While running for President last year, the self-professed “Democratic-Socialist” Bernie Sanders urged us to look at Sweden as a model for what the United States should be. He was making reference to their economic model, one best described as a “capitalist welfare state:” extremely high taxes with generous benefits (all the kind of government freebies Bernie wants).He’s taking the wrong lessons from Sweden — as their rates of economic growth have slowed greatly after transitioning from a lassiez-faire model to having a large welfare state, but that’s a subject for another article.
Now we have a new lesson from Sweden, this one with regard to its refugee crisis. Both Bernie and Hillary Clinton supported increasing the number of middle eastern refugees into the US — but how has that worked out for Sweden?As it turns out, when your social safety net is a hammock, there’s little desire for their new residents to work.
According to the Daily Wire:
Perhaps it seemed like a good idea at the time, or at least humanitarian. Sweden let 163,000 “refugees” into their once-idyllic country last year, and government officials assured wary citizens that they would aid the economy.But a new report from the state-funded broadcaster says that just 494 — or 0.30306748466258% — have found jobs. Now that’s a low number: You’d have to triple it just to get to 1%.
The figures of migrant unemployment follow a trend in Sweden of high unemployment for foreigners. The unemployment for those born in Sweden is at the lowest point since the 2008 financial crisis at around 4.8 per cent, while foreign born unemployment is at 14.9 per cent.
This means that there are fewer people in Sweden paying tax into the generous “Swedish model” welfare system. Some have said that the influx of foreigners who do not work will strain the welfare system to the point of collapse as foreigners are expected to make up 60 per cent of unemployed residents in Sweden by 2017.Meanwhile, the statistics for welfare use among Middle Eastern refugees in America are shocking:
Much of the debate over refugee resettlement has focused on moral arguments, but how is it moral to bear the costs of resettling refugees in America when for the same cost we could resettle ten times as many in the Middle East? Refugees resettled in surrounding Middle Eastern countries will also have the advantage of speaking the language — which should help with the job search.[Note: This post was written by Matt Palumbo. He is a co-author of the new book A Paradoxical Alliance: Islam and the Left, and can be found on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]