Is the Swedish party SD some kind of paralysed and controlled opposition to all the leftist parties in Sweden? And even the Moderates’ promise of responsible immigration is becoming a punch in the air. We will probably end up with about 100,000 immigrants this year as well, if you add up all the sources (statistics are available from the Migration Board). Even smaller parties than SD have been more successful in negotiating their policies, especially their core issues.
To me, state-subsidised immigration is like any other political issue, where taxpayers’ money is spent profligately or misspent. I am not a do-gooder, I know we cannot house all the refugees in the world or all those who want to move for economic reasons. Sweden has a small indigenous population that represents about 0.1% of all people on earth.
A Swedish government should of course protect the inhabitants and support their economy, culture and society. There is nothing odd about that. On the other hand, it would be strange if the government were to act on behalf of other countries or interests. You don’t have to be a nationalist or right-wing to agree on this issue.
It would be easy to reduce immigration to Sweden, simply by restoring the normal requirements for asylum and family immigration, as well as reviewing all incorrect applications, and deporting criminals and those who have lied about their country of origin. It is a serious offence to cheat your way to a residence permit or citizenship, thereby obtaining benefits paid for by the taxpayer. And even worse, to do all this and also engage in robbery, gang crime, etc.
Those who have not lied or engaged in illegal activities are of course not covered by this. In addition, a dedicated migration police would probably be required, but this is not unusual, such organisations exist even in less developed countries than Sweden. As well as cutting benefits and allowances for foreigners, and that includes EU migrants. And that you use or revive laws for disruptive behaviour, vagrancy, begging, etc. Then there is no need for “search zones” and the like. There will be no “us and them”, but only a concrete responsibility to maintain law and order.
It is really no more difficult than this. It is a matter of affirming laws that already exist but are being circumvented, or looking at older regulations that worked well.
But our elected representatives obviously don’t want to. Why, you might ask?
