Anyone who tuned in to The Debate on Immigration on 27 October might have hoped that Norway’s state broadcaster NRK would finally address the enormous costs and disadvantages that non-Western immigration imposes on Norwegian taxpayers. However, the topic was left untouched, like the big elephant in the room that everyone avoided talking about. Instead, the discussion was skilfully steered towards social control within ‘certain immigrant communities’. This was nothing more than a complete diversion from what the immigration debate is actually about.
Marian Abdi Hussein, from Somalia and a Member of the Storting, Norway’s parliament, for the Socialist Left Party (SV), explained to us that it seemed like an incomprehensible paradox that liberal Norway would now seek to regulate social control within immigrant communities – implying that we simply had to accept this. Usman Rana, the formerly conservative newspaper Aftenposten’s ‘house islamist’, brushed it all aside with praise for a colourful community and how immigration enriches Norway.
No one spoke of the enormous sums that non-Western immigration costs Norwegian taxpayers, nor of the major disadvantages we face as a result of non-Western Muslim immigrants’ low labour force participation and negative contribution to the public purse, their excessive use of social benefits and services, all the violent crime they bring with them, as well as their ever-increasing demands that we must adapt to them, and not the other way round.
There is a difference between types of immigration
There are essentially three types of immigration: Western immigration, Eastern European labour migration and non-Western immigration. The total immigrant population in Norway has now reached 22 per cent. That is high, even by European standards. Of these, the non-Western immigrant group is the largest, accounting for approximately 12 per cent. It is also the one growing the fastest. And it is this immigrant group that stands out in a negative light.
There are few problems with Western immigration. Western immigrants have the same level of labour force participation as the ethnic Norwegian population, make the same use of social benefits, and generally return home once their work permit has expired. They make a net contribution to value creation in society and cause few other problems.
The same largely applies to the Eastern European immigrant population. They work, pay tax and are no greater burden on society than others. Some stay, but many return home. They take the jobs we no longer bother to do ourselves. The latter is a problem. There are far too many people – particularly younger Norwegian men of working age – who are neither working nor in education, but are instead claiming benefits from NAV. However, we cannot blame the Eastern European migrant workers for this.
The major immigration challenges and integration problems are primarily linked to the non-Western immigrant population, more precisely the non-Western Muslim immigrant population. They make up the vast majority of non-Western immigrants. They come mainly from Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Morocco.
Non-Muslim immigrants from MENA countries, Africa and Asia – that is, primarily immigrants from the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and India – work and contribute. There are relatively few integration problems associated with them. Some marry here, but many return to their home countries at the end of their stay.
It is the Muslim immigrant groups that cause the greatest integration problems. They impose enormous costs on taxpayers. They apply for permanent residence, obtain citizenship and remain in the country, despite the fact that the vast majority of them are economic welfare migrants who do not meet the criteria for asylum. Hardly any of them return to their home country when circumstances there warrant it and as required by the asylum system, other than on holiday.
What characterises Muslim immigrant groups is low labour force participation, low tax revenue, high consumption of social benefits and services, high crime rates and a general lack of willingness or ability to integrate. Of these groups, Somalis in particular fare poorly.
Do Somalis stand out?
They stand out in Norway, as they do in other Western countries. There are approximately 45,000 Somalis in Norway. By comparison, there are an estimated 260,000 in the USA. However, relative to the total population, there are ten times as many Somalis in Norway as there are in the USA.
This is the immigrant group with the highest proportion of single, often underage, young men. They arrive first, as ‘anchor’ figures. They are followed by the rest of the family, who join them through family reunification. For every Somali who arrives in Norway, a further 5–7 people follow. They are the group with the highest proportion of family reunification cases. They are also the group that scores lowest on absolutely all integration indicators.
Official statistics from Statistics Norway (SSB) and the US Census/ACS, as well as corresponding data from Sweden, Denmark and other European countries, reveal the following pattern: Somalis have a significantly lower labour force participation rate, a far higher crime rate (particularly serious violent crime, benefit fraud and organised crime), far higher use of welfare schemes and social services, and they demonstrate far lower willingness and ability to integrate than any of the other immigrant groups.
This over-representation is so systematic and persistent – even among second-generation immigrants and across national borders – that it cannot be explained away by ‘poverty’, ‘discrimination’ or socio-economic factors. The causal factors point primarily to religion, clan culture and the generally low level of education.
A comparison with immigrants from neighbouring Eritrea, who are otherwise quite similar, apart from the fact that the majority of Eritreans are Christian, illustrates precisely the significance of religion. On the most key indicators, such as employment, use of social benefits and crime, Eritreans – that is, in practice, the Christian majority amongst them – perform significantly better than Somalis. In terms of crime, both groups have higher rates than the majority population, but Somalis have markedly higher rates.
Low labour market participation, over-reliance on social benefits and high crime rates
According to official statistics from Statistics Norway (SSB), Somalis stand out due to persistent challenges across all integration indicators. In 2025, the proportion of Somali immigrants aged 20–66 in employment in Norway stood at 48.8 per cent. However, this figure from Statistics Norway is highly misleading, as it includes all those in employment, even those who have worked for just one hour a week. The proportion of Somalis in full-time employment provides a more accurate picture. Whilst the proportion of full-time workers in the rest of the population stands at 79.7 per cent, the figure is only around 28 per cent for Somali men and women combined, and just 17 per cent for Somali women.
The uptake of social benefits is correspondingly high. Eight out of every ten kroner in social security benefits go to immigrants. Here too, Somalis are heavily over-represented. They receive the most benefits and account for the highest number of long-term recipients. The same applies to crime. Male immigrants from Somalia account for 1,200 charges per 1,000 inhabitants. Second-generation individuals with Somali parents account for even more. In Oslo, the figures are even higher, at over 2,000 charges per 1,000. This over-representation is particularly evident in cases of serious violence, abuse and drug-related crime.
Somalis also rank lowest among all immigrant groups in terms of literacy and educational attainment. On average, Somali households have the most children, the highest proportion of single parents and are generally over-represented in child welfare measures.
Somalis in the USA
The same pattern is evident in the US and other Western countries. Muslim immigrants stand out, and Somalis more so than any other group. Cases of social security fraud in Sweden and the US also point to widespread organised economic crime. We see the same thing in Norway.
The largest documented case in the US concerns Feeding Our Future programme in Minnesota, a fraud against a federal child nutrition programme during the pandemic carried out by a Somali network involving kickbacks, fictitious meals, shell companies and the laundering of public social assistance funds. The fraud is estimated to amount to at least 250 million dollars. Some estimate the total amount to be as high as 500 million. The funds were spent on luxury cars, property and transfers to Somalia. Related cases involving childcare, housing benefit and autism treatment have led to allegations that a further hundreds of millions have been embezzled. These cases are now proceeding through the US legal system.
This has provoked Donald Trump to make strong remarks about the Somali immigrant community in the US. He has called Minnesota a “hub of fraudulent money laundering activity” and said that Somalis “contribute to nothing”, “do nothing but complain” and that they should “go back to where they came from and fix it”. The Somali-American Member of Congress Ilhan Omar (D) from Minnesota is now under investigation for fraud and for falsifying her immigration application. Trump has described her as “a sick and very dishonest person who hates our country.”
These statements are, of course, polarising, and not all Somalis are criminals. But it is not difficult to understand the background either. Trump supporters see it as a natural reaction to documented cases of fraud and integration problems, which are particularly linked to the Somali immigrant community. Trump calls a spade a spade. Critics describe these characterisations as racist, Islamophobic and dehumanising.
Other countries
This is not unique to the US. Data from other Western countries show the same pattern. Somalis are over-represented in all statistics.
Statistics Denmark shows an over-representation of around 7–10 times for total crime, up to 19 times for serious violence and up to 30 times for murder and attempted murder, compared with Danes. We see similar figures from Sweden, where widespread organised welfare fraud with Islamist links has also been reported. Similar circumstances are reported from the UK, the Netherlands and Finland.
In Norway, there are fewer high-profile, spectacular cases of this kind, but high and long-term reliance on social security benefits, combined with large money transfers via the havala system to Somalia, raises questions about possible fraud and excessively generous benefit schemes. Extremely low labour force participation and an extremely high proportion on long-term benefits suggest structural problems rather than temporary hardship.
Causes
The reason why non-Western Muslim immigrants, and Somalis in particular, score so poorly on absolutely every integration parameter is officially explained – and by the 169 members of the Storting – as being due to socio-economic conditions. This is a cop-out.
The explanatory variables that stand out most clearly here are obviously religion, feudal tribal and clan culture, and low levels of education – and probably in that order.
It is true that non-Western Muslim immigrants make up the largest proportion of the low-income group. And it is true that they have the largest number of people per household and live in more cramped housing conditions, but for the simple reason that they have more children.
At the same time, it is striking that non-Muslim immigrants from the same regions of Africa (Eritreans) or Asia (Vietnamese, Thai, Filipinos and Indians), unlike Muslim immigrants, score relatively ‘normally’ on integration indicators.
It is also striking that other immigrant groups in the low-income category do not exhibit the same low labour force participation, the same over-reliance on social benefits and the high crime rates that characterise Somalis.
And with an income that is higher than that of Norwegian minimum pensioners – and which, in some large Somali families, can amount to nearly one million kroner (US$ 100000) a year – it is hard to believe that socio-economic conditions explain the behaviour of Somalis.
It is simply a fact that the pattern of low labour force participation, high dependence on welfare and over-representation in serious crime is well documented, and this holds true even when controlling for income and other socio-economic variables.
It is also striking that Somalis are evidently so well-off that they can send several hundred million kroner out of the country via private Islamic money transfer services, hawala. The Norwegian authorities have no control over what constitutes NAV benefits, what constitutes money laundering, and what constitutes contributions to terrorist organisations or funds used to finance crime and other shady activities in Somalia and elsewhere. And it is striking that they are doing little or nothing to get to the bottom of this, despite being very concerned about money laundering in connection with Norwegian citizens’ overseas transactions.
Conclusion
The reason why Somalis consistently stand out negatively across all integration parameters in all Western countries is, first and foremost, a totalitarian, repressive and expansionist religion that clashes with the secular and liberal Western society based on trust. It is this that causes Muslim countries in general to stand out negatively, in contrast to immigrants from non-Western countries in the same region that are not Muslim.
Somalia is one of the world’s most religiously homogeneous countries. Islam is the state religion and the proportion of Muslims stands at around 99.9 per cent. The vast majority are Sunni Muslims, mainly within the Shafi’i school of thought, with clear elements of radical Sufism. The same applies to the Somali diaspora in the USA, Sweden, Denmark, the UK and other Western countries. Islam is closely linked to Somali identity and culture.
Somalia also has a very strong clan structure, which accompanies Somali immigrants to the diaspora communities in Western countries. This explains both the clan-based networks, the formation of gangs and organised crime. Cultural factors such as low trust in the host country’s institutions, feudal tribal culture and rigid gender role patterns further help to explain why this group stands out so markedly compared with, for example, Vietnamese, Filipinos or Eritreans, despite similar starting points. An extremely low level of education in a knowledge-based society such as Norway’s does nothing to lessen the challenges of integration.
We must dare to talk about this
This is not an argument against all Muslim immigrants or all Somalis. But a great many exploit the system. However, they are merely acting rationally given their starting point.
This is an argument against an incredibly naïve immigration policy that ignores differences between religious groups, the cultural baggage that immigrants bring with them from their countries of origin, the widespread abuse of the asylum system, an extremely liberal approach to family reunification and the granting of citizenship, and an immigration debate that suppresses the facts and stigmatises those who question the costs and harms that immigration policy inflicts on the country’s population.
An effective and fair immigration policy requires honest statistics and an open debate; it requires that the country’s citizens are informed of the costs of immigration for different immigrant groups, that stricter requirements are imposed regarding labour market participation and that immigrants contribute towards their own upkeep, that there is better control over welfare funds and the use of taxpayers’ money, that immigrant crime is cracked down on just as harshly as other forms of crime, that the widespread abuse of the asylum system, the liberal practice of family reunification and the granting of citizenship cease, and that those who cannot adapt are sent back to their country of origin.
A fair immigration policy requires that those who are unwilling to contribute to their own upkeep and unwilling to comply with the host country’s laws and regulations, as well as those who have been granted residence in the country on false pretences, return to where they came from or to a third country in the same region. If they can go on holiday to their home country and send their children to Koranic schools there, they must also be able to live there.
The problems associated with non-Western immigration concern far more than just negative social control within immigrant communities. This is a deliberate diversion. The issue centres first and foremost on the enormous costs, the widespread violent crime, welfare fraud and the significant disadvantages that non-Western Muslim immigrants impose on the host country’s population.
Continuing to pretend that integration problems are merely temporary, or caused by racism, or can be explained away by socio-economic conditions and a lack of funding for integration – as Mariam Abdi Hussein and the majority of the 169 ‘elected representatives’ do, has long since been refuted by decades of data. Fortunately, an increasing number of voters are beginning to realise this.
It should therefore come as no surprise that more and more people are coming round to Donald Trump’s views, and that support for anti-immigration parties is steadily increasing in Norway, as in the rest of the Western world. This will not end well unless immigration policy undergoes a 180-degree turn – literally – as soon as possible.
Donald Trump calls a spade a spade. It polarises opinion, but must surely be entirely legitimate. Facts are facts. But he’s actually missing the point. The fact that Somalis and other non-Western immigrants are exploiting the system is something we can primarily blame ourselves for – that is to say, the vast majority of the 169.
The public has never been asked what we think about immigration policy.
