“The Effects of Immigration in Denmark”

The effects of large-scale immigration on developed societies has been a matter of heated debate for more than a century. Advocates of immigration cite the benefits of “new blood”, cultural diversity, mitigating the impact of a low birth rate and aging among the native population on social services funded by employment taxes, and claims of a better work ethic and entrepreneurial inclination among immigrant groups. Opponents argue immigration drives down wages in the employment market, especially for minorities and youth seeking entry, increases ethnic polarisation and strife, strips immigrants’ countries of origin of their intellectual élites, and imports a population with demonstrated high rates of crime in both their native countries and after arrival.

Both sides of this debate summon statistics to buttress their arguments, but in many cases the statistics are fuzzy and make it difficult to isolate individual effects. This is especially compounded in countries with a large rate of illegal immigration, which by its nature escapes statistical tracking.

“Inquisitive Bird”, writing on the Patterns in Humanity Substack site, notes that Scandinavian countries do an excellent job in tracking their population and its composition and behaviour, maintaining formal population registers which are accessible to researchers. In the 2023-02-17 post, “The Effects of Immigration in Denmark”, the Bird analyses Danish government reports, including “Immigrants’ net contribution to the public finances in 2018”, to tease out the actual effects of immigration and the immigrant population on Denmark.

Here is the average net financial contribution by age for 2018 for four components of the population.

For all groups, maximum net contribution occurs in the prime working years, with net expense during childhood and old age. But the magnitude varies dramatically with population group. Immigrants from Western countries perform only slightly below Danes, but those from MENAPT (Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan and Turkey) counties never become net contributors, even in their peak earning years.

But these figures do not take into account the age distribution among the different population segments, which varies substantially. Inquisitive Bird then age-adjusted the net contributions of both first-generation immigrants and their descendants for the various groups and found:

How about the connection between immigration and crime? Here, we need to scale the number of crimes committed by the proportion that a given group makes up of the overall population. In 2021, 71% of violent crimes were committed by those of Danish origin and 29% by immigrants and descendants, but immigrants and descendants made up only 14% of the population that year, so the rate of violent crime committed by immigrants was 2.5 times higher. Now, let’s break that down by Danes, Western Immigrants, and Non-Western immigrants, plotting rates of conviction, with native Danes normalised to 1.

As is well known, violent crimes are disproportionally committed by young males, so adjusting for the sex and age of those convicted, and zooming in on individual countries, allows comparison by the country of origin of immigrant population.

Violent crime conviction rates for immigrants in 2010–2021 by nation of origin expressed in multiples of the Danish conviction rate. Adjusted for differences in age and sex composition. Error bars are bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals.

Read the whole thing. Don’t you wish your country collected and published comparable statistics about its immigrant population, or that this kind of information informed immigration policy?


Around here, such would be considered “racist”. We don’t dare even mention when a black perp commits a crime; only white suspects are identified by race.


I am all but certain it would show the same, likely worse. It would also be vigorously suppressed and the authors/publishers destroyed.


Two odd factors from that data:

  1. The average Dane (of Danish origin) does not become a net financial contributor until about the age of 27. Anyone want to bet what that age would have been 100 years ago? My guess is 14.

  2. Immigrants to Denmark from the supposedly violence-prone USA commit violent crimes in Denmark at a rate about one quarter of the rate committed by residents of peaceful Denmark.


That’s because our criminal activity is highly concentrated to a specific segment of the country - which we are not suppose to name or discuss openly. Take out NYC, Chicago, New Orleans, Houston, and LA - and we end up with some of the lowest crime stats worldwide.

Americans are, by and large, a peaceful people. It’s welfare that turns some of us into crazy crooks.


Also, violent crime in the U.S. is largely committed by, shall we say, a demographic, which does not, for the most part, emigrate to European Union countries such as Denmark


Sweden is having a problem with a demographic who seem to think that free access to women is part of their immigrant’s right.
When I was in Norway (Oslo) I was propositioned by a demographic who wanted to sell me her sexual services.


It’s interesting to compare Serbia/Yugoslavia with Croatia: virtually the same language, genetically very similar. But Croatians are less violent than Finns - and Yugoslavians more violent than Kenyans or Ethiopians.

The difference is that Croatians and Serbs were the same people, with Serbs living under the Ottoman empire, and Croatians under the Hapsburg empire for half a millennium.

Culture matters, and culture lasts.

(you can also notice the difference between Hapsburg lands and Venetian islands of Dalmatia – and the dark red Muslim regions and the light red Orthodox Christian ones.)


“ The difference is that Croatians and Serbs were the same people, with Serbs living under the Ottoman empire, and Croatians under the Hapsburg empire for half a millennium.

Culture matters, and culture lasts”

You left out one small part. The Croatians lived happily under Austrian rule, willing to submit themselves to Austrian authority, while the Serbs did not do so under the Ottoman rule. So for 600 years the Serbs fought against Ottoman rule whilst the Croatians did not fight the Austrian rule. They only joined “Yugoslavia” because it allowed them to avoid war reparations - let’s not forget Croatia was on the German side in both world wars.

I would also question the graphic you put up. Being ”literate” in Serbian is far more easy than in English. There are no convoluted spelling rules, where “i is before e, except after c - except when it’s not”, nor 3 different ways to spell “to” (same sound, different meaning, a subtlety many Americans don’f seem to have grasped). One can be “literate” in Serbian without even knowing the language. Serb children are taught to read and write early - because it’s so easy.

And then there’s the date of the data - 1931. Not sure one can draw any rational decisions from data that old - including it’s accuracy.


The effects of culture, politics, and governance can persist long after the circumstances that created them have changed. East and West Germany after the re-unification provide a laboratory example of this: ethnically and linguistically identical populations which were unified prior to the post-World War II partition, with free movement and an integrated economy after re-unification in 1990.

Here, using 2013 data, 23 years after reunification, is the unemployment rate in Germany with the erstwhile Iron Curtain border superimposed.


From 2011, this is disposable income.


More charts and analysis are available in the 2014 Washington Post article, “The Berlin Wall fell 25 years ago, but Germany is still divided”.


Yes, thanks for your additions. To understand the level of repression in the Balkans under Ottoman rule, consider this tower built only a bit over 200 years ago out of almost 1000 skulls of soldiers:

Afterwards, the Ottomans, many of whom were of African heritage, were pillaging, impaling, and enslaving the local European population, well into 19th century.

This might come as a surprise to many Americans, used to black and white stereotypes.


Again, charts say one thing, reality says another.

It has long been true in West Germany that “work” was hard to come by, mostly because of the laws protecting workers. It was, therefore, much easier for WG’s to get “part time” work than a regular job. This has led to the emigration of a lot of German engineers and other specialties. Many went to South Africa, some to Argentina and Brazil, and some ended up coming here. Interestingly, despite this experience, most of them remained strong ”socialists”, consistently voting Democrat.

We had one such family in our Bible Study group. They decided to leave the Bible Study - because from time to time some of the rest of us might make some disparaging comment about Obummer.

So it is distinctly possible the difference in employment and spendable income are explainable in that the East Germans came into the “system” later, so there were fewer jobs available. Germany’s work force is not necessarily a friendly place if you have middle-class skills.


If they had retained a strong socialist mindset, maybe they were the establishment elite that lost the power with the fall of Communism, and preferred to go someplace where fewer people would know their past?

Another presentation of the quality of Ottoman/communist governance and its lasting effects:


Time to bring up in discussion the Hajnal line?

See, e.g. An HBD Summary of the Foundations of Modern Civilization | JayMan’s Blog (wordpress.com)


That might be a rational conclusion but the work force rules were in effect way before the unification. The German family I am familiar with came here in the 90’s - from Cape Town. They were my age, so the family must have left Germany some time in the early 80’s latest.

And Albania is considered THE most corrupt nation in the European “sphere”. Consider that their Head of State Department was stopped at a border in his Mercedes - because it turned out to be a stolen vehicle!


Fascinating read. But I’m not sure I agree with much of what is there.

The concept that New England was settled by Protestants from East Anglica while the South was settled by Cavaliers from West Essex is not new, and does, indeed, seem to have good evidence to support it. The South has remained fairly high in Scots-Irish for all these hundreds of years we’ve been a nation. Indeed, when you look at military breakdowns, the South has contributed beyond its expectations to the forces we’ve needed over the years. When I went through Basic School in Quantico, there were darn few Northern military academies represented, but VMA was all over the place.

OTOH, the mating systems in Europe, especially during the Middle Ages, were generally a reflection of power politics. Medieval castles were formidable structures, able to dominate significant areas around them. Marrying the daughter of one of these castle-holding lords, especially if he didn’t have any sons (or was in disfavour with whatever king was the local overlord) was a way to gain land and wealth, since women did not have much right to own or control land or power. So daughters - and castles - were traded like chips on a Monopoly game board. If you read The Greatest Knight by Thomas Asbridge, a book about the life of William Marshall (born somewhere about 1150’s or so), a lower level second son who rose to prominence via knightly prowess and attachment to the right people at the right time, you find great examples of just what I said.

I tend to be highly suspicious of statistical analyses. I hold to the old premise that “there are liars, damned liars, politicians, - and statistics”. There are uses for statistical exams, but this blog, interesting as it was, is to me a way too large a chunk of history and culture to submit for explanation to statistics. Just one example - the Visigoths swept down from the north and sacked Rome, including its many temples, etc. BUT they were, interestingly, Christians so they left the Christian churches, and the people sheltered within, alone. The Visigoths were hardly a minor blip on the radar. They were big enough to sweep down the Italian peninsula and take out Rome, not as mighty as it once was, but still a power.


Some of the high level observations regarding the structure of family formation on either side seem to be sufficiently general to where they ring true even today. The Hajnal line topic/theory popularity peak hit sometime around 2011-2013 (source)

1 Like

This is a strangler fig tree.

Inside this tree is a hollow space where a different tree stood.

The strangler fig’s seeds have made their way into the canopy of a host tree and germinated.

As the fig’s roots grow, they cascade down the trunk,

Once they are in the ground it competes for nutrients and water with the host.

Then it gradually tightens its grip around the host tree.

This process hinders the flow of water and nutrients, causing the host tree to weaken and eventually die.

Over time, the strangler fig takes over completely, once the process is complete, the original tree decomposes, a hollow centre is all that remains to mark its existence.



That’s not accurate. The host tree continues to try to grow larger but the strangler fig prevents it, which hinders the flow of water and nutrients.


Screenshot 2024-04-01 at 10.35.33 AM