"Sweden’s unsuccessful immigration strategy at breaking point"

[Tammuz]

- Sweden's unsuccessful immigration strategy at breaking point

- The immediate costs associated with refugee intake are skyrocketing: €240m per week for recent arrivals

- Sweden's policies will have to change fast, to allow for better labour integration and gate-keeping

As I wrote in a previous column for CapX Sweden is far from successful when it comes to integrating immigrants on its labour market. The Swedish model, characterized by high taxes, rigid labour laws and generous public benefit systems, is quite bad at creating jobs and quite good at trapping immigrants in long-term welfare dependency.

The shift towards free immigration begun when the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats in 2010 gained enough votes to enter the parliament. Sweden’s then center-right Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt reacted by signing a deal with the opposition environmental party, opening up the borders. Reinfeld has later explained that his ambition was to isolate the Sweden Democrats from power, and therefore chose to enact a policy in the opposite direction.

Some intellectuals warned that free immigration might not be the best idea. There is support for this notion, since integration is far from successful in Sweden. The median refugee granted asylum in Sweden during 2004 merely earned £880 a month ten years later. Amongst family immigrants of refugees the level was as low as £360. This of course points to many living of various forms of public support. At the same time, the costs for various social programs, health care etc. are high for all residents in the Swedish welfare state.

CONTINUES

It is simply not possible to combine a welfare state with (nearly) free immigration from the third world. And it is not possible for our small country alone to solve the world's refugee problems (even though our politicians seem to think so).

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem likely to change. Even the slightest hint that there might be practical limitations on how many refugees that Sweden can take at a certain time point in time is considered racist.

 

[rousseau]

Interesting to see the opposite side of the coin: liberalism taken to an extreme. Also interesting to confirm that there are real reasons for immigration laws.

 

[repoman]

Sweden is like the spinster/widow feeding stray cats in the neighborhood.

 

[Bomb#20]

- Sweden's unsuccessful immigration strategy at breaking point
...
CONTINUES

It is simply not possible to combine a welfare state with (nearly) free immigration from the third world. And it is not possible for our small country alone to solve the world's refugee problems (even though our politicians seem to think so).

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem likely to change. Even the slightest hint that there might be practical limitations on how many refugees that Sweden can take at a certain time point in time is considered racist.

Why call the strategy unsuccessful? The goal appears to be for Sweden to be the world's "humanitarian superpower". Isn't that what Reinfeldt called Sweden? It looks like the immigration strategy has been wildly successful at accomplishing that.

 

[Jayjay]

It is simply not possible to combine a welfare state with (nearly) free immigration from the third world. And it is not possible for our small country alone to solve the world's refugee problems (even though our politicians seem to think so).

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem likely to change. Even the slightest hint that there might be practical limitations on how many refugees that Sweden can take at a certain time point in time is considered racist.

Why call the strategy unsuccessful? The goal appears to be for Sweden to be the world's "humanitarian superpower". Isn't that what Reinfeldt called Sweden? It looks like the immigration strategy has been wildly successful at accomplishing that.

Let's go with that premise. So what humanitarian crisis has the Swedish immigration policy managed to avert? For every refugee that gets asylum in Sweden, there are thousands who don't. That hardly makes it a "superpower".

 

[Bomb#20]

Why call the strategy unsuccessful? The goal appears to be for Sweden to be the world's "humanitarian superpower". Isn't that what Reinfeldt called Sweden? It looks like the immigration strategy has been wildly successful at accomplishing that.

Let's go with that premise. So what humanitarian crisis has the Swedish immigration policy managed to avert? For every refugee that gets asylum in Sweden, there are thousands who don't. That hardly makes it a "superpower".

The humanitarian crisis of 86000 homeless people on Sweden's doorstep. I was being sarcastic. The purpose of the strategy appears to have been to make Reinfeldt and the other officials responsible for it feel worthy of patting themselves on the back about how they've made Sweden a humanitarian superpower. To accomplish that goal the strategy doesn't need to benefit 86 million-plus refugees. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[maxparrish]

Sweden is the canary in the mine. The open borders advocates of the US are clueless in their enthusiasm for massively increased immigration quotas, unrestricted chain migration, and desire to repeatedly grant amnesty to illegals. As it stands, over 50 million legal residents in the US (citizen and noncitizen) are foreign born - the highest percentage in the nation's history. (This does not, of course, include their US born offspring or their children).

Sweden has, of course, many faults from small government perspective. It's wages are compressed (before taxes), filled with nanny state social rules, and has a high minimum wage which limits business variety and risk. The result is, to some Americans living in Sweden, is that it is well regulated boredom.

But it is a welfare-state; and like any parent who supplies free room and board to guests it's going to attract many more (and discourage those who arrive from getting too serious about working).

The numbers in the article speaks volumes:

- The median refugee granted asylum in Sweden during 2004 merely earned £880 ($1372 USD) a month ten years later.

- Amongst family immigrants of refugees the level was as low as £360 ($ 561 USD).

- The cost of giving support to a single youth who comes without adult companionship, is annually around € 100 000 ($114,000). This translates to a cost of € 240 ($273) million per week for recent arrivals. Continuing the current volumes, under the current policies, are nearly impossible

Consider that last number. If true it is a disaster. The US is 30 times larger in population than Sweden (and it has a well over a 30 times larger economy to absorb those costs). In US terms of impact that would be equal to over 8 billion PER WEEK, or 432 billion a year.

- The country has during the 1990s and the early 2000s received around 100 immigrants a week, a high number for a small country with below 10 million in population. So much so 20 percent of Sweden's population is either foreign born or second generation offspring from foreign born.

- Last week around 10 000 immigrants arrived to Sweden.

By using tents and allocating public places such as public school gymnasiums as refugee centers the government hopes to grant housing to 150 000 immigrants this year.

Another six months to a year at this level of "compassion" will break the Swedish taxpayer, already one of the highest taxed in the world.

Bernie Sanders Scandinavian model?

 

[Jayjay]

Sweden is the canary in the mine. The open borders advocates of the US are clueless in their enthusiasm for massively increased immigration quotas, unrestricted chain migration, and desire to repeatedly grant amnesty to illegals. As it stands, over 50 million legal residents in the US (citizen and noncitizen) are foreign born - the highest percentage in the nation's history. (This does not, of course, include their US born offspring or their children).

Sweden has, of course, many faults from small government perspective. It's wages are compressed (before taxes), filled with nanny state social rules, and has a high minimum wage which limits business variety and risk. The result is, to some Americans living in Sweden, is that it is well regulated boredom.

But it is a welfare-state; and like any parent who supplies free room and board to guests it's going to attract many more (and discourage those who arrive from getting too serious about working).

You are correct about Sweden being a welfare-state and having failed immigration policies, but that's precisely why the Swedish example is not comparable to USA. At best the Swedish canary could be used as a warning for other similar welfare-states in Scandinavia and EU, but I don't think you guys on that side of the pond need to worry.

 

[SimpleDon]

Sweden is the canary in the mine. The open borders advocates of the US are clueless in their enthusiasm for massively increased immigration quotas, unrestricted chain migration, and desire to repeatedly grant amnesty to illegals. As it stands, over 50 million legal residents in the US (citizen and noncitizen) are foreign born - the highest percentage in the nation's history. (This does not, of course, include their US born offspring or their children).

Sweden has, of course, many faults from small government perspective. It's wages are compressed (before taxes), filled with nanny state social rules, and has a high minimum wage which limits business variety and risk. The result is, to some Americans living in Sweden, is that it is well regulated boredom.

But it is a welfare-state; and like any parent who supplies free room and board to guests it's going to attract many more (and discourage those who arrive from getting too serious about working).

The numbers in the article speaks volumes:

- The median refugee granted asylum in Sweden during 2004 merely earned £880 ($1372 USD) a month ten years later.

- Amongst family immigrants of refugees the level was as low as £360 ($ 561 USD).

- The cost of giving support to a single youth who comes without adult companionship, is annually around € 100 000 ($114,000). This translates to a cost of € 240 ($273) million per week for recent arrivals. Continuing the current volumes, under the current policies, are nearly impossible

Consider that last number. If true it is a disaster. The US is 30 times larger in population than Sweden (and it has a well over a 30 times larger economy to absorb those costs). In US terms of impact that would be equal to over 8 billion PER WEEK, or 432 billion a year.

- The country has during the 1990s and the early 2000s received around 100 immigrants a week, a high number for a small country with below 10 million in population. So much so 20 percent of Sweden's population is either foreign born or second generation offspring from foreign born.

- Last week around 10 000 immigrants arrived to Sweden.

By using tents and allocating public places such as public school gymnasiums as refugee centers the government hopes to grant housing to 150 000 immigrants this year.

Another six months to a year at this level of "compassion" will break the Swedish taxpayer, already one of the highest taxed in the world.

Bernie Sanders Scandinavian model?

I don't see many open border advocates in the US. The closest that we have to this description are those who want to increase immigration to suppress the wages of American workers in order to increase the incomes of the wealthy. That is the supply siders. And open borders is a long term objective of the libertarians.

Sweden has a higher labor force participation rate, that is, has created more jobs for its citizens, than the US, has about the same productivity and has many more small businesses and has a much more dynamic and innovate economy than the US. It's biggest economic and fiscal failures in the last decade or so have involved its occasional adoption of tenets of supply side economics; austerity, deregulation, regressive, job killing taxation, etc.

And not too surprisingly your statement that Sweden has a compressed wage structure before taxes is completely wrong, Sweden has a greater income inequality before taxes than the US.

Yes, an open borders policy is bad for a developed country, especially one with a generous social safety net. Just like it is stupid for a country to intentionally suppress wages in order to increase investment without imposing some capital controls to make sure that the investment stays in the country.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Sweden's unsuccessful immigration strategy at breaking point.

Well ship 'em over here. Despite the nativist howlings we can handle them like we handled the Italians.

-The US.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Sweden's unsuccessful immigration strategy at breaking point.

Well ship 'em over here. Despite the nativist howlings we can handle them like we handled the Italians.

-The US.

Is that what the Navaho and Apache once said?

 

[maxparrish]

Sweden is the canary in the mine. The open borders advocates of the US are clueless in their enthusiasm for massively increased immigration quotas, unrestricted chain migration, and desire to repeatedly grant amnesty to illegals. As it stands, over 50 million legal residents in the US (citizen and noncitizen) are foreign born - the highest percentage in the nation's history. (This does not, of course, include their US born offspring or their children)....

Bernie Sanders Scandinavian model?

I don't see many open border advocates in the US. The closest that we have to this description are those who want to increase immigration to suppress the wages of American workers in order to increase the incomes of the wealthy. That is the supply siders. And open borders is a long term objective of the libertarians.

Its very clear that we have plenty of open borders promoters, it's just that many of them couch their advocacy using humanitarian and economic rationales that provide no limits to immigration. They can't tell you how many is enough...other than repeating empty headed platitudes about their inability to deny the world's poor the right to come...blah...blah...blah.

We saw them in the immigration fights in the second Bush term, a Senate majority that tried to massively (doubled or more?) annual legal immigration quotas, speeded up chain migration, and provided calculated to be ineffective border controls. Most Democrats and many Republicans in those fights supported it.

Sweden has a higher labor force participation rate, that is, has created more jobs for its citizens, than the US, has about the same productivity and has many more small businesses and has a much more dynamic and innovate economy than the US. It's biggest economic and fiscal failures in the last decade or so have involved its occasional adoption of tenets of supply side economics; austerity, deregulation, regressive, job killing taxation, etc.

And not too surprisingly your statement that Sweden has a compressed wage structure before taxes is completely wrong, Sweden has a greater income inequality before taxes than the US.

Curious claims in that much of it runs contrary to commentary I have read, or those who I know to have lived in Europe and Sweden. Do you have a citation or source for these characterizations or did you imagine them?

For example, a blog by a naturalized American born and raised in Sweden: http://swedenreport.org/

They’ve never paid a dime in taxes, yet enter the system with full benefits from day one. In theory, this would be made up for by the younger relatives working and paying taxes. Sadly, this is not the case; while ethnical Swedes have a 82% employment rate, immigrants only have 57% with non-Europeans coming in at just 51%.

While that may (or may not) mean labor participation is higher (depending on how they calculate it), its clear that non-Europeans have much higher rates of unemployment.

Or for example:

Most common are simpler jobs in Cyprus where they represent nearly 17 percent of all jobs. The average for the EU is just over 9 per cent and not less common these jobs in Sweden where they represent only 5 percent of all jobs.

Sweden has few simple jobs can be linked to that we have a compressed wage structure with high minimum wage. According to the latest Eurostat data on wage structure exhibits Sweden at least differences of all EU ies when comparing median salary with the salary for the 10 percent who earn at least (for data, see menu above the graph). One consequence of high minimum wages may be low-productivity jobs eliminated since it is simply not economically profitable to employ people on this type of service.

http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta...ttning/Lagkvalificerade-jobb-internationellt/

You've made quite a few dubious claims, how about some support?

 

[skepticalbip]

Well ship 'em over here. Despite the nativist howlings we can handle them like we handled the Italians.

-The US.

Is that what the Navaho and Apache once said?

I think those tribes had finally figured out what was going on and tried to stop the European immigrants. However in my area of the country the Lower Creek and the Yamacraw welcomed and helped the European immigrants settle in. The Lower Creek and Yamacraw didn't even get a reservation for their assisting the immigrants, only completely displaced.

The immigration of Jews seeking a home in the ME in the wake of WWII worked out fairly well for them but not so much for the Palestinians.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well ship 'em over here. Despite the nativist howlings we can handle them like we handled the Italians.

-The US.

Is that what the Navaho and Apache once said?

Interesting choice of tribes. They're the descendants of recent invaders from Canada.

 

[Tammuz]

Interesting to see the opposite side of the coin: liberalism taken to an extreme. Also interesting to confirm that there are real reasons for immigration laws.

I agree. And yet you can't really talk about this in Sweden, or at least you can't say that maybe we can't take in all of the world's refugees. The whole immigration debate is centered on being in opposition to the Sweden Democrats, rather than about what's best for the country. Prime minister Stefan Löfven has urged the other EU countries to "take responsibility", which means taking in more refugees, probably in the hope that not as many will come to Sweden. He can't say directly that Sweden can't take this many (though he is probably aware of it), it is not politically possible to do so.

Yet it is no natural law that we should have this many immigrants. The other Nordic countries take far fewer per capita than we do.

When it comes to refugees, I think we should more or less only accept those assigned to us by the UN and EU quotas.

Perhaps a year ago (about when the refugee waves started to become really big), the politicians and journalists still talked about how it will benefit Sweden and therefore it is desirable policy. Now they no longer do that, it is widely accepted that it will be an economic strain on Sweden for a very long time ahead. Now it is about being the "humanitarian superpower".

It is in a sense interesting to be in the middle of a social experiment...

 

[Juma]

And yet you can't really talk about this in Sweden, or at least you can't say that maybe we can't take in all of the world's refugees..

This is bullshit and you know it.

 

[maxparrish]

And yet you can't really talk about this in Sweden, or at least you can't say that maybe we can't take in all of the world's refugees..

This is bullshit and you know it.

Is it? He was not speaking of punishment by the law, but of what is and is not socially acceptable - as well as the fierce intolerance of those who hold hold anti-immigrant views.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/opinion/sunday/syrian-refugees-nordic-dilemma.html?_r=0

This is just the kind of blunt talk that is strictly avoided in Sweden. Take the comments of the incumbent prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, a few weeks before last Sunday’s election. He asked voters to “open their hearts” to Syrian refugees, even though the escalating cost of supporting them would preclude further welfare benefits for Swedes. The comment caused an outcry — not because it seemed to favor refugees over Swedes, but simply for suggesting that refugee policy needed to be considered on economic grounds.

And yet there is plenty to discuss. Mr. Ranstorp, the counterterrorism official, described a recent visit to Angered, an overwhelmingly immigrant suburb of Gothenberg, the second-largest city in Sweden: “I found extremism, but I also found overcrowded housing, drug gangs controlling the area, police not reporting crime, people living in drab apartment blocks with no shops, a parallel justice system.”

One perverse result of Sweden’s refusal to engage these problems, Mr. Ranstorp and others say, is to have ceded the immigration debate to a far-right party whose leader has likened Islam to “the worst threat facing Sweden since World War II.”

“Sweden is very puzzling,” said Grete Brochmann, a leading Norwegian immigration scholar. The Swedes, she said, “are extremely liberal toward immigration, but they have a very authoritarian attitude toward debate about it. In Norway the idea is, open discussion is basically good. If there’s hostility, better to get it out.”

Your overreaction to Tammuz suggests his comments were spot on.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Is that what the Navaho and Apache once said?

Interesting choice of tribes. They're the descendants of recent invaders from Canada.

Did they wipe out the local populations in the South West USA? For sure other tribes have disappeared

 

[arkirk]

Something seems to be missing in this conversation about "immigrants." That is the word REFUGEE. What you have is one country trying to live up to the U.N.convention on refugees and a lot of countries with a more racist government not doing so. The noncompliant elephant in the bathtub this time...that chaos maker, the uncontrollable rogue in the middle east and beyond....with lots of land liberated from the native Americans for these guys to occupy? We blew the crap out of Iraq on a lie, destabilizing the entire ME and now we might consider taking a few displaced people. Europe is not innocent. We are still in the ME screwing with societies we cannot even comprehend and we have no business there. Posters here all talk about these foreign lands from the standpoint of people of privilege. What has settled on the middle east...a set of anachronisms we simply cannot deal with. The only involvement our government actually honors is the need for some of their oil. So go ahead and hammer Sweden. The truth is that so many countries are not doing their part in dealing with refugees.

 

[fromderinside]

I agree. And yet you can't really talk about this in Sweden, or at least you can't say that maybe we can't take in all of the world's refugees. The whole immigration debate is centered on being in opposition to the Sweden Democrats, rather than about what's best for the country. Prime minister Stefan Löfven has urged the other EU countries to "take responsibility", which means taking in more refugees, probably in the hope that not as many will come to Sweden. He can't say directly that Sweden can't take this many (though he is probably aware of it), it is not politically possible to do so.

Yet it is no natural law that we should have this many immigrants. The other Nordic countries take far fewer per capita than we do.

When it comes to refugees, I think we should more or less only accept those assigned to us by the UN and EU quotas.

Perhaps a year ago (about when the refugee waves started to become really big), the politicians and journalists still talked about how it will benefit Sweden and therefore it is desirable policy. Now they no longer do that, it is widely accepted that it will be an economic strain on Sweden for a very long time ahead. Now it is about being the "humanitarian superpower".

It is in a sense interesting to be in the middle of a social experiment...

Thanks for the insight.