarily unfair) label on all people who just happen to live in a certain neighborhood and not in another.

I have a strong impression that most people who live in ghettos are not dwelling there mainly because they wish to avoid integration (these communities usually aren't the nicest places), but instead that what happens is that the ghetto-like social life and everyday routine, surrounded by other immigrants all the time and with few close contacts with the natives, simply bars immigrants and their children from the kind of social, economic and cultural interactions that are totally indispensable for any meaningful integration or hopefully assimilation to happen along the time.

I think that bicicleur had Muslim, and particularly Moroccan communities in Belgium in mind when he wrote this. There are plenty of poor immigrants who manage to integrate well. I personally know immigrants from the North Caucasus, Sub-Saharan Africa, Vietnam and South America who became very well integrated in Belgian societies a few years after they arrived. But the reality is that there are plenty of second or third generation Moroccans who live in self-enforced ghettoes where the police fears to go and many of them try to recreate the living conditions of Morocco in Belgium at all costs. It's not surprising that the people who organised the terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels and so on came from such ghettoes.

If these families were force to let their children attend state-sponsored day care centres and preschools to help integrate them, these things wouldn't happen. So I salute the Danish initiative, with the caveat that they can't use religious brainwashing.
 
Are you really sure that all or even most people went to live in immigrant-majority communities, so called "ghettos", because of their own choise to refuse to integrate? Is it really possible to affirm that by definition (after all it's a law, laws are abstract and general, there's no escaping that) people who live in ghettos are those who are not just insufficiently integrated into the broader society, but resistant against that integration? I have my doubts, but I'd like to know what you think, since you live in Europe. I mean, if the problem is that there are parents and families that actively oppose integration efforts then it should be better to target them directly, not just put a generic (and thus necessarily unfair) label on all people who just happen to live in a certain neighborhood and not in another.

I have a strong impression that most people who live in ghettos are not dwelling there mainly because they wish to avoid integration (these communities usually aren't the nicest places), but instead that what happens is that the ghetto-like social life and everyday routine, surrounded by other immigrants all the time and with few close contacts with the natives, simply bars immigrants and their children from the kind of social, economic and cultural interactions that are totally indispensable for any meaningful integration or hopefully assimilation to happen along the time.

many of them live on welfare and these 'ghetto's' are empoversihed neighbourhoods were people with a good job and income wouldn't choose to live
these people know little about the culture and lifestyle of their host country and prefer to be among people from the same origin and background
because they live in such ghetto they have little oportunity to learn about the people who have a job and a 'regular' lifestyle that is common in the country
but even if they had the oportunity, they would not be interested
but the children eventualy have to go to school and see other children
when they grow up they often become angry young men
 
Then that measure, if it is really a good idea and benefitial to all children, should be enforced upon all families with little children. That would even help in the process of integration and assimilation of the post-immigration generations, because if there is something that is much more powerful than schools to provide that intensive assimilation it is a strong network of friends and acquaintances of native stock as children grow up.
I agree. Why not make it universal?
 
I think they should be taught basic practical skills like math and reading as well as how to conduct themselves in Danish society. Learning "Christmas and Easter" is fine as long as they aren't encouraged to give up their own religions. They should be allowed and encouraged to continue on with their own customs and traditions as long as they aren't disruptive to the host society.
 
It's all a doomed effort anyway in terms of the enforced pre-school. They'll be going to pre-school with children from their own neighborhoods, so there will be no "mixing". It would expose them to Danish earlier, but that's about it. It would be good if they got some academics, but I'm not convinced that early intervention works. After millions spent on Headstart programs here, there was no long term gain in terms of academic performance. A better bet would be trade schools when children are older. You can't get a job without skills.

The U.S. has been down this road with its under class African American community. The only way it would theoretically work would be if you enforced "integration" by moving children from the "ghetto" out, and children from outside in for their schooling. It was met by extreme resistance here on the part of the white families, and where it was really pushed, white families sent their children to private schools. New York City, for example, essentially still has neighborhood schools, so there are many schools which are virtually all black.

It was also my understanding that these immigrants were specifically placed in public housing all together. Regardless, it's true that immigrants to a new country do tend to live together in certain cheaper neighborhoods for support etc. The thing is that if there is a will to integrate and a willingness to absorb them, the next generation usually moves out and into the broader society. That is, at least, how it has worked here with European immigrants. It remains to be seen if Chinatowns and other Asian enclaves will disperse.
 
Denmark is offering assistance to refugees mainly, and as they are living within a different country/culture the families and their children should be made to understand and respect the way of life of those that are offering this help. Im not sure about the situation in Denmark, it seems they fear what is occurring with their nieghbours in Norway and Sweden, regarding immigrants/refugees, are they returning to their own countries when it is safe and peacefull, or have they no intention of returning, this is a question that is still not fully understood in nearly every European Country, and is a very confused and grey area.

The danger with recent immigrants such as the mass Muslim exodus into Europe, is they will not mix, but then choose to change the lifestyles/cultures and laws of the country that was kind enough to accept them.

In Britain we have a history of immigration and assimilation, and many immigrants enriched our culture etc, for one instance in my lifetime, the Jamacian and West Indies,immigrants brought their music cultures such as Reggae etc,and certianly enriched our joint heritage.

The recent Muslim immigrants are now mixing with third and fourth generation settled British Muslims and turning them against the very societies that helped them, and have no intention of mixing, they even refuse to learn English. This is a betrayal, that has produced horrific deaths and Home grown Terrors. I fear Denmark is aware of similar situations now throughout Europe, from the new and established Muslims,who all over Europe are now joining together in attempts to divide, and replace cultures and societies that have been established for centuries, with their own mostly Middle Eastern Cultures and religions.

I think the Danes are trying to predict and prevent a similar developing future, regarding their own settled and recent arrivals, and to preserve their way of life. I see nothing wrong in what they are trying, as Denmark and possibly Sweden's existing way of life will be lost forever in a very short time, due to their smaller populations,being entirely overtaken by a Dominant,Muslim Culture who will have the majority vote in only a few years, and presently have no intention of mixing whatsoever, only to replace. If they do nothing they accept the inevitable.

At least they are trying to deal with, and preserve what is in effect a nations very existance, and a very foreseeable problem arising.
 
I think that bicicleur had Muslim, and particularly Moroccan communities in Belgium in mind when he wrote this. There are plenty of poor immigrants who manage to integrate well. I personally know immigrants from the North Caucasus, Sub-Saharan Africa, Vietnam and South America who became very well integrated in Belgian societies a few years after they arrived. But the reality is that there are plenty of second or third generation Moroccans who live in self-enforced ghettoes where the police fears to go and many of them try to recreate the living conditions of Morocco in Belgium at all costs. It's not surprising that the people who organised the terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels and so on came from such ghettoes.

If these families were force to let their children attend state-sponsored day care centres and preschools to help integrate them, these things wouldn't happen. So I salute the Danish initiative, with the caveat that they can't use religious brainwashing.

Then that confirms what I wrote in my post and I have concluded as I read about the history of immigration in the USA and in Brazil (back in the time when they were 15-20% of the population in the early 1900s). That is, the real core issue is that ghettos even still exist. No matter what those parents thought, their children and grandchildren would inevitably assimilate en masse if they simply grew up all around native people. Pre-schools will do virtually nothing to change that. What's really decisive is how often those youngsters of immigrant background meet and form social bonds with natives when they are mentally prepared to absorb most of the culture and norms of society: in school, in neighborhood clubs, in bars, parks and gymnasiums nearby, in trade schools, in colleges. Without (cultural, social) mixing, there is no assimilation. I notice that many Europeans seem to have a really hard time understanding that, maybe many people don't really want the situation to change even if it will be ultimately an improvement over what's happening now. People are assimilated when most people they see in their everyday life don't share the same foreign culture and language. There's no way a pre-school program will make that "miracle" happen if the children will go back to their ghettos and 90% of their social life will happen there with other immigrants and children of immigrants.

I'm not sure we can say that this ghetto problem is all due to immigrants "self-enforcing" ghetto communities. I'm pretty sure that, as Angela also said, the bulk of this issue began because in the past most immigrants were simply directed, either directly (by the state through public housing projects) or indirectly (economic dynamics), to cheaper neighborghoods and cheap public housing that concentrated a huge majority of immigrants and their descendants and grew naturally afterwards. That was a really bad move. If they could, they should've created lots of small public housing projects surrounded by densely populated neighborhoods inhabited almost entirely by natives. Now that would spontaneously "force" integration as no law is able to.
 
many of them live on welfare and these 'ghetto's' are empoversihed neighbourhoods were people with a good job and income wouldn't choose to live
these people know little about the culture and lifestyle of their host country and prefer to be among people from the same origin and background
because they live in such ghetto they have little oportunity to learn about the people who have a job and a 'regular' lifestyle that is common in the country
but even if they had the oportunity, they would not be interested
but the children eventualy have to go to school and see other children
when they grow up they often become angry young men

Doesn't the fact that they live in impoverished neighborhoods where natives don't want to even step in, and are mostly poor people without a good job and income, at least partly explain why they act and think like that, especially when the native vs. immigrant ethnic segregation is so starkingly visible? I don't think there's nothing worse for a young mind than to be not just poor, unprivileged and undereducated, but also visibly so, because there is, in their social environment, a huge probability that people who look like them and dwell in neighborhoods like theirs are "poor, unprivileged and undereducated". The power of stigmatization and the anger that may come from that is reinforced by that sense of being visibly different from other people, especially if you never formed strong social bonds with people who look like the natives, so that they are still the "strangers", "the others" to you and your family.
 
Then that confirms what I wrote in my post and I have concluded as I read about the history of immigration in the USA and in Brazil (back in the time when they were 15-20% of the population in the early 1900s). That is, the real core issue is that ghettos even still exist. No matter what those parents thought, their children and grandchildren would inevitably assimilate en masse if they simply grew up all around native people. Pre-schools will do virtually nothing to change that. What's really decisive is how often those youngsters of immigrant background meet and form social bonds with natives when they are mentally prepared to absorb most of the culture and norms of society: in school, in neighborhood clubs, in bars, parks and gymnasiums nearby, in trade schools, in colleges. Without (cultural, social) mixing, there is no assimilation. I notice that many Europeans seem to have a really hard time understanding that, maybe many people don't really want the situation to change even if it will be ultimately an improvement over what's happening now. People are assimilated when most people they see in their everyday life don't share the same foreign culture and language. There's no way a pre-school program will make that "miracle" happen if the children will go back to their ghettos and 90% of their social life will happen there with other immigrants and children of immigrants.

I'm not sure we can say that this ghetto problem is all due to immigrants "self-enforcing" ghetto communities. I'm pretty sure that, as Angela also said, the bulk of this issue began because in the past most immigrants were simply directed, either directly (by the state through public housing projects) or indirectly (economic dynamics), to cheaper neighborghoods and cheap public housing that concentrated a huge majority of immigrants and their descendants and grew naturally afterwards. That was a really bad move. If they could, they should've created lots of small public housing projects surrounded by densely populated neighborhoods inhabited almost entirely by natives. Now that would spontaneously "force" integration as no law is able to.

Ygorcs, I agree with all of that, but immigrants also have to want to "change" their identities. That happened too much in the U.S. in prior generations. Second generation Italian-American children wanted to be un-hyphenated Americans, and to do that, they anglicized their first names, they didn't want to know anything about the "old country", they wouldn't even speak Italian to their parents. I think they even deliberately sought out non Italian partners when it came to dating and marrying. It's been later generations who have tried to reconnect a bit with their "roots".

The Italians and the Germans and the Irish didn't have to change their religion to fit in really, but many of the Jews did. The conservative and reform movements were American innovations. Most American Jews didn't want to wear David locks and strange black clothes, a lot of them didn't want to keep kosher, or at least only in their homes.

Of course, part of all this was also the fact that in the early 1900s you couldn't go traipsing back and forth to the home country, there was no access to Italian language radio or television, and on and on.

That's why even here there is a difference between the earlier generation of immigrants and the newer Hispanic Americans, which is partially attributable to their holding on more to their "original" identity. The other part is because some of them decidedly look non-European, and so I think, to be honest, that "white" Americans are more "loathe" to accept them. I'm telling you, there is a big difference in the acceptance and absorption of "white" Cubans (who actually aren't "completely" white) and, say, Puerto Ricans, in many of whom you see the SSA ancestry. Mexican Americans are sort of in between.

Marco Rubio, who ran for President and is the descendant of Cuban refugees. His dad was a bar man and waiter his entire working life. Rubio looks typical of the Cuban Americans I know.
Marco_Rubio.jpg


Puerto Rican Day parade:
Puerto-Rican-Day-Parade.jpg


Racism is alive and well and it's dishonest to deny it's a factor.

As far as Europe is concerned (and the U.S. for that matter), I don't know the solution, but I think both sides have to be honest and accept part of the blame.
 

This thread has been viewed 30833 times.

Back
Top