How is open borders immigration working out in Sweden?

After being elected president in 2020, Democrat Joe Biden decided to open the southern border to invaders from every country. Sweden has had an open borders immigration policy like that for years before. Democrats often praise Sweden as being a more advanced country than the United States. Let’s see how things are going for them since they are further along.

Daily Wire reports:

Sweden is turning to its military to curb violent crime that has soared alongside immigrant gang activity across the country.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson announced on Friday that he planned to ask the country’s military to step in and aid police in combatting surging shootings and bomb attacks. The prime minister also said he would look into legislation that would give the military greater authority to engage in police activities, according to the Financial Times.

The prime minister’s announcement followed remarks he made the day before condemning the surge in violence and saying that Sweden’s immigration policies are largely to blame. Police officials in the Scandinavian country have said the security situation in Sweden is the worst it has been since World War II.

“I cannot emphasize enough how serious the situation is. Sweden has never seen anything like it before. No other country in Europe sees anything like it currently,” Kristersson said Thursday night, according to FT.

“It is political naivete and cluelessness that has brought us here,” he continued. “It is an irresponsible immigration policy and failed integration effort that has brought us here.”

Here are some details:

Earlier in the week, two explosions ripped through buildings in a suburb of Sweden’s capital and Linkoping, 110 miles southwest. The bombs injured at least three people. A Swedish newspaper reported that both explosions are suspected of being connected to gang activity.

Here is another Daily Wire article showing how Biden’s plan is coming along:

A record number of illegal immigrants from Venezuela crossed the U.S. southern border in September, according to Department of Homeland Security preliminary data.

Around 50,000 Venezuelans illegally entered the U.S. last month, shattering the monthly record of 34,000 set in September 2022, according to the DHS data that was obtained by CBS News on Wednesday. The data show that on some days, up to 3,000 Venezuelan migrants crossed the border, and illegal immigrants from the country made up roughly one-quarter of the more than 200,000 Border Patrol apprehensions in September.

The spike in illegal crossings made by Venezuelan nationals came the same month that the Biden administration gave permission to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from Venezuela to stay and work in the United States.

[…]More than seven million Venezuelans have fled the socialist regime in recent years, according to the United Nations, as the country faces economic collapse.

[…]Daily illegal border crossings have neared record highs as border facilities are slammed with migrants and officials are mass releasing illegal immigrants into the U.S. interior while thousands more stream into the country. The strain at the U.S. border is felt by communities from small border towns to major American cities.

A lot of people vote Democrat in order to feel like a good person, and be seen by others as good people. Bumper sticker virtue signaling.

Atheism is nothing more than a desire to escape a relationship with God, because a relationship with God causes humans to think about right and wrong. Atheists don’t want to think about right and wrong. They want complete freedom to seek happiness according to their own selfish desires. As atheism rises in the society, people looking to escape guilt for disobeying the objective moral law. So, they talk loudly about how generous and compassionate they are, and they vote to be generous and compassionate. But who pays for their generosity and compassion? The most vulnerable people in society pay for it. Are Americans going to keep voting with our feelings?

Why do law-abiding Americans insist on owning guns?

I’m not originally from the United States, and when I go back home to visit, one of the questions that I get asked a lot is “why do Americans own so many guns?” My favorite writer on the gun ownership and self-defense issues is Amy Swearer, who writes for the Daily Signal. Below, I’ll link to two articles by her from July 2023 and August 2023.

The first article is a review of 12 examples of defensive gun use from July 2023.

She writes:

Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged. In 2021, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue concluded that roughly 1.6 million defensive gun uses occur in the United States every year.

For this reason, The Daily Signal publishes a monthly article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accounts here from past months and years. You also may follow @DailyDGU on Twitter for daily highlights of defensive gun uses.)

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in July. You may explore more using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

Here are a couple of the examples:

  • July 16, Philadelphia: A woman returned to her apartment to find four intruders inside, police said. She shot and wounded two of them, who were arrested and charged with burglary. The other two intruders fled.
  • July 18, Washington, D.C.: Police said two armed carjackers approached a man near his vehicle and demanded it at gunpoint. The victim, a concealed carry permit holder, shot one assailant. Police arrested the wounded carjacker, who faces serious criminal charges, including for felony weapons offenses. The second carjacker had not been identified or located.
  • July 19, Neptune, Florida: After an intruder forced his way into an elderly couple’s home, he came face to face with the homeowner, who was armed and held him at gunpoint until police arrived. Police said the intruder apparently had been released from prison after doing time for attempted sexual battery in 2018. He faces felony burglary charges.
  • July 23, Carmichael, California: Police said an apartment resident used his gun to protect himself and his family from an armed man with a violent past who, wrongly believing his ex-girlfriend was inside, fired several rounds into the unit and tried to kick in the door. The resident returned fire, wounding the attacker. The intruder “is the bad guy here, let’s not hide from that,” a spokesman for the county sheriff’s office bluntly told reporters. “That resident is a hero.”
  • July 27, Cassopolis, Michigan: An armed customer with a valid concealed carry permit shot and wounded a knife-wielding robber who threatened a gas station clerk, police said.

The second article is a review of 12 examples of defensive gun use from August 2023.

  • Aug. 14, Centerville, Texas: A man began aggressively approaching customers at a local smokehouse then entered the restaurant’s restroom and assaulted an elderly man until he lay unconscious on the floor. When another patron tried to intervene, the assailant began assaulting him, as well. Fortunately, this patron was legally armed and was able to shoot and wound the man in self-defense. The assailant was arrested and charged with several criminal offenses.

  • Aug. 18, Seminole County, Florida: A man was sitting on his porch with his dog when a “bear alert device” activated and he saw a black bear about 8 to 10 feet away from him. The man tried to scare the bear away by yelling, but it charged at him and his dog, so he shot it three times until it fled. State wildlife officials ultimately euthanized the injured bear and took her cubs to a rehabilitation center with plans to release them back into the wild later this year.

  • Aug. 25, Somerville, Alabama: A man and woman were allegedly burglarizing a home when an armed neighbor confronted them and detained them at gunpoint until police arrived. The pair now face unspecified criminal charges.

  • Aug. 28, Jackson, Michigan: A townhouse resident heard her neighbors having a loud argument, knocked on their adjoining wall, and asked them to quiet down. Instead of quieting down, a male neighbor angrily emerged from the home armed with a knife and began shattering the woman’s windows. She shot and injured him as he tried to force his way into her residence.

  • Aug. 30, Butler, Pennsylvania: An armed resident shot and wounded an intoxicated intruder who broke into his basement. The resident initially ordered the intruder to put his hands on a nearby washing machine, but the man kept advancing toward him even after he fired a warning shot. The suspect was already wanted by local law enforcement for unspecified reasons and now faces an additional felony burglary charge.

It’s especially important for people living in blue cities or blue states to arm themselves, because the police forces in these areas have had their budgets slashed by Democrats. “Defund the police” sounds so good, but it just gets a lot of peaceful, law-abiding people killed.

It’s very important to ask secular leftists who want to ban law-abiding people from owning firearms “what do you expect people to do when criminals want to hurt them?” The answer I get from my atheist Democrat friend is that he expects them to call the police, and wait for them to arrive. There is a real suspicion among secular leftists of law-abiding people defend themselves – especially men. A man defending his family? Why, that’s “sexist”. Better to call the police and wait for them to arrive.

The peer-reviewed research

Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.

The book by economist John Lott, linked above, compares the crime rates of all U.S. states that have enacted concealed carry laws, and concludes that violent crime rates dropped after law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry legally-owned firearms. That’s the mirror image of Dr. Malcolm’s Harvard study, which shows that the 1997 UK gun ban caused violent crime rates to MORE THAN DOUBLE in the four years following the ban. But both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.

One of the common mistakes I see anti-gun advocates making is to use the metric of all “gun-related deaths”. First of all, this completely ignores the effects of hand gun ownership on violent crime, as we’ve seen. Take away the guns from law-abiding people and violent crime skyrockets. But using the “gun-related deaths” number is especially wrong, because it includes suicides committed with guns. This is the majority (about two thirds) of gun related deaths, even in a country like America that has a massive inner-city gun violence problem caused by the epidemic of single motherhood by choice. If you take out the gun-related SUICIDES, then the actual number of gun homicides has decreased as gun ownership has grown.

For a couple of useful graphs related to this point, check out this post over at the American Enterprise Institute.

The link between single mother welfare, fatherlessness, poverty and crime

What is the root cause of criminal behavior? This article by feminist sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox, who points out the link between fatherlessness and crime in an article on the AEI web site.

Wilcox writes:

From Adam Lanza, who killed 26 children and adults a year ago at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Conn., to Karl Pierson, who shot a teenage girl and killed himself this past Friday at Arapahoe High in Centennial, Colo., one common and largely unremarked thread tying together most of the school shooters that have struck the nation in the last year is that they came from homes marked by divorce or an absent father. From shootings at MIT (i.e., theTsarnaev brothers) to the University of Central Florida to the Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy in Decatur, Ga., nearly every shooting over the last year in Wikipedia’s “list of U.S. school attacks” involved a young man whose parents divorced or never married in the first place.

[…]The social scientific evidence about the connection between violence and broken homes could not be clearer. My own research suggests that boys living in single mother homes are almost twice as likely to end up delinquent compared to boys who enjoy good relationships with their father. Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson has written that “Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States.” His views are echoed by the eminent criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, who have written that “such family measures as the percentage of the population divorced, the percentage of households headed by women, and the percentage of unattached individuals in the community are among the most powerful predictors of crime rates.”

Why is fatherlessness such a big deal for our boys (almost all of these incidents involve boys)? Putting the argument positively, sociologist David Popenoe notes that “fathers are important to their sons as role models. They are important for maintaining authority and discipline. And they are important in helping their sons to develop both self-control and feelings of empathy toward others, character traits that are found to be lacking in violent youth.” Boys, then, who did not grow up with an engaged, attentive, and firm father are more vulnerable to getting swept up in the Sturm und Drang of adolescence and young adulthood, and in the worst possible way.

So where do fatherless children come from? It turns out that government programs incentivize women to make them.

Dr. Michael Tanner of the libertarian Cato Institute explains how welfare causes fatherlessness in his testimony to Congress:

Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O’Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)

As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:

The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation’s mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada’s social-welfare system on family structure concluded that “providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women.”(9)

The secular left in this country believes that fathers need to be separated away from their children, and that’s why they support welfare programs that redirect money from husbands in intact families to single mothers. They believe that fathers are harmful because they set boundaries on children, and judge them and punish them when they act immorally. To the secular left, boundaries, judgments and punishments on children are bad, and must be stopped. So how can the secular left discourage men from marrying and teaching their own children morality? Well, they can tax married men, and they can give the money to single mothers.

Not only is crime caused by fatherlessness, but poverty is. as well.

Here is Dr. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation to explain:

Census data and the Fragile Families survey show that marriage can be extremely effective in reducing child poverty. But the positive effects of married fathers are not limited to income alone. Children raised by married parents have substantially better life outcomes compared to similar children raised in single-parent homes.

When compared to children in intact married homes, children raised by single parents are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems; be physically abused; smoke, drink, and use drugs; be aggressive; engage in violent, delinquent, and criminal behavior; have poor school performance; be expelled from school; and drop out of high school.[19] Many of these negative outcomes are associated with the higher poverty rates of single mothers. In many cases, however, the improvements in child well-being that are associated with marriage persist even after adjusting for differences in family income. This indicates that the father brings more to his home than just a paycheck.

The effect of married fathers on child outcomes can be quite pronounced. For example, examination of families with the same race and same parental education shows that, when compared to intact married families, children from single-parent homes are:

  • More than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime;[20]
  • Twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems;[21]
  • Roughly twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school;[22] and
  • A third more likely to drop out before completing high school.[23]

The effects of being raised in a single-parent home continue into adulthood. Comparing families of the same race and similar incomes, children from broken and single-parent homes are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact married families. [24] Compared to girls raised in similar married families, girls from single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to have a child without being married, thereby repeating the negative cycle for another generation.[25]

Finally, the decline of marriage generates poverty in future generations. Children living in single-parent homes are 50 percent more likely to experience poverty as adults when compared to children from intact married homes. This intergenerational poverty effect persists even after adjusting for the original differences in family income and poverty during childhood.[26]

People on the left claim that poverty causes crime, but they don’t look for the root cause of poverty. The root cause of poverty is the decline of marriage, which produces fatherless children.