Denmark's new laws for immigrants in "ghettos"

Denmark's new laws for immigrants in "ghettos"

(mainly Muslim) Refugees revitalize American cities



https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...ican-cities/7Xe7PX6JbRq4sfE8D4pNyJ/story.html

I was speaking with a resident who said he wishes the whole city becomes Somali refugees because of what they did to the neighborhood of Little Italy. Little Italy was no longer Italian, the Italians fled to the suburbs because the neighborhood was no longer safe, crime rampant. But with the influx of Somali Muslims, the streets became much safer and it is a relatively safe neighborhood once again. We need more of these Somali migrants to help out other neighborhoods, they take care of their property, crime drops and businesses move in.

Little Italy in New York lost some ground mainly to Chinatown, not mainly to Somali migrants.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/nyregion/22littleitaly.html

As a general rule we never talk about religion with our neighbors, co-workers and acquaintances.
Just sayin’.
 
If he's talking about the Chinatown in NYC, they're invisible. I'm there probably once a month and I've never seen a sign of them. It's all Chinese. The only Italians work in the few Italian restaurants that are left and they probably leave Manhattan after work.

Interestingly enough, I can't find data for Muslim immigrants specifically, but according to the Cato Institute 76% of immigrant families with children receive some sort of public assistance.

How this is supposed to be good for our economy I don't know.
 
Anti-immigrant sentiment is not necessarily racially based. Irish, Italians, Greeks, Poles, etc were discriminated against in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Asian immigrants have done very well in the US in the late 20th century. So have the South Americans that integrated quickly and chose professions or trades. Unspecialized, general work does not pay well and the more money you make the more easily you integrate. Speaking the local language helps you get more plumbing work and helps you advance in your career.

I think that in this case, it a religion based. However, I do not think that it is right to force assimilate children into a new religion for 25 hours a week since they turn one.

People call everything racist these days, whether or not it has anything to do with race.

True, the wealthier you are the better you are accepted by the community, considering that everything costs money. The better you speak the language of the country the more you will adapt to the culture.

However, a person who is capable of doing his degree in English and then gets a job in a western country does not necessarily assimilate into the local culture. This person may still hold strong believes in his or her religion.

I will give you an example. There are plenty of south Asian people who migrated to western countries. They take their religion very seriously. However, on a national scale, I have not heard of the government using force assimilation to give up their religion.

Not all South Asians are wealthy. If you talking about skin colour, some of them are as dark as Africans or even darker than some.
 
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.

Now I do agree with many things you said. However, not on this. I think that it is wrong to force assimilate children into another religion. Unlike the Anglo-Saxons who let their ethnic minorities segregated into their sub-cultures, the French want their immigrants to integrate into their culture.

Integration isn't assimilation, the Australian aboriginals were forcefully removed from their parents to be taken to a "home". Many of them were raped and tortured by white people. Many these days would refuse to go to the hospital to give birth because they think that their babies will be taken away from them.
 
I think that in this case, it a religion based. However, I do not think that it is right to force assimilate children into a new religion for 25 hours a week since they turn one.

People call everything racist these days, whether or not it has anything to do with race.

True, the wealthier you are the better you are accepted by the community, considering that everything costs money. The better you speak the language of the country the more you will adapt to the culture.

However, a person who is capable of doing his degree in English and then gets a job in a western country does not necessarily assimilate into the local culture. This person may still hold strong believes in his or her religion.

I will give you an example. There are plenty of south Asian people who migrated to western countries. They take their religion very seriously. However, on a national scale, I have not heard of the government using force assimilation to give up their religion.

Not all South Asians are wealthy. If you talking about skin colour, some of them are as dark as Africans or even darker than some.
Yeah! As long as you contribute to the society you moved into and pose no harm to anyone, who cares about what big man in the sky you worship or whether you want to blend with the local culture?
 
I think that in this case, it a religion based. However, I do not think that it is right to force assimilate children into a new religion for 25 hours a week since they turn one.
People call everything racist these days, whether or not it has anything to do with race.
True, the wealthier you are the better you are accepted by the community, considering that everything costs money. The better you speak the language of the country the more you will adapt to the culture.
However, a person who is capable of doing his degree in English and then gets a job in a western country does not necessarily assimilate into the local culture. This person may still hold strong believes in his or her religion.
I will give you an example. There are plenty of south Asian people who migrated to western countries. They take their religion very seriously. However, on a national scale, I have not heard of the government using force assimilation to give up their religion.
Not all South Asians are wealthy. If you talking about skin colour, some of them are as dark as Africans or even darker than some.
I don't understand where you got the notion that this is about forcing to assimilate another religion 25 hours per week.
I don't know what they will teach those 25 hours. I hope they will broaden the minds of these children.
But nowhere I read they are forced to give up the religion their parents chose to force upon them.

Once again I must conclude that this article was written in a very suggestive way.
The purpose is to impose a biassed view on the matter.
 
@Minty, I am the kind of person that doesn't always look for underhanded reasons for things. What if they are simply trying to make the children feel more welcomed and help them to succeed in their new country. Teach them required behavior in classrooms, and help them learn the language so that they can understand their teachers, and to meet other children their ages. Simple things like the fact that a biscuit is a cookie (like my nephew who moved from Dallas, Texas to England where he went to the lunchroom for a couple of months and didn't know the lunch lady was asking if he wanted a cookie). Maybe they will help them get clothing that will be appropriate for the weather conditions. This is a strange new land they have been thrown into and a little help might go a long way.
 
Sharia law seems to be the eventual systemic "breaker" for complete integration/assimilation/societal acceptance. I don't know of a Muslim population on earth that doesn't begin to see sharia openly enforced when Islam is 15% or more of population.


If only there was a way to confer a group of beliefs population-wide that allows for all who want it to practice love for one another, to show forgiveness, to express grace … but without the innate unfairness linked To sharia law. A group of beliefs that could serve as the foundational bedrock to successful societies that could last for hundreds, or maybe even thousands of years.
 
Last edited:
Denmark's new laws for immigrants in "ghettos"

There are Little Italies in many cities, I was not taking about NYC.

You didn’t say which one, and by not being specific most people think of the most famous Little Italy in Manhattan.
Also in Boston for example it’s just called The North End, and not Little Italy (by almost everybody).
 
Children from “ghetto” areas will have to attend obligatory daycare for 25 hours or more a week from the age of 1, so that they learn “Danish values” and traditions.

This means that migrant children from selected neighborhoods will spend 5 hours a day at a daycare center, learning Danish values. Muslim parents should take this opportunity to get free education for their children. Probably they will end up speaking better Danish than their parents and they may become more economically or academically successful later in life. Early childhood education is a privilege that is normally available for wealthy families only.
 
Nothing wrong with mandating daycare. It may perhaps improve the Danish of the children, although any time before around 12 you usually soak it up like a sponge. Given all the studies that have been done in the U.S., academic achievement depends on the IQ of the parents and the home environment, so, some of the kids will benefit and some won't. I wouldn't be expecting miracles.

I don't even disapprove of curfews. We have them in certain American cities. A lot of parents are actually grateful.

Some of the proposed but not approved (yet, perhaps) measures are totally out of line. So is instruction in "Christmas", other than explaining what it is.
 
nobody said there are no good, hardworking Muslims
I told twice above that those Muslims in these 'ghetto's' that don't integrate are a minority amongst the immigants
but they do exist
and there is worse
there are Whahabi imams in Europe sponsered and paid by the Saudi government to teach an extremist form of Islam
most of them are identified by now and expelled or being expelled though
there has been an almost criminal naïvity toward Islam in Europe for the last few decades
and that naïvity came from mostly leftist politicians that were in power during that period
yaaaah .. but I was told by my government that we do not sponsor any sort of extremism anywhere, oh my was I being lied to ? how dare they.
Look, this has always been said about the Saudi government, but when I look at the princes, and how irreligious, material and hedonist they've become, most liberal movements and reforms are sponsored by them, their forefathers were probably true extremists, or used religion to legitimize their rule, but the consequences that had on the minds of succeeding generations of Saudis, seems to be an unwanted side effect that the current government wishes weren't the case, with no future for oil anymore, they want the country to look attractive to investment and tourism, well, good luck on that.
If it was left to the common folk and democracy, some sheikh would brainwash some idiots, and we'll transform into a theocracy, and hopefully a peaceful one.
If any funding for extremists comes from the Arabian peninsula, I don't blame the government, but other rich religious extremists, in the kingdom and elsewhere.
there is still the probability that I'm an idiot, and wrong about all this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why don't the Danes let the Muslims know how they really feel about Islam and just mandate the eating of pork by all Muslims three times a day and ban burqas and prayer mats.

We just banned burkas and niqab in public - effective of today :)
 
yaaaah .. but I was told by my government that we do not sponsor any sort of extremism anywhere, oh my was I being lied to ? how dare they.
Look, this has always been said about the Saudi government, but when I look at the princes, and how irreligious, material and hedonist they've become, most liberal movements and reforms are sponsored by them, their forefathers were probably true extremists, or used religion to legitimize their rule, but the consequences that had on the minds of succeeding generations of Saudis, seems to be an unwanted side effect that the current government wishes weren't the case, with no future for oil anymore, they want the country to look attractive to investment and tourism, well, good luck on that.
If it was left to the common folk and democracy, some sheikh would brainwash some idiots, and we'll transform into a theocracy, and hopefully a peaceful one.
If any funding for extremists comes from the Arabian peninsula, I don't blame the government, but other rich religious extremists, in the kingdom and elsewhere.
there is still the probability that I'm an idiot, and wrong about all this.
Yes, imams preaching hatred and Muslim supremacy were sponsored by Saudi organisations in Belgium and Europe
that being said, Erdogan is trying to do the same now, but the way he is going, I guess he'll be out of resources soon

as for the Saudi royal family, I don't follow this closely, but my impression is that there is some hypocrisy involved in their behaviour
I am aware that they are not Muslim fundamentalists, maybe not even Muslims, at least most of them
but they are well aware of the power of imams and Muslim preachers on the Saudi population
and they have to appear as devote Muslims to their subjects in order to legitamise their own position

is my impression correct?

there is a new king now? he did have the ambition to reform? how is he doing?
 
Goodness knows that I've been a proponent for better integration of immigrants from third world countries, but this sounds draconian. I could never support this: taking children away from their parents for 25 hours a week, mandatory instruction in "Christmas and Easter", etc.

Is this true, and if it is, would the EU have any say?

See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/world/europe/denmark-immigrant-ghettos.html

I've read the proposals, and I've spoken to Danish friends, and I must agree with the people who say the NYT article is slanted. It seems written to leave an incorrect impression and leaves out several relevant points.

Danish kindergarten / pre-school is heavily prioritized in Denmark. Apparently the Danish teachers for the age group have the highest pay in the world. Close to 90 % of parents in Denmark the 20 - 44 age group take advantage of it. I am told the people who do not are immigrants and the very rich who employ private teachers and childminders. This does not mean that no immigrants or wealthy use the public options, but that the 10 % who do not are mainly composed of these groups. About 40 % of immigrants use the daycare, rising to over 60 for pre-school.

At age seven, the start of compulsory school in Denmark, 30 % of the born-in-Denmark children of non-western immigrants have great difficulties following the education or interacting with the other children due to lack of sufficient Danish.

And consider the situation of these children. Not only do they have difficulties following the teaching, and talking to the other pupils, at age seven their peers have already been in education for years. Their initial experience of school is that its something they lose at. At age seven, these kids futures are massively screwed. I was very surprised to learn that at age sixteen, only two thirds of them are classed as educationally challenged. So one in three manage to claw their way screamingly into adequacy or higher. And two in three don't.

The children in kindergarten do not get "indoctrinated in Christmas" or anything like that. They get the same teaching as all the other children. This may include information about the holidays practiced in the country they live. Do other nations childcare and preschool not mention national holidays?

The proposal is bundled with a lot of other proposals to make sure the number of non-Danish speakers in any childcare institution or school do not get too high.

And the parents who decide not to send their children to preschool do not lose their basic welfare money. The only consequence here for them here is losing a bonus welfare stipend that they get over and above what ethnic Danes get. It is an integration stipend for immigrants who want to make an effort to integrate in the society they live in. As I understand it, it is a new development that this can be suspended if the recipient do not seem to keep up their end.

So to answer the OP: No it is not true in the form it is presented. The summary is, immigrants to Denmark who live in areas of special concern, can lose the extra money they get to help them integrate if they chose not to send their children to the country's highly funded preschool/childcare system. If their children do participate, they get exactly the same lessons as any other Dane, including the Royals who did use the public system. The proposal, if passed, will have no effect on anyone who do not live inn the special concern areas, anyone who has chosen not to take the integration stipend or anyone who is not on welfare.

From what I remember of the report, there is the verbal equivalent of a Venn diagram: Of Danish-born children whose parents are on welfare, who live in high-crime areas with high unemployment where Danish is a minority language, who at age seven speak poor to little Danish, and have missed preschool a higher than normal percentage do badly in life. This proposal seem targeted at the center of the Venn diagram without affecting those who don't tick many of those boxes.
 

This thread has been viewed 30830 times.

Back
Top