[TangoTrotFox]

On the other hand, you also have to understand that humanitarianism must have limits. The resources of nations are not infinite and individuals that are unable to provide for themselves are a tremendous burden on society. And when you accept people that fail to integrate you risk imperiling the very policies that you hold to be worthwhile. For instance, Sweden will be a phenomenal test case. The Globe and Mail ran an interesting piece on their situation here [1]. 16% of Sweden is now made up of individuals that come from quite different ideological backgrounds in Africa and the Mideast. And those numbers continue to rapidly increase.

The ideal was that as these people are treated with decency and respect and given a life not unlike any other Swede might receive, they would be able to integrate and ultimately just becomes Swedes. But this ideal did not really turn out to be justified. So what will happen to Sweden as these individuals begin to be one of the most relevant voting blocs? It's not a rhetorical question, since I don't think anybody really knows the answer. This scale of migration with people of such sharply contrasting worldviews is something relatively novel in the modern developed world. However, in my opinion Sweden's experiment is more likely to end up being seen as a cautionary tale than a model of humanitarianism.

[1] - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/swedens-ugly-immigra...

[amanaplanacanal]

Just pointing out that 'piece' is an editorial, not a news article.

The US has had multiple waves of immigration from most of the world, over the last few centuries. And there has been similar pushback from nativists over and over again. If that long history is any indication, Sweden will be fine.

[TangoTrotFox]

What do you think would be a comparable migration in the US? I see three key distinguishing factors that make Sweden quite interesting as a test case:

1) The first is of course just sheer volume. Sweden has gone, in less than a single generation, from a mostly ethnically homogeneous nation to one where about 20% of the population is foreign born and that's only going to keep rising. The US is at record setting levels recently, with a foreign born population of less than 14%. And it's always been a rather diverse nation.

2) Relatively incompatible cultures. Large chunks of the migrants to Sweden are coming from backgrounds that hold very different cultural values on a wide range of fundamental issues. By contrast the vast majority of migrants to the US tend to hold quite similar cultural values.

3) Distorted migratory motivations. Throughout the US's history, migration has been about work -- in the past and present. People's motivation for coming here is to work. When the economy tanked in 2009, so did immigration. As it picks back up, so does immigration. Sweden, by contrast, is attracting people exclusively because they offer extremely generous benefits, particularly for refugees. They are attracting individuals that are only moving there because they can get more stuff from their government than they can from other nations. Ideally this could just be a liminal phase, but the current outcomes are far from promising. If people end up beginning to take the government handouts for granted, I think this would be a serious problem.

[ck425]

Point 2) here is important. Folk migrate to the US due to some variation of the American Dream. Therefore the migrants bring and reinforce part of American culture.

[fiblye]

The US was also in a different hemisphere while the rest of the world was ravaged by 2 massive wars that destroyed everything they had, letting the US take the reigns of the world economy for a very long time. Without WW1 and WW2 helping to make the US economy an absolute beast unlike anything the world has ever seen, things would be quite different.

[linksnapzz]

...for someone, presumably.

It'll merely no longer be recognizable as "Sweden" for people whose ancestors considered themselves "Swedes".