Middle Eastern immigrants are not (usually, relatively, on average) unproductive because of their skin color. They're unproductive because they suffer from a large language barrier, tend to have large families that use more government subsidies, are often traumatized by the conditions they escaped, have qualifications that are not recognized in Denmark and have to work menial jobs instead, face racism when they apply for jobs they are qualified for, etc.
> They're unproductive because they suffer from a large language barrier,
Immigrants everywhere come with a language barrier. If you live in the US, very probably your ancestors did. It's the same with every first generation from everywhere.
The barriers are not all the same.
Somebody moving from Norway or Sweden will have a much easier time picking up Danish. And European immigrants are highly likely to speak English, meaning they can communicate with Danes who speak English (virtually all of them) from day one.
You're really struggling to find problems. English is spoken all over the world - people all over the world learn it, in China, India ... places with completely unrelated languages.
I think it's both. I think race plays part in it because the trend follows with the descendants who often absorb (parts) of the culture. There's also not that much in their culture that would explain it, to me. In my experience they are often hard workers. It's very taboo to say, but there is difference between races.
Is it racist to say that there's difference between races?
DEI is important, specially Diversity. In order to have diversity, you need to have different cultures. Mass immigration erodes diversity. Diversity exists by having different nations with different cultures, not one culture everywhere.
And then their children turn out to be some of the most productive and contributory to a nation (in my experience), even despite some of the headwinds.
Perhaps in the US due to pre-selection, but in Europe the 2nd generation of those MENA migrants frequently becomes an even bigger burden to the host countries due to the former turning to criminal activities or radicalization.
"frequently" ... about as useful as my "in my experience", lol
Sorry, I don't buy that argument re: second generation. I've lived and seen it. Perhaps my lived experience isn't representative but I don't see second generation citizens turning to crime or radicalisation in huge numbers. I see them at work, and looking after their families. I fear the brush you are using is so broad as to, sorry, be useless.
Agreed. And the idea that you can call people criminals based on their ethnic heritage is plain racism - they are individuals who will themselves succeed or fail, be good or bad, just like individuals whose parents already lived in the country. Some of those people do bad things like promote hate and racial discrimination, but we can't say that about all of them; it's their individual choice and action.
"The study has faced criticism over its methodology, as it only studied rape convictions in Sweden. Experts point to the fact that just a small proportion of rapes in the country are reported to the authorities.
Jerzy Sarnecki, a criminologist at Stockholm University, dismissed the study as “meaningless” as it only examined figures for convicted rape.
“They’ve only looked at convicted people, and they make up a fraction of all rapists,” he told Swedish broadcaster SVT."
Even ignoring the above, I can think of many reasons, statistical and otherwise for the apparent difference. Perhaps you should try using your brain matter to do the same rather than just posting random links.
I repeat: I don't see second generation citizens turning to crime or radicalisation in huge numbers.
