Sure, its was fairly rememberable since the new reportage went bad since the news reporter tried to address and ask question about the political aspects and the academic economy researcher was very academic about it. When they got the question "why did you do this study when it could be used as political material next election" the answer became something like "we were hired to do a study, and having knowledge about the subject is better than having no knowledge".
I also noticed that I did miss-remember a detail. The time frame was between 1983 and 2015, so 33 years rather than 20 years.
> However, the article here is talking about the H1-B program
Yes, as I wrote that could change the result and if so it would make for a great news. Further studies is something that should be funded as the political environment around immigration is about as bad as it can be. I also believe the argument about immigration as humanitarian aid is a good one and focus the discussion towards reasonable middle ground rather than extremes.
> is there a link to an actual government site instead of pictures of a book in Swedish that was published decades ago?
That book was published by the goverment of Sweden. Does the host matter?
In 2005 BRA (Swedish Criminal statistics) published an update saying: "Immigrants’ risk of being registered for crime has not changed in any pronounced way since the previous study conducted by the National Council, which related to the situation at the end of the 1980s"
Link: https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800010674/1...
> it is really difficult to have a serious conversation with someone unable to differentiate between the process of analyzing reasons for crimes and 'justifying' crimes.
Justification: "give grounds for, give reasons for, give a justification for". Pointing at socioeconomic factors is justifying the crimes by allusion to the circumstances of the crime.
Maybe you're confused it with 'condoning' which means something else.
So my point is, do we think we can analyze and find reason for aggravated rape within socioeconomic circumstances?
> Are you saying rich, well educated muslims or african immigrants are still more likely to rape someone than a white person?
> As stated in the Wikipedia article[2] this is probably one of the most embarrassing moments in Swedish politics.
I checked the linked Wikipedia entry and it didn’t give any context for why this was such an embarrassment. I also searched Google for more info, but the English-only search results didn’t turn up anything useful. I gave up after the first five or so had nothing to add.
I’m curious if you can give a more detailed explanation of why this was such a gaffe. The limited info on this incident isn’t helping me paint a picture of the situation. As it stands, it seems to be a rather harmless request. I’m missing something significant, I think, about the delivery or tone.
Edit: I should clarify that I’m reading this at a time when I am not in a position to follow the YouTube link.
> According to the official statistics on The Swedish Crime Survey, the sexual violence rate in Sweden remained about the same between 2005 and 2014
Why picking the period 2005 to 2014? Immigration started 1960s and increased a lot 2014-2016. It would make a lot more sense to look at the sexual violence rate 1960-2016. Do you dare?
>Norway also went out of its way to avoid the very large immigration influx that eg Sweden allowed.
what are you talking about?! Have you tried to Google? Sweden has 2x population of Norway and 1.4M immigration population which makes it under 15%.
>Show me the vast count of refugees that Norway took in versus Sweden.
With regard to specifically refugees - both countries mostly have refugees from Middle East and Africa - Norway has 160K total refugee population, Sweden - 230K. Thus one can say that Sweden even less refugee friendly than Norway.
>In just 4-5 years, Sweden took in 600,000 people, many of them from countries like Syria. While Sweden was doing that, Norway remained locked down by comparison (as did Finland).
sorry, man, you just have to at least to google before posting.
> looks like your sampling has a bias error.
>If you don't live in Sweden any more, how do you make friends with the non-Nordics who moved to one of the Nordic countries and decided to stay there?
I live in Sweden and I upvoted bedobi‘s post. I came here with idealistic notions of what Sweden was supposedly like (also encouraged by the myths perpetuated by many expat Swedes that I met), and became disillusioned with the reality pretty quickly.
Now I hate living here but it’s too difficult to leave with a Swedish wife and kids.
I’d say three-quarters of the people that I’ve known through the years who moved here like me, have left by now.
Also I wish people wouldn't constantly be lumping together all the 'Nordic' countries as though they were an interchangeable entity. They have similarities and share similar languages, but the cultural differences are much greater than outsiders appear to think.
In the case of 'friluftsliv' the Norwegian concept is way more generally about hiking in the wilds. (Affluent) Swedes do often spend their summers in a cottage out in the country, but in my experience this involves a pretty static existence in rural surroundings, and physical activity is mostly restricted to going to whatever beach is nearby (either on the coast or an inland lake). I love walking or cycling in the countryside and I'll rarely meet anyone doing the same unless they're walking their dog close to their house.
When I was in Norway it seemed like way more people were interested in putting on a knapsack and heading deep into the forest.
>> Yup. And now the Prime Minister has pre-emptively declared that for refugees from a geographically, culturally, and politically much closer country, the gates will be closed. So how does that not support the thesis that Sweden's (Social Democratic / Left / Green / Centre Party) government prefers its asylum seekers to be MENA and Muslim?
> You are drawing conclusions out of thin air here.
No. My hypothesis fits the available facts. The only thing drawn out of thin air here is your claim that mine is.
You "forgot" to answer how the available facts wouldn't fit with my hypothesis. But, we all know why you skipped that: Because you can't, because they do.
The real crime? Lockdowns didn't change a darned thing - I wish I could say I'm amazed the press doesn't talk about Sweden at all; sadly at this point I expect them to be biased and interested at protecting the current political narrative more than actually doing their jobs.
I asked the same question. In 2005 Bra released a report saying "Immigrants’ risk of being registered for crime has not changed in any pronounced way since the previous study conducted by the National Council, which related to the situation at the end of the 1980s".
Your claim was "What are your sources that try to prove that socioeconomic factors are not 'the major ones'?" so my question is 'what of rape'? This is the main crime making headlines. How does one explain it with socioeconomic factors? And even if you could, would that be a satisfactory explanation?
>> According to the most recent study, people from foreign backgrounds are 2.5 times more likely to be suspected of crimes than people born in Sweden to Swedish-born parents.
What do you imply exactly? So Swedish police are more likely to suspect you if you are a foreigner, how unexpected.
> That being said, Fennoscandia is an aberration. They are monocultures with virtually no 3rd world immigration.
Untrue for Sweden[1] and Norway[2], which have respectively 14.3% and 16.8% of their populations foreign-born. Not all of those foreign-born are from developing nations but developing nations figure heavily in the top-30 list for Sweden.
> Immigration is never 100% of the reason behind housing issues, but it’s more significant than most people want to admit.
Considering how the Swedish government tried to hide the crime wave that correlated with it's open doors immigration policy [0] [1] [2], I wouldn't be surprised if they were fully aware of the impact but were trying to withhold that information as well.
> I'm not in Sweden but why are we always pointing the finger at the poor immigrants?
It's not about pointing fingers but rather that people with one foreign born parent have increased from roughly 16% to over 40% in the working age population during the last 30 years. When you become half of the population, you'll have a major impact on all statistics. People outside of Sweden most likely aren't aware and might draw rushed conclusion if they don't know why different stats are currently changing rapidly in all areas.
> It's totally irrelevant that the crimes has decreased.
That depends. If you are looking for excuses for racism, it obviously is not relevant. But if you claim that the Swedish society has turned dangerous because of the immigrant crimes, it should be highly relevant for the discussion.
>the entire welfare system is in real trouble unless the proportion of young people isn't inflated somehow
>The generation born in the '50s and '60s is retiring now, and it's much larger than subsequent generations. Retirement age is 67. Their healthcare and pension is paid for by the working population, who hope the next generation will pass on the torch.
Are you suggesting it is a good idea to replace the native population to support the Swedish welfare system? Additionally, the article states that many of these immigrant are themselves using the welfare system. Wouldn't it be better to bite the bullet and let the country reach its carrying capacity naturally even if it results in some pain? I don't think this can be explained from an economic perspective.
I think the aging population simply acted as an allowing factor that made the discussion viable politically. But I think ultimately it happened as part of liberal immigration ideology itself. From that standpoint, the immigration policy is still largely a success. If all life is equal and everyone deserves the human rights, then from that prospective, even if the policy has issues, those issues do not outweigh the total net gain of humanity. Even if it comes at a cost for some people.
>But the other option isn't pretty either.
Can you explain what the other option is and why you think it would be pretty?
Sure, its was fairly rememberable since the new reportage went bad since the news reporter tried to address and ask question about the political aspects and the academic economy researcher was very academic about it. When they got the question "why did you do this study when it could be used as political material next election" the answer became something like "we were hired to do a study, and having knowledge about the subject is better than having no knowledge".
I also noticed that I did miss-remember a detail. The time frame was between 1983 and 2015, so 33 years rather than 20 years.
https://eso.expertgrupp.se/rapporter/tid-for-integration/ - report (there is a English summery linked on the page).
https://www.svt.se/kultur/medier/forskaren-i-uppmarksammad-i... - interview
> However, the article here is talking about the H1-B program
Yes, as I wrote that could change the result and if so it would make for a great news. Further studies is something that should be funded as the political environment around immigration is about as bad as it can be. I also believe the argument about immigration as humanitarian aid is a good one and focus the discussion towards reasonable middle ground rather than extremes.
reply