Denmark vs U.S. — a valid comparison?

Some are looking towards Denmark as a model for re-setting immigration policy. That country has been in the forefront of center/left parties to approach immigration restriction. Both countries experienced immigration shocks: for Denmark, a wave of refugees in the 2010s; for the U.S. under Biden, a doubling of the annual number of new foreign-born. Here are what is different and what is similar in immigration.

In a speech to parliament, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen portraed Denmark as a high-trust society whose welfare, prosperity, and everyday functioning depend on mutual responsibility among citizens and institutions. She warns that this trust is eroding due to inequality, over-centralization, bureaucracy, and policy failures. Immigration is the most acute strain: failed integration, crime, and parallel communities weaken cohesion, while unfair generalization harms those who contribute positively. She advocates a stricter, more controlled immigration policy with clear expectations—work, law-abiding behavior, and cultural integration—alongside fairness toward successful immigrants. Her broader recommendations include rebuilding welfare, reducing bureaucratic micromanagement (“closeness reform”), strengthening local responsibility, investing in public services, and restoring honesty in politics to rebuild social trust and democratic confidence.

David Leonhardt in the NY Times drew upon Frederikson to express misgivings about Democratic acceptance of a high level of immigration:

“Immigration has often been chaotic, extralegal and more rapid than voters want. The citizens of Europe, the United States and other countries were never directly asked whether they wanted to admit millions more people, and they probably would have said no if the question had appeared on a ballot….Trump won in 2016 and 2024 partly by running on a platform of mass deportation. In Europe, the parties of the far right were long the only opponents of immigration, and they have been rewarded with large gains…..For progressives in the United States, Denmark may not be an especially comfortable exemplar. The cruel aspects of Trump’s immigration policy have understandably outraged many people. But in Germany and Sweden, politicians who once criticized Frederiksen’s approach have since begun to emulate it, and for center-left parties around the world, Denmark offers a glimpse at what a different version of the left can look like — more working-class, more community-focused and more restrictive on immigration.

Their experience with immigration in the past 40 years has been dramatically different:

Denmark’s foreign-born population in 1980 was 3% of the total; in2000: 6–7%; iin 2020; 10–11%. That is a 3 times-plus increase in 40 years.  30% of this population today are refugee households.

The U.S. foreign-born share of total population in 1980 was 6%; in 2000, 11%; in 2020, 14%, thus a doubling. 10-15% are refugee households – a much higher percentage was voluntary immigration.

What further distinguishes the United States from Denmark:

Historic large cities have a century’s experience in integrating large immigrant populations.. The voluntary immigrant population is more confident that hard work gets you ahead. They are more sure (70% to 47%) that their children will prosper. Many recent arrivals hew closely to American role model lives. More speak English, in part because more have learned some English before arrival. They more closely match native-born persons in educational attainment than when immigration spiked intensely in the 1980s.

Where it is similar is in small towns and states wit very low initial foregn-born populations. Expansion of the foreign-born population in the U.S has mirrors Denmark’s – from very low levels in the past – 1-2% in many counties – to much more, and rapidly. For the first 80 years of the 20th Century, immigrants settled along the coasts and the Mexican border. Since then, the immigrant population has risen from under 15 million to over 42 million. The immigrant share of adults has more than quadrupled in 232 counties.

Many foreign-born workers are in high risk jobs

Some jobs, such as logging, have relatively high fatality rate, but few workers. Other jobs are have a lot of workers, many foreign-born workers and many injuries.  Here is a list of six jobs with a lot of workers, a lot of foreign-born workers, and much higher than average injury rates. Many of the workers are unauthorized and their deportation causes a labor shortage. (Lost time injury rate is a useful rate to analyze injury risk.)

Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers.
3.0 million workers. 25% are foreign-born. Lost-time injury rate little more than three times the national average. The high rate reflects frequent lifting, repetitive strain, and handling of heavy materials.

Driver/Sales Workers and Truck Drivers.
3.3 million workers. 18% foreign-born. Lost-time injury rate roughly three times the national average. Injuries are commonly associated with vehicle incidents, loading and unloading freight, and overexertion.

Construction Laborers.
1.2 million workers. This occupation has one of the highest immigrant concentrations in the construction trades, with 28% of workers foreign-born. Lost-time injury rate two and a half times more hazardous than the national average. Typical injuries result from falls, heavy material handling, and the use of power tools and equipment.

Nursing, Psychiatric, and Home Health Aides.
3.6 million workers, making it one of the largest service occupations in the country. 27% are foreign-born, the share even higher in home-health services in many metropolitan areas. Lost-time injury rate more than three times the national average. Most injuries occur during patient handling and lifting, slips and falls, or workplace violence in healthcare settings.

Carpenters.
1.0 million workers 23% foreign-born. Lost-time injury rate two and a half times more dangerous than the national average. Injuries commonly result from falls from ladders or scaffolding, power-tool accidents, and repetitive physical strain.

Roofers.
Roofing is a smaller but highly hazardous occupation employing about 135,000 workers in the United States. 30% foreign-born, one of the highest shares among construction occupations. Lost-time injury rate nearly four times the national average. Roofing work combines fall hazards, heavy material handling, and exposure to extreme weather, making it one of the most injury-prone occupations in the American labor market.

 

Syrian refugees in Northern Europe

Roughly 6.8 million Syrians fled the country as refugees during the Assad years, on top of millions more displaced inside Syria. Since the regime’s fall in December 2024, about 1.2 million refugees have gone back to Syria, leaving over 5 million refugees still abroad. (here and here.)

I am concentrating here on northern Europe, as these countries offer the highest standard of living of all hosting countries and the experience there can be compared to that of refugees in the U.S. In Germany, the Syrian‑origin population peaked around 1.2 million. The UK peak was on the order of 40,000, mostly in London. Sweden received about 200,000 Syrian‑born residents at peak. The rest of Scandinavia and the Benelux countries received about 175,000. Thus, overall in northern Europe, around 1.6 million out of the total of 6.8 million.

We need to know how the outflow happened. Early on, early activists and civic leaders fled targeted persecution in 2011–2012. Many of them are skilled workers. A second, larger group escaped intense violence between 2012 and 2015.  A third group left after economic collapse and conscription risks. (Go here).

10% of practicing doctors in Germany are immigrants, and the largest share of these foreign born doctors are Syrians. They perform one role which foreign born doctors in the U.S. do, which is to work often in rural and under-served areas. For those with more limited formal skills, returning to Syria is complicated by the continuing unrest in the country.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) stated in January 2025 that “EU countries must not force Syrian refugees to return amid ongoing instability and political uncertainty in the country,” citing UNHCR advice against forced returns. (Go here.) It warned that rushing returns “would violate refugees’ rights and could create further instability.” Conditions in Syria “do not yet allow for safe, voluntary and dignified return on a large scale” and stresses that returns should “take place strictly on a voluntary basis, in line with the principle of non‑refoulement, standard of global refugee since the 1950s.

Germany has close about one million people of Syrian origin, but only a tiny fraction (on the order of a few thousand have actually returned. The chancellor has said there are “no longer any grounds for asylum” for Syrians and that “we can also begin with repatriations,”

Denmark is the northern European country that is most conspicuous in trying to induce return. It has reviewed protection for Syrians from areas it labels “safe” (Damascus, Rif Damascus, parts of the coast), withdrawn or not renewed status for dozens, and moved some people into return centers where they cannot work or study, creating what in the UK is called a “hostile environment.”

The source of top AI talent today

Nationality at birth of the top 25-30 global AI experts:  30–35% were born in the United States. Europe, roughly 25–30%; East Asia,  20–25%; South Asia, 5–10%. largely from India; rest of the world, 5–10%. About 60% of the top 25-20 reside in the U.S. today.

Top executives of major AI firms headquartered in the United States: 60–70% born in the United States. 15–20% in Europe, 5–10% in East Asia, 5% in South Asia. 5–10% elsewhere.

Of the top universities regarded as global leaders in AI, most are in the U.S. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, Carnegie Mellon University, University of California, Berkeley, and University of Washington. Outside the United States, major centers include University of Toronto in Canada, University of Oxford and University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, and Tsinghua University in China.

One way U.S. competes to attract foreign students

The Optional Practical Training (OPT) program allows international students to work temporarily in jobs related to their field of study as part of their training.  If the  U.S. wants to continue to attract STEM students from abroad, OPT must be kept viable. It is part of America’s dominance over international STEM education — which is slipping away due to competition by Chinese and English language higher ed elsewhere.

Created by regulation, participation rose from 25,000 in 2007 to 300,000 by 2024–2025. These are the numbers of international students actively enrolled in OPT.

It often functions as a bridge into long-term immigration. During OPT, graduates can work for U.S. employers and seek sponsorship for visas such as the H-1B, which in turn may lead to a green card. Half of H-1B visa holders with U.S. degrees previously participated in OPT.

.The impact on American college enrollment is substantial. About 56% of graduates from 2006–2022 participated in OPT, with much higher participation among advanced degree holders and STEM graduates. 68% of STEM graduates and more than two-thirds of PhD and master’s graduates entered the program.

Here is a summary of the program as presented on the website of Babson College.

The rest of the world, notably by English speaking countries, has grown its international student population very fast. Canada had in 2015 about 350,000 international students. Today it has about one million international students.  Meanwhile, international student enrollment in the U.S. marginally increased from one million to about 1.2 million.  (Go here.)

The program should be viewed in the context of the high presence of international students on campus in STEM education.. Over half of graduate students in engineering and computer science in U.S. universities are international. 72% of full-time graduate students in computer and Information sciences are foreign-born. Until recently the U.S. dominated global higher education in some STEM subjects

 

 

Continued labor shortage in seasonal farm workers

The Department of Labor published in the October 2, 2025 Federal Register its analysis and plans for the H-2A program – seasonal farm labor, for the most part. Farms typically hire workers, almost all from Mexico, for 5 – 8 months, with the season starting in earnest in April. The program attracts workers because they are paid about 10 times what they would get locally in Mexico.

DOL said that farms face persistent labor shortages, especially in labor-intensive, seasonal crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nursery production. It estimates that unauthorized labor  at 42% of crop workers. Trump wants to throw all of them out.

The DOL plan of October calls for more H-2A workers – but not enough. In 2010, about 75,000 workers came in under H-2A; in 2025, about 400,000. DOL predicts about 550,000 in 2030. The math is bad for farmers, even with DOL’s plans for more H-2A workers. That is because an expected rise in H-2A workers (which DOL says requires reforms in the program) is per DOL’s own figures going to make up for only half the unauthorized workers to be removed. The rest, presumably, will come from legal Hispanic workers who are experienced in this work. This suggests a tacit deal that ICE lay off mass deportation of farm workers.

In 2015, the minimum H-2A wage was roughly $11–12 per hour. In 2025 the weighted national average wage had risen $17–$18 per hour, with California near $20. The Dept of Labor expects H-2A wages to increase to $22–$24 per hour by 2030. The average median wage across all occupations in the Bakersfield-Delano labor market was probably about $18 in 2015 and about $25 in 2025.  The bulk of jobs held by Americans are year-round and indoors. Median wages in Mexican areas where H-2A workers come from are about $2 an hour.

Farms which use H-2A must provide free housing. Free housing costs the farm an effective cost of about $5 an hour. DOL plans to create a tiered system for wages. That will not eliminate the very high deferential. It will also create a larger gap between H-2A wages and prevailing wages of Americans in the same market area.

Refugees settlement now aimed almost exclusively for white South Africans

The Trump administration in 2025 set a limit of 7,500 for refugees for FY 2026, but it then set a monthly target of 4,500 white South Africkaner refugees — that is, a an annual target of about 50,000. Go here. Also, here is the executive order. Settlement in the U.S. appears to be done independently of establishee refugee settlement infrastructure, which the administration, as it attempted in the first Trump administration, seeks to destroy.

Criminal vs non criminal arrests

It has been well known that arrests by ICE of unauthorized persons have been trending towards persons without a criminal record. This report provides clear evidence of how that trend evolved in 2025. The report looks at arrests through October 2025.

In October, 2024, an average of 200 persons a day were taken by ICE from local jails or other lock ups, versus about 75 from worksites and other locations.  By October 2025, the average daily arrest rate for each hovered around 550.

Throughout, DHS was saying that it was detaining the “worst of the worst.” It could loosely back that up with the arrests from jails and from the probably extremely low numbers of persons with a lurid criminal background that ICE arrested on the streets.

However, the trends documented in this report indicate that to boost arrests from the 1,000 person a day level to much higher requires either more states to agree to allow coordination between local jails and ICE, or to arrest a lot more outside of jails. This is not news.

A question: does this history in any way imply in any reasonable way that unauthorized persons are relatively more criminal than authorized persons?  One can firmly say no – but there is one characteristic that should be recognized.  I do not have the figures before me now, but I believe that, at least perhaps 15 years ago, the unauthorized populations contained relatively more poor, young men – whose run-ins with the law are higher in American society.   The studies showing that the crime rate among unauthorized is lower than among others I trust – but also note that the demographics, at least in the past, might suggest otherwise.

Again, Drivers of global migration

The share of the world’s population living outside one’s native country has grown from  2.3% in 1970 to 3.7% today.   The number of persons born in India who live in the U.S. from from 51,000 in 1970 to about 3 million today. Both trends show the impact of access to and costs of transportation, communications, finance and higher education.  The impact of a global educated cohort on economies and societies is a core aspect of life today.

I addressed this topic in a 2022 posting on seven drivers of migration. Here is more meat on the bone, with India as a case study.

Transportation. Containerization reduced the cost of shipping goods by as much as 90% percent over several decades, linking labor markets more tightly to global demand and in the way creating a mobile skilled manufacturing work and entrepreneurial force.  A round-trip intercontinental airplane ticket that once represented a prohibitive share of income became affordable even for middle-income households in emerging economies. Migration no longer required a permanent break. It could be a real option, be repeated, and allow for circular / multi-country residence and work.

Financial infrastructure. The creation of SWIFT standardized cross-border bank transfers. What once required days and paper documentation moved to electronic confirmation. Digital payment platforms and mobile wallets are now reducing remittances from 6% and some hours or days to well under 1% and instant transfer.

Communication. In 1970, a brief international phone call was expensive and an effort. Today,  voice and video calls across continents are effectively free at the margin, carried over internet networks. Information about jobs, wages, and conditions now circulates instantly.

Meanwhile, higher education expanded rapidly across Asia, Latin America, and parts of Africa. University enrollment multiplied several times over, producing large cohorts of engineers, nurses, technicians, and managers. With portable skills and lower mobility costs, many participate in migration patterns that are increasingly circular rather than permanent, linking origin and destination economies in sustained exchange.

Where this shows up most dramatically

Indians in the U.S. For the United States, decennial census tabulations show the India-born population rising from 51,000 (1970) to 206,087 (1980) to 450,406 (1990) to 1,022,552 (2000). It is about 3 million today. Mostly STEM + other high-skill knowledge work: computer/IT, engineering, and other science/technical roles, with a significant presence in health professions and management/business.  My recent posts have shown how entrepreneurial investment in India drew from American experience. The same can be said for Indians in Canada.

Warrantless and Preemptive arrests

In a court case before an Alabama district court, attorneys say DHS has adopted a three-pronged policy of aggressive arrest and detention. The case involves Leonardo Garcia Venegas, a U.S. citizen construction worker of Mexican descent, twice detained during immigration raids at private, non-public construction sites despite presenting an Alabama REAL ID:

The brief alleges DHS has adopted a Warrantless Entry Policy permitting officers to enter fenced, posted construction sites and partially built homes without judicial warrants, treating them as “open areas.” It also alleges a Preemptive Detention Policy under which officers detain Latino construction workers based on appearance and occupation alone, without individualized suspicion, effectively replacing targeted investigation with mass, location-based sweeps. Finally, it alleges a Continued Detention Policy authorizing officers to maintain custody even after individuals present documentation establishing lawful presence, including DHS-certified REAL IDs.

They assert there are  agency-wide directives reflecting a reinterpretation of DHS authority, constitute final agency action, and violate the Fourth Amendment, federal statutes, and binding regulations. The plaintiffs do not have smoking gun internal documents. They rely on public DHS press releases and memoranda, including references to a Lyons Memo authorizing use of administrative warrants, public statements, ICE training materials cited in other litigation, news reports, and repeated on-the-ground enforcement conduct, including the plaintiff’s own detentions.