Pelle Neroth Taylor - Sweden in a time of Immigration: How the Sweden Democrats turned the elite into a frenzy

It is the autumn of 2015, and Europe is facing a time of people movements. Sweden (along Germany) stands out in its unapologetic maintenance of open borders. Swedish politicians are, with steely determination, turning their country from a nation of apple cheeked blonds into, well, what, a hybrid Muslim-European society?

Swedens demographics are changing fast: in September 2015, a thousand refugees a day are coming, mostly from Muslim countries. That is the equivalent of 365,000 a year, almost to the population of Gothenburg, Swedens second largest city.

I cant imagine there wont be some massive popular uprising, or something, from natives if the influx carries on like this for a long time. But let us continue the analysis to its conclusion. If immigration continues at this rate, Sweden (pop 9.6 million) will be four percent more foreign every year. Swedes will be 32% more foreign in eight years time (8x4%). Added to 17% foreign born already here, Swedes will be a minority in their country in eight years.

That is right. Eight years. Or maybe sooner, if nothing drastic is done. While it is true that September figures probably represent a late summer spike before bad weather sets in, and arrivals may drop to the low hundreds in the winter months, the thousand a day figure doesnt take into account the immigration of relatives that often follows legally. That is, the refugees arriving this year, and staying, will, based on past statistics, be, in the years to come, be bringing two or three relatives over from their countries when they have got their permanent residence permits.

Many Swedes boast that their country is a beacon of enlightenment. Swedens reputation in the developing world is excellent. As I write, a line of Syrian refugees is literally marching along a motorway siding in Denmark carrying signs Sweden yes, and No Denmark. (Denmark having just announced it is tightening up its asylum benefits.)

It is Europes fault. The Schengen treaty has abolished national borders, making it easy to get in. But it is not only the EUs fault. You could also say it is an illustration of Swedens flawed democracy, something of which very few outsiders are aware: the countrys political traditions of consensus, others say undemocratic conformism, which has rallied all powerful opinion formers around a single position, which in turn has on this issue created a backlash and extremely bad blood between sections of society. Once united behind the government stance to be generous, more and more people are just not buying the official story anymore. Families and friends are bitterly divided. One side reels out the government line: We need to be an open and tolerant society, adapted to change. Another side: No, we dont want sharia laws and overcrowding.

A growing minority worried by developments are turning a once tiny, small, anti-immigrant party, the Sweden Democrats, into the most popular political movement in the country, bigger than any mainstream party, a movement whose very mention turns many elite Swedish journalists and politicians into a selfrighteous anti racist frenzy.

With over a quarter of the population now supporting the Sweden Democrats (significantly more among men), it is clear they are not all racists and neo Nazis. Rather, many of the partys supporters are normal people worried that the politicians seem to have no exit strategy, no plan for Swedens future. How will this all end?

According to the latest UN estimates, world population growth is unlikely to stabilise at 9 billion this century and Africa is where the population is growing fastest . Even if the Syrian civil war ends, Swedens broad definition of asylum reasons could easily maintain flows from other countries. For example, Eritrea. There is a long dictatorship and military service there, but no war. Men since the Swedish migration board has started to define dictatorship and long military service as reasons for asylum, immigration from Eritrea has increased rapidly. The same for Afghanistan, where things are pretty calm, and delivers far more refugees to Sweden than when the war was at its bloodiest. Even if Sweden took in ten million under gradually broadened asylum rules, effectively abolishing Sweden as a protestant, high trust, European culture, it would alleviate only a fraction of the worlds misery. It is not clear whether Swedish mainstream politicians pay attention to, or understand, any of these arguments.

Many European countries - the UK for one - are desperately thinking up ways to close their borders.

While immigration enthusiasts like the Karolinska Institute professor Hans Rosling point out that the numbers of Syrian refugees are low arriving in Europe compared to the influx Lebanon and Turkey receive from the civil war in Syria, the important thing to look at is the effect on Sweden. Europe is the wrong reference point, since it contains 700 million people, and many countries dont take in refugees at all. And the arrivals have to be set against the demographic changes that have already happened in Sweden.

A third of the population under the age of 44 is already of foreign background. (At least one parent born abroad) Sweden has a greater proportion of inhabitants of non-EU origin than any other West European country.

Of course, the immigrants benefit from finding this safe haven, this Tolkienian Rivendell against the miseries of the world. They are a lucky, miniscule minority of the world's miserable poor. But the benefits for Sweden are less clear. Refugees are not only leaving failed societies but to some extent bring their failed societies with them.

One UN Human Development Report research paper predicts Sweden will, in 2030, be 35th on a list of 45 OECD countries in terms of human development, below Bulgaria, Libya and Argentina. Critics say this is a rogue result, and it was quickly removed from the UNs website. But it should nevertheless give pause for thought.

Immigration can be profitable to the host society, if they are highly skilled or bring complementary skills. But most of the incomers Sweden is getting are low educated people from Muslim cultures at war, Eritrea, Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan.

Maybe these, too, will one day boost the economy. But, at the moment, Sweden does not need immigrants to feed its prosperity, in a way an earlier generation of immigrant guest workers from Finland and Italy were brought in to supply factories of a booming Sweden in the sixties. These low skilled factory jobs are not around anymore. And Swedish native youth unemployment is high today.

In the sixties, there was full youth employment in Sweden and companies were screaming out for foreign labour. Foreign unemployment was very low. Today foreign unemployment is high, so, based on the lack of jobs, we can assume many of these refugee arrivals will be out of work for many years too.

In Sweden, the threat of change is dealt with by the fact that mainstream politics tries to isolate, humiliate, ignore that substantial proportion of opinion that wants to limit immigration, and the party that stands for those values. A well-oiled media machine trots out its well-honed phrases about racists who oppose more immigration: "fishing in muddy waters", "casting around for the racist vote", "not respectful of everybody's equal value". Virtually everyone in Swedish public life, from journalists to celebrities, all the TV sofa people, sings from the same "humanistic hymn sheet". Former ABBA member Bjorn Ulvaeus compares todays immigration heavily Muslim to the virtuous Swedish emigration to America in the 19 th century. Sweden must show warmth and tolerance was the title of his article.

There is much to like about Sweden. Sweden symbolises to the extreme the western values of modernity, technology and prosperity. The cities are well designed and considerate with public amenities - though the tucked away immigrant suburbs point the way to a more chaotic future. The Swedish countryside is extensive and unspoilt.