Manufacturing Integration

“If you think Denmark is all Borgen and social equality, take a look at its outrageous ‘ghetto’ law”, wrote Hettie O’Brien in The Guardian on June 27, 2022. Indeed, the so-called Fairy Tale Kingdom where empathy classes are part of the school official curriculum has increasingly become a nightmare for those perceived as “non-real Danes”, with the controversial gentrification of certain neighborhoods since 2018 playing a central role. This gentrification policy involves development plans targeting public housing in areas once labeled as “hard ghetto areas” – neighborhoods with a large share of poor, “non-Western” residents – often resulting in the displacement of inhabitants and disruption of local communities. In 2021 these “hard ghetto areas” were rebranded as “transformation areas”, a linguistic shift seemingly intended to soften the perception of policies that continue to raise serious human rights concerns.

It is within this context that Denmark’s so-called “ghetto law” (officially: Paragraphs 61a, 168a and 168b of the Law on Public Housing) has now come under scrutiny at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which has been asked in a preliminary procedure to assess its compatibility with the Race Equality Directive. In an Opinion delivered on February 13, 2025, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta concluded that the law constitutes direct discrimination based on ethnic origin and hence a violation of the Directive. She emphasized that the distinction between “Western” and “non-Western” is inherently an ethnic construct.

The Advocate General’s interpretation of the Race Equality Directive and specifically the discriminatory dimension of the “Western”/“non-Western” divide has been examined in this blog by Silvia Steininger. In this brief commentary we highlight another key aspect of the Opinion: the harmful role of the integration narrative underlying the so-called “ghetto law” and other coercive measures addressed towards “non-Western” Danes and non-Danes and the broader implications of the present case for challenging stereotypes embedded in integration policies and practices.

“Non-Westerners” in Denmark

The so-called “ghetto law” seeks to reduce public housing in designated “transformation areas”. To qualify as a “transformation area”, a neighborhood must, for at least five years, meet at least two out of four socioeconomic criteria – related to unemployment, education levels, criminal convictions, and average gross income – and have a population consisting of 50% or more of “immigrants and their descendants from non-Western countries”. The “Western”/“non-Western” distinction is fundamental to the law’s coercive effect, as the possibility of forced relocation is directly tied to the demographic composition of the targeted neighborhood – “ethnic engineering” as cynically labelled by some. Yet to fully grasp the broader significance of this distinction it must be understood within the wider context of policy developments in Denmark over the past decade, which have fostered an increasingly hostile environment of subordination and exclusion for both “non-Western” Danes and non-Danes.

Among these developments is a 2016 law that allowed authorities to confiscate the belongings of asylum seekers who, at that time, were almost exclusively of “non-Western” origin – a practice that did not apply to Ukrainian refugees welcomed since 2022. Similarly, integration requirements for family reunification for non-western Danes and non-Danes residing in Denmark have become significantly more restrictive, outside of the scope of EU law. One such integration requirement was struck down by the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) Grand Chamber in the case of Biao v. Denmark for constituting indirect ethnic discrimination. Years later, another rule – mandating that families demonstrate stronger ties to Denmark than to their country of origin – was invalidated by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the A. case, in the context of the EU-Turkey association agreement. Advocate General Pitruzzella notably described this requirement as an “impossible task” (§27), while one of us has previously highlighted how such integration practices are based on racial and ethnic biases. Another illustrative example is the controversial handshake requirement introduced in 2018 as part of the Danish citizenship acquisition process. This measure – compelling applicants to shake hands in a formal citizenship ceremony – was widely seen as a targeted exclusion of Muslims who, for religious reasons, refrain from touching individuals of a different gender (see p. 8).

Together these measures paint a bleak picture of Denmark’s attitude towards “non-Westerners”, whether Danes or non-Danes. As Judge Pinto de Albuquerque poignantly observed in his Concurring Opinion in the Biao case, these policies are based on “a confused amalgam of misguided, biased assumptions which portray a surreal image of resident foreigners and Danish nationals of foreign origin living in Denmark, and more specifically – and most disturbingly – of those coming from ‘non-Western countries’, in contrast with an idealised image of ever-faithful Danes, born in Denmark, who live outside the country” (§18).

Integration manufacturing and ethnic marginalization

At the heart of most laws targeting “non-Western” Danes and non-Danes lies the concept of integration. Under Article 79(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, integration falls primarily within the competence of Member States, with the EU holding only a supporting role in this area. However, through its common asylum and migration policy, EU law has increasingly incorporated the notion of integration—despite the absence of a formal definition by the EU legislator. Before the Court of Justice, the concept of integration has primarily emerged in cases concerning integration obligations or conditions imposed by Member States – particularly Western-European ones – on certain categories of migrants as a prerequisite for obtaining visas, legal residence or access to social benefits. While the Court has, at times, imposed limits on these “integration practices”, including in a recent ruling, it has long upheld integration as an inherently positive and necessary principle. This endorsement persists even when the ensuing requirements – such as mandatory tests – carry stigmatizing effects and impose material, psychological, and societal harm.

These harmful effects can be observed in a number of Member States, with Denmark and the Netherlands as infamous trendsetters, where “integration” has increasingly become a tool for categorizing individuals as either meritorious or unmeritorious, desirable or undesirable, based on rigid socioeconomic and cultural norms that promote homogenization and normalization. This categorization, in turn, has been used to justify a range of coercive and exclusionary measures, including overseas integration tests, citizenship tests, and language requirements conditioning access to welfare benefits. These measures often rely on arbitrary benchmarks. They frequently make little sense beyond serving the objective of “Othering”. As Dora Kostakopoulou describes, they constitute “a one-way process aimed at procuring conformity, discipline, and migration control” (p. 953).

Besides the fact that the abovementioned so-called civic integration policies produce little integration change or in some instances, have been negatively evaluated – such as in the Netherlands – the concept of integration itself has long been criticized by political and social scientists for its racial, ethnic, and colonial underpinnings. Willem Schinkel, for instance, argues that white citizens are never scrutinized through the lens of integration, revealing migrant integration studies as a form of neocolonial knowledge production that reinforces class and racial hierarchies. Meanwhile, Saskia Bonjour has highlighted the paradoxes inherent in civic integration policies, including their simultaneous push towards assimilation and exclusion, and how these reflect the colonial civilization project.

Crucially, “integration” is neither a neutral nor a scientific concept but a deeply normative one that demands critical scrutiny. Critics of integration policies and programs argue that integration has failed both as a political framework for describing how migrants settle and as a social science concept for analyzing these processes (see among others Schinkel; Favell; Meissner).These policies are problematic in several ways: they construct an imaginary homogeneous society, intrude upon and regulate individual beliefs and values, and position certain white cultural groups as the (de facto) unattainable standard for integration to be perceived as successful—creating an exclusionary and unrealistic model of cultural assimilation. Ultimately, by placing the burden of integration on immigrants or even Danish citizens designated as non-Western and portraying them as incapable of adapting, politicians and policymakers have been able to sidestep deeper structural issues such as racism, xenophobia, and classism that shape problematic societal dynamics.

Meanwhile, the alleged failure of certain groups to meet integration standards is frequently attributed to presumed inherent cultural deficiencies associated with “non-Western” backgrounds. This, in turn, leads to culturally coded policy responses that reinforce exclusionary narratives. As research on the Netherlands has shown, references to national origin intersect with class to construct the racialized and classed image of the “migrant with poor prospects”. Similarly, in both the Netherlands and Denmark, the “Western”/“non-Western” distinction has played a central role in shaping perceptions of who is deemed capable of integrating and who is not, systematically marking certain groups as problematic.

Challenging integration stereotypes through law

In this context, it is particularly significant that Advocate General Ćapeta highlighted the discriminatory nature of the Danish “ghetto law”, recognizing it as a key driver of inequality and stereotypes while explicitly rejecting integration as a justification. Her Opinion adds significant weight to an emerging legal discourse that challenges the narrative of “non-Western” migrants as unassimilable outsiders and a threat to social cohesion and national identity and asserts its incompatibility with the prohibition of racial and ethnic discrimination. It echoes the concerns of UN Special rapporteurs who previously found that “the category “non-Western” in Denmark has been shaped by harmful racial, ethnic, and national stereotypes and reinforces stigmatization on the basis of race, descent, and national or ethnic origin” (§3). Similarly, for the Netherlands, the Amsterdam District Court ruled in May 2024 that the distinction between “Western” and “non-Western” immigrants in the Act on Integration Abroad amounts to direct racial discrimination as the legislative history showed the distinction to be motivated by inconsistent and stereotypical reasoning relating “non-Western” national origin to a presumed incapacity to integrate in Dutch society (the case is currently pending on appeal).

Rather than following the justification put forward by the Danish government, AG Ćapeta underscores the damaging impact of portraying “non-Western” immigrants and their descendants as criminal, lazy, or disrespectful of “Danish values”. In doing so, she provides a crucial counterpoint to the dominant political and policy discourse that has gained momentum since the early 21st century. By framing “integration” as a one-sided, individual responsibility, this discourse places the burden entirely on migrants who are perceived as either unwilling or inherently incapable of becoming “worthy” participants in the host society. This narrative not only ignores structural barriers but also reinforces exclusionary policies that further marginalize targeted groups. Moreover, practices that disproportionately burden and stigmatize specific groups – deemed “poorly integrated” – undermine fundamental principles of equality, social cohesion, and participation. AG Ćapeta also highlights the deep contradiction in imposing even greater burdens on individuals already marginalized by these very policies. In her own words: “By generalising those characteristics perceived as negative and unacceptable in Denmark and attributing them to all immigrants and their descendants from non-western countries, the Law on Public Housing seems not only to be based on prejudice, but it also contributes to the perpetuation of that stereotyping and stigmatisation” (§152). In other words, instead of fostering inclusion, such measures push them further to the fringes of society, reinforcing the very exclusion they claim to address.

Conclusion

Across immigration, citizenship, and housing policies, a clear pattern emerges: low-skilled, “non-Western” individuals are systematically singled out and stigmatized. The “Ghetto Law” exemplifies what Ian Haney López describes as the law’s ability to “not only reflect but solidify social prejudice, making law a prime instrument in the construction and reinforcement of racial subordination” (p. 2). There is an urgent need to critically examine the manufactured concept of integration, which serves to justify harmful practices that entrench exclusion. These policies amplify the power of race and ethnic origin – intersecting with poverty – as tools of social marginalization and domination, reinforcing systemic inequalities rather than addressing them.