How the murder of a Swedish rapper shocked a nation
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
My reading of the article suggests limitations to your interpretation. (These may be from being an American reading about Sweden through a British news source.)
Sweden's drug policies seem rather prohibitionist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden says there's "zero tolerance focusing on prevention, treatment, and control, aiming to reduce both the supply of and demand for illegal drugs", and that cannabis is still a Schedule I drug.
It therefore seems another answer is that Swedish drug prohibition policies have failed. There's clearly a demand ("Large quantities [of narcotics] were detected regardless of how wealthy or poor the district"), and the article says funding for the gangs comes from selling drugs.
If immigrants were magically removed, there will still be the demand for illegal drugs, yes? I find it hard to believe no one will fill that gap.
Also from the article, why are immigrants geographically segregated and socially excluded?
I ask because the article is also clear that the older policing policy, where officers didn't know the community, caused part of the failure. ("The turnaround had been built on old-school policing, he said - talking to everyone, including the Ali Khans ... winning back the trust of Hjällbo's residents offers a back-to-basics reminder for UK policing".) Why did 'old-school policing' disappear in immigrant neighborhoods?
And isn't a third answer that many other EU countries (and my country, the US) didn't accept refugees anywhere near the extent that Sweden and Germany did, seemingly out of xenophobic fears?
Eg, 1 million Irish economic refugees immigrated to the US after the Great Famine. The US accepted 22K Syrian refugees [1] from 2010-2020, and 24 governors didn't want those refugees settled in their state [2]. Sweden accepted 114K Syrian refugees [3].
[1] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34848248
[3] http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__BE_... selecting years 2010-2020.
You have groups of people from different war zones bringing their own intra group conflicts to a new country, compounded with those groups interacting and having to deal with each other, with both coexistence and conflict.
Regarding why they’re segregated, I don’t know for sure. But I suspect it’s a combination of people wanting to fulfill their social ideals with minimal upset to their existing standard of living. I’m also pretty certain there is some political division, as refugees are likely to vote for one party over another.
My comment was that if Norway and other countries accepted more refugees, then the work to integrate, support, etc. could have been distributed across more people. "Many hands make light work."
Obviously if Sweden were the only country to accept refugees then they would be the only ones to have problems because of refugees. And the other countries would disrespect basic human rights. So why do you place the blame solely on the refugees and not also include those who refuse to offer aid or, as with my country, offer only pitiful aid?
According to the article, the recent change in policing was driven by the authorities, not by "people wanting to fulfill their social ideals", etc. How can you be sure the earlier change wasn't also driven by authorities? (Had it been the US, racism would almost certainly have been a contributing factor. I can't speak to Sweden.)