Dansk Folkeblad: What was the purpose of your meeting with Mr. Messerschmidt and your stay in Copenhagen?
Daniel Pipes: I see him as a major figure calling for controlled immigration and so was eager to understand how his position differs or agrees with that of the government.
DF: How do you look upon the Danish experience regarding the policy on immigration? Do you regard Denmark as a kind of role model for other countries?
DP: As the only Western country where Left and Right broadly agree on the need to control immigration, I indeed see Denmark as a role model
DF: As far as I know you visited Malmö as part of your stay – how do you view the different policies on immigration in Sweden and Denmark?
DP: Yes, I did briefly visit Malmö. Sweden and Denmark are close to being opposites on immigration policy, although this may no longer be the case with the Sweden Democrats now having a significant voice in government policy. It fascinates me, as it does so many Swedes and Danes, to observe this radical difference between two such otherwise similar countries.
DF: Which lessons do you bring back to the states after visiting Denmark and Sweden?
DP: That, once again in history, so much depends on individuals and circumstances.
DF: How is the mass immigration from Muslim countries to Europe looked upon in the States. Do Americans care about the European experience?
DP: Few Americans watch European immigration issues but those of us who do see them as hugely important for our own future. Lessons are there, waiting to be learned. For example, the United States has nothing like the "migrant taxis" that ply the Mediterranean, but it could but the Cuban authorities could decide to emulate Belarus and invite Middle Easterners to use their country as a base. Or they could demand money for not sending them by ship, like the Turkish government has done.
DF: Do you accept the claim, often heard in Denmark and Europe, that Muslims in general are better assimilated into American society than European society and if so how do you explain this?
DP: I agree, and ascribe the claim for two main reasons. First, the United States is historically an immigrant society, so it is much easier to take in another body of foreigners; in contrast, Denmark until recently was essentially one big family, making it harder. Second, Muslim immigrants to the United States are far better educated than those going to Europe. This makes them easier to assimilate but it also means, long term, that they are in a better position to impose Islamist influences.
DF: Is it in your opinion likely that third and fourth generation immigrants of Muslim origin will be able to assimilate into a European nation state?
DP: No. So far, each generation of Muslim immigrants to Europe has been more alienated than the prior one. I see no reason to expect this trend to change, much less be reversed.
DF: How do you see the future of Western Europe in light of the continued influx of people from third-world countries and the fertility drought among European women?
DP: The entire rich world, with the single and surprising exception of Israel, faces a demographic drought. And East Asia is worse off than Europe. In contrast, Africa is expected to add by far the most people. To sustain their historic civilizations, rich countries must take several urgent steps: urge young people to form families and have children; tightly control borders; figure out which immigrants will assimilate (e.g., Hong Kongers) and encourage them to come.
