Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
In the United States, mass, unregulated immigration is seen as the key to a permanent, Democrat governing majority when third-world migrants and their offspring tip every large red state to blue. This majority will, in turn, impose the full panoply of Nordic taxes and welfare services. For the sake of cheap labor (and a welfare-funded consumer market), big business is firmly in the camp of supporting the mass importation of the very voters that will destroy the capitalist system, thus fulfilling Lenin’s prophecy that “the capitalist will sell you the rope you will hang him with.”
In Sweden, on the other hand, some see mass immigration as a potential threat to the socialist welfare system.
The endurance of the Nordic model has long depended on two crucial elements — the public’s willingness to pay some of the highest taxes on earth, and the understanding that everyone is supposed to work. The state ensures that working-age people are prepared with the skills for high-wage jobs, in industries like technology and advanced manufacturing.
Sweden’s sharp influx of immigrants — the largest of any European nation, as a share of the overall population — directly tests this proposition.
But wait, I thought “Diversity is our strength.” Well, not so much. Swedes are realizing that the huge taxes they pay for social services are instead subsidizing uneducated, unskilled, frequently illiterate third-world denizens. Swedish taxpayers are finding that they have to wait in line behind migrants for health care (much like in California) and that social programs are being cut to pay for idle, hostile foreigners living in their midst. Also, more violent crime, car fires, and no-go zones.
Or, as the reliably socialist author of the piece explains (paraphrasing): White people are greedy, bigoted against brown-skinned foreigners, and resent paying for them, even though they are wonderful people as his carefully selected examples illustrate. And, as a result, are less enthusiastic about paying for a system that they get less and less out of.
Sweden’s experience with refugees suggests a more pragmatic, even transactional conception of the social welfare state, a sort of membership club in which people pay dues for expected services. If too many people get the benefits for free — especially people who stand out as different from the majority — faith in the system is imperiled.
Yeah, the thing about that is, the Nordic-style welfare state is always sold in transactional terms. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may preach the morality of socialism, but their selling point is: “Higher taxes will reward you with free health care, free higher education, and green energy.” (The experience of the Veterans Administration and the US public school system may make some question the value of “free” health care and education from the government, but such concerns are limited to that part of the population capable of critical thought and rational analysis.)