Sweden’s sharp right turn on immigration has left hundreds of thousands of immigrants at risk. Laws passed by Swedens far-right, the Sweden democrats, have shut the door for many.
They aren’t stopping. Sweden’s top immigration minister announced he will pass 12 new laws by the September election that will make Sweden have the most restrictive immigration system in the world. He is vowing to eliminate permanent residency and make migrants pass a ‘morality’ test every year.
**”Minister for Migration Johan Forssell : This spring, the biggest change in migration policy ever is being implemented. We’re really working on high pressure and it’s probably a…**
**Johan Forssell does not find the word he is looking for.**
**In the end, the press secretary feels compelled to flap in: “Understatement”**
The governments goal is to make over 300k people with status lose the right to stay in Sweden. And adding more incentives for naturalized immigrants to renounce their citizenship and leave.
As neoliberals, we must take Sweden as a critical case study and learn from what went wrong to avoid such dramatic pushback, which just ends up hurting immigrants. And also rightfully criticize Sweden/Denmark for their borderline fascist policies.
Herecomesthewooooo on
I’m broadly pro immigration, but I think we often skip over why Sweden ended up here in the first place when it’s brought up. A lot of the measures didn’t come out of nowhere or purely from far-right fringe pressure, they’re polling well and have had sustained majority support across parties for years. That matters in a democracy, even when the outcomes are uncomfortable (in this case it’s uncomfortable to outsiders so it’s moot anyway.)
One of the big lessons from Sweden and Denmark is that large scale immigration without serious, enforceable integration policy is politically fragile. When integration fails in employment, language acquisition, schooling, and norms around the rule of law public support for open systems collapses, and voters eventually demand blunt, illiberal tools. That’s not a moral defense of every policy being proposed but it is an explanation.
I know this isn’t going to be popular but neolibs should be honest that integration isn’t optional or vibes based… it’s a core input to sustaining liberal immigration regimes over time. Ignoring that reality doesn’t protect immigrants whatsoever, it creates the conditions for backlash policies that are far harsher than earlier course corrections would have been. If anything, Sweden is a warning about what happens when integration is treated as secondary rather than foundational.
2 Comments
Submission statement –
Sweden’s sharp right turn on immigration has left hundreds of thousands of immigrants at risk. Laws passed by Swedens far-right, the Sweden democrats, have shut the door for many.
They aren’t stopping. Sweden’s top immigration minister announced he will pass 12 new laws by the September election that will make Sweden have the most restrictive immigration system in the world. He is vowing to eliminate permanent residency and make migrants pass a ‘morality’ test every year.
**”Minister for Migration Johan Forssell : This spring, the biggest change in migration policy ever is being implemented. We’re really working on high pressure and it’s probably a…**
**Johan Forssell does not find the word he is looking for.**
**In the end, the press secretary feels compelled to flap in: “Understatement”**
The governments goal is to make over 300k people with status lose the right to stay in Sweden. And adding more incentives for naturalized immigrants to renounce their citizenship and leave.
As neoliberals, we must take Sweden as a critical case study and learn from what went wrong to avoid such dramatic pushback, which just ends up hurting immigrants. And also rightfully criticize Sweden/Denmark for their borderline fascist policies.
I’m broadly pro immigration, but I think we often skip over why Sweden ended up here in the first place when it’s brought up. A lot of the measures didn’t come out of nowhere or purely from far-right fringe pressure, they’re polling well and have had sustained majority support across parties for years. That matters in a democracy, even when the outcomes are uncomfortable (in this case it’s uncomfortable to outsiders so it’s moot anyway.)
One of the big lessons from Sweden and Denmark is that large scale immigration without serious, enforceable integration policy is politically fragile. When integration fails in employment, language acquisition, schooling, and norms around the rule of law public support for open systems collapses, and voters eventually demand blunt, illiberal tools. That’s not a moral defense of every policy being proposed but it is an explanation.
I know this isn’t going to be popular but neolibs should be honest that integration isn’t optional or vibes based… it’s a core input to sustaining liberal immigration regimes over time. Ignoring that reality doesn’t protect immigrants whatsoever, it creates the conditions for backlash policies that are far harsher than earlier course corrections would have been. If anything, Sweden is a warning about what happens when integration is treated as secondary rather than foundational.