Migration: It’s Not the Numbers — It’s the Outcomes That Matter

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migrants are interchangeable, that backgrounds don’t matter, that culture is irrelevant, and that “assimilation” is an outdated concept.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 

Time to jettison 'multiculturalism'

Europe provides a sobering lesson for Western societies besotted by the concept of 'multiculturalism'. The concept that all the cultures of this earth are basically equally acceptable, and that peaceful coexistence in the world will somehow materialize when all cultures are treated equally.

But all cultures are not the same! Over the centuries some cultures have totally transformed the lives of not only people in their own communities but through their worldwide influence most of the people of the world. What is called the 'Western world' evolved from the Judaeo-Christian faiths and values forged over time. Values including respect for the law, tolerance of diversity, and recognition of individual freedoms.

Western culture has extended lifespans, decreased poverty, educated the population and improved the security and individual freedom's of its communities. While Europe was building the modern world, most of the inhabitants of Africa, South America, Australasia were living much the same as they had for thousands of years in a cultural stagnation.

A recent video by Dinesh D'Souza of for Prager U demonstrates most emphatically that all cultures are not the same.

So what were the Europeans thinking when they accepted large numbers of migrants from a greatly different culture as migrants? No doubt they convinced themselves that education, welfare, and general exposure to European culture and values would quickly imbue the newcomers with these Western values. Alas the reality is far from this.

In his article "Merkel signals Ruin for Europe" in the Australian, Greg Sheridan provides some statistics indicating the lack of integration of these new migrants into their new Western host culture. He notes; -

• "in three million British households, no adult uses English as their main language.

• last year, in France, 33 per cent of high school students identified as Christian, while 25 per cent identified as Muslim.

• Only 22 per cent of Catholics say religion is important to them whereas more than 80 per cent of Muslims say ­religion is important to them.

• In 2008 a poll of British Muslims found that zero per cent thought homosexuality morally acceptable. A survey last year found 52 per cent of British Muslims thought homosexuality should be made ­illegal."

These are not signs that the new migrants have imbibed the wine of Western culture.

Sheridan concludes;

"in Douglas Murray’s brilliant new book,"The Strange Death of Europe". Murray starts with this bold assertion, “Europe is committing suicide”, and by the end of his 350 withering pages it is hard to disagree."

Europe's experience should be a warning to the rest of the Western world!

EOY reflections

looking back on the year just passed it is easy to get stuck in the short term crises on which the country spent much time. On greyhound racing, post election reflections, senate reform and One Nation selections, on 18C and Mediscare lies, domestic violence, and the use of 'guys'. Many of these held the us hostage for but a few days or weeks, then lapse into the background.

However one of the main themes throughout the year has once again been war and terrorism and the flood of asylum seekers be they refugees, or economic migrants into Europe. Multiple terror attacks in France and Belgium, a storm of sexual assaults in Germany, the closing of borders in Hungary, Greece, Italy in response to the mass migration have exposed the failure of the world to address the unraveling of law and order in the Middle Esat and North Africa.

It is a challenging time.

The Europe of old is being transformed and may never be the same again. Merkel, by her open-door policy has perhaps sealed its fate. Anit-immigrant sentiment is fertilizing the rise of nationalism and right of centre parties are back in favour. We know what that led to in the past. Perhaps not this time. But it highlights a moral dilemma for all leaders of Western democracies; "who is to receive priority, the citizens of the country they lead or the immigrants at the door?" What value do you give to preserving the culture and customs of the country you lead? Does its preservation deserve priority over suffering humanity? Opening the doors to large numbers of culturally different migrants will inevitably change the country and may well disadvantage its current citizens, but can you morally close your doors to those in need? In facing this dilemma Europe's leaders do not speak with one voice. It is straining the union and may well tear it apart.

Certainly it had a major impact on the Brexit decision, the first of the two major political cataclysms of the year. Despite all the predictions, despite the one-sided advocacy for the Bremain vote by the commentariat, despite most polls, the British voters did the unthinkable, they voted to leave the EU. It was and remains a surprise. The post-fact rationalizations are many and varied, but irrelevant. The picture is clear. A majority of voters decided that their future was better served without the EU. This clear rejection of the EU cannot be blamed on just a single issue, like immigration, although it no doubt had a part, but it is a judgement on the value and consequences of EU membership over decades. Having experienced the intrusion of EU into their daily lives Britons have decided they prefer to go it alone. The consequences are yet to be seen.

That brings me to the second political cataclysm of the year, the election of Trump. An arduous 18 month election carnival has resulted in one of the greatest upsets of all time, the election of a millionaire businessman with no political experience, and serious personality shortcomings to the most powerful position in the world. He has not yet taken his seat, yet his election has already changed everything. The air is filled with right wing elation and those who had been silent in the face of Obama's socialist agenda are out peddling their wares. The share-market too has shrugged off all negatives to ascend to heights never expected, especially after a Trump victory.

The appointment of the various cogs-of-state by the president-elect have received scrutiny and the predicable acclaim and critique from the supporting and opposing parties. Yet, the critiques by the democrats have not been as fervent as expected. Little surprise since the defeat in both houses means there is little they can really do about it. But also they are still busy trying to overturn the election of this 'unacceptable' president-elect. Mm do I recall the democrats complaining pre-emptively that democracy would be thwarted by a losing Trump? Clearly a case of pots calling the kettles black.

The ripples from the Brexti/Trump anti-establishment, anti-media, anti-norm are still spreading throughout the world and no doubt more counter-establishment upheavals will follow. In Aus too the Right is in the ascendant with a new bounce in their outspoken voices. I feel it too. While I have reservations, a lot of reservations about the unsavory and egotistical Trump, I have welcomed the home truths his election has confirmed; -

• The media is advocating rather than reporting, dictating rather than reflecting,
• the commentariat is one sided and fallible, 
• ALL people want to be represented in public discourse, ignore their needs nd they will turn on you. 

In short a direct "up-yours" to the establishment norms. It is a collective negation of order, sentiments usually reserved for the youthful. Yet of course it makes things less predictable, less orderly. Que Sera.

In Aus the political year started with such optimism and yet closes with such pessimism. The Turnbull government was riding high in the polls at the start of the year with plenty going for it, newly found poll success, a popular prime minister engaged in tax reform and an expansive economic agenda based on innovation.

Barely 12 months later, after an election that saw it lose its large majority, it faces a hostile senate with a larger number of unpredictable, populist senators and with no chance of passing its more important budgetary measures without debilitating amendments.

It highlights the serious problem with a multi-cameral system. How can the elected party govern when the senate can thwart all legislation. Yes I know this is a well worn argument and that despite this governments have managed in the past. Yes, but it is worse today, not only because of the number of cross-benchers, but due to the news cycle that elevates this motley crew into heroes, and especially so if they manage to exact some concession in an piece of high profile legislation, irrespective whether the concession is beneficial or not. Mr Hinch's intervention in the ABCC legislation is a prime and most disappointing example.

It is doubtful that such a senate will allow the deep cost cuts required for any reasonable balancing of our books. Yet Trumps' injection of confidence has raised the markets and this will help Aus's growth. Against all odds it may be Trump who saves us.

It has been a very full year with sufficient drama to fill many a reality show. Despite all our challenges, the sun is shining, and the Xmas slowdown beckons. I look forward to a break.

Thank you readers for the positive feedback and indeed all the feedback over the year. I hope I have kindled some debate out there.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and a healthy and peaceful 2017.