He speaks for the entire government. It could not be clearer.
And yet, Geert Wilders says that their immigration policy needs to be more like America’s. The one after 1965.
Hi, Swedish guy here. You seem not to understand how the word “multiculturalism” is used in Europe; it is not perceived as an “American” model, but exclusively European.
There’s a growing realisation that “multikulti” has not worked out very well in Europe, where immigrants, often refugees without jobs, without knowing the language in the new country, without much prospects, are grouped into certain areas where they are supposed to have their own culture unaltered. This often causes alienation and sociological problems because they never get integrated; you get societies within the society where kids growing up have very little chance and often no will to get a regular job and learn the language, becoming part of the larger society (this is simplified of course). The multikulti model has failed, according to Angela Merkel and others; it simply does not work very well. In Denmark (who’s immigration politics I do not agree with) there is even talk about to literally demolish such neighbourhoods supposedly to force integration…!
The “American model” by contrast, is perceived as the successful one – the “melting pot”, where people go to America and become Americans. So if you are of non-American heritage, you soon identify yourself as an American. Not so with multikulti – you are still [this-or-that] living in, say, Sweden. As time goes by there is no mutual respect or interest, and as everyone can imagine, the society-within-the-society has its own rules which do not necessarily comply with the ethics and even the law of the larger society. This leads to all kind of problems.
So the European countries you are talking about, are not abandoning “American multiculturalism”, but “European multiculturalism”.
Are you implying something by this, and if so, would you like tell us instead of using smilies.
This is not surprising. When you have former EU commissioners suggesting it is no longer safe for Jewish people in Holland something has to change.
I think he’s implying that the Swedish media are overwhelmingly in favor of promoting multiculturalism & immigration while downplaying or ignoring any downsides.
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-york-times-on-swedens-immigration.html
Ok, thanks! – While Sweden is perhaps the most politically correct nation on earth, there is some truth to this, but the issue as such is discussed in the media; not the least after the Angela Merkel announcement.
He thinks the Swedish media is censoring the Truth. From the other thread:
As a Western Cultural supremacist I rejoice at this news. Our civilization should aim for complete westernization of the world.
Thanks, Der Trihs, I should have figured. The Swedish Democrats is a populistic/nationalistic party with a history of nazi flirtation, though recently they remodeled themself to get some votes.
Below is a link the political commercial the OP is talking about in the quote you provided. The story in the commercial is that Sweden’s financial situation is desperate (it is actually rock solid), and yet Sweden is spending all her money on muslim immigrants instead of supporting Swedish seniors, which is obviously nonsense (and the vast majority of immigrants to Sweden are christians, by the way). Even though you don’t understand the language, the stupidity is universal: Link.
Despite its past (by that logic we must condemn the Democrats for their Dixiecrat past) the Swedish Democrat’s included many immigrants (including Chaldean Christains) in its ranks.
So…?
The basic point is a valid one. Places like Sweden have strong welfare systems. If you change the balance of dependents/tax payers too much by changing the demographics it may upset the system.
The “basic point” – what “basic point”?
That the Swedish social welfare model (any social welfare model) is not going to be sustainable with large scale low skill immigration. Even less so if the groups are not culturally compatible. Milton Friedman pointed this out about 20 years ago.
But then how come Sweden has pretty much the best financial situation in Europe right now? – And the blog you quoted, that’s just somebody talking out of his hat. The immigration in Sweden is not without problems, certainly, but don’t give me this tired old crap.
He’s referring to the impacts in the longer run if the demographics change so you increase the proportion of non-working adults. What are the mathematical effects of continually adding to the denominator while keeping the numerator constant or growing at a far smaller rate than the denominator?
What are the effects of adding net tax recipients to a system where the net tax contributors grow at a slower rate?
What happens to income inequality when the floor keeps getting lowered by the importation of poverty? The usual response is to call for more confiscation from those in the higher income quintiles. As the numerator holds constant and the denominator continues to grow over the years, with the added people who comprise the denominator disproportionately filling out the lowest income quintiles, the redistribution effect gets diluted and the calls for even more expansive redistribution grow stronger. The effect is akin to a rowboat with a hole in it needing to be bailed while on a journey across the lake as the occupants of the row boat purposely make the hole larger and larger, thus necessitating ever more vigorous bailing.
Importation of poverty is not a rational policy choice.
I was correcting the implied statement that the Swedish Democrats consist of lunatic neo-Nazis and those of that ilk.
I made no “implied statement” of the kind. If there were any factual errors in my post, please point them out.
Wait, when did any country in Europe ever adopt “American” multiculturalism? When did they ever look to American models for their immigration policy or whatever?
Okay, sorry.