The immigration debate in Western countries has become strangely narrow. Governments talk endlessly about how many migrants should be admitted each year, as though any number is acceptable as long as the spreadsheet balances. What almost never gets discussed — and what truly matters — is who we are bringing in, and whether they actually integrate into the society that welcomes them.
Denmark has just offered the world something rare in today’s climate:
honesty.
A recent breakdown of Danish data by country of origin — covering crime, fiscal contribution, education and employment — shows a truth that Western political elites refuse to confront. Migration outcomes differ dramatically depending on where people come from. And the differences aren’t subtle.
Migrants from Europe, East Asia and other advanced economies tend to integrate well: high employment, strong educational outcomes, minimal crime, and often a positive fiscal contribution. But migrants from Africa and the Middle East show persistently higher crime rates, lower employment, poorer educational attainment, and long-term negative effects on public finances. Even second-generation outcomes lag substantially.
These are not opinions. They are data.
And ignoring them doesn’t make them go away.
The following table shows "Violent Crime Conviction Rate in Denmark by Nation of Origin, 2010-2021". The red and orange bars show Middle Eastern and Other African migrants, highlightinh the significantly greater crime rate for these migrant groups.
The problem is not migration itself — it is the type of migration Western governments choose to pursue. We pretend all migrants are interchangeable, that backgrounds don’t matter, that culture is irrelevant, and that “assimilation” is an outdated concept. Meanwhile, the evidence shows that assimilation isn’t just desirable — it is essential. Without it, we don’t get multicultural harmony. We get parallel societies, rising welfare costs, entrenched disadvantage, and growing public resentment.
A serious country would look at this and ask hard questions:
-
Are certain migrant groups thriving, or consistently struggling?
-
Are the newcomers integrating into the host culture, or forming separate enclaves?
-
Are they contributing economically — or relying disproportionately on welfare?
-
Are crime rates rising or falling with each intake wave?
-
Are we strengthening social cohesion — or eroding it?
These are not “racist” questions.
They are the basic due-diligence questions any nation should ask when deciding who gets to join its society.
Yet much of the Western political class seems terrified to ask them — let alone answer them. They fear that acknowledging differences in outcomes may offend activists, voters, or their own ideological commitments. And so the debate is smothered under clichés about “diversity” and “vibrancy,” while the actual results of poorly targeted migration continue to accumulate in our school systems, police statistics, and welfare budgets.
Denmark at least has the courage to look.
Other countries should do the same.
Migration can be one of the greatest strengths of a nation — but only when it is selective, thoughtful, and grounded in reality rather than wishful thinking. A country has every right to prefer migrants who are likely to integrate, contribute and embrace civic values. And it has every right — indeed, every responsibility — to limit or reform migration flows that repeatedly produce negative outcomes.
Pretending all migration is equal doesn’t make us kinder. It makes us foolish.
If we want migration to work, to genuinely enrich society rather than divide it, then we need to have the discussion our leaders keep avoiding:
Who is succeeding? Who is struggling? And why are we ignoring the difference?
Until we confront those questions honestly, we will continue importing problems we cannot solve — and exporting the social cohesion we once took for granted.
If
No comments:
Post a Comment