Sunday, 19 Feb 2017 09:12 PM
A newspaper columnist for the British conservative magazine Spectator in September of 2016 wrote how Sweden was an example of how not to handle immigrants, an article of particular interest in light of President Donald Trump’s critical comments on Sweden during a Florida rally on Saturday night.
Trump in his speech referenced "what's happening last night in Sweden" at his rally, a comment criticized by many, but later cleared up by a White House spokeswoman as Trump "talking about rising crime and recent incidents in general and not referring to a specific incident."
Trump on Twitter said he was referring to a story broadcast on Fox News concerning immigrants and Sweden.
In the Spectator, the columnist Tove Lifvendahl wrote that no one was better than Sweden when it comes "to offering shelter."
"But when it comes to integrating those we take in (or finding the extra housing, schools and healthcare needed for them), we don’t do so well," she said.
Problems have been rising in Sweden since the influx of immigrants according to news reports. In 2015, Sweden grew by 103,662 people, a record mainly due to immigration. The Spectator column cited two incidents where children were killed, one in September and one the year before, as a result of gang violence. An 8-year-old boy was caught up in a grenade attack and a 4-year-old girl was killed by a car bomb.
The cost of accommodating child refugees, wrote the author, "is enormous: £160 per child per day. That could be money well spent, if it worked."
Trump has been hawkish on national security since taking office one month ago and continued that conversation on Saturday.
"We've got to keep our country safe," he said. "You look at what's happening in Germany. You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what's happening in Brussels. You look at what's happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris."
And the liberals would have us believe that these problems have nothing to do with immigration. Those who will admit there is a problem will say something like, "Should we keep out 1000 immigrants because a few are criminals?"
I say you're damn right we should. I'm not about to risk my ass so a few can have a better life. How's about those people stay in their native lands and work to make it a better place? If they need some kind of assisstance to accomplish this, I'd rather give them help there than have them come here.
I have a good question for the liberals: For the cost of bringing one immigrant here, how many could we help in their native lands?