Japan's immigration laws are actually softer than America's for skilled workers. They just happen to have low levels of immigration because fewer people want to come, and many who do come decide not to stay because the language and customs are difficult. In Japan it's not so much policy that is responsible for low levels of foreign migration but rather social barriers and other disincentives (work culture, isolation, limited space, etc)
Taiwan's immigration system is quite open. It's similar to Canada or Australia in terms of ease of immigration, and the government is pro-multiculturalism. But their percentage of immigrants remains quite small
Is this still the case? I remember seeing figures for recent immigration to Japan and they seem to be really high. Japan seems to mostly receive immigrants from Vietnam, China and the Philippines.
About one eighth of Tokyo residents are foreign born (although most are expats and guest workers, not immigrants). So, it's higher than before but lower than in most Western countries. In Japan nationally it's only about 2% who are foreign born. When I was in Tokyo earlier this year, I noticed a lot of Indian and Turkish small business owners, and there was a Pakistani festival at Ueno Park. For comparison, France and the US are about 15% foreign born nationally and Australia's 30%.
Right, Japan's historical or long-term immigrant population is still low, so the country is still homogeneous, but the recent influx of immigrants is starting to get really high, and the same seems to be happening in South Korea. It just seems unlikely that immigration restrictionists in the West will be able to keep pointing to Japan and South Korea as examples of low or near-zero immigration for much longer.
It will be interesting to see how Japan and South Korea deal with increasing ethnic diversity and any issues that immigration causes. One advantage is that the types of immigrants these countries are receiving tend to have low crime and high employment rates, another advantage is that it seems unlikely that East Asian elites will not be pragmatic about immigration, and stop or change direction as things develop. The problem in the West is the lack of pragmatism on this issue.
Oliver Jia's written on how even though Japan has more immigration, it remains stricter than most Western countries (https://www.foreignperspectives.net/p/why-japan-wont-repeat-the-wests-mistakes?utm_source=publication-search). So, I think conservatives will still point to it as a model. I live in Korea and am half-Korean, and Korea also has few immigrants. We have expats and guest workers who tend to get exploited, and many are ethnic Koreans from other countries. Neither Korea nor Japan has birthright citizenship, and Japan doesn't allow dual citizenship, so they might be able to prevent large-scale immigration indefinitely and instead just temporarily import young workers. The reason neither will ever have Western levels of immigration is that the languages aren't widely taught and the customs (especially in Japan) are hard to learn
I use the word immigrant to refer to naturalized citizens, and there are some who've made it into politics, such as this Uygur member of the Diet (as well as second gens like Renho). Miss Japan this year was a Ukrainian immigrant (though she was later disqualified due to a scandal). However, people know that Japanese is also an ethnicity, so they still feel the difference between the natives and the naturalized (and their kids). Since the proportion of immigrants is small and mostly Asian, it only takes a generation of intermarriage to make them indistinguishable
Yes, these are important distinctions in how countries deal with immigration. Unlike Western countries, countries like Japan and South Korea actually deport illegal immigrants, and they do not grant permanent residency much less citizenship to any and all culturally incompatible aliens who manage to set foot in the country.
All that said, there is a trend of increasing immigration to Japan and South Korea and they can always relax laws in the future, but East Asian elites tend to be more pragmatic, so East Asian countries will probably not make the same mistakes that Western countries did.
I'm not sure that language and customs are much of a barrier to mass migration in the long-term though, at least for modern industrialized countries. Swedish is not well known outside of Sweden, nor are Swedish customs, and yet, this has not stopped mass migration of Muslims and Africans to Sweden, the same is true for most European countries. Only a few European countries have languages that are known by many millions in the Global South.
Geographical distance is something that seems to matter though, so the US is lucky not to be neighbors of Africa and the Middle East, something that Japan and South Korea also benefit from.
I think language will remain a significant barrier. Most immigrants in Sweden use English to communicate, and Swedish is pretty easy to learn if you already know English. Japanese and Korean are difficult to master since they're both language isolates. Korea and Japan both have some of the lowest levels of English proficiency in the developed world. Beyond that, Japan in particular has so many customs, unwritten rules, and nonverbal forms of communication that lots of people who relocate there leave after a couple years. Not all East Asian countries have the same standards as Korea and Japan. Taiwan basically has a Western immigration policy. In Taiwan you can be naturalized more easily than in the US, and the island embraces multiculturalism. Long-term it probably wouldn't make sense for Korea or Japan to open to immigration because they both need young people, and immigrants will just age if they stay. It would be best to just import youth for five or so years then send them back, especially as automation advances
"Israel has an immigration policy explicitly aimed at strengthening the Jewish majority,"
Yes in a broad sense but No in a narrow sense. In a broad sense, one can indeed argue that most immigrants to Israel are a part of the enlarged Jewish family. In a narrow sense, however, it is worth pointing out that most immigrants to Israel are not halakhically Jewish.
The issue that I see here, is that while in Europe I'd very much be a restrictionist towards Muslims and Africans, I really don't feel all too negatively about Latin Americans coming to the US in huge numbers and indeed think that we should compensate for this by accepting many more global cognitive elites, not by making immigration to the US much harder for Latin Americans.
Latinos in Europe tend to be more selected than in the US, but yeah, even in the US, Latinos are just much better immigrants than African and Muslim immigrants in Europe. Regardless of what you think the US should do about Latino immigrants, even if you think the US should restrict them, which I don't think is an unreasonable position, it's just undeniable that they are much less of a problem than Africans and Muslims in Europe, and much more integrable because they just have much more in common with Westerners culturally. US Latino immigrants also have a very high intermarriage rate with White Americans, so it's only a matter of time before they are absorbed, same goes for Asian immigrants by the way. A good reason to limit immigration to the US is to let such absorption happen faster.
The fact that Denmark is very rich, even by European standards, and also small, is probably part of what allows the country to have mass migration that is primarily coming from other European countries. One has to wonder about the sustainability of this in the long-term. Of course, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands are also all rich and small, and yet, they have managed to significantly hurt their countries with mass migration of terrible sources of immigration, and larger countries like the UK and Germany used to have more European dominated immigrants. It is also worth mentioning that native Danish people have equal or higher TFR than immigrants.
Another thing worth emphasizing about immigrants to Denmark, and which is shown here, is that the majority of non-European immigrants to Denmark are Indians, East Asians, Hispanics, Filipinos, Vietnamese and Thais, and all of these immigrants are much better and much more integrable than Muslims and Africans, whether due to selection and/or just the characteristics of the native countries.
Also, the fact that Danes seem happy with the state of their country, and that the immigration restrictionist parties in Denmark seem to continue to complain mostly about Muslim and African immigrants, should tell you that people upset about immigration are really mostly upset about bad immigrants. Liberals/leftists have this bizarre idea that all immigrants are the same and that objection to immigration is irrational or whatever, but nothing could be further from the truth, people in the West are shockingly pro-immigration as long as immigrants are at least somewhat productive, law-abiding, and can be integrated and do not want to destroy their host societies. Look at the UK, for example. Look at the UK, for example. Would there be so much tension and the recent riots if immigrants to the UK were all like Ukrainians and Hong Kongers? My guess is no. One would think it's just common sense to give people what they want in terms of having better immigrants.
re: "The case of Denmark is all the more remarkable in that an anti-immigration turn among by center-left parties in most other Western countries would seem impossible." In Sweden, all it took was the understanding that they were going to lose the election. Now the Social Dremocrats are leading the discussion that 'multiculturalism has failed' and arguing that they will make the immigrants integrate even more, and even better than the right wing coalition. (Whether we believe them, of course, is the real question.) So -- I don't think that it is impossible at all. One turning factor in their thinking was discovering that many, many, many immigrants, whom they had long thought of as life-long Social Democrat voters, were voting right-wing, including the anti-immigrant Sverige Demokraterna. The big issue was violent crime. The immigrant population is quite rightly angry that the Social Democrats thought their 'ethnic identity' would bind them more tightly to criminals than the cross-ethnicity ties that law-abiding have with each other. People in various ghettos were not condemning the police for coming in and arresting so many of their co-ethnics, but rather for not coming in enough, and arresting more of them. Suddenly, being 'pro-violent-criminal' was not the political place to be.
We have stats on everything. Interpretation, though, that's the challenge. :)
The report you are looking for is: called _Shared participation – a study of integration and segregation based on voting in the 2022 general elections._ It came out last summer. 100 pages long, and all in Swedish, but google translate does a pretty good job.
But, with all things, a small committed minority often leads the way. In Sweden, reading things like this: https://amirpars.substack.com/p/farewell-sweden-my-beloved-country (this is written one year later, but it's handy) caused a lot of ethnic Swedes to start saying that there were desirable and undesirable immigrants, and we needed a way to sort the one from the other. Discovering schools and business which were recruiting stations for IS, and having Kurdish rap singers say things like 'I didn't come to Sweden to become a Swede' and openly mock Swedes for gullibility made people wonder if becoming the launching ground for every damned would-be overthrow of existing foreign regimes was really good for us. Just because you have identified some horrible oppressive state actor as 'the bad guys' doesn't automatically mean that those who oppose them are 'the good guys'. Sometimes, the result is 'same sort of sociopaths, just a different list of 'who is to be killed by the death squads'
You may also be interested in Inquisitive Bird's discussion of Criminality by country of origin -- only the first article, about Denmark, is up now but Sweden, Norway and Finland are coming -- https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/immigration-and-crime-denmark
That's not a straightforward thing to figure out, because 'race' is not a thing that is collected here. But in any case, it is silly to assume that it is the colour of your skin that matters -- Swedish citizens of Indian origin report a very different experience as immigrants than who came from Syria. Nigerian immigrants, who come here to study at our universities and then stay have a different experience than Somali refugees, many of whom are not even managing to complete grade school. There are a lot of factors which go into determining how well you integrate into Swedish society, though the chief barrier still remains 'do you even want to?', but racism from Swedes based on the colour of your skin does not seem to be a top one.
The key is to treat immigration as an economic policy. We select for immigrants most likely to make a contribution to the economy (with some margin for asylum seekers w/o asking abut contribution). Part of this however is how well institutions to promote "contributive" integration work. Apparently Denmark is doing both the selecting and the integrating well.
Good article, especially on the 'sources of immigration to Denmark' data. Though I'm not sure Denmark has really 'curbed' non-western immigration (except for middle-eastern refugees), considering the graphs are relatively flat since 2007. And scaled to a larger country like Britain or France even the figures just from south or central Asia would be equivalent to around 100,000 per year.
I would also look at absolute numbers of non-Western immigrants as a proportion of the population, rather than ranking western/non-western, because a small European country is likely to have more European immigration than a larger one. Then there's the question of what immigration means i.e. is it temporary and does it lead to citizenship.
I wrote a very similar article recently and came to similar conclusions as you, Denmark is not radically different from other Western countries, but the numbers are low for a Western country and it does show an example of a better way to manage things: https://www.willsolfiac.com/p/getting-to-denmark-on-immigration
There is a kind of tipping point where an immigrant community is so large that trying to win it over electorally is seen as a better path then trying to appeal to restrictionists.
At the same time most people believe propaganda about immigration unless they have personally encountered it. So you need say a critical mass of MENA immigrants for people to experience the effect and decide to reject it, but this has to occur before they become too unassailable a voting block.
Denmark I think benefited from being able to see the negative effect of MENA immigrants on other European countries and act before they were too big of a constituency in Denmark.
I don't have full stats but top foreign residents in Sweden include 1) Syrians 2) Iraqis 5) Iranians 6) Somalians 7) Afghans 11) Turks 12) Eritreans. So almost certainly a much higher proportion of MENAT and SS Africa.
Only if European and several generations go by. I hope to see Denmark stay Danish and European and don’t care about ‘elite human capita’ or ‘what is good for the economy.’
Japan's immigration laws are actually softer than America's for skilled workers. They just happen to have low levels of immigration because fewer people want to come, and many who do come decide not to stay because the language and customs are difficult. In Japan it's not so much policy that is responsible for low levels of foreign migration but rather social barriers and other disincentives (work culture, isolation, limited space, etc)
Taiwan's immigration system is quite open. It's similar to Canada or Australia in terms of ease of immigration, and the government is pro-multiculturalism. But their percentage of immigrants remains quite small
Is this still the case? I remember seeing figures for recent immigration to Japan and they seem to be really high. Japan seems to mostly receive immigrants from Vietnam, China and the Philippines.
About one eighth of Tokyo residents are foreign born (although most are expats and guest workers, not immigrants). So, it's higher than before but lower than in most Western countries. In Japan nationally it's only about 2% who are foreign born. When I was in Tokyo earlier this year, I noticed a lot of Indian and Turkish small business owners, and there was a Pakistani festival at Ueno Park. For comparison, France and the US are about 15% foreign born nationally and Australia's 30%.
Right, Japan's historical or long-term immigrant population is still low, so the country is still homogeneous, but the recent influx of immigrants is starting to get really high, and the same seems to be happening in South Korea. It just seems unlikely that immigration restrictionists in the West will be able to keep pointing to Japan and South Korea as examples of low or near-zero immigration for much longer.
It will be interesting to see how Japan and South Korea deal with increasing ethnic diversity and any issues that immigration causes. One advantage is that the types of immigrants these countries are receiving tend to have low crime and high employment rates, another advantage is that it seems unlikely that East Asian elites will not be pragmatic about immigration, and stop or change direction as things develop. The problem in the West is the lack of pragmatism on this issue.
Oliver Jia's written on how even though Japan has more immigration, it remains stricter than most Western countries (https://www.foreignperspectives.net/p/why-japan-wont-repeat-the-wests-mistakes?utm_source=publication-search). So, I think conservatives will still point to it as a model. I live in Korea and am half-Korean, and Korea also has few immigrants. We have expats and guest workers who tend to get exploited, and many are ethnic Koreans from other countries. Neither Korea nor Japan has birthright citizenship, and Japan doesn't allow dual citizenship, so they might be able to prevent large-scale immigration indefinitely and instead just temporarily import young workers. The reason neither will ever have Western levels of immigration is that the languages aren't widely taught and the customs (especially in Japan) are hard to learn
I did see there was an Indian politician elected in Japan. Do non-Japanese immigrants eventually come to be considered Japanese?
I use the word immigrant to refer to naturalized citizens, and there are some who've made it into politics, such as this Uygur member of the Diet (as well as second gens like Renho). Miss Japan this year was a Ukrainian immigrant (though she was later disqualified due to a scandal). However, people know that Japanese is also an ethnicity, so they still feel the difference between the natives and the naturalized (and their kids). Since the proportion of immigrants is small and mostly Asian, it only takes a generation of intermarriage to make them indistinguishable
Yes, these are important distinctions in how countries deal with immigration. Unlike Western countries, countries like Japan and South Korea actually deport illegal immigrants, and they do not grant permanent residency much less citizenship to any and all culturally incompatible aliens who manage to set foot in the country.
All that said, there is a trend of increasing immigration to Japan and South Korea and they can always relax laws in the future, but East Asian elites tend to be more pragmatic, so East Asian countries will probably not make the same mistakes that Western countries did.
I'm not sure that language and customs are much of a barrier to mass migration in the long-term though, at least for modern industrialized countries. Swedish is not well known outside of Sweden, nor are Swedish customs, and yet, this has not stopped mass migration of Muslims and Africans to Sweden, the same is true for most European countries. Only a few European countries have languages that are known by many millions in the Global South.
Geographical distance is something that seems to matter though, so the US is lucky not to be neighbors of Africa and the Middle East, something that Japan and South Korea also benefit from.
Seems like with cultural compatibility, the US still got a much better deal for its working-class immigrants relative to Europe.
I think language will remain a significant barrier. Most immigrants in Sweden use English to communicate, and Swedish is pretty easy to learn if you already know English. Japanese and Korean are difficult to master since they're both language isolates. Korea and Japan both have some of the lowest levels of English proficiency in the developed world. Beyond that, Japan in particular has so many customs, unwritten rules, and nonverbal forms of communication that lots of people who relocate there leave after a couple years. Not all East Asian countries have the same standards as Korea and Japan. Taiwan basically has a Western immigration policy. In Taiwan you can be naturalized more easily than in the US, and the island embraces multiculturalism. Long-term it probably wouldn't make sense for Korea or Japan to open to immigration because they both need young people, and immigrants will just age if they stay. It would be best to just import youth for five or so years then send them back, especially as automation advances
"Israel has an immigration policy explicitly aimed at strengthening the Jewish majority,"
Yes in a broad sense but No in a narrow sense. In a broad sense, one can indeed argue that most immigrants to Israel are a part of the enlarged Jewish family. In a narrow sense, however, it is worth pointing out that most immigrants to Israel are not halakhically Jewish.
The issue that I see here, is that while in Europe I'd very much be a restrictionist towards Muslims and Africans, I really don't feel all too negatively about Latin Americans coming to the US in huge numbers and indeed think that we should compensate for this by accepting many more global cognitive elites, not by making immigration to the US much harder for Latin Americans.
Latinos in Europe tend to be more selected than in the US, but yeah, even in the US, Latinos are just much better immigrants than African and Muslim immigrants in Europe. Regardless of what you think the US should do about Latino immigrants, even if you think the US should restrict them, which I don't think is an unreasonable position, it's just undeniable that they are much less of a problem than Africans and Muslims in Europe, and much more integrable because they just have much more in common with Westerners culturally. US Latino immigrants also have a very high intermarriage rate with White Americans, so it's only a matter of time before they are absorbed, same goes for Asian immigrants by the way. A good reason to limit immigration to the US is to let such absorption happen faster.
The fact that Denmark is very rich, even by European standards, and also small, is probably part of what allows the country to have mass migration that is primarily coming from other European countries. One has to wonder about the sustainability of this in the long-term. Of course, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands are also all rich and small, and yet, they have managed to significantly hurt their countries with mass migration of terrible sources of immigration, and larger countries like the UK and Germany used to have more European dominated immigrants. It is also worth mentioning that native Danish people have equal or higher TFR than immigrants.
Another thing worth emphasizing about immigrants to Denmark, and which is shown here, is that the majority of non-European immigrants to Denmark are Indians, East Asians, Hispanics, Filipinos, Vietnamese and Thais, and all of these immigrants are much better and much more integrable than Muslims and Africans, whether due to selection and/or just the characteristics of the native countries.
Also, the fact that Danes seem happy with the state of their country, and that the immigration restrictionist parties in Denmark seem to continue to complain mostly about Muslim and African immigrants, should tell you that people upset about immigration are really mostly upset about bad immigrants. Liberals/leftists have this bizarre idea that all immigrants are the same and that objection to immigration is irrational or whatever, but nothing could be further from the truth, people in the West are shockingly pro-immigration as long as immigrants are at least somewhat productive, law-abiding, and can be integrated and do not want to destroy their host societies. Look at the UK, for example. Look at the UK, for example. Would there be so much tension and the recent riots if immigrants to the UK were all like Ukrainians and Hong Kongers? My guess is no. One would think it's just common sense to give people what they want in terms of having better immigrants.
re: "The case of Denmark is all the more remarkable in that an anti-immigration turn among by center-left parties in most other Western countries would seem impossible." In Sweden, all it took was the understanding that they were going to lose the election. Now the Social Dremocrats are leading the discussion that 'multiculturalism has failed' and arguing that they will make the immigrants integrate even more, and even better than the right wing coalition. (Whether we believe them, of course, is the real question.) So -- I don't think that it is impossible at all. One turning factor in their thinking was discovering that many, many, many immigrants, whom they had long thought of as life-long Social Democrat voters, were voting right-wing, including the anti-immigrant Sverige Demokraterna. The big issue was violent crime. The immigrant population is quite rightly angry that the Social Democrats thought their 'ethnic identity' would bind them more tightly to criminals than the cross-ethnicity ties that law-abiding have with each other. People in various ghettos were not condemning the police for coming in and arresting so many of their co-ethnics, but rather for not coming in enough, and arresting more of them. Suddenly, being 'pro-violent-criminal' was not the political place to be.
Are there stats on ethnic minorities' voter preferences in Sweden?
We have stats on everything. Interpretation, though, that's the challenge. :)
The report you are looking for is: called _Shared participation – a study of integration and segregation based on voting in the 2022 general elections._ It came out last summer. 100 pages long, and all in Swedish, but google translate does a pretty good job.
https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/democracy/general-elections/general-elections-participation-survey/pong/publications/shared-participation--a-study-of-integration-and-segregation-based-on-voting-in-the-2022-general-elections/
But, with all things, a small committed minority often leads the way. In Sweden, reading things like this: https://amirpars.substack.com/p/farewell-sweden-my-beloved-country (this is written one year later, but it's handy) caused a lot of ethnic Swedes to start saying that there were desirable and undesirable immigrants, and we needed a way to sort the one from the other. Discovering schools and business which were recruiting stations for IS, and having Kurdish rap singers say things like 'I didn't come to Sweden to become a Swede' and openly mock Swedes for gullibility made people wonder if becoming the launching ground for every damned would-be overthrow of existing foreign regimes was really good for us. Just because you have identified some horrible oppressive state actor as 'the bad guys' doesn't automatically mean that those who oppose them are 'the good guys'. Sometimes, the result is 'same sort of sociopaths, just a different list of 'who is to be killed by the death squads'
Currently there aren't enough dangerous violent criminals in Denmark who are willing to commit crimes, so criminals are paying for 'young Swedes' to come and do so. The only English language coverage I can find of this is behind a paywall, but here it is in Danish, and again google translate does a good job. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/politiinspektoer-danske-kriminelle-bestiller-svenske-unge-under-18-til-goere-det
You may also be interested in Inquisitive Bird's discussion of Criminality by country of origin -- only the first article, about Denmark, is up now but Sweden, Norway and Finland are coming -- https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/immigration-and-crime-denmark
What share of POCs support right-wing parties?
That's not a straightforward thing to figure out, because 'race' is not a thing that is collected here. But in any case, it is silly to assume that it is the colour of your skin that matters -- Swedish citizens of Indian origin report a very different experience as immigrants than who came from Syria. Nigerian immigrants, who come here to study at our universities and then stay have a different experience than Somali refugees, many of whom are not even managing to complete grade school. There are a lot of factors which go into determining how well you integrate into Swedish society, though the chief barrier still remains 'do you even want to?', but racism from Swedes based on the colour of your skin does not seem to be a top one.
The key is to treat immigration as an economic policy. We select for immigrants most likely to make a contribution to the economy (with some margin for asylum seekers w/o asking abut contribution). Part of this however is how well institutions to promote "contributive" integration work. Apparently Denmark is doing both the selecting and the integrating well.
Every living creature "contributes" to the economy.
This is such a vacuous,dumbfuck definition.
You're an economist past your prime.
Almost surely surrounded by sycophants who never tell you how full of shit you actually are,in a very fuckin real way .
Must be nice.
You sound upset.
Sorry, I should've used"rectum sniffer" instead of sycophant.
I'm catching your disease.
You sound like a typical sycophant.
Good article, especially on the 'sources of immigration to Denmark' data. Though I'm not sure Denmark has really 'curbed' non-western immigration (except for middle-eastern refugees), considering the graphs are relatively flat since 2007. And scaled to a larger country like Britain or France even the figures just from south or central Asia would be equivalent to around 100,000 per year.
I would also look at absolute numbers of non-Western immigrants as a proportion of the population, rather than ranking western/non-western, because a small European country is likely to have more European immigration than a larger one. Then there's the question of what immigration means i.e. is it temporary and does it lead to citizenship.
I wrote a very similar article recently and came to similar conclusions as you, Denmark is not radically different from other Western countries, but the numbers are low for a Western country and it does show an example of a better way to manage things: https://www.willsolfiac.com/p/getting-to-denmark-on-immigration
Did you use this page to get the data for the 'sources' graph? https://www.statbank.dk/tabsel/236653
This https://m.statbank.dk/TableInfo/INDVAN?lang=en
The Chinese are happier with their democracy than the Danes are with theirs.
Interestingly, Beijing aims to match Denmark's Gini Coefficient by 2049.
Very interesting.
Again Europe doesn't really have an immigrant problem, it has an Arab problem.
There is a kind of tipping point where an immigrant community is so large that trying to win it over electorally is seen as a better path then trying to appeal to restrictionists.
At the same time most people believe propaganda about immigration unless they have personally encountered it. So you need say a critical mass of MENA immigrants for people to experience the effect and decide to reject it, but this has to occur before they become too unassailable a voting block.
Denmark I think benefited from being able to see the negative effect of MENA immigrants on other European countries and act before they were too big of a constituency in Denmark.
“Cumulatively, over 75% of immigration to Denmark is of Western or European origin, and 6.1% of Middle Eastern or African origin.”
What were the numbers like before the reform? And what are the numbers like in other Scandinavian countries?
I don't have full stats but top foreign residents in Sweden include 1) Syrians 2) Iraqis 5) Iranians 6) Somalians 7) Afghans 11) Turks 12) Eritreans. So almost certainly a much higher proportion of MENAT and SS Africa.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041828/sweden-foreign-born-population-origin/
Norway seems more similar to Denmark, though perhaps not quite as Europe/West-loaded: https://www.statista.com/statistics/587237/number-of-foreign-citizens-in-norway-by-region-of-origin/
Finland even less Europe/West-loaded (bear in mind these stats often include Turkey in "Europe"), though nothing like France: https://www.statista.com/statistics/521164/population-of-finland-by-region-of-origin/
Immigration is still too high but can be further reduced over time so that Denmark might remain Danish.
That can also be achieved by the immigrant becoming Danish. That is more complicated than just reducing the numbers.
Better. Less of a dumbfuck reply.
A little bit of your training apparently stuck around.
Only if European and several generations go by. I hope to see Denmark stay Danish and European and don’t care about ‘elite human capita’ or ‘what is good for the economy.’