This column from national Swedish newspaper Expressen is so insane, you need to get somebody to translate it. They are debating whether mass immigration to Sweden should increase the country’s population by 1000 % or merely 300 %. It’s purely a matter of logistics. The survival of the Swedish people is a non-issue.
Then in the email, up popped the very thing I needed: without being asked, TB had a go at putting that same editorial into English.
As you will read, Fjordman and TB are correct in being concerned about the lemming-like behavior of Swedish editorialists. Not even The New York Times could have written such balderdash.
Here is the translated editorial from Expressen. See what you think:
Tomorrow the SCB [the Central Bureau of Statistics - ed.] presents a compilation about how many we are here in Sweden. We should be a lot more.
Nothing gets the national movement going as when you say just that. That we are on the way to being few in this sparsely populated place called Sweden. That we have room for so many more people from every corner of the world.
It is a kind of sad-and-amusing irony that exactly those people who tell us that they love Sweden so much are the same people who will promote a policy that will stop the immigration. Nothing would harm Sweden more than a stop to immigration.
It seems to be as if people think that we welcome people from other countries just because we are sweet. And sure it is so, that we in the rich part of the world have a special responsibility to help people who are on the run from war, hunger and catastrophes. But even though the ‘national’ movement is completely empty on everything related to empathy and other decent proprieties, the care of Sweden should make them embrace new blood.
Indeed, immigration is, as the economist Phillip Legrain show in his book “Immigrants - Your Country Needs Them”, a benefit for everybody. Especially as the population of the rich world becomes older and older.
The numbers from The World Bank showed some years ago that if the rich countries increased their labour by 3% between 2001 and 2025, the world would earn 356 billion dollar a year. 162 would go to the immigrants themselves, 139 billions would go to the new home countries and 143 billions to those who stay in the poor part of the world.
That immigration policy, especially the integration part of it, has been disastrous cannot be blamed on the immigrants. The fact is that we not only need a much better migration-and-integration policy, we also need many more immigrants.
That the government open up the borders is a good first step.. But to seriously be able to attract labour and compete in a global economy against countries where languages known to most people are spoken and where you will find a much bigger variety of cultures and work, we have to be much more ambitious to find a strategy. We cannot back into the future.
A hand full of politicians and debaters have put forward their chin on this loaded question. Lena Klevenås from The Environment Party thought that we should be 30 millions. Anders Ferm (S) and Mauricio Rojas (FP) made their bid 50 millions. The journalist Jenny Morelli said 80 million while here colleague Torbjörn Björkman from Proletaren had the highest bid on 160 million.
Actually only our fantasy - and courage - is the limit.
TB says: “Hallelujah. (My comment)”
It does make you wonder what these folks are smoking.
And then there are the Danes. The un-dhimmified Danes. You could see this conflict coming when the Danes decided to get tough on immigration, a stance at odds with the EU suck-up.
From The Copenhagen Post we read this threat:
- - - - - - - - -
The Danish People’s Party says it will end its cooperation with the government if immigration laws are relaxed
The past weeks’ crisis within the Refugee, Immigration and Integration Ministry caused the nationalist Danish People’s Party to threaten to end their support of the Liberal-Conservative government if changes are made to immigration laws.
After revelations that Danish family reunification laws were in conflict with European Union rules, Birthe Rønn Hornbech, the integration minister, has kept silent on the issue, creating a backlash from the media and all political parties - including members of her own Liberal Party.
But the Danish People’s Party, whose support of the government allows the coalition to remain in power, indicated the past years’ toughening of immigration laws is the primary reason it has cooperated with the government. If the government backs down to the EU on the issue, the party said it would withdraw that support.
A majority of the parties at parliament are now calling for a thorough investigation into Denmark’s immigration policies to determine specifically what areas are in conflict with EU regulations.
The primary bone of contention in the current dispute is in regard to an EU rule that permits couples to obtain residence in all member states, provided they have legally lived and worked in another EU country for at least two weeks, both having worked a minimum 11 hours per week. This applies to all couples of legal marital age, but Danish law requires both husband and wife to be at least 24. [my emphasis]
This is going to be an interesting fight. It will have deep repercussions throughout the EU, perhaps on the same level as Ireland's very loud "no." Denmark is in the process of deciding for itself what its sovereign rules will be. The EU doesn't recognize sovereignty, having spent so many years and countless amounts of money attempting to eradicate those boundaries. Come to think of it, there is a lot of Danish DNA floating around on the Emerald Isle.
Such a short distance to travel in terms of geography, but Sweden and Denmark might as well be from different planets. On one of these planets, the EU is not the ruling party.
TB found this nice contrast, too.