Sweden turns to military to help police combat gang crime
ft.com
ft.com
Meanwhile in other countries (e.g. Spain) the left don't want to face the very same issues (although we don't have that many fireguns related crimes, in our case the weapons of choice are usually machetes, knives, etc...)
If you listen to the PM, yes. Another major factor (actually the biggest?) is Sweden's among European countries relatively unique hardline and boneheaded stance on recreational drugs including cannabis, which has contributed to growth and strengthening of criminal gangs who fund themselves and maintain territory by drug trade, simultaneously silently pushing otherwise law-abiding citizens into the criminal sphere, furthering the split into parallel societies. Basically the opposite of the Portugal approach. There are arguments that the law on sex work (buying sexual services is a crime; selling is not) has been having similar effect.
If you believe it was naivete behind the open immigration policy, well, you could still say the same here.
Same for euthanasia. At least we have a strong abortion law thanks to Ms Veil and others that fought for it in the 70's.
This is roughly what you should expect if you get busted carrying one joint in Sweden.
Source: Some people around my social circle smoked back in uni.
Aside: I'm curious what these numbers would be for other European countries:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37758402
> Sweden has about 8600 people in prison so about 37% of their prison population is in there for "drug offenses"
Source: it happened to me.
And I'm sure the archaic drug legislation and a few details about the court system play a part too.
how can this ever be changed? it's a free country so these people have freedom of movement and of course they will choose to live next to their friends and relatives. Unless you propose to forcibly disperse them away from each other?
You cannot always choose exactly where to live. Initial location can be mandated.
Which tends to be satellite towns that need population or have been selected as strategical requiring population growth.
Immigration and Housing Policy are conversational hot potatoes.
https://www.sbs.com.au/voices/creative/the-karen-road-to-nhi...
Increased resettlement of migrants and refugees in regional Australia has been an on-going focus of the policies of successive governments.
One recent regional resettlement experience, initiated at the local level, has yielded significant outcomes for a small regional community and the refugees involved.
From: https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/settling-in-australia/settle...
> descent
30 years after showing up most of them were speaking English and generally living in roughly the same culture (be it Catholic or Protestant) with roughly similar expectations. As opposed to Muslim, East Asian, Aztec, etc.
Like my people were French huguenots (protestants) and rapidly turned into any other VA tobacco farmers
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/12/opinion/colum...
It was relatively unified because blacks were subjugated until 1968, despite the bloodiest civil war in history liberating them from slavery 100 years before that. Where are you coming from with this?
Diversity isn't a problem in itself; we just have no singular culture for everyone to assimilate into so we trend towards chaos. "When in Rome" has never applied here.
and there are other examples.
Anyway, these countries have not invited 1 million+ people from a dramatically different(read: backwards) cultures that are completely incompatible. Singapore has invited skilled labor from all over the world.
If 1 million Polish or 1 million Portuguese had migrated to Sweden over the last 20 years, I doubt we would be having such problems.
> the US has kind of been trending downwards since the 1970s
The US and Sweden both had a rough 1970s, and both bounced back pretty well.
> Anyway, these countries have not invited 1 million+ people from a dramatically different(read: backwards) cultures that are completely incompatible.
The US accepts about a million new immigrants every year, give or take, and has forever. The accents have changed somewhat over my lifetime time but almost all of them have been from countries that are poor and experiencing very bad things. It is a core strength of America that we collect people from all over, quickly turn them into Americans, and borrow the best things about where they came from, and call them our own. Some of my ancestors emigrated to America from Sweden, and I will say that I am very glad that they did for the economic opportunities they found here and because I didn't have to grow up in a monoculture.
A better example would be Switzerland (where I currently reside).
Please. Media hysterics aside, the U.S. is much better than many, many countries on class divide, and incredibly good at turning immigrants from an incredibly broad range of societies into Americans very peacefully with their full, willfull personal involvement. It manages to do this without even forcing integration or making most people feel ashamed of their origins. It's why there are huge ethnic communities spreading around the country to this day despite their children integrating with the essentials of U.S. society.
So much of the claims against the U.S. for the above seem to be based on a deluded idea of how it works in practice with minimal perspective allowed. Compared to most of the world's other big countries and so many smaller ones, the U.S. is incredibly effective at class mobility, social mobility and integrating immigrants peacefully while still allowing vast numbers of them in per year to this day. I don't see Russia or China welcoming one million immigrants per year and peacefully turning them into their own people in all but ethnic origin and underlying pride in cultural roots.
Even western Europe, for all its liberal platitudes, is rife with hardened underlying racism and ethnic social balkanization to a degree that would give even deep red state Americans a run for their money, it just hides it more smoothly (usually).
All your arguments are related to migration. I agree there is a lot of racism in Europe. There is a lot of racism everywhere(yes, even in the US).
I am talking about social mobility. Things such as health care, education and the justice system works much, much better for the poor in Europe. Obviously YMMV. Some countries are more backwards than others, France and the UK especially(according to my observations).
While in the US you have to pay tens of thousands of to hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to a good university, in most of Europe all you need are good grades from high school(or equivalent).
Similarly, good health care is accessible to everyone, while in the US it can absolutely bankrupt you, even for the middle class.
Obviously both Europe and the USA are both diverse places. You can't really compare Switzerland to Romania. You can't really compare New York to Georgia.
Sweden's had quite the spread from backwards nations to reach that 1 million (2010 - 2020 inclusive):
* Poland 47,940
* Somalia 46,044
* Germany 26,945
* Finland 26,521
* Denmark 21,792
* United Kingdom 21,285
* Norway 21,265
* United States 19,378
etc. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden#Contempo... )
With the largest number, 177,154 from Syria - more wartorn and shredded by decades of totalitarian dictatorship than intrinsically 'backwards'.
Apparently Sweden has the highest gap between employment rate of citizen and non-EU citizen in the whole European Union. I think it's mainly because so many migrants arrived to seek asylum rather than work. But yes, city planning and ineffective legal system do not exactly help either.
Sweden quite simply took in way too many people who would have required a lot of help to integrate, stuffed them into bad neighbourhoods and gave them free money. I'm sure many companies have benefited from this supply of slave labour, but for the society as a whole it has been a disaster.
Sweden was one of the countries which specifically took the refugees that other countries didn't want: Somalian, Eritrean, Syrian, Afghan, etc. If you look at other countries that have taken people from these countries, the same thing has happened but at a lower level. Sweden went as far as it is possible to go, they let anyone in and gave them citizenship immediately...this is the result, that is why they have had particularly severe problems.
I will also gently point out...the recent wave of illegal immigration into Europe is coming from these countries again. Other countries are represented, some of these have their own issues but the specific issues with people from one or two of the countries above (I won't name which) are well-known and exist in every other country they have ended up (in the case of one, this has been going on since the mid-90s...the reason why no-one wanted them before is because countries have tried to take them before...and it didn't work, Sweden had very specific beliefs about integration that guided their decisions...and they turned out to be very wrong).
There it is said that only a third of the gang members are German citizens. They've got like 100 gangs that matter there, and pretty much all are Turkish (Kurds too, not that specific ethnicities matter too much but the point here is that they are immigrant gangs and they are a direct result of the immigrant policies).
Edit: I must add that here in Spain we have the "okupa" problem where people occupy unused houses for years sometimes before a judge rules they should be taken out.
This creates tension not only with the squatters, but also with their partisans.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53517022
https://www.dw.com/en/new-years-eve-in-cologne-5-years-after...
I have come to believe since a time ago that the only solution is a more or less revolutionary change in how our country is managed is the only way to solve the underlying issues of corruption and nepotism that we see in our governments right now. This situation also does not seem to be unique to my own country unfortunately, but rather indicative of the situation the entire west sits in.
As times get more and more violent, the chances for a truly peaceful solution become smaller and smaller. It's high time to start looking at what in other times would have seemed like drastic solutions, like mass deportation. Beggars cannot be choosers when it comes to solving a problem of this scale, and at this late a stage of a frankly potentially terminal sickness.
Anyone that’s been to sweden can see how segregated some of these people lived for “decades”, and not by their choice. What i dont understand is why such countries advertise themselves as “welcoming” when in fact are pretty unwelcoming and closed. No wonder people struggle to integrate. People dont just appear from nowhere, they are being pulled by certain factors - one being that the swedish economy is supposedly advanced.
Instead though, sweden, germany, etc want what they call “cheap labour” - a people living in perpetual poverty doing jobs “the locals dont want”. All masked by virtue signaling. Well it turns out the cheap labour doesnt want to live like a perpetual underclass and wants a way out. These criminal acts are just signs of desperation. I think they should be dealt with swiftly and boldly and the criminal element rooted out but people need to be given a real chance to integrate. Regardless, sweden is now a changed country and will remain so.
And even then, theories about why it didn't work is certainly something that belongs in an ivory tower. Now we need decisive policy to correct this giant error, no matter "what caused the error". Mass deportation is the only solution that I see, and the more we wait in implementing it, I predict the less peaceful the outcome will be.
The UK appears to have succeeded at that despite and in-spite of all the issues. Take notes from this country, as in my view, it is the most open among european countries.
replace that with any other sets of races an tell me if that's still acceptable
There is another way.
Nordic Biker War? Where 10 people died in all of Scandinavia over a decade time? You think this is at all comparable? 10 people die on a W E E K L Y basis in Sweden, almost exclusively young migrant men(usually 2nd generation).
Indeed, Sweden(=Swedish left wing and liberal politicians) should not have been pursuing this extreme policy of open borders from Africa and the Middle East.
The Swedish people were never in favor of mass immigration, despite the amount of propaganda they were fed on a daily basis by SVT & SR(Swedish state broadcast).
Good observation. Probably the answer is that it felt morally good in the short term. Many members of the “educated class” in Sweden wanted to feel good about doing what they believed was right, but just as long as it didn’t mean actually having to be too close to the newcomers. So they kept filling up the (in relative terms) unattractive remote districts and tried for a long time to look away while problems there built up and gang shootings and bombings became frequent
I’ve heard hypotheses about Sweden’s collective guilt about having helped the Nazis during the 2nd world war being a possible cause for the posture as “moral superpower” which shaped the politics of the later decades.
None of this context is there.
Dotted line is reported murders to compare like to like: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Fatal_vi...
So to answer the OP's question (Instead of trying to cheat by answering a completely different question) it's about 2x worse now than 10 years ago. The fact that we were once on this level before is completely irrelevant.
Imagine as you might, you bring in 150,000 syrians. Do you have enough arabic translators? Obviously not, how about language teachers? Obviously not. How about beds? What you want them to sleep on park benches?
But when you have gotten to the point where your law enforcement has failed their job and you bring in the military. The fundamental country rule is that the government gets complete monopoly over violence, law enforcement is to prevent violence. When you no longer can do this, you have failed and are no longer legitimate as a country.
This is the point of posse comitatus.