Danish Immigration 101 - According to Cathy

A warning from the start this is a rather long post, there is just so much to talk about when it comes to immigration issues in Denmark... Blame the Danish government for that! ;-)

If you watch the local news in Denmark on any given night you can be pretty sure there will be something in the topics of the day about immigration, foreigners, integration of immigrants or something in a similar vein. Immigrants are something like 5-6% of the population in Denmark and some 3-4% of immigrants are non-Western (non-Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, etc). The biggest groups of the non-Western country immigrants are from Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan. This part of the population (foreigners broadly) gets discussed A LOT here and to be honest I am not always sure what to make of those discussions. What follows in this post are my observations and reflections about some of the hot topics that have been in the news in the last say 9 months. I should say that this is just my opinion and surely many will argue that I am not right about many of these things, but this IS my blog so I can say what I want right? :-)

‘Ghettos’
In September and October the big topic was about ‘ghetto’ areas in Denmark. These are described as low income areas where there is high diversity among inhabitants, few green spaces, and in many cases higher crime than other areas. We have a few of these not so far from where we live.

According to Morten, the high rise apartment buildings in these ‘ghettos’ were originally built for worker families in the ‘60s with all the modern appliances but little in terms of gardens or parks. So many of them are real concrete jungles. Danish worker families didn’t want to live in such places once they had the financial ability to move somewhere else, so they became cheaper and cheaper and more and more the homes for poor immigrants.

In the news reports they always show how these ‘ghetto’ apartments all have satellite dishes so residents can get news and programs from their home countries which, although not often explicitly said, means from Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan and lets just say Muslim countries in general. This, according to the Danish People’s Party (the right wing nationalist party here) is bad bad bad for integration and some say even supports radicalism in these immigrant populations. The leader of this nationalist party actually proposed that such satellites should be banned in the ghettos... Yeah sure that’s gonna help integration right? I should note that this suggestion was not taken very seriously by the rest of the Danish political parties, so there is some balance here on these issues.

‘Integration’
Integration is a word buzz word that frequently comes up in discussions about foreigners. In some ways the focus on this word could be seen as some great idea or acceptance of the idea that foreigners actually CAN integrate here, something not really at all possible for example as a white person in a place like Japan. So in that sense the Danish focus on Integration and the only European country (as far as I know) with a ministry specifically including the word integration in its title (Ministry for Refugees, Immigrants and Integration of Denmark) might be seen as a great encouragement to foreign born residents in Denmark. Unfortunately, many of the policies that come out of this Ministry are anything but encouraging in my view (more on this below).

Personally I have some problems with this word, but I think it depends on how you see it. In my view ‘integration’ implies that in order to be a part of Danish society you need to shed the parts of you that belong to another culture or another set of values that does not nicely merge with Danish-ness. Admittedly, I am an idealist and I believe in the benefits and specialness of multi-culturalism. I think that growing up in the United States means that I have something different, and beneficial to offer in who I am, what I think, how I view the world that has emerged in me specifically because of how and where I have grown up. I don’t think it is beneficial to me (psychologically) or to society to abandon those things.

When I think of my time living in the US, particularly in San Francisco, I can say that my life was hugely enriched by having friends from Bangladesh, France, Japan, India etc. The wealth of cultural film festivals, cultural organizations from those focused on particular issues to those like the Anti-Arab Discrimination Committee to the Anti-FTAA groups, the neighborhoods with their own cultural character – all of those things add up to make San Francisco an amazing place. From these experiences with good friends from all over the world to my volunteer English teaching for illegal day worker migrants from Central America – I felt lucky to live in San Francisco and the opportunities that this cultural diversity offered to my daily life.

Another important part of the perspective I bring to this issue is the impact of my increasing understanding of how to manage conflict through my studies and current research, combining with my own experiences having lived in Japan, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, and now Denmark. What I can see is that many of the fundamental principles of conflict management are completely lacking in the public discourse on immigration issues in many of these places.

What do I mean by that? Well compare Denmark with Sweden and Germany for example with regard to the immigration issue. It is arguable that in Sweden and Germany the tough topics on the immigration issue in some ways have gotten pushed under the carpet for many years as taboo to discuss. There has existed some kind of, at least surface level, civility about these issues. The consequence of that after many years is that it is there is no more space to shove the frustrations of the native population under the carpet. Just last month Angela Merkel (Germany) declared that multi-culturalism had failed in Germany.

In Sweden for the first time ever a nationalist party, SverigeDemokraterna (a sister party to the Danish People’s Party) got enough votes to get seats in the Swedish parliament and the government coalition is now forced to work with them, giving them a lot of political voice even though they are not so great in number because they are essential to compose a majority. I even heard that one candidate running openly as a neo-Nazi candidate was elected from an area somewhere near Goteborg. Outside the political sphere has been the recent arrest of a man in Malmo area (not far from where I lived while in Sweden a few years ago) who is accused of shooting 15 persons of immigrant background over the last year, including one death.

That is one end of the spectrum, and from what I hear that is how it used to be in Denmark to some extent say 15 years ago, but then the Danish People’s Party arrived on the scene to represent the voice of Danes who had no other party to turn to with their frustrations and anger over the government’s immigration/integration policies. Now people seem to say whatever the hell they want, seemingly without giving a second thought to whether it is appropriate or not. These bold (and in my view often racism colored) statements, perhaps not surprisingly, ratchets up the conflict among different groups. The culmination of this was perhaps most apparent here several years ago during the Danish Cartoon situation. I was not here then but we discussed it a lot in my peace studies courses and among the Peace Fellows I studied with in Tokyo.

My conclusion is that Denmark and many European countries need to find a middle way. The immigration issue is now even more pressing with the fall out of the economic crisis lingering on far longer than anyone would like to see. Just like everywhere else in the world, such an economic situation puts pressures on immigrants who are viewed as taking much wanted/needed jobs from the native population. As such policies that are colored by the temporary down turn in the economy fuel the hasty development of policies to keep immigrants out... like the slew of new Danish 'point systems'

Permanent Residency in Denmark – Introverts Need Not Apply!
This topic of integration and immigration policy here in general is not just fascinating in an abstract sense, it of course has the potential to affect my life here. On a personal level my interaction with the Danish immigration authorities have been very positive. But it also helps that I am the ‘right kind of immigrant’, i.e. I am white, from a Western country, highly educated, and am making an effort to learn the language. I am also fortunate that I work in a highly diverse work environment at my department at University of Copenhagen, Forest and Landscape.

By being at the University I also have access to special office dedicated to helping foreign PhDs and researchers. A few weeks ago this office offered a special info meeting to present and discuss the changes in the Immigration law, specifically with regard to obtaining permanent residency. I am not eligible in this at this point but thought it useful to find out what its all about. Like many of the new policies for foreigners here a ‘point system’ has been developed to assess whether or not someone can apply for permanent residency (like a US green card). Most of the requirements are pretty standard, a minimum time period of residency in Denmark and most of that being as a legally employed tax payer, some level of Danish language skills, not having committed any crimes, etc. For these type of requirements, I think a point system is probably the Danish way to create some kind of transparency, and to some extent they can be quantified, as they are rather factual.

To apply for permanent residency one has to accrue at least 100 points in this rather complicated system. But one non-complicated part (at least in terms of the point requirement) is that you MUST to get 15 of your 100 points through demonstrating ‘active citizenship’. Ironically, this requirement cannot be replaced with anything else, but yet it is NOT clearly defined, even for those working in the immigration office! The idea behind it is that you need to participate in society, i.e. just going to and from work everyday, minding your own business, having kids, and paying your taxes is NOT enough. You MUST do something like serve on a volunteer association board, do some volunteer work, join a political organization for at least 1 year and be active. And you have to some how demonstrate that, although HOW to do that is not very clear either. Your own statements are apparently not enough, so some kind of letters from other volunteers about what work you have done? Maybe. The answer was not clear from the representative from the immigration office.

My interpretation of this abstract concept of 'active citizenship' that cannot be in any other way substituted is that if you want to apply for permanent residency in Denmark – You had better not be an Introvert!

Another ironic aspect of this requirement is that they plan to develop an 'active citizenship test' in the future, I can't even imagine what that will involve, sheesh!

ANOTHER Point System - Foreign Spouses wanting to be a house-husband or housewife need not apply

As I wrote above, many of the entry requirements for foreigners to Denmark are being synthesized into a number of ‘point systems’. There are at least 3 or 4 now: permanent residency, green card/right to be in DK longer than a tourist visa to look for work, etc. The newest point system is aimed at non-Danes who marry Danes and want to come to or stay in Denmark. The un-said targets of this new system are the spouses found via arranged marriage traditions for 2nd generation Danes with parents from Muslim countries who want to maintain that tradition and have the new spouse brought to Denmark. The system requires that non-Danish spouses must somehow get 60 points (I think) to come to Denmark legally. They must:
- Be over 24 years of age
- Have post-high school education
- Have work experience
- Have a high level of language skills in one of the Scandinavian languages (Norwegian, Swedish, or Danish) or in other European languages like English, French and maybe Spanish

This is all in addition to proving that your relationship has a stronger tie to Denmark than another country. I met a Danish guy who lived in China for several years and married a Chinese woman. They wanted to come to Denmark and she was not allowed in. They tried living in Sweden for a while to hopefully be able to get into DK at some point but the stress of the situation after several years ended up with them getting divorced... So that is a tough requirement too.

Getting enough points can happen in a number of combinations of the above requirements but I think the age thing is a hard rule. That rule was made several years ago (and has been criticized by the EU) to prevent parents from arranging marriages for their teenage kids. According to Morten, many of the young in the 2nd generation quietly expressed that they welcomed the rule because then though would not be forced into marriages they did not want, so maybe its not a bad thing, hard to say. Under the new point system those under 24 need to have double the points of those over 24... Over 24 requires I think 60 points, under 24 requires 120 points.

On the one hand I can understand the desire of the Danish government in wanting to have ‘the right kind’ of immigrants, i.e. those that are educated, able, and have a demonstrated willingness to work and therefore contribute to society through taxes at the very least. I also think that past experience has shown that many in the unsaid target group of this new system have come to Denmark and reaped disproportionately high benefits from the social welfare system. In the US, the welfare system I think is only for US citizens, my guess is that is not the case here and that as a legal spouse you have access to the social benefits the same as citizens do. So I can understand that concern.

But the policy does more than just attempt to keep out un-educated non-Western country immigrants from Muslim countries. Thai women that come and marry Danish farmers who have trouble finding Danish wives will also have a harder time getting into Denmark, and they are often not sucking money out of the social welfare system.

Further, in my view, what also underlies this point system is the expectation that a spouse (and in most cases this is referring to non-Danish wives) should work. In my view there is not a lot of respect here for the stay at home mom. Denmark and Sweden have some of the highest rates of women going back to full time work after having kids. But the laws that support the opportunity for women to have generous maternal leave and get back into jobs has become a cultural norm that women SHOULD go back to work... Otherwise maybe there is something wrong with you. It’s just weird if you don’t go back to work here. So those wanting to be stay at home moms, don’t marry a Dane. Or if you do make sure you are old enough, educated enough, and have worked or you are not likely to get the green light to come here.

I think there is also an underlying message in these point system requirements from the Danish government that highly educated, multi-lingual, people with work experience are the type of foreigners that Danes should want to marry. As such in my view this is some kind of mechanism to try to create a norm of what Danes should want if marrying a non-Dane and that I think is problematic.

Again, not all political parties here support this point system scheme for foreign spouses. Radikale Venstre for example had a protest in Aarhus over the weekend where Danes and non-Danes stood with placards indicated their points under the new system to show that many Danes would not qualify to live here under those requirements.

Some Conclusions
In my view, at the core of all these discussions is the issue of values, as is the case with many conflicts. To what extent are foreigners supposed to shed their home culture/values to ‘integrate’ in Denmark? And how much should Danish society accept diversity of lifestyles, religions, values, cultures? I can see both sides and I think the conversation is different here than in the US for many reasons but chief among them is that this is a welfare state (at least for now). And a welfare state can only hold together if there is a common understanding and commitment about what it means and how individuals reasonably extract benefits and contribute to that system. I contribute a lot to that system in high taxes that many Americans or Japanese would gasp at, and I think I get enough out of it for now. But the disproportionately high number of minority Danes and foreigners getting support from the social welfare system is a challenge to cope with, not just in Denmark but in many European countries.

I don't know all the answers and honestly I will be sad if the welfare state falls here, particularly the support and affordable access to post-secondary education. In my view paying high taxes so university can be free or low cost is a tremendous system that if I ever have kids here I would really want them to have access to. Perhaps a new government will make a difference, perhaps not. Denmark has some serious issues to take on, and focusing on immigration is a convenient one that results in a populist message to gain support from the older generation in particular in Denmark. But in my view this is taking the easy way out (as politicians are prone to do). The far bigger issues are things like the draining of the national budget by those taking early retirement, how to afford compliance with EU environmental laws, and how to develop a job market that will take in an increasingly large pool of job less educated young Danes - who worry for their future. But there is not much talk about that, and spending political time and energy on keeping immigrants out is not going to do much in the way of solving any of those things...