Odds and Ends
30 4, 10:59pm
"Do you honestly expect me to say peoples names and how i know them in public forums? Suffice to say, they live in Stockholm area in most part and 1 person living in Malmö."
No I don't and I never asked you to name them either.
If you re-read what I wrote, my point is instead that it doesn't matter who these individual friends of yours are - they're still just individuals with no expertise in the area we're talking about.
I'm sure they believe what they tell you, and you think you're getting a balanced understanding from them and other (unnamed) sources - but that's still not a scientific approach to understanding the issue.
For that we have actual experts with actual expertise in the area, doing actual scientific research on it.
If you want to understand a complex issue like this, you read what they write and listen to what they say - not just random people you happen to know.
"To clarify, i DID NOT say anything about that specific link, so claiming i support validity of that is unfair."
CaliforniaAmazon entire post you replied to was the link - that's ALL she posted.
To which you replied in part that "Yes, Sweden has tons of issues with that and yes, they are turning blind eye to that way too much".
So you certainly endorsed the link, claiming that much of the point it was making was true.
But then you also offered critique to part of it.
Which is why I replied to you like I did. I told you that:
"While I appreciate your overall sentiment and comment, I have to point out we don't actually have "tons of issues with that" which the link CaliforniaAmazon posted talks about."
So no, you certainly referenced the link CaliforniaAmazon posted and I corrected you on some of what you wrote - but complimented you on other parts of it.
"That said, i did refer i used what my friends said as ONE of the sources, i did compare it to others as well (i usually compare at least 3 different sources for 1 such claim, including nations own official stats, UN estimates and at least 1 newspaper (with double checking its inclination- so there you have my sources."
Claiming sources isn't the same as actually citing them. And again - I'm not talking about the names of your friends here as their opinion has no value as a source on a topic like this anyway.
But the official, published sources you claim to base you assumptions on - if you want to present a credible argument you have to present those so we all can review them and see if they stand up to scrutiny.
But with the generalized claims you've made it's hard to see that anything can actually prove those claims.
How do you for instance prove the broad claim that:
"because whole swedish system, its currently running on inertia with big warning lights all across the board." ?
You're basically saying the entire country of Sweden is going to hell - and you prove that claim with NOTHING.
But what kind of source would even prove a generalized claim like that?
You're free to believe anything you like of course, but you've certainly not proven anything you've claimed so far - so why should anyone believe a word you've written here?
"Also Springer is friend of mine? since when? dont even know the guy)."
Again, I've never claimed he was and it wouldn't matter if he was. My point (which I clearly expressed) is instead that he too is just one individual without any actual expertise in the overall area of immigration or immigrant criminality.
He's one policeman who's opinions happen to line up with the far-right in many ways, which is why they promote him heavily.
There are plenty of other policemen that don't agree with him - but those are irrelevant to the far-right of course, as they only ever cherry-pick the "evidence" they think "proves" their beliefs.
Also, again, the actual experts in this area - being criminologists - don't actually support the anti-immigrant claims made by either Springare or the far-right.
"Also you seem to be extreme person yourself- since i claim its not as rosy, but its not as bad as extreme right claims, you think im lying?"
I'm not extreme in the least - I simply base my understanding on the issues on the actual facts we have. Facts that are researched by actual experts in the areas in question.
I of course never claimed you lied, instead I simply asked what you meant as you said two things that appear to contradict each other.
And then I gave you my personal experience, as another example.
Not worth more then any other personal opinion you've heard, but it seems you haven't ever heard anyone give you the personal experience I have to offer, so I wrote that to show you other experiences exists as well.
"Because obviously there cant be ANY middle ground. Its either perfectly safe and fine or complete disaster, right? Give me a break."
Again, I never said any of that.
"Life is rarely in extremes, although lately people think thats all there is. You have to make compromises every single day and this is no exception."
I completely agree. That's why I wrote what I did when I first replied to you.
I didn't say everything you wrote was terrible and wrong, nor did I say you where completely right. I complimented you on your overall approach - but pointed out that it is wrong to say that Sweden "has tons of issues with that" which CaliforniaAmazon's link talks about.
"So thats quite rich, in my opinion, for you blaming me on being victim of propaganda, yet thinking there cant be any middle ground (which is 99 percent of the case where truth lies)."
So now you know what I'm thinking too?
Again - I've never said anything like that, but apparently I didn't need to as you can read my mind.
"I do agree with you that "no-go" zones are complete and utter garbage."
I know and that's why I wrote that "I appreciate your overall sentiment and comment".
You've clearly not completely fallen victim to far-right propaganda - but you are still influenced by it, which is why I wrote what I did.
"I think confusion just comes with phrase used to refer to those- police does admit operating in some areas is difficult, but thats not because extremely high crime rates (though as everywhere there are areas that get higher crime)"
Well actually there in no "confusion" what so ever - it's just a case of very deliberate propaganda from the far-right.
The basis (as I think you know?) is that Swedish police compiled a list of areas that need special attention, because they have higher then average crime rates and are troubled by social problems and poverty.
Now ALL nations have these areas of course, as crime is never spread evenly in any nation.
And these areas are almost always the poorer parts of cities or the suburbs of cities, when the people of the lowest social class tend to end up.
In the case of Sweden most of these areas contain a lot of immigrants - as they are often poorer, has higher unemployment and less education then the national average.
But the far-right took this list and ran with it - claiming all manner of insane things based on it.
In their propaganda version of reality these places where suddenly "no-go zones" where police no longer dared to go. They where controlled by violent gangs of dangerous immigrants, roaming the streets and terrorizing anyone - especially all white people who dared to enter.
In some version it was even claimed the Sharia-law was being enforced by gangs of fundamentalists and Swedish authorities had no control what so ever of these areas.
Well obviously that's all just lies. But it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that to the far-right fundamentalists who believe this propaganda - because as fundamentalist they feel the already know the "REAL TRUTH" and they reject any information that doesn't confirm their pre-conceived notions.
So this propaganda is no mere "confusion" - it's a deliberate lie pushed by the far-right, and as I've noted in another post it's not even original, as the same claims has been made against virtually every western European country that's taken in immigrants.
See for instance this earlier post of mine:
"And of course individuals commit crimes, but in order to stop it or minimise it, its important to know why. Immigrants as group commit a lot toward crime and yes, so do men. So its important to realise why that is if we are ever hoping to drop crime rates. If percentage is skewed toward specific group, then its safe to assume there is some large problem with said group and we need to find out core reasons. Obviously yes, we cannot blame all migrants for it, we cannot punish them and we shouldnt punish them. But thats not even solution i was referring to. You cant fix something without knowing whats causing it and where it originates."
We're agreed on that.
So let's stop saying things like:
"Can immigrants be blamed for this? Yes and no."
then shall we, since we agree that immigrants can't be blamed for things?
Just like men or any other arbitrarily chosen group can't be blamed for things individuals do.
Because as I've told you we know - because criminologist research shows that - it's NOT the case that people commit crimes because they have an immigrant background.
Instead they commit more of certain types of crime if they are poor, poorly educated and suffer from other social problems - which many immigrants happen to be and do.
"Thus is so odd to read that you actually know whats causing it and deny correlation to it."
I'm not. The causation are these social problems I brought up.
What I'm denying is the correlation between immigration background and criminality - because any such correlation is denied by actual research.
"Nobody is claiming immigrants are inherently criminals"
The far-right certainly is!
That's their entire point with endlessly scouring the news and public sources for any crime committed by an immigrant or person of immigrant decent.
Or actually, SOME people of such background.
Because they're of course actually just racists, so it's only persons with darker skin or from certain countries that interest them.
An immigrant from Finland or Germany committing a crime is completely uninteresting to them - as long as he's white.
Their entire motivation is just about "proving" their racist beliefs that people with darker skin or who comes from certain countries or belong to certain religions are less civilized and more violent then their fantasy version of themselves and the people they claim they represent.
"...they just do have usually less income and bigger unemployment rates, which pushes people more toward crime (that IS connection you cant deny, one of problems cores)."
Not only do I not deny it - I'm actually the one that brought it up in this discussion in my last post, since that's an actual fact and I base my understanding of the issues on those.
"Plus, in cases they come from drastically different cultures like during this migration wave, they also experience heavy culture shock. We like to think that western values have spread trough world, but its not case."
That's partly true - but I don't actually think most people believe western values have spread through the world like you seem to think they do.
But what is also true is that the vast majority of the people fleeing to the west actually want to embrace our values - that's one of the reasons they come here.
Now the far-right propaganda obviously denies this, instead claiming that all immigrants ever want to do is abuse the system and live of the state. Or even more insane - describe immigrants as some huge conspiracy to turn the west into the nations they came from.
It's all part of their fear-based propaganda - to frighten people into believing the worst of immigrants and seeing them all as some deadly threat to life as we know it.
The reality is of course much different.
The vast majority of all immigrants seeking asylum in the west comes from deeply troubled countries. Non-democratic with repressive regimes where people aren't allowed to express their views and large minorities are often subjected to open percussion.
The people who flee from these places are the ones that's actually experienced this oppression first hand - it's the people who don't fit into the mold that country's leader/s had decided is the only acceptable one, and thus they really understand the value of the freedoms in the west.
And they risk everything to get to enjoy those freedoms, but often more importantly - to be able to secure those freedoms for their own children.
The vast majority of them are certainly not going to accept that anyone try to turn the countries they flee to into the same hell they left!
Of course there are always exceptions, and the far-right does all they can to highlight every single such exception (including fabricating a lot of their claims) - but it remains the fact that the vast majority of immigrants to the west (just like people born here) never commit any crimes at all and their only wish is to live their life in peace with a roof over their head, food in their belly and the ability to provide a better life for their children.
Now obviously, many of the people who come here will have grown up with much more conservative social norms then we have.
But then there are also differences on this in the west. Eastern Europe is far more conservative still then western Europe and Sweden is probably among the most liberal countries in all of the world.
This will sometimes lead to tensions - especially as the children of immigrants can find themselves stuck between the more conservative expectations of their parents, and the life they see other western youths their age lead.
But the fact is again, that in the vast majority of these cases, the western values will win out - because the children will rightly see that the greater freedoms of the west is much more appealing to them then their parents conservative views.
Not that ALL immigrant parents hold such conservative views mind you - many are quite open to their children choosing their own way in fact - but if they do.
It's always amused me how completely illogical the far-rights propaganda is on this topic.
They claim all immigrants are these deeply conservative (if not outright religiously fundamentalist) people who want to enslave their children and turn the country the flee to into a copy of the one they fled from.
But still they ALSO claim that the children of immigrants will turn out exactly the same. That they will dutifully become copies of their parents and reject all western values.
How little faith the far-right has in the values they themselves claim to champion!
Not believing anyone would freely chose to embrace freedom and democracy over fundamentalism and oppression!
It's of course completely ridiculous and just stupid propaganda.
For every generation of an immigrant family, the children become ever more integrated into the majority culture - as long as the majority culture is open to integrating them into their society.
People want to belong and fit in - they don't want to be part of an odd minority. Especially not teens and young adults who are really sensitive to what people their age think about them.
But again - this is of course talking about the vast majority here. There will always be individual cases that don't conform to this, and there will be special issues that arises from that. But we handle those cases individually - we don't pretend they represent the vast majority of immigrants. Because they simply don't.
"Which leads me back to what i meant when i said Sweden needs to create more effective means to integrate. Its true that in the past you have done it well, but those migrants were in large majority people from western world, with similar enough set of morals and culture. Its easier to integrate such people. Its more difficult when they are from another culture space."
"In the past"?
The link I posted shows the MIPEX-studies last score from 2014.
It ranked Sweden as number 1 on integration of immigrants out of 38 countries scored (including Estonia, which was ranked 22:nd out of 38).
Here's another link for you saying the same thing.
Slightly older, but referencing a British study which in 2011 listed Sweden as the "top country at integrating immigrants" out of 31 European and North American countries studied:
And it's patently untrue that we've mostly had immigrants from the western world before that time. Sweden has taken immigrants from all over the world for decades.
"Also things are constantly evolving, you cant stay reliant on old methods to last forever."
As I've already said it's already the case that "there is plenty of serious discussion about these things".
It's just that Sweden (for the most part) bases it's policies on actual evidence as presented by experts in the field. We don't (usually) let ideological or irrational arguments dictate our policies, but instead have a long tradition of listening to the actual experts in the area and follow their professional advice.
But this discussion on policy, between academic experts, is mostly not taking place in the public eye - as most people are bored stiff listening to policy experts discuss complicated topics in great detail, or reading their published studies.
But our serious political parties all do, and they have so far all agreed on the basic outlines of our immigration policies - because they too trust the advice the actual experts can provide, based on serious research.
Now the far-right of course rejects ALL of this - they just want to close the borders completely, and preferable throw everyone out that isn't Swedish enough in their eyes.
So they spend their time blasting simple propaganda all over the internet and do their best diverting attention from the real data and facts we actually do have.
And they're unfortunately succeeding rather well, as your post here shows.
Now you seem to be an honest person, trying to honestly understand the issue.
But yet you believe that Sweden is some how failing in integrating immigrants - because that's what the far-right propaganda claims and what many people believe.
That Sweden is in fact one of the most successful nations in the world on integration is completely lost on most people - because that fact is almost never mentioned. And when it is, it's completely swamped by the far-right propaganda that claims the opposite.
In that environment it's hard for people to actually get an honest understanding of the issue, of course.
"I do remember that and that was correct reaction, to tighten borders. But its not just about letting people in that needs rework, its integration process as well, because its obvious even from this conversation that there are few gaps that can be bettered."
As I've shown (now twice) Sweden is actually doing pretty well on immigration.
But as I've also said the issues are being discussed constantly in the academic community and changes occur as the need arises.
The far-right does however not contribute in any meaningful way to this discussion, as all their proposals are just based on anti-immigrant sentiment or outright racism.
"As for person thats teacher, all i can say is that while that person does have some tendency to boast, that person is usually reliable source to get idea whats going on. "
He/she may obviously give you his/hers personal opinion about things - but that's still not scientific evidence of anything.
As I happen to have spent several years working in schools as well, I should point out that the main problem with the Swedish school system (if that is something your friend has talked about) is the disastrous reform a right-wing government enacted in 1992.
That's one of the cases where Swedish policy certainly wasn't guided by a scientific approach, but partisan ideological beliefs.
Sweden got the most market-liberal school system in the world and our education results turned to shit because of it.
It's an over simplified description I'm giving here, but it's the basic truth.
The Swedish Royal Academy of Science (the one that awards the winners in all the scientific Nobel prizes) has concluded that that reform is the major reason behind Swedens falling education results in the last decades.
So again, this is actually based on scientific research - not just my opinion.
"Sweden has been around for long time, yes, but that cant make you lazy, which it currently does. But i suppose in the end, you probably can afford to take hit more than most other nations should things go wrong due to overconfidence."
Well we're not lazy, as I've shown you - we're doing quite well, thank you very much.
That's not to say we can't possibly be even better and we're constantly looking at all serious options to improve our system and society as well.
Despite what the far-right propaganda will have people believe.
"As for Estonia, yeah, that proves you follow propaganda yourself. We dont treat people as second class citizens. In fact, they have at least as many rights as residents in Sweden. They can vote in local and european parliament elections, they have same access to all facilities, they have schools that teach in their language, etc. So pray tell me, how are we treating them as second rate?"
Nope, no propaganda at all.
I'm simply reading the reporting and academic studies that are being done on the issue.
Some Estonians of Russian heritage are being treated as second rate citizens because they are denied citizenship without having to jump through hurdles the Estonian state has put up for them - namely the language test.
People born in Estonia considered having Estonian heritage was not forced to take any test, while people deemed to have Russian heritage was.
So Estonia is clearly operating a double standard where some of it's native born citizens are treated unfairly compared to others. I.E they are being treated like second rate citizens, despite having done nothing to deserve this discrimination.
Some of the many available sources on this: