I can’t say for Sweden but in the Texas immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than citizens[1]. There doesn’t seem to be a good source of data for the US as a whole.
1. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/undocumented-immigrant-o...
I live in Sweden and the issues of lack of integration are eerily similar to those that affect the UK (where I was born and raised 80s-10s); pockets of extremely isolated cultures living in essentially parallel societies.
First, migration is too inclusive and too exclusive of a term. For example it would exclude a second generation individual- and if we are suggesting that religion is an issue, those tend to be more radical than their migrant parents.
It would also include people who already have a job and then move to Sweden.
In the UK, second generation migrants are often more spoiled and act worse than their comparatively entrepreneurial and industrious parents.
Then, to conflate matters even further there’s the issue that these parallel societies typically are poorer than the middle-class areas of the host country; and a correlation between wealth and crime is really strong.
So, it’s too reductive to claim anything relating to migration here. It’s an impossible conversation, and filled with conflicting personas in data and it is therefore difficult to contextualise with statistics.
The only reason why ones mind will struggle to grasp this is because you understand that there are severe consequences for openly criticizing immigration. Your mind will conjure "nuances" to allow you to avoid confronting the idea that something has to change, and allow you to remain socially, financially, even legally safe. As you live here in Sweden you will be aware of the number of people sentenced to prison for criticizing immigration, due to the hate speech legislation here.
The cause is a single genetically and socially society allowing mass immigration but not changing society to match the newcomers and/or not selecting newcomers based on culture similarities and/or not bridging the divide.
When you make a mass immigration commitment you need to follow it up with tons of work/money/education/discussion. That's why it fails in Europe but succeeds elsewhere. Then they make it impossible to succeed by limiting discussion and calling it hate speech.
North America has two different approaches. Leave who you are behind and become an American. Keep who you are and become Something/Canadian. Sweden wants it both ways.. leave who you are behind but never become Swedish.
I’m considered racist because I am extremely critical of islam and think that it has no place in our increasingly secular societies.
If you think I’m scared of talking about immigration, you are unfathomably mistaken.
However you have to talk about each part properly, is migration causing significant social unrest and tension? Probably, I would argue yes.
Are migrants more likely to commit crime? No, not really, when accounting for other things like income.
I might be a racist, but it is important to be a correct racist.
Check the site guidelines.
Also, I disagree.
Section: "In comments".
That’s not very helpful.
Let people into society and they will be part of it. Exclude them and they will form their own societies which you will have far greater issue with.
Edit - some examples - Several in the UK grew up in areas with poor schooling because of where they were born (places cheap enough for immigrants to move to). One who for similar reasons (poor local health service as a child) believes they have avoidable ongoing health issues. Black man im the UK cant flag a cab because they just wont stop for him despite being well dressed in a suit. Turkish-parent German feels pushed into 'workplace training school' (sorry I don't know the term) rather than university because of his background - had to do an extra 2 years of study "just because my parents are from Turkey". French woman of notth african ancestry felt she had to leave the country because she is constantly asked "where are you from" and they won't take "France" as an answer. Common thread is none of these people (all well spoken, well dressed, educated, well mannered) feel they had a chance at being part of mainstream society in their country of birth.
As far as the UK goes, Hindus and Sikhs, who look every bit as exotic and dark-skinned as Pakistanis, are on average richer than white Britons and also societally very successful.
If there is some kind of "pure skin colour"-based racism at work, it somehow didn't stop them from reaching the upper class within generation.
Also, Canada publishes numbers on this and I fed it into Excel: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=981003...
Muslims make up 10% of 2016 and later arrivals followed by 14.04% of their Non-permanent residents. Christianity, Secular and No Religion beat those numbers.
From what I understand, Sweden numbers are in 80% of immigrants are Muslim but this is all news articles and such, I'm unable to locate hard numbers.
Comparing Canada to Sweden I think is false comparison.
But since you brought it up, 14% of 1 million immigrants into a country with a 40M population is somewhat comparable to 80% of 100,000 immigrants to a 10M population country. And it's not 80%, the majority of Swedish immigrants are repatriating Swedes.
Maybe Sweden needs to start eating more Shawarma. It's super popular here in my part of Canada. Helps employ Arabs and acclimatizes Canadians to them.
What kind of immigrants are we talking about? What was their income, their skills, their ability to speak the local language, what jobs could they get once they arrived in the country? Answer all those questions, and depending on your answers we may find a completely integrated, successful migrant or someone who lives generally excluded from society. Skin color and religion may play a role sometimes, but they are typically far from being determinant.
For that matter, I am a dark skinned immigrant in the country I live in. I also speak the language fluently, am highly educated, and make around 3x the median local income. Of course, I never experienced racism. Change some of those social attributes, and I bet the outcome would be different.
Do you believe the average Swede wanted mass immigration in the first place?
I don't believe the average Swede wanted mass immigration but there were immigration policies in place that were put in place by Sweden's leaders on behalf of its people that weren't questioned until later. You are where you are now - you can't unring a bell. You have to deal with the issues of the future now not the issues of the past
But, if one understands that what the Swedish leaders did was not on behalf of it's people, you begin to understand what the future should look like.
But it happened. So what next, kill them all? Starve them in concentration camps? Isolate them on islands with no hope at all of integration or work?
If only there were some way to unite the nations to set up a better system that could prevent decades of internal war and conflict, or set up a treaty for how to handle refugees.
Perhaps even just some sort of union of all the European countries to jointly and equally share the load when refugees come.
Why?
> Isolate them on islands...
Why not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Jumeirah / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_(archipelago) , otherwise Malaysia and Indonesia come to mind.
> ...in concentration camps?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mina,_Saudi_Arabia <- looks comfortable. Tents even have AirCon and ability to cater for masses is proven already.
Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Line,_Saudi_Arabia ?
In other words: why should what happened in Islamistan not stay in Islamistan? (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah )
Let them fuck themselves. As they always do. No need for 'the (non-islamic) world' to support that.
But I don’t think using statistics (badly) is a way of having that particular conversation. Its too easy to end up in a conversation about nothing.
A weird fact about Sweden is that if a popular vote was ever held on immigration alone, we would never have had this situation. The polls on the issue have always been in majority "against" mass immigration. So for some reason democracy doesn't work over here. Maybe you've had better luck where you're at.
The failure of Syrian, Afghan, and Iraqi immigrants to integrate into Swedish culture is well documented. They exist almost as a separate society within Sweden now, unlike immigrants in Texas.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/28/sweden-records...
>In a national address on Thursday night, the prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, said it was “a difficult time for Sweden”, blaming “political naivety” and “unsuccessful integration”.
Would successful integration be like in Texas where most Anglos have little knowledge of Tejano culture?
Or perhaps you mean the Anglo immigrants who moved to Mexican Texas and promised to follow Mexican law and become Catholic but after they gained power they declared independence as a pro-slavery country, then after economic failure decided to join a neighboring country?
The Amish are successfully integrated into Pennsylvania, right? Even though they exist almost as a separate society?
>The impulse behind it is a sense of helplessness over a long-term rise in violent crime. Ten years ago Sweden, with 10m people, had one of the lowest rates of gun violence and murder in Europe. It now has one of the highest, averaging a shooting a day. In 2022, 62 people were shot dead; last year it was 53.
The Amish are not shooting people or forming violent gangs, comparing the two is not really a good example. In fact your comparison makes the point that the real reason for the problem in Sweden is the culture of the immigrants and not just the fact that they are immigrants or live as a separate society.
The Amish are deeply non-violent, and have no problem existing alongside the rest of the country. The same is not true in Sweden.
>Or perhaps you mean the Anglo immigrants
It wasn't colonized by only people of Anglo-Saxon origin, but people from all over Europe including Eastern Europe.
But yes, Texas was created in the same way that Mexico itself was created and that almost every other nation was created.
I think almost every Swede would consider it to be a bad thing if the same thing happened in Sweden.
I was asking you to explain what appropriate integration would mean when you write 'They exist almost as a separate society within Sweden now, unlike immigrants in Texas.'
We know there there are multiple almost separate societies in Texas, so if that's your touchstone, I don't understand it.
Brownsville, at 94% Hispanic, is a lot different from Galveston.
Regarding 'deeply non-violent', I urge you to consider that pacifism is not the same as non-violent. For example, "The Amish Keep to Themselves. And They’re Hiding a Horrifying Secret" / "A year of reporting—an exclusive partnership between Cosmo and Type Investigations—reveals a culture of incest, rape, and abuse." at https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2020/01/14/... .
Sexual violence is violence, yes?
As for "have no problem existing" I refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Amish_sentiment . "Non-Amish hooligans may try to force Amish horses and buggies off the road, throw firecrackers at the horses of Amish people, throw stones at Amish people, or otherwise engage in acts of petty vandalism, harassment, and violence." Plenty of problems, like https://amishamerica.com/why-are-amish-targeted-for-harrassm... .
So, what does successful integration look like to you, in the Texas context?
> by only people of Anglo-Saxon origin
Since we were talking about Texas, I was using the localized term, which https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo#United_States correctly describes as "In many parts of the United States, especially those with high Latino populations, the term "Anglo" is applied to white Americans who are not of Latino origin. ... a synonym for non-Latino whites; that is European Americans, most of whom speak the English language, even those who are not necessarily of English or British descent."
I don't think you know enough about Texas to make substantive comparisons about societal integration.
You can define sexual violence in a lot of ways, it's a pretty loose term, I know there are some people who would consider non-consensual arm touching or strong language to be sexual violence. Most people will say that sexual violence and straight up murder via guns and knives are different things though.
I'm not saying that the Amish don't have crime or any problems, but that article doesn't have data to show that the rate of sexual violence in the Amish community is higher than in secular communities or other religious communities like Hasidic Jews or Buddhists. Let's not even attempt to talk about sexual violence in the Syrian, Afgan, or Iraqi immigrant communities in Europe.
Honestly just look at real crime statistics for different communities, including the Amish, the data speaks for itself.
typeinvestigations is a partisan publication, I would not cite their investigative reporting for the same reasons I wouldn't cite Fox News. They are more likely to be motivated by racial hatred of white people than they are to actually be seeking the truth.
WRT Anti-Amish sentiment, yeah that's pretty messed up! tbh your arguments just seem to be making more of a case AGAINST multiculturalism, I'm not sure if that's your intent. This shows that even in the case of a completely nonviolent, insular community, harassment and hatred towards an out-group is inevitable. So why the heck do Swedish politicians think it's a good idea to allow a community of people with a very different culture and who DONT have a strong belief in pacifism to live in their country without integrating?
From that wikipedia article:
>Due to the Amish belief in pacifism, Amish victims of these crimes rarely retaliate.[4]
Sorta makes my point about the Amish community.
>So, what does successful integration look like to you, in the Texas context?
Comparing border towns with the rest of the state is a little unfair as people living there are very likely to be people with strong ties to Mexico (i.e. they physically go to Mexico often) and the least likely to assimilate. If Sweden shared a border with Syria then it would be a little more understandable for people living on the border to keep close ties with Syrian culture. Even just a little ways away from the border towns though Texas towns are much better integrated and similar to the rest of Texas and the US.
Texas border towns are undeniably MORE integrated than the case we're talking about in Sweden though. I was in Brownsville a few weeks ago and it's still pretty much America: everyone speaks English and it's taught in schools, the people still are pretty much American.
So to answer your question: I would expect the Syrian case to be at least more integrated than what it is, something more like a normal Texas town that's not on the border. e.g. Kingsville. High proportion of ethnically Latino people but still very much American in culture.
Nor do I believe that's your point. It was a caution that pacifism isn't the same as not being violent.
Many Americans, Amish included, consider physical violence against children as part of proper childrearing, while Sweden is famous for being the first country to ban it.
So no, don't equate pacifism with not being violent.
And I asked elsewhere here, "Are there really no forms of violence which are concentrated in highly segregated ethnic Swedish neighborhoods?"
> and the least likely to assimilate
I infer you haven't heard the phrase "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." Some of those Tejanos came from families which were in Texas before its succession in the name of slavery.
New Mexico has families who speak Spanish at home and who can trace their local ancestry back to the 1600s.
So if you think you can explain away Brownsville as being a border town, then look to Santa Fe and ask what "assimilation" really means.
> everyone speaks English and it's taught in schools
How does knowing English reveal the level of integration?
As the Wikipedia page points out, the Amish "maintain a degree of separation from surrounding populations, and hold their faith in common, the Amish have been described by certain scholars as an ethnoreligious group, combining features of an ethnicity and a Christian denomination", and "Most Old Order Amish, New Order Amish and the Old Beachy Amish speak Pennsylvania Dutch".
Yet it also says "almost all Amish are functionally bilingual in Pennsylvania Dutch and English."
> the people still are pretty much American.
I think we have very different lenses. Of course they are Americans.
Tejanos, Amish, the Diné, Native Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Haredi Jews in New York, most Tlingit, the Gullah, and Cajuns are all pretty much American.
Tell me again what you think assimilation and integration should look like?
For that matter, I grew up in Miami. Half my schoolmates were Cuban immigrants, or children thereof. Most of these immigrants were refugees. The first generation struggles, and tends to stay with others like them. The second generation is bilingual, and able to navigate both cultures.
Like, I wanted to go on a date with a girl but her Cuban-born parents wanted me to come over first so they could grant permission. I had to bring my Spanish-speaking father as a translator because the girl's parents didn't speak English well enough and I didn't speak Spanish well enough. You really could lead a normal life in parts of Miami speaking only Spanish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_migration_to_Miami tells me that over half the county now has Cuban origin.
So don't you go tell me they weren't American, or go thinking that the US is some sort of uniform society. That dog won't hunt.
Are Sweden Finns, who speak Finnish as their mother tongue, or the Samí, not Swedish?
Based on my experience, Syrian refugees to Sweden haven't been there for long enough for the integration you want, just like the Cuban refugees around me when I was a kid.
I assume all the Syrian kids are learning Swedish in school, just like my Spanish-speaking classmates learned English at school. (Or is the Swedish education system worse than the Miami one of the 1970s and 1980s?)
That article is about _arrests_ not crimes committed.
Undocumented folk are arrested less frequently, but that doesn’t necessarily mean fewer crimes are committed.
It could just as likely be that undocumented folk probably live in areas with fewer police stations. Or that crimes caused by undocumented folk to other undocumented folk go unreported and don’t lead to arrests.
Unfortunately nothing is cut and dry when it comes to crime stats :(
"[Gang violence] is concentrated in highly segregated immigrant neighbourhoods. In Husby, a suburb of Stockholm, more than 80% of the population are migrants or the children of migrants, most of them from Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Turkey." https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/11/28/why-sweden-strug...
Do you have a counter-factual source showing that immigrants are not more violent in Sweden?
Gang violence is not the only form of violence. Are there really no forms of violence which are concentrated in highly segregated ethnic Swedish neighborhoods?
And there are non-violent crimes.
Another question is, are the numbers of immigrants who do not live in highly segregated immigrant neighborhoods with gang violence? It looks like over 1 million people in Sweden were born outside of Europe, or 10% of the population. They can't all be involved in violent crimes.
The Wikipedia entry for Husby points out the crime rates increased 'after the closure of the closest police station to Husby, in Rinkeby, in 2014. The station was reopened on the first of September 2023.' The Economist article you linked to was written in 2020.
Which leads me to wonder if immigrant neighborhoods were under-protected, which would place at least some blame on government failure rather than the people living there.
They say people with 2-foreign born parents are overrepresented in the statistics of crime suspects. Does that translate to guilty of crimes? Maybe, but I would place money that racism and discrimination especially in more homogenous societies plays a part. People generally are averse to change and it's understandable that they feel loss and apprehension when they see their society under transformation, especially by people who look different than them, dress differently, speak a different language and eat different foods. But immigration can be a gain in other ways.
With that logic, I don't know what sort of statistic could even convince you.
As an aside, one uses prosecution (instead of guilty verdicts) simply because the statistics for prosecution are available.
There should be an UN resolution that says: "You start a war, you take the immigrants."
And where do you send the refugees from civil wars?
"We need the natural resources, not the people" /s