How is the integration of refugees in Denmark going?

What does 'integration' mean?

There is no clear definition of the word when it is used about the adaptation of foreigners to a new country. In other contexts, integration means a mutual movement and adaptation between several elements in order to form a common whole. However, in a Danish context the word is generally used with the expectation that the foreigner will unilaterally adapt to Denmark, and not vice versa. The assessment of whether integration is successful actually reflects a desire for assimilation, which means a total adaptation towards a goal of the foreigner becoming exactly like a "native Dane".

Official Denmark has never wanted to become a multi-ethnic country, where the culture can gradually change according to the composition of the population. Double identity and affiliation with other cultures are considered negative. Even small practical adjustments to accommodate everyone, such as shower curtains in a public swimming pool or school holidays other than Protestant ones, are perceived as a threat to Danish culture. At the same time, a clear definition of “Danish values” does not exist.
 
When discussing integration in the Danish public, it is rarely Germans or Poles who are referred to. It is about people from countries outside the EU, and especially those from Muslim countries. The category “non-Western countries” is a Danish invention, which has even been subdivided recently: 'the MENAPT countries', which refer to countries with many Muslims. According to the committees against racism under both the Council of Europe and the UN, Denmark should abstain from using the very definition of ‘non-Western’, as it is discriminatory and stigmatizing. There is a perception in Denmark that people from these countries are reluctant to adapt and that the culture they bring with them is one-sidedly negative. The official EU only distinguishes between EU citizens and third-country nationals, including refugees.

In short, the vast majority of refugees fit in well, contribute positively to Danish society, and the differences between them and the Danish population are far smaller than most people think. There is progress on almost all measurable parameters, and 90% of the descendants live exactly like their Danish friends and neighbours. Descendants from refugees are even more likely to get an education than their Danish peers. You can find a description of the largest nationalities in the school book "…med rødder i udklandet" for free.

How can you measure integration?

In the Danish understanding, integration is a mixture of certain measurable, tangible elements such as having a job and certain very imprecise, difficult to define elements such as having democratic values. The individual person can meet some of the expectations but be miles away from others – for example, have their own company with a good income, but not speak Danish. Or be a member of the city council, but wear the hijab.

In 2012, the then government adopted 9 national goals for integration, and each year the goals are being measured. These include work, Danish language, education, independancy, active citizenship and crime. You can follow the development on the Integration Barometer. Despite the eternal mantra that integration has failed, progress is actually being made steadily on all goals – except for learning Danish and feeling included in society, where it has been stagnant. The status of the goals that cannot be read in register data is found through the Citizenship Survey, which has been conducted every year since 2012.

It is one thing which parameters are being measured, but the numbers can of course be interpreted and presented in different ways. The two Danish researchers Hans Lassen and Hjarn von Zernichow Borberg have both documented how successful immigration to Denmark actually has been – and that it is progressing, contrary to how most politicians and the media portray it. Hans Lassen calls the integration an overlooked mega-success, read the article he wrote for us in 2019 here.
 
In his book “Integration – all is well”, Borberg points out the tendency to talk about ‘a large part’ of a group though it is in fact often just a few people. He also mentions the Danish ‘100% self-understanding’, where one overlooks, for example, that approximately 7% of Danes do not support democracy and that many Danish women work part-time. Borberg also criticizes the tendency to see numbers as a sign of a special “culture”. If you look at the number of inmates per capita in prisons in the Nordic countries, you can interpret this as if Norway has a special crime culture, as they are 26% above the Nordic average. This is of course nonsense, and we are talking about only 77 people per 100,000 inhabitants.

Finally, the numbers often provide a snapshot that can be misleading because they compare people and groups with different starting points. A good example is that when Russia attacked Ukraine, the Ministry of Integration published a memo stating that the displaced Ukrainians would be easy to employ based on existing figures for selected nationalities, including Syrians. But the Ukrainians who were in Denmark before the war were here precisely because of a work permit, and therefore cannot be compared to Syrians who arrived as refugees.

Can the integration of refugees and migrants be compared?

Statistics Denmark only partially divides between refugees and migrants, but all refugees belong in the group "non-Western”, and some in the subgroup for the MENAPT countries.

In some respects, it is possible to equate the two groups, in others it is problematic and misleading. For example, it does not make sense to compare the proportion of disability retirement pensioners from Pakistan and Iraq. Pakistanis in Denmark are migrants, and Iraqis are refugees, some of whom have been granted humanitarian residence due to trauma and illness. There will naturally be more Iraqis than Pakistanis on early retirement pensions.

It must be remembered that the fundamental difference is that a refugee has been forced to leave her country and may never be able to return – a migrant has come voluntarily, usually because of special job opportunities or because of a Danish partner. Refugees have a right to be in Denmark, and cannot immediately be anywhere else – it is Denmark's responsibility to look after them. Furthermore, refugees have very often been exposed to traumatising experiences, both in their home country and on the journey, which particularly affects their ability to learn the language and to work negatively.

At the same time, the group of refugees contains large resources that are not being used. Most end up in unskilled jobs, even though many have both education and specialised experience from their home country. This is a great loss for both the individual and for Danish society.
 
The ability to integrate in a new country (read: assimilation) depends to a large extent on the person's resources and upbringing. The Danish requirements and goals do not take this into account when they expect low motivation and impose penalties for not meeting the goals. Refugees' backgrounds vary extremely: from the wealthy IT specialist from Tehran to the illiterate from a village in Congo without electricity. But the same requirements are made for both of them: to learn fluent Danish and to work at least 30 hours a week. The requirements cannot even be met by native Danes: even high school students with a Danish background fail the citizenship test, and many Danes support themselves at less than 30 hours a week.

Refugees' motivation to integrate can be complicated. On the one hand, many see Denmark as their new homeland, and cannot imagine ever returning to their homeland – this applies especially to young people. They also desperately need Danish citizenship because they can no longer use the one they were born with (or they are stateless). On the other hand, refugees have been forced to leave their homeland, and especially the elderly often have a deep longing and desire to return. The fact that they have ended up in Denmark is often accidental or directly against their will, and this can weaken their desire to adapt to Danish culture.

Developments over time

Initiatives and offers from the Danish authorities to strengthen integration have changed radically since the first refugees arrived in 1956 from Hungary. Throughout the 1990s, there were neither very many offers nor very many demands, and this resulted in many, especially women, not learning Danish and being stuck on cash benefits. Housing policy also meant that many refugees ended up in concrete construction sites together with the least resourceful Danes.

Over the past 25 years, there has been an increasing focus on getting refugees into the labor market and ensuring that everyone starts learning Danish. At the same time, refugees have been distributed in all municipalities in the country, with the largest cities sometimes being excluded, in order to mix the population better.

Civil society and municipalities have developed a number of projects, sometimes in collaboration with the business community, which have shown the way to a better reception of new refugees. Competence clarification, mentoring networks, job sector packages, wage subsidies, internships, homework cafes, IGU eduaction, volunteer communities... lots of initiatives have contributed, and this can be seen in the statistics. The relatively large number of new refugees who arrived in 2015-16 found work in record time, and all were taught Danish to the level that they were able to. A higher number is therefore not in itself a problem for integration, but economic conditions and effective reception are crucial.
 
Today, there are only 5% more refugees and non-Western immigrants on transfer income than Danes (27% and 32% respectively). Non-Western immigrants and descendants account for over 80% of the total increase in employment since 2009, even though they constitute less than 12% of all those of working age. In 2023, 79.9% of Danes were working, and 64.6% of non-Western immigrants and descendants.

If you calculate whether the individual citizen is an expense or contributes to society, then 82% of native Danes must be working to break even, whereas the figure is only 65% ​​for an adult immigrant – since society has not had expenses for them while they were children and young people (page 198 in Hjarn's book).Immigrants are thus closer to balancing financially than Danes.

The effect of strict rules and requirements

Along with the many good offers and incentives to learn Danish and to become self-sufficient and actively engage in society, a long series of requirements and restrictions have been implemented, which are often specifically targeted at refugees and non-Western immigrants. In practice, many refugees experience it as an eternal obstacle course, where you never reach the finish line, even if you do your best, because it will be moved, or tripwires are laid out.

Combined with the fact that people from the Middle East and Africa in particular regularly experience discrimination and hate speech, this has led to one in three people today considering moving away from Denmark. Currently, the same number of refugees are leaving Denmark as those who arrive and are granted a residence permit.

Some rules seem harsh at first glance, but have had positive effects, including the 24-year rule for spouse reunification, the forced visitation to the municipalities and mandatory Danish language course. Other rules have not had positive effects, but on the contrary have excluded the weakest in the group, and have limited rights and opportunities in a discriminatory way. This applies, among other things, to the high requirements for permanent residence and citizenship, the very short-term temporary residence permits, significant elements of the ghetto legislation and the special, low benefits for refugees. The latest measure is the work obligation, which is specifically aimed at non-Western women. It has been heavily criticised by researchers and by the municipalities, and according to the government's own calculations, it will be very expensive and have a very limited effect.
 
The number of refugees, especially women, who obtain permanent residence has dropped significantly, especially after the Danish language requirement was raised – and this has not led to more people completing Danish courses. Danish citizenship has become unattainable for a growing proportion of the population, including those born in Denmark, which weakens democracy. The short, temporary residence permits with a focus on repatriation have only led to very few actually losing their permits, but have increased the workload enormously for the immigration authorities and caused constant stress among refugees, not least children and young people. The low benefits have a very small impact on moving refugees into jobs (no effect at all for women), and in the long run they are an expense to society, because they lead to more children growing up in poverty with a consequent increased tendency towards unemployment, abuse, mental illness and crime.
 
Unfortunately, the Danish parliament rarely listens to experts and research, but legislates and speaks out based on gut feelings and populism. There is no evidence to suggest that a hard-line approach to refugee integration produces good results. On the contrary, research shows that positive incentives, support and individual adaptation are most effective, and that long-term up-skilling creates the best results. However, the topic suffers greatly from myths, such as women from non-Western countries not wanting to support themselves.

The paradox of the paradigm shift

The Danish ‘paradigm shift’ for refugees, which was introduced in two stages in 2015 and 2019, meant that the focus was shifted from long-term integration to the fastest possible return home. A dreamlike and unrealistic policy, because conditions in refugees' home countries rarely improve quickly – if ever – and because the attachment, which gradually increases during a refugee's stay in Denmark over time, gives the right to continued residence, secured by international conventions.

For the individual it means a life of constant nervousness and uncertainty about the future, when you can stay for a maximum of 2 years at a time, and the case is often under consideration for many months before each extension. It is difficult to see the point of learning Danish, getting an education, getting involved in society, raising one's children according to Danish traditions, etc. when you fear being kicked out at every moment.

For municipalities and businesses, short and temporary residence permits mean a weakened incentive to invest in education, training and long-term planning. At the same time, research shows that long-term investment in learning the Danish language and taking a Danish education are the two factors that provide the most secure connection to the labour market.

Denmark has a goal of pushing as many people as possible to get an education, and there is a shortage of specialised labor. At the same time, a Danish education is undoubtedly one of the things that contributes most effectively to integration: you strengthen your language, you gain a better understanding of society, you build social networks and you increase your chances of becoming self-sufficient. Therefore, it may be surprising that education is actually a barrier to obtaining permanent residence and later citizenship. Only full-time work counts – and you typically only get that after completing your education.

In many ways, the Danish parliament is currently working against successful integration. It creates stress and doubt by granting short, temporary residence permits and constantly talking about repatriation. It punishes young people for getting an education. It creates poverty, which in the long term is more expensive for society. It excludes a growing group from citizenship by setting rigid requirements that many will never be able to meet.