Costs of Mass Immigration Kent Ekeroth Sweden Sweden Democrats

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS DEBATE ISLAM AND MASS IMMIGRATION POLICIES IN THE RIKSDAG PARLIAMENT HOUSE…….



The Sweden Democrats began in ernest recently, in opening the debate about mass immigration, refugee policies and the unfair financial bruden it all places upon the back of Sweden, as well as being a detriment to the peoples in 3rd world countries they claim to be helping, in the Swedish house of parliament, the Riksdag.

What was stunning in the transcript, (excerpts provided below) was the quality of the debate, something of which, mind you, would simply have never taken place if not for the Sweden Democrats’ recent parliamentary victory and entrance into the Riksdag.
Now it’s clear why the SD party is both feared and loathed by the rest of parliament, they represent a formidable force, whose members of parliament appear more than able to successfully chip away at the pretzel-headed logic of the other parties that have been promoting these highly destructive, and disasterous immigration polices in Sweden.
When held to the light of day, the immigration/refugee policies crafted by these political hacks at the behest of the main parties in Sweden, are amazingly highly disenguous in their nature and design, not being founded on real facts and figures, but on ideology. The SD party is finally able to hold these policies up to public scrutiny in the Swedish house of parliament, and force the other parties to publically defend themselves. In other words, defend the indefensible.
It’s an excellent and amazing situation, for a party that has been raked over the coals, smeared, tarred and feathered as much as the Sweden Democrats have been, to stand up in parliament and declare that Sweden is yearly condeming tens of thousands of people in 3rd world developing countries to death, by adhering to series of destructive immigration/refugee policies, and all from the ideolocial standpoint so that Sweden can become a “multicultural society”. Stunning.
The Tundra Tabloids wishes the Sweden Democrats all the success posible in bringing Sweden to its senses, kicking and screaming if need be. Remember, what they are demanding is nothing less than what Finland and other smaller countries in Europe already take for granted, and in doing so, they’re labeled “waycists” and bigots. Let full public debate rage on, and see which party, when all things are said and done, increases its numbers. That’s what the other parties fear, and they have good reason to. KGS
NOTE: The following partial transcript is from the debate which took place in the Swedish house of parliament this past Thursday, on Nov.4th 2010. The full transcript, in Swedish, can be found here. below the fold. Special thanks to Henrik Raeder Clausen from Europe News, for helping with the unclear portions of the Google translation.
H/T: Reinhard
Kent Ekeroth (SD)

“And, as I said in an earlier speech, then it is not humane to bring them to Sweden. For every person we bring to Sweden, we leave 10 000 who will die of starvation or disease in Africa. It is not humane.”

Parliamentary rapid protocol
2010/11: 10
Thursday, 4 November
Cl. 12:00 to 22:12

Commentary. 61 WILLIAM Petzäll (SD) reply:

Mrs. Spokesman! First I want to question Michael Svensson, who considers intolerance a threat, what he thinks of the fact that the party he represents has let an Islamist into this assembly. This is a person who openly defends mistreating women, finds it unacceptable that women and man walk hand in hand, find it unacceptable that men and women dance together, etcetera. These are the opinions that you have brought with you into this House.

How do you view this fact, Michael Svensson, and how do you combat intolerance within your own party?

Commentary. 62 MICHAEL SMITH (M) reply:

Mrs. Spokesman! I do not believe that anybody in our party, nor in any other democratic party in the Parliament, who intends to throw anybody out of the Parliament. Everyone should have the right to speak here.

I do not know the quran, but I do not believe that it is written anywhere in the quran that one must be intolerant to others – quite to the contrary.

Commentary. 63 WILLIAM Petzäll (SD) reply:

Madam President, I would argue the opposite and say that the whole Quran is based on intolerance. The fact is that the representatives we’re talking about has made its stance. I just wonder how the Conservatives relate to the fact that you have actually dragged in a person who has these views. He has personally expressed them in several interviews. Surely it should be pretty disturbing in any way.

Commentary. 64 MICHAEL SMITH (M) reply:

Madam President, All who agree with our policies and represent a society that is open and tolerant are very welcome to join the New Moderates.

Commentary. 65 THIRD VICE PRESIDENT:

I just want to remind you that the debate should be about issues. There will be a strange situation to attack people who are not able to defend themselves. I would therefore recommend that it is sakpolitiskt content appearing in this debate.

Commentary. 66 Kent Ekeroth (SD) reply:

Madam President, I think it’s good that Svensson acknowledges that this has to do with culture. From the bourgeoisie, the Left and the establishment in Sweden and the Swedish media talk you always namely that there are social factors. Everyone’s Baghdad Bob, Jerzy Sarnecki, said that it is about overcrowding that we have with the criminal immigrants to do and when it comes to the financial burden of immigration and so on.

It is good that you stand here and acknowledge that it is really about culture. You are at the same time and tells us to be border guards against cultures that are intolerant and so on. I think it’s great that you set up on it, but I ask you: How can you reconcile this with your view of Islam? If we are going to be border guards against cultures that are intolerant, we must be border guards against what is Islam today.

It is quite remarkable that you stand up there and says there is nothing in Islam that is intolerant or violent. It just proves that you do not know a single thing about what Islam stands for. I find it encouraging that at least you are recognizing that it is about culture, but I want an answer to the question of how you look at that as border guard against these cultures and against Islam.

Commentary. 67 MICHAEL SMITH (M) reply:

Madam President, We can have a debate on any other day of the Quran and then bring us some experts also. However, I have read a bit in the Quran and found nothing to indicate that you want to kill other people. 

When I say that we should be border guards and janitors, I mean in part that we in this parliament to ensure that there are people here who represent the intolerant and undemocratic views.

Commentary. 68 Kent Ekeroth (SD) reply:

Madam President, You have not seen anything in the Koran about violence. Then I can name two things for you. Verses 9:5 and 9:29 is called, for example, sword verses. They are warlike verses that people in the Muslim world has been practiced for 1400 years. Yes, there is therefore violent verses.

You say that we in this parliament to prevent it. It was exactly what my colleague William Petzäll said, you have in your own party representatives who advocate these intolerant views – what you mean is that you should be border guards against it.

Commentary. 69 MICHAEL SMITH (M) reply:

Madam President, Lastly, I would just say that I think it is enough to go out on Main Street in Piteå or Karlstad, on Kungsgatan in Stockholm, or in one neighborhood in a small town in any part of Sweden to realize that we have a multicultural society in Sweden . 18-20 percent of those in Sweden today are refugees and immigrants in the first, second or third hand. They are here to stay. You have to try and take his head out of the sandbox.

Commentary. 80 Kent Ekeroth (SD) reply:

Madam President, I reacted in a number of things, and I’ll take up some of them. Bodil Ceballos spoke of Sweden creates hidden refugees. I’m sorry, but the only way to become a refugee hiding – which in fact is an illegal immigrant – is to violate Swedish law.

Sweden has one of the world’s most generous and naive immigration system. Should those who choose to violate Swedish law and the generous rules we have today then rewarded for choosing to commit crimes in Sweden? It is of course completely unacceptable.

You talk all the time with the refugees. I think one must be careful with the concepts. Refugees represent a small fraction of those who have come to Sweden since 1980. In 2009, only 1.76 percent that were real refugees under the UN definition. If we include quota refugees from the UN, we would still only at 3.65 percent. These are real refugees. The other 95 percent are relatives of immigrants and so on. They have nothing to do with refugees.

Commentary. 81 Bodil Ceballos (MP) reply:

Madam President, To begin with, let me just point out that it is not a crime to live hidden in Sweden. There is no such crime in the Penal Code.

What I am talking about here is the asylum law. There are the few that you are talking about. I’m not talking about family reunification, and I’m talking about the children of those refugees. They have the right to come here under the Conventions. I am not talking about those who have come here because they have met a partner or anything else. I am talking about just the little group that also you’re talking about.

Commentary. 82 Kent Ekeroth (SD) reply:

Madam President, But you’re talking all about what you call for stowaways, Bodil Ceballos. So they are not real refugees, for they would have been there they would have received refugee status and residence. But they are not refugees. We decided to check them and said: No, you have unfortunately no reason to stay here as refugees. That is why they are illegal immigrants. That is why they violate the rules we have in Sweden when granted a residence permit for various reasons. They are not refugees. It’s not that we’re talking about.

Commentary. 85 Kent Ekeroth (SD) reply:

Madam President, Ismail Kamil talk about a humane refugee policy. The sad fact is that Sweden has had no humane refugee policy with the policy that has been conducted the past 40 years. It’s all about priorities and resources. Either you can help them in Sweden or you can help them in place in their vicinity.

Let me give an example. A few years ago was a refugee amnesty to a number of illegal immigrants in this country. According to the Cabinet Office, it cost an average of 117 000 per residence permit. The cost of an Iraqi refugee in Syria, according to the UN seven crowns. What does this mean? It means that for every person to receive in Sweden for SEK 117 000 is 15 000 people can not help with the money. This is what it is about. The question is: What is more humane, to help a person in Sweden or 10 000 in Africa?

Commentary. 86 Ismail Kamil (FP) reply:

Madam President, One can not ask the question this way. Sweden will obviously help the refugees in the vicinity, as does Sweden as well. But when it comes to those who come to Sweden to Sweden under the law to rule on their asylum claim, and it is done today in Sweden. One can not say one is better than the other. I believe that Sweden can afford to do both in a better way.

Commentary. 87 Kent Ekeroth (SD) reply:

Madam President, You miss an important point. You say you can do both, but the fact remains that for every person you choose to help in Sweden, which does not need help and who does not have refugee status, can help 10 000 people on the ground in Africa for example. We can look at what Doctors Without Borders say they can do for 1000 dollars. They can, for example, provide 400 children vaccination against meningitis.

It is an inhumane policy that the Alliance and the red-green and have done for 40 years. You will help fewer people than what you could do. Say to those Africans who are dying of hunger that we would rather choose to help a man in Sweden and that they could die of starvation because we chose to do it. It is inhumane.

Commentary. 88 Ismail Kamil (FP) reply:

Madam President, Sweden Democrats said all along that we should take care of those already here, while they say that no one is welcome. So you can not do. The proposal that you submitted in the shadow budget is to make it harder for those already here. Now you may actually determine you. Would you like us to help those already here? Let us instead support the government’s ambitions to make it easier for these people to get into the Swedish society and participate in Swedish society.

Commentary. 89 WILLIAM Petzäll (SD) reply:

Madam President, I have a brief comment to the entry-level jobs and the assertion from the pulpit that they would not constitute discrimination against native Swedes. It is quite clear that it’s setting groups against each other. We hear, for example, how the other parliamentary parties are talking about all people are equal and that all people be treated equally. But in a multicultural society, it is evident that all men are not equal. You privilege the course of another ethnic group. You set groups against each other by making it more expensive to hire Swedes and cheaper to hire immigrants.

We Sweden Democrats stand for all human beings, and we also think that every single citizen of this country should be treated equally regardless of ethnic background. My question is: how consistent this proposal in principle – as you say you stand for – of all people have equal value and equal treatment?

Let me then say something about SFI bonus. We already have the most effortless integration policy in this country. Now you have established that it shall be rewarded with 12 000 SEK to learn Swedish. Ask instead requires that if one at all should have one nationality will also learn Swedish.

 Commentary. 185 CHRISTINA RAISE LARSEN (V) reply:

Madam President, There was really no question but an assertion. You could say, as we have heard during the day, the Sweden Democrats have very little to bring their own ideas or thoughts, but it becomes a constant attacks that do not really have too much else. I therefore have nothing further to add.

Commentary. 186 Kent Ekeroth (SD) reply:

Madam President, Christina Raise Larsen, you can call it constant attack or whatever you want. But we are not here to coddle you with the Left Party, because you may have contributed to this catastrophic situation that we see economically with mass immigration policy. We see crime in the rail-road, and we see the cultural problems. We see that people in Malmö moving elsewhere because they do not feel at home there. They can not live in the city anymore. It is therefore obvious that I will not stand here and keep up with either you in the Left, or Liberal Party or any of the other advocates of this derailed mass immigration policy. 

 Commentary. 189 Kent Ekeroth (SD) reply:

Madam President, Now we hear the argument about labor and how much Sweden needs it again. This argument, we have heard in 30 years. Even in the 70’s it was said that we needed workers. It is said every year, and each year it is equally wrong.

In 2010, fear all that baby-boomer generation will retire. More than half of them have already retired, and we still have a huge unemployment. This argument has never worked.

It has even in studies in Sweden by Jan Ekberg proved that there is hardly any positive effects of a labor migration.

We can compare with Canada. I know that Bill Power likes to take Canada as an example. They have had an extremely selective immigration of workers. Sweden does not choose at all. In Canada it has strict requirements. But even there, it helps. Real wages have fallen 4-7 per cent, there is still social problems, and an economic perspective, it appears that you have not won anything on it yet.

Yet you stand here day in and day out and say that we at some point in the future will need workers. Therefore, we must continue with the mass immigration policy today. It does not work. It is not true. There never has been and will never do it.

Commentary. 190 LARS-AXEL Nordell (KD) reply:

Madam President, Kent Ekeroth question here Employment Service’s new report. The cuts at his ankles and says that it is completely wrong.

I have more confidence in an official report yet on how Kent Ekeroth think it should be.

This report shows that we are faced with large numbers of retirements. There is still a huge mountain of many who will retire. It is something that we, as policymakers have to consider and plan for. We can not ignore this just because some do not think it should be so. This is how it looks. It is the information we receive. It is the information we have when we make decisions.

Commentary. 191 Kent Ekeroth (SD) reply:

Madam President, Lars-Axel Nordell, you mention that you have more faith in the reports. That sounds great. I have more faith in the reality as it has proven to be in Sweden and it has proven to be in Canada. The reality is called. While you can see the ghosts we see reality.

We have a very long time have seen that neither the family immigration or migration of labor has worked. It has unfortunately not worked. Do you have a labor – and that is we – should it be a selective labor migration that takes them in as we believe that there is a need. We should not have a general labor and hope it will be good. Studies show that there will be. 

Commentary. 194 Kent Ekeroth (SD) reply:

Madam President, Here we are again with unaccompanied refugee children.

We tested the refugee in Norway. It turned out that nine out of ten lied about his age, they were over 18 years old when dental tests were performed. In Denmark, made a similar test, and then it turned out that 71 out of 120 so-called unaccompanied refugee children were over 18. They also lied about their age. One may ask if the pattern is different in Sweden. I see no reason why it would be different in Sweden.

I think a very large proportion of the many refugee children who now will not be de facto children. They look instead of this as a new motorway in Sweden. It must therefore be checked, first of all, for I doubt it very strongly.

Then there is a shared responsibility. Maria Ferm, you’re talking about that all municipalities will be forced to accept. I’m sure you believe that immigration is a great economic asset. Why should municipalities be forced into it? If this is so fantastic with immigration it has to be in their interest to accept everyone. 

One Response

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *