Posts Tagged ‘immigration policy’

Sweden is the country in Europe that opens its doors to the highest number of immigrants. The Migration Board’s director-general, Dan Eliasson, sees no reason to worry.

In 2009, permanent residence permits (PUT) were granted to over 102,000 immigrants, the number UN convention refugees of which was less than 5 per cent. The largest immigrant group consists of people seeking family reunification with immigrants that have already been granted PUT.

Those who don’t meet the requirement of the UN standards, can be allowed a permanent residence anyway, with reference to “particularly compassionate grounds” (979 persons in 2009) or with reference to having a “need of protection” (5967 persons in 2009). As far as I am informed, no other European country have these other reasons for residence permit. NB! Most of the immigrants (95%) arriving to Sweden have no identity documents. They are more often than not allowed to stay anyway, even though this is against the law.

Now let’s look further into the reasons that convinced the Migration Court that the following persons must stay. I will here enumerate a number of reasons that led to a permanent residence permit (PUT):

Case UM 3139-80 Yemenite woman had had sex with a Canadian, now she runs the risk of being murdered by her uncle

Case UM 993-09 Divorce after bogus marriage (in order to get a PUT) no reason for cancelling the PUT

Case UM 3411-08 The parents’ reasons for PUT are not credible but the oldest child has turned apathetic so PUT is granted

Case UM 1673-09 Girl born 1992 gets PUT because of mental illness

Case UM 595-09 Man from Kamerun says he is son of a deceased headman; he doesn’t want to inherit the headmanship, the father’s 6 wives and 28 children

Case UM 2479-09 Raped Iranian woman had been harassed by her divorced husband after the rape

Case UM 1662-09 Young Iraqi man gets PUT in spite of no actual reason but for the fact that he otherwise must live in a state of uncertainty as regards the point of time of the expulsion from Sweden

Case UM 2902-08 Afghan man gets PUT because of a psychotic illness

Case UM 5814-08 A Sudanese woman risks being frozen out from society because she has a child

Case UM 2053-09 A family that states they come from Yemen and that Al-Qaeda are after them

These are only ten cases out of many hundred thousands more. A list of some more PUT permissions is to be found here.

In a British TV documentary, immigrants (the majority being young men) were interviewed on the reasons for trying to get into Great Britain. It appeared that they were trying to “live the European dream”, i.e. to get themselves better economic conditions than they had in Africa and in the Middle East. Consequently, the speaker called them “economical migrants”.

Having given examples of a few of all the reasons of the immigrants to Sweden granted permanent residence permit on the grounds of a “need of protection”, the immediate question at issue is if they are not as well to be called “economical migrants”.

Sweden’s welfare system is the most generous in Europe. The Swedish tax burden is the heaviest in Europe. There is a connection between these two facts. The one requires the other. An immigrant who has got a permanent residence permit automatically has the right to receive all the social welfare allowances there are. Couldn’t this, put together with the proportionate easiness to obtain the PUT, be a contributory reason for the fact that Sweden functions like magnet for immigrants?

Follow my blog with bloglovin

Read Full Post »

Dear Readers,
Last election in Sweden, we got a new government. The socialists were replaced by a coalition of the four non-Socialist parties, the Moderate Party, the Liberals, The Center party and the Christian Democrats. The Swedish people were tired of the old government and wanted a thorough change.

Now, after almost three and a half years, we can ask ourselves the question: what has actually been changed? Well, one good thing is that the non-Socialists have tried to lower the highest burden of taxation in the world, and have succeeded to change this into being the country with the second highest burden of taxation! Unfortunately the retired elderly people have not benefitted from this decision at all.

Sweden’s national defence has been minimized and there is almost nothing left. The compulsory military service is practically abolished. Young men can choose not to participate simply by ticking the no-box on an Internet site.

People who wanted to see a reduction of the – in those days – already elevated immigration figures, voted probably for the non-Socialist. Now afterwards it is easy to observe that this government even has increased these figures. During 2009, about 102,000 immigrants got permanent residence permit. The previous year the figures were well above 90,000 and just below in 2007. NB! Only less than 10% of all these immigrants are “real” asylum seekers according to the UN criteria.

Was this what the Swedish voters expected? They expected probably a more moderate policy but the Government has proved to pursue a policy that is even more wasteful than the former’s as regards immigration. The migration minister, Tobias Billstrom, wrote recently in a debate article on the Internet site Newsmill, that the present government is the only alternative for voters when it comes to immigration policy. He claims that the government now has passed a law according to which the majority of our immigrants, i.e. family members of asylum seekers, from April an onwards must themselves be responsible for their support. The interesting thing is that this decision has so many exceptions that it would have been easier to state those who do not have to support themselves .

To sum up, all the seven parties in the Swedish parliament have the same immigration policy. There is one party though, outside the parliament, the Sweden Democrat Party, that has another more responsible migration policy and that criticizes the immigration policy of today and the last 20 years. The Sweden Democrat Party is always defamed by all the seven parliament parties as being xenophobic, when the party points out the results of the existing policy. Almost no debates are held. The parliamentary parties do never answer the facts that are presented and collected from Swedish authorities by the Sweden Democrat Party.

It will be interesting to see how this suffocating debate climate will develop up to the election in Sweden in September and for how long time it will be possible to deceive people in Sweden. In my opinion, people living a bit away from the ghettos are not aware of the situation and what is actually happening in this multicultural experiment.

Follow my blog with bloglovin

Read Full Post »