This is another one on Sweden – a country at the centre of self-defeating altruism. According to a journalist talking to Fox News, the Swedish government hides migrant crime statistics. The claim is that this is done to protect ‘vulnerable migrants’. Protect them from what? The establishment across Europe are afraid that Europeans will want to defend the interests of their families and communities and demand controls over borders. Why? The Swedish establishment has an evangelical commitment to being a ‘humanitarian superpower’. But what are the consequences?
Humanitarianism seems to demand that any danger to the native population is deemed irrelevant – or at least less important than any hypothetical harm done to migrants.
In the name of humanitarianism Sweden had taken 160,000 migrants last year and it has a population of under 10 million. Sweden sees migration as an opportunity to become a superpower – hence the term ‘humanitarian superpower’. Sweden is neither a economic or military superpower. But if the social, demographic and cultural costs are so high then why try to become a ‘superpower’ at all? The fact is that having open borders does not mean that a country is a superpower – it just means that it does not defend its borders.
Humanitarianism will lead to a greater focus on a devotion to abstract values than to concrete reality. The establishment in Sweden does not seem to care who arrives – all that matters is that Sweden adhere to ‘humanitarian’ principles.
The concept is often justified by saying that it welcomes those seeking safety from war but open borders, and a generous welfare system, will inevitably attract economic migrants.
Society and Law and Order
Trying to be ‘humanitarian’, for the sake of itself, does not lead to integration nor does it lead to social harmony. Very few migrants from outside Europe will find employment and these communities often live separate from mainstream Swedish society (no evidence that this is down to ‘racism’ – a common knee-jerk suggestion). This is no recipe for social harmony.
There are police voices in Sweden that complain that they cannot cope. The single-minded commitment to humanitarianism is leading to law and order being overlooked and sacrificed as crime waves happen that overwhelm the police. Police officers who put their head above the parapet will face the inevitable charge of being ‘racist’ when they point out that these are disproportionality linked with migration. There is no point in being a ‘humanitarian superpower’ if your people are less safe as a consequence.
The authorities seems to see that there ought to be some limits to the ‘humanitarian superpower’ concept as they have been making attempts recently to limit numbers – it could turn out that too many will take up the offer and a society will only have a limited capacity; ‘compassion’ does not build homes or create jobs. The nationalist Sweden Democrats are gaining in popularity, and border controls have been put in place on Sweden’s bridge border with Denmark. But being a ‘humanitarian superpower’ would compel a government to manage public opinion. Those at the top can feel good about themselves but the concrete price will be paid by the public.
The policy could lead to people being admitted who could pose a threat to both Swedes and other migrants. There are reports of there being some support, or even membership, of Islamist organisations within some migrant communities. For example, Middle Eastern Christians fleeing persecution could find their persecutors joining them in Sweden – as Sweden gives out permanent residence very easily. If you offer anyone around the world asylum and access to welfare you are deluded if you believe only the victims or the good guys take it up.
A single-minded commitment to an ideology does not often tolerate dissent. Any Swede who questions that wisdom of the policy can expect a visit from ‘anti-fascists’ – despite opposing the cultural and demographically suicidal immigration policy not actually meaning that someone is a fascist. Members of the Sweden Democrats can face being violently assaulted whilst members of the political elite could just shrug their shoulders. Dissenters can be tracked down on-line so this suppression operation is very organised. People are kept in line using fear.
Following the principle of humanitarianism blindly can lead to demographic shifts. In Sweden the foreign-born population is growing faster than the Swedish-born population. This means that ethnic Swedes, if trends continue, will become a smaller and smaller proportion of the population of their country. Between 2000 and 2013 the number of those with a foreign background increased by 713,000 and the Swedish number by 50,000. Quite a price to pay for some virtue-signalling.
Humanitarianism can have a dislike of the native population behind it. Swedish politicians have expressed a contempt for Swedes and their culture. Mona Sahlin of the Social Democrats has been quoted as ludicrously saying that Swedes do not have a culture and history whilst migrants do and a former PM has said that Sweden belongs to migrants rather than Swedes. So the migration policy is slowly replacing one population with a preferred one. The ‘humanitarian superpower’ creates a virtue out of self- loathing.
Being a ‘humanitarian superpower’ is expensive. Sweden dos not have enough resources to pay for all the ‘refugees’ it is receiving. It has resorted to asking the European Commission for extra funds to cope with the recent surge of migration into Europe.
The policy will lead to more demand for housing; it is simple more people will mean more housing is needed. A shortage in housing is one factor in why the nationalist Sweden Democrats are increasing in popularity. When you have a housing crisis you do not then rapidly increase the demand – or at least you wouldn’t if you dealt with reality. In its attempt to be a humanitarian superpower the government is prepared to allow pressing supply issues to get worse. This would mean that either Swedes or migrants will have to be homed or be homeless and the it would seem likely that the government would prioritise the latter. For many European government it is not real compassion to help their own people.
When integration fails taxes could have to increase to pay for it. Non-integration creates more demand on welfare and this is expensive. If there is a small number of tax payers compared to those whom claim benefits then the amount that each one pays would need to increase. When you add to the population that does not work then a greater burden is placed on those that do, and Sweden’s open immigration policy does this. A recent report found that it takes on average 9 years for half the migrants to find work. Being an humanitarian superpower will put a big burden on a welfare system.
Sweden should be seen as an example of how not to manage immigration. The feel-good factor of being a humanitarian superpower has a high price and that price is paid for by ordinary people. Britain, and other countries, should definitely not use Sweden as a model.