What was once the world’s most welcoming country for refugees has become one of the strictest — an about face that could set the example for other democracies.
The stark reality that so many people cannot accept is that the “racism” and “bigotry” of earlier times was strongly grounded in unfortunate but very real differences among human groups, and the cultures they produce. This in no way means that Europeans should be cruel to the teeming masses of the dysfunctional third world (I.e., ending slavery was a good thing — though not something the third world itself would ever have contemplated). It does mean that mass immigration from Africa and Muslim countries will inevitably destroy the host culture (the UK is likely beyond hope at this point). Individuals from these places can and do assimilate and adapt, but beyond a critical mass this becomes impossible and third world conditions begin to metastasize (e.g., the outrageous levels of pure theft and corruption among Somalis in Minnesota).
One of the reasons I think for the change of course on this topic in Sweden is the nature of the negative impacts. Shootings and grenade attacks are just very loud and visible, and it's very difficult to make the case that they're not happening or would have been happening anyway. Some of the more abstract and diffuse arguments I think play out more similarly to other European countries, but fundamentally the gang violence problem got out of control and demanded a response in a way that I don't think has clear cut parallels elsewhere.
> Even though the Swedish state never hesitated to generously fund integrationist policies, the results never came: of the refugees who arrived in 1997–1999, only about 30% were employed after two years, with just 65% after ten, while the average for the native-born population stood around 83%.
You don’t think going from 30% to 65%, closer to the native rate than the previous rate, in the space of eight years is a result?
That seems like a straightforward success, and it’s odd that you frame it as the opposite.
Read my comment again more carefully. I didn’t say there was no issue with 35% unemployment (although frankly at only 18% more than the native rate, I don’t know how much else you realistically want within one decade of arrival- it’s obviously not going to be the same as the native population so 18% doesn’t seem terrible).
What I said is that going from 30% to 65% employment in eight years is obviously an enormous improvement, so characterising it with the phrase “the results never came” seems strange and misleading.
We have no counterfactual in Sweden, though; In fact after looking into older immigration wave like ellis islanders in the US, I'd say no welfare would lead to better results, since those who fail to integrate leave relatively fast.
At least right now the Social Democrats are voting in favour of these changes. They are campaigning on "we will do this too, and better, because we are just better at governing". They are looking for inspiration to the Danish Social Democtats, who have never been the party of "immigration is always good". One thing that has made them change their tune is that they expected to hold the immigrant vote, but the immigrants aren't particularly grateful to them and end up voting all across the board, forming their own local political organisations and so on and so forth. Also, things often change mightily in the Fall when people get back from summer vacation and begin to think of politics again. The right here seems singularly short of good communicators. A few good speeches could do wonders for their chances to continue in Power. But I dont hear anybody making them ...
European elites' stubborn commitment to high levels of immigration, especially of people who oppose democratic pluralism, harms Europeans' interests in much the same way as impractical energy policy and the stubborn, self-destructive opposition to obvious improvements like air conditioning.
The stark reality that so many people cannot accept is that the “racism” and “bigotry” of earlier times was strongly grounded in unfortunate but very real differences among human groups, and the cultures they produce. This in no way means that Europeans should be cruel to the teeming masses of the dysfunctional third world (I.e., ending slavery was a good thing — though not something the third world itself would ever have contemplated). It does mean that mass immigration from Africa and Muslim countries will inevitably destroy the host culture (the UK is likely beyond hope at this point). Individuals from these places can and do assimilate and adapt, but beyond a critical mass this becomes impossible and third world conditions begin to metastasize (e.g., the outrageous levels of pure theft and corruption among Somalis in Minnesota).
Long way of you trying to justify your racism.
Calling someone you dislike a 'racist' is not an acceptable form of argument.
One of the reasons I think for the change of course on this topic in Sweden is the nature of the negative impacts. Shootings and grenade attacks are just very loud and visible, and it's very difficult to make the case that they're not happening or would have been happening anyway. Some of the more abstract and diffuse arguments I think play out more similarly to other European countries, but fundamentally the gang violence problem got out of control and demanded a response in a way that I don't think has clear cut parallels elsewhere.
> Even though the Swedish state never hesitated to generously fund integrationist policies, the results never came: of the refugees who arrived in 1997–1999, only about 30% were employed after two years, with just 65% after ten, while the average for the native-born population stood around 83%.
You don’t think going from 30% to 65%, closer to the native rate than the previous rate, in the space of eight years is a result?
That seems like a straightforward success, and it’s odd that you frame it as the opposite.
If 35% of people who come to the country dont have a job after one whole decade of being in the country that's an issue
Read my comment again more carefully. I didn’t say there was no issue with 35% unemployment (although frankly at only 18% more than the native rate, I don’t know how much else you realistically want within one decade of arrival- it’s obviously not going to be the same as the native population so 18% doesn’t seem terrible).
What I said is that going from 30% to 65% employment in eight years is obviously an enormous improvement, so characterising it with the phrase “the results never came” seems strange and misleading.
We have no counterfactual in Sweden, though; In fact after looking into older immigration wave like ellis islanders in the US, I'd say no welfare would lead to better results, since those who fail to integrate leave relatively fast.
Will it last? The left is poised to take back office later this year.
At least right now the Social Democrats are voting in favour of these changes. They are campaigning on "we will do this too, and better, because we are just better at governing". They are looking for inspiration to the Danish Social Democtats, who have never been the party of "immigration is always good". One thing that has made them change their tune is that they expected to hold the immigrant vote, but the immigrants aren't particularly grateful to them and end up voting all across the board, forming their own local political organisations and so on and so forth. Also, things often change mightily in the Fall when people get back from summer vacation and begin to think of politics again. The right here seems singularly short of good communicators. A few good speeches could do wonders for their chances to continue in Power. But I dont hear anybody making them ...
Thanks, I didn't know that. I hope you're right.
European elites' stubborn commitment to high levels of immigration, especially of people who oppose democratic pluralism, harms Europeans' interests in much the same way as impractical energy policy and the stubborn, self-destructive opposition to obvious improvements like air conditioning.
Great to read such informative, balanced and realistic analysis!
thank you!