Definitions carry weight, but when it comes to statistics, they take on a significance all their own. The timeless adage from Mark Twain—“lies, damned lies, and statistics”—rings as true today as ever, especially in the context of the ongoing immigration debate.
In a recent piece in Nettavisen, Erlend Wiborg of the Progressive Party (FrP) wielded statistics from Statistics Norway (SSB) to assert that “ethnic Norwegians” could find themselves a minority by 2065. The underlying message is clear: Norway and its cultural integrity face an imminent threat from “the others,” those undesirable immigrants purportedly poised to undermine the nation.
At first glance, such a statement could understandably incite concern, which may very well be the intention. However, the sensationalism is largely rooted in a rhetorical sleight of hand surrounding a rather specific statistical category outlined in the SSB’s demographic analysis titled “Overview of persons with varying degrees of immigration background.”
In this analysis, Statistics Norway employs what they call “base codes,” a set of technical classifications designed to categorize the population based on the birthplace of individuals, as well as that of their parents and grandparents. This system encompasses thirty distinct categories, neatly encompassing the entirety of the Norwegian population.
Crucially, these base codes do not shed light on linguistic capabilities, cultural identity, values, or any notion of “Norwegianness.” There are no criteria that gauge what it means to be truly Norwegian.
Take, for example, Base Code 00, mentioned by Wiborg. This classification pertains to individuals born in Norway to two Norwegian-born parents and four Norwegian-born grandparents. Such a narrow definition means that even a single grandparent born in another country—be it Sweden, Denmark, or Great Britain—excludes one from this category.
Remarkably, even King Harald V does not fit into Base Code 000, given that his mother was born in Sweden.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Statistics Norway has rigid definitions for immigrants too. Code 124 applies strictly to individuals born abroad who have two foreign-born parents and four foreign-born grandparents.
But here’s the crux: none of these codes provide insight into whether someone speaks the language, votes, serves in the military, pays taxes (presumably with enthusiasm), or even sings “Yes, we love” with gusto on May 17. To invoke these categories as evidence that Norway or its culture is in jeopardy constitutes a considerable intellectual leap.
That said, valid concerns about current immigration policies deserve attention. If Wiborg seeks to spark a serious dialogue about culture, integration, education, employment, and crime, such conversations warrant our engagement and scrutiny.
However, this recent assertion falls short of fostering that essential debate.