Sweden is to an extent experiencing population replacement, as reported Saturday. But this hasn’t, as hoped, translated into worker replacement. In fact, despite Prime Minister Stefan Löfven’s promise to reduce unemployment rates, they’ve skyrocketed due to the importation of now-welfare dependent Third World migrants. As Voice of Europe informs:
According to newly released Eurostat figures, the Scandinavian country now appears to be the new sick man of Europe, now ranking 24th out of 28 EU member states in unemployment, the daily newspaper Expressen reports.
In 2013, PM Löfven set a goal for Sweden to have the lowest unemployment rate of any EU member-state by 2020. But with the vast numbers of welfare-dependent migrants that have been taken into the country, and with 2020 fast approaching, it’s not looking like Löfven’s ambitious goal will be reached.
Thanks to its newly imported underclass, Sweden now enjoys an unemployment rate that rivals those seen in France, Spain, Greece, and Italy. Statistics have consistently revealed that on average, migrants living in Sweden are unemployed at much higher rates than native Swedes are.
Last year, statistics released by the Swedish Public Employment Service revealed that the unemployment rate for migrants living in Sweden was 19.9 percent, compared to just 3.6 percent for native Swedes.
This is breaking the bank, too. In fact, because of the migrant-born increasing social ills and welfare expenditures, every “fourth municipality and every third region, according to a report by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKL), had a budget deficit in 2018,” reported the Gatestone Institute last week.
The kicker isn’t just that a pretext for massive Third World migration into Europe is the “need for workers” (not moochers), but something generally unmentioned: The excuse never made sense because the robot/artificial intelligence revolution is poised to eliminate a high percentage of jobs in the near future.
In reality, the real reason for the West’s immigrationism is a mentality. There are two diametrically opposed, competing visions here, and it’s important to state them in their purest form (regardless of how few people may adhere to such) for the purposes of analysis.
The first is the devout internationalist vision, a modern phenomenon. Tacitly espousing George Bernard Shaw’s cynical assertion that “patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it,” it holds that since there’s nothing special about your nation, there’s no justification for placing its interests above other nations’ interests. People are people, after all, so why should your citizens be advantaged over foreign lands’ citizens? In fact, it’s actually unfair that — due to accidents of history or even the economic pillaging of other nations — we should enjoy great wealth while others live existences ranging from Spartan to squalid.
The other vision is the traditional, tribal/nationalistic one stating that we absolutely should place ourselves and our own first. This may be justified by a sense of racial and/or cultural superiority, as with today’s Chinese imperialists; may be based on the idea that we’re sort of like a team in competition with other teams, and we should naturally try to win; or simply on the conviction that we should look out for our “national family.” President Trump epitomizes one or both of the last two mentalities.
The first vision may seem enlightened. For people are people, as today’s (not yesterday’s) secularists would say; everyone is a child of God, as Christians would say. So it can seem hard to argue against — until you realize something.
It’s not just that the internationalist vision is generally just a cover for statist politicians who crave the power importing co-ideologists would bring and for money-hungry multinational corporations desiring cheap labor and laissez-faire trade policy. No, the first clue lies in how even the most devoted globalist activists don’t apply to their own personal homes the policies they’d visit upon their national one.
They don’t regularly leave their back doors ajar and grant unvetted or poorly vetted individuals often unmonitored access to their residences, and they wouldn’t invite unassimilable, disruptive “guests” to stay permanently; in fact, the rich, powerful immigrationists don’t even move the migrants they defend with words into their own neighborhoods. As with most moral preeners, it’s easy for them to be idealistic because they don’t have to live with their ideals.
Yet while mere failure to live up to a belief can be a clue, it alone tells you nothing about the belief or the believers; you first have to know if the belief can be, and is worth being, lived up to. And as to the internationalist vision, two simple truths are relevant here:
1. Everyone is a human being, a child of God, and should be treated with love and respect
2. Most people in the world don’t behave as if this is the case.
The second truth explains the internationalist vision’s unworkability. It would be nice living in a sin-free world. People could come and go as they please, in your home, country, airports, and elsewhere, as no one would take what’s not his, invade privacy, harm others, or cause trouble of any kind. But that’s Heaven.
On Earth we have nations with borders and immigration laws for the same reason we have individual homes with walls and locked doors and restricted access. We generally give our immediate family — including children above a certain age — unrestricted access because we assume they have the family’s best interests at heart. (There are exceptions to this, of course, such as a problem child whose behavior requires you to lock the liquor cabinet or, in worst case scenarios, even deport him [kick him out].)
Outsiders aren’t afforded the same access not because they’re necessarily worse people, but because they don’t have the emotional attachment to the family. People are emotional beings whose behavior is governed by reason less than we might like to think.
Likewise, we have nations — which, strictly speaking, are extensions of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the family — because other people’s tribal emotions ensure that if you don’t look out for your land, no one else will. Related to this, a country can’t work unless its citizens generally love it enough to have its best interests at heart. And the more it absorbs perhaps unassimilable people who don’t, whose hearts lie elsewhere, the more imperiled it is.
I should emphasize that a sincere altruistic/internationalist motive is likely rare among politicians, who generally are power seekers. But it is too common among modern Westerners, who help empower the power seekers. It was just expressed, in fact, under my Saturday article by a commenter who wrote, “It is time to note that there is a single world here and all of our borders are strictly political and make little sense for humans on an individual level.”
Try telling that to the individual Americans raped, hurt, or killed by illegal aliens — or to individual Tibetans whose borders are now overrun by hordes of individual Han Chinese.
Image: inese online via iStock / Getty Images Plus
