What did President Trump say about Sweden?

by kpop 236 Replies latest social current

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    this area has been integrating people for centuries

    the Mediterranean, the Nordic area, the Balkans etc have always been busy intersections.

  • redvip2000
    redvip2000
    Everyone keeps over simplifying the mass immigration issue in Europe into a "crime rate". The problem is much more complex than that.

    I'm not even sure you can break these types of problems along religious lines. From what i understand, even within the larger migrant group, say in Sweden, the most problematic seem to be the ones from western africa like Morocco, Senegal, and others.

    Other countries like Spain have had problems with these particular subset of muslims, they seem to be completely uncivilized.

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    Bugbear

    Fact is, that crime rates are in Sweden declining. Numbers of prisoners are reduced. Some crimes such as raping have increased. This due to the fact that gov. has reduced the proof burden for the victims.

    I did have a poke around to see what the stats say regarding crime in Sweden (not certain how reliable this site is) http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/sweden and its interesting to see the % of foreigners in the Swedish jails. Their crime rates are decreasing over a short reporting period but there could be many reasons for that - worst case scenario things like these https://youtu.be/4QMe0Wou5HI don't end up in arrests because the police are neutered - best case Sweden is doing a brilliant job of stopping crime - I suspect the former.

    This article made for interesting reading - http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how-sweden-became-an-example-of-how-not-to-handle-immigration/ and it seems to echo many concerns I have over uncontrolled immigration.

    While right now the number of absolute crimes may be low there must be some recognition that change is coming - pressure is building. If you have plenty of space and capacity in your system then you can afford to take in people, invest in bringing them up to speed and letting them have the dignity to contribute. When you open your doors but are actually very close to structural capacity it doesn't take much to create a crisis. Sweden is very rich and may be able to rapidly stave off the social disaster of pockets of poverty but if it doesn't it's attempt to help ends up condemning immigrants/refugees/local unemployed citizens to a very bad situation. Mix in a radical ideology and liberal , free Sweden ends up being the exact opposite.

    I look at the housing crisis in the UK - an entirely lamentable situation created by years of political ineptitude - but it actually means the UK shouldn't be importing 300k people into the UK (no matter if they are doctors, surgeons, rocket scientists or whatever) until we've sorted out a place for them to stay.We can't offer homes and welfare to others when we can't provide it equitably for our own.

  • bohm
    bohm

    Qcmbr: I should probably just stay away from this one but I can't help myself.

    What is missing from this discussion is a focus on the big picture.

    The big picture question is: What are the consequences of taking in X refugees?

    That leads to subquestion: How do we quantify these changes (change in BNP, change in crime, change in incidences of terrorism, etc.).

    I agree with the right-wing media that there are reasons to raise the big question about consequence and take it seriously. The question is often brushed aside by left-wing media because it is uncomfortable. The right wing media is calling out that as being about political correctness, failure to look reality in its eye, etc. etc. I agree with that critique.

    My annoyance is that the right-wing media raises the question, but then seem to completely fail to care about actually answering it. Rather we go to specific cases, like a riot, a murder, etc. etc.

    You can't answer questions about consequences by looking at specific instances of crime... in fact that will only create fear due to well-known psychological biases in all humans. When that is brought up the right-wing media goes bananas in an emotional response (you are blinded, look at the riots! look at the burned out car! why are you making excuses? etc. etc.) without understanding the irony.

    What we can learn from Sweden is what happens if a small country takes in a truly ridiculous amount of refugees.The numbers is about 110'000 for Sweden (population 9.6M) and 16'000 for the US (population 320M).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

    What has happened in Sweden is, as far as I can tell, a slight increase in some forms of crime, in particular, the gang crime currently affecting Malmoe in southern Sweden, however, the correlation is not very strong and the total effect is not all that big -- not denying it isn't there but I would like to see the numbers.

    This experience can be contrasted with the experience of e.g. Denmark, who took in 19'000 Syrian refugees (population 5.6M) and nothing of importance happened. This is about 67 times as many refugees than the US per capita if I did the math right.

    So another way to frame the situation is like this:

    • If you take in 67 times as many refugees as the US is currently taking just about nothing happens.
    • If you take in about 230 times as many refugees per capita than the US something along the lines of a rise in some forms of crime happens, but the statistical evidence is not that well understood.

    This is not to say that I think anyone should replicate the Swedish model (I certainly don't), but I think it would be very good to have a discussion about the impact based on numbers and studies.

  • Simon
    Simon
    So another way to frame the situation is like this:

    If you take in 67 times as many refugees as the US is currently taking just about nothing happens.

    If you take in about 230 times as many refugees per capita than the US something along the lines of a rise in some forms of crime happens, but the statistical evidence is not that well understood.

    It's a way to "frame the situation" if you want to completely deny the number and severity of the crimes taking place and the dramatic effect it will have on normal society.

    The full impact of thoughtless and uncontrolled immigration won't be truly understood for a generation but we're already seeing how devastating it will be to Sweden - it will crippled them economically and devastate them socially.

  • bohm
    bohm

    Simon: I agree with you that "the Swedish experiment" is not one to emulate.

    My points are these:

    • We can (and should!) look at the other countries in EU who have more sensible policies (Norway, Denmark, etc.) while still taking in far, far more immigrants per capita than the US and use them as rough guidelines for "what happens"*
    • The consequences of immigration should be judged (and framed) in terms of statistics and evidence

    * it should be recognized this comparison has to take into account differences between the US and Scandinavia and other EU countries.

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    bohm - yeah , the right wing media isn't providing its own solutions and I suspect that's because it's acting as a counter culture at the moment. There isn't much appetite - or social space - to discuss actually solving problems. You almost need someone with a thick skin to just get on with it otherwise it all just ends up in a talking shop. I'm not going to cover your figures - its late and I'm lazy - I always thought though the US was having a wave of illegal Mexican migration that was more than a few.

    The election of Trump - as an example of a real change against the flow - has been met with an incredible emotional backlash and I suspect this stops most people from wanting to get involved in the real debate since everything he has proposed to actually deal with issues is so heavily trashed. Anything other than the status quo (currently the fashionable liberal socialist agenda) get's re-labeled as racism, bigotry and so forth. Even if - in a worst case scenario - a policy was actually racist or culturalist or discriminatory in some way it might actually solve a problem quicker than taking the moral high road (off topic but just the same way sex education actually reduces abortions/unplanned pregnancy while counter intuitively 'moral' christian abstinence teaching increases it.)

    Trump - for all his indelicacy and social offence - is what solving problems looks like. It's ugly. It's also why he has so many who support him either verbally or privately. While most of those who disagree are incredibly vocal the reality is its the political and social institutions of the last 8 years have been impotent and have caused a lot of the issues we see (Obama for all his smooth talk was as vicious a war leader as any other and was more than happy to terrorise with drones. Merkel was naive in her open door policy)

    The Calais jungle - as was- is a perfect example of a real problem that no-one was 'allowed' to solve (a proper response could create an external/periphery EU processing 'city' to act as a European Ellis Island, all unprocessed immigrants would need to be removed from EU territory to this processing site and then vetted, age checked, photographed, finger printed and issued paperwork - and where necessary refused entry.) When no-one grasps the nettle over PC issues you end up actually risk creating a humanitarian and social disaster.

    Creating a series of hate laws to protect minority groups end up increasing hatred of those groups. When a Muslim can walk down your high street with a placard talking about 'death to the West' but anyone who remonstrates with that individual risks breaking a hate law then justice has been perverted.

    When you are discouraged for flying your own flag while a protester is congratulated for burning it something deeply disturbing has happened.

    When an immigrant can burn down their free accommodation and then get immediately rehoused while lots of people flock around with free blankets but your own children cannot afford leave your home because of a housing shortage something has gone wrong.

    The left wants to care for everyone cradle to grave while the right wants to provide conditions for self regulation. The left cannot solve and actually creates freeloading while the right cannot solve and indeed encourages inequality. The middle ground is constantly crowded out by extremism.Uncontrolled immigration is polarizing the incumbents and fomenting social division.

    We are experiencing exactly what all incumbent civilizations have when a wave of migration threatens to swamp them. We are the American Indians of our day and , just like them, we are exploring all the ways we can to survive.

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    nice point qcmbr

    We are experiencing exactly what all incumbent civilizations have when a wave of migration threatens to swamp them. We are the American Indians of our day and , just like them, we are exploring all the ways we can to survive.

    at least they focused on another life in a better place at the same time. but what you are describing in your long post are perceptions - thanks as these connect to imaginations of destruction stored in ourselves from our distant past - what we tend to call the religious imagination.

    I think Trump if he continues in office and if he continues as he is at present - naming people's fears as if they were actual realities - then he will take us down towards self destruction. Perhaps this what the world needs right now as we do not have any mythologies that promise a better life in another place any more. Once we reach the point of self destruction perhaps then we will pull back from actually destroying ourselves. There are signs of this in Europe anyway - the pulling back from far rightwing madness now that Trump is naming people's extreme fears - they can see that what he is saying isn't really true.

    nice talking to you qcmbr - you really do have a nice turn of phrase - thanks again

  • ttdtt
    ttdtt

    Fox News (what a joke) is Repugnant!

  • freemindfade
    freemindfade

    Taking in refugees as sweden has is a an example of of a far left utopian ideology. The problem with Utopian ideas is they are not realistic for one, and second you compromise your present for a future that is not going to happen. Us progressives need to be realiestic. There are no Utopias, and it is ok to let people have to solve their own problems sometimes, especially when those problems stem from a death grip on a bronze age ideology.

    Crime stats aside you have pretty large group of people you are paying for who are not integrating into your society or values. I do not see how that is a good thing at all. Sweden can have them all. Good luck.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit