In 2016, the administrative agency Statistics Sweden (SCB) published a report describing the demographic composition of the population of Sweden in terms of people born abroad, children of one and two persons born abroad respectively, and the share of the population constituted by these groups.
I will quote the most interesting parts below:
‘In the year 2015, 17% of the population, or close to 1.7 million inhabitants, was born abroad. In the year 1900, the share of people born abroad was less than 1%, and in the year 1960 the share had risen to 4%, with inhabitants born in other Nordic countries constituting the vast majority of those born abroad. Inhabitants born in Nordic countries constituted a majority of the population born abroad until the 1980s, but since then the share born outside of Europe has risen dramatically, and they now constitute half of the population born abroad. In the year 2015, 2% of the population were born in another Nordic country, 6% in another part of Europe, and 9% outside of Europe, while 83% were born in Sweden. […] In 2015, the share of people born in Sweden with one parent born abroad had increased to 7%, while 5% of the population was born in Sweden with two parents born abroad. Those with one parent born in another Nordic country are a large group among those with one parent born abroad, while those with parents born in other Nordic countries conversely constituted the smallest group among those with two parents born abroad, in which those born outside of Europe constituted the largest group.’
In plain words, the report shows that the share of the Swedish population possessing a total or partial immigrant background in 2015 was as large as 29% of the population (17% born abroad + 5% born in Sweden to two parents born abroad + 7% born in Sweden with one parent born abroad). In three decades, almost a third of the Swedish population has been replaced by non-Swedes.
‘But, what if we halt immigration?’ many ask and believe that this would somehow be the magical solution to all our worries. That is not the case. Even if we shut our borders completely, right now, the low birth rate of Swedes in relation to the far higher birth rates of the immigrants would result in Swedes being almost entirely supplanted by non-Swedes within decades.
A Humane Repatriation Programme
A favourite argument of the Left, and even more of the ’conservative‘ liberals, when they oppose criticism of immigration is that it is somehow mystically impossible to do anything about the large numbers of immigrants already within our borders, and that critics of immigration might as well give up and accept multiculturalism and the destruction of their own culture.
I firmly oppose this view and instead propose that the solution is simple: if it was possible to bring the current situation about with political will, it is equally possible to reverse it with political will. A humane, non-violent programme of repatriation could be designed based on the following five points:
- Review asylum rights for recent arrivals. The category of immigrants who could be most easily repatriated are the recent arrivals, who have yet to receive citizenship. Their grounds for asylum should be reviewed, and since the vast majority have insufficient grounds, their residence permits can be withdrawn. Those few who have reasonable grounds for asylum will be granted temporary residence permits, subject to regular review and reassessment. At this time, this group consists of well over 500,000 people.
- Our entire welfare system must be reformed from the ground up and should be modelled on countries with systems which work better, such as Hungary’s. Through such reforms, one can eliminate most of the pull factors which lure non-European migrants to Sweden, and a significant portion of those already here will find reasons to try their luck elsewhere, since the economic incentives that drew them here, to begin with, will have been removed.
- Zero tolerance for crime. Immigrants without citizenship will have their residence permits cancelled and hence be deported for any and all types of crime. Immigrants who have received citizenship should have it revoked in cases of serious crimes. Since many immigrants already have dual citizenship, this would seldom be a problem for them.
- Incentive programmes. We will implement a programme which creates positive incentives for those in Sweden who have roots in other countries to return to their homelands, or else to adjacent nations within the same cultural sphere. One such incentive could be a one-off payment – a ’re-establishing subsidy‘ – for those who return while also requiring those who accept it to sign a contract which will require them to never return to Sweden or Europe, following the Danish model. Given the enormous expenses incurred through the process of accepting asylum-seekers, as well as those wrought by the need to support unemployed immigrants for a lifetime, such re-establishing subsidies could be rather generous without any necessary adverse effects on state finances. Considering the catastrophic consequences of immigration on a social level, one could also argue that certain temporary economic hardships would, in fact, be legitimate investments. Furthermore, a generous reestablishment subsidy would be a good incentive for the countries of origin involved which may be reluctant to accept them to take them back in.
- Bilateral agreements. The four points above should be combined with agreements and settlements concluded with the immigrants’ home countries, as well as the other nations in their vicinity. The chances of reaching such settlements are high. For one thing, to date, Swedish foreign aid has largely been issued on the terms demanded by the recipients – a deranged idea that the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) even has the gall to brag about in public. It is time to shift the focus so that all foreign aid is offered on our own terms, rather than on those of the recipients. Such terms could and should include the demand that countries receiving aid must be willing to receive their own countrymen back when the time is right, given that those who are currently temporarily residing in Sweden are pressuring our welfare system to the breaking point. Paying these subsidies will be far cheaper than keeping these people in Sweden, particularly if one takes into account the social and civic costs which are difficult to measure in financial terms.
In Conclusion
Repatriation is not inhumane, impossible, or undesirable. On the contrary, it is humane, possible, and necessary. Furthermore, it is also the natural step to take after the tidal wave of new migrants has been halted. If the post-Brexit European Union has even a slight interest in once more becoming a functioning political entity which is legitimate in the eyes of its citizens, there is no other option: the issue of repatriation must be added to its agenda as soon as possible.
One of the few others in Sweden who has commented on the SCB report is the George Soros associate and erstwhile violent anarchist Tobias Hübinette (known for his multifaceted crime record as well as his outspoken desire to see “the white race perish in blood and suffering”). He finds the report ’horrid’, not because of its conclusions but because it was filed at all. (Possibly also because he feels that the process of replacing the population of Sweden with Third World economic migrants isn’t happening quickly enough.) Solving problems by ignoring and repressing them is a fine Leftist tradition, harking back to the Soviet days, but it will not help with solving the demographic situation in Sweden and Europe. The debate about the debate and discussions about ’racism‘ and ’values‘ must be replaced by concrete political suggestions.
Things will only become truly horrid if Swedish and European politicians keep ignoring the obvious facts. If Europe is to have any future, this childishness must end, and the discussion of a controlled repatriation of most of our ’recent arrivals‘ must begin.
