{"id":25232,"date":"2021-11-22T14:15:01","date_gmt":"2021-11-22T19:15:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=25232"},"modified":"2021-11-22T14:15:03","modified_gmt":"2021-11-22T19:15:03","slug":"sweden-making-migration-changes-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2021\/11\/22\/sweden-making-migration-changes-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Stockholm Wises Up on Immigration While Washington Plays Dumb"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the wake of Europe\u2019s 2015 migrant crisis<\/a>, liberal leaders in Sweden have moved away from their Democratic Party comrades in the U.S. Ruling Social Democrats\u00a0<\/a>in Stockholm declared recently, \u201cAll major parties [in Sweden]today stand for a restrictive migration policy with a strong focus on law and order.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At their\npeak, Sweden’s migration flows were less than America’s in raw numbers, but the\ncountry’s asylum applications were second only to Hungary in the European Union\n(EU), per 100,000 population. Today, Sweden\u2019s 2 million-plus refugees and\nmigrants \u2013 along with rising crime and socioeconomic dysfunction — have the\nglobal bastion of progressivism rethinking the cost-benefits of mass\nimmigration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sweden has gone from having one of the lowest to one of the highest levels of gun violence in Europe. Gangs of second-generation immigrants from Somalia, Eritrea, Morocco and elsewhere in North Africa specialize in drug trafficking and the use of explosives, according to reports<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A 2020 book,\u00a0\u201cMass Challenge: The Socioeconomic Impact of Migration to a Scandinavian Welfare State,\u201d<\/a> relates that immigrants to Sweden account for 53 percent of individuals with long prison sentences and 90 percent of suspects in public shootings. Meanwhile, the foreign-born represent 58 percent of the unemployed, and consume 65 percent of social welfare expenditures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In June 2016, Sweden revised longstanding policies to\u00a0deny refugees<\/a>\u00a0permanent asylum; instead they get only temporary permits. Last year, the country accepted just 13,000 refugees, the lowest total in 30 years<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EU has taken note as it supports Poland<\/a> turning back waves of Third World migrants sent by neighboring Belarus. No one has suggested accepting their claims of persecution because doing so would encourage tens of thousands more to come.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To reduce immigration fraud, the EU set up an asylum processing center in Rwanda<\/a>, with additional facilities being considered in Tunisia, Ethiopia, Egypt and Eritrea<\/a>. Hungary, Denmark and other European countries say that asylum applicants can only<\/em> file their claims from abroad. Illegal entry results in immediate expulsion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kristof Gyorgy Verus<\/a>, with the Migration Research Institute in Budapest, asserts that the U.S. is in a better position than Europe to manage migrant flows with the Remain in Mexico<\/a> policy and properly applied enforcement tools. But while Sweden and the European continent jettison lax immigration policies, President Joe Biden heads in the opposite direction. Dithering on the southern border, he didn\u2019t even discuss the ongoing immigration crisis when Mexico\u2019s president came to visit<\/a> last week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s\nstrange,\u201d Verus says of Washington\u2019s current course. \u201cYou have all the\nsolutions, you just need to implement them. For that you need political will.\u201d\nAnd not<\/em> the willfully destructive\npolitics of the open-borders crowd.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the wake of Europe\u2019s 2015 migrant crisis, liberal leaders in Sweden have moved away from their Democratic Party comrades in the U.S. Ruling Social Democrats\u00a0in Stockholm declared recently, \u201cAll major parties [in Sweden]today stand for a restrictive migration policy with a strong focus on law and order.\u201d\u00a0 At their peak, Sweden’s migration flows were<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":25081,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[548],"tags":[2950,1524,956,12595],"yst_prominent_words":[2530,3461,12594,7934,3716,2948,12591,12592,1980,1963,3998,2659,2188,2943,2095,2101,2754,12593,12590,1939],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25232"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25232"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25232\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25233,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25232\/revisions\/25233"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25081"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25232"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=25232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}