Sweden’s prime minister on Thursday said that he’s summoned the head of the military to discuss how the armed forces can help police deal with an unprecedented crime wave that has shocked the country with almost daily shootings and bombings.
Getting the military involved in crime-fighting would be a highly unusual step for Sweden, underscoring the severity of the gang violence that has claimed a dozen lives across the country this month, including teenagers and innocent bystanders.
Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said that he would meet with the armed forces’ supreme commander and the national police commissioner on Friday to explore “how the armed forces can help police in their work against the criminal gangs.”
One thing I’ve seen often is that people who claim “certain types of immigrants” are problematic don’t read studies properly or cherry pick what they like.
I encourage you to read that paragraph again if you think it says anything other when what I have already claimed. Please pay particular attention this part: “The correlation between socioeconomic background and crime is weak”.
No, they just complain about people who look like them, have the same skin color as them, and sometimes them (by mistake, I suppose?). “No one” is a huge generalizing in this time when even the highly-skilled “right” type of immigrants are now having problems thanks to this SD rhetoric, and some are even considering leaving the country.
Well you’ll have to take it up with those alleged people. Myself and those in this post are not making that argument.
Unfortunately a lot of those committing those crimes now are teenagers who have lost touch with society and they are most likely Swedish citizens by now. So how do we go from here?
The solutions are complex, and Sweden is beginning to look to Denmark. The first step is to prevent the problem getting worse. This means halting all migration from regions where immigrants demonstrate a higher per capita rate of crime. Clearly their cultural values are incompatible with Sweden. Secondly, ghettos are causing major issues in Sweden. Denmark prevents the formation of ghettos by limiting the proportion of refugees by region in any single area. Refugees are encouraged to integrate by being placed into Danish neighbourhoods. This encourages refugees to learn the language and adopt Danish values. This is crucial for integration. Finally, more demands must be placed on refugees. In Denmark, refugees must complete gates, including learning Danish, and finding a job. There are consequences for failure to comply. Sweden has no such obligations on refugees. Or at least, they did not until recently.
Despite Sweden investing more into integration than arguably any other country on Earth, their outcomes are poor. So the issue isn’t about resources. It’s about compliance. Their method isn’t working and it’s time they start imposing obligations on refugees.
You and I read the same conclusion. You took out the single part that supports your claim and ignored the rest. The whole study is about how socioeconomic status related to crime and that the factors and explanatory models are varied with no consensus among researchers. The idea of the correlation being weak is that you cannot predict criminality risk with only socioeconomic. Instead, the chain of cause and effect is much more inderect and nuanced. Look at this paragraph:
However, a shared feature of all these explanatory models is that socioeconomic background is not in itself viewed as having a direct causal effect on the risk for criminal behaviour, but that this risk is rather affected by a chain of other factors, whose strength varies more or less systematically between individuals located at different positions along the socioeconomic scale.
You are misreading it and possibly misinterpreting what a correlation entails. If I wanted to predict the criminal risk for a person, I cannot rely on socioeconomic alone. That, however, does not mean that socioeconomic reasons don’t contribute to this, and if that was part of your conclusion then I think you are seriously misinterpreting this meta study…
