Stockholm Syndrome
I originally hail from Sweden, but am currently teaching economics and European studies at Skidmore College. I found Christopher Caldwell's "A Swedish Dilemma" (Feb. 28) interesting. I hope it will open American eyes to a problem that is visible all across Europe.
Although Sweden is on the extreme end of things, I do not think Caldwell's article gives a full account of the dire situation there. Social tensions have reached alarming levels, symbolized in part by skyrocketing crime rates. Recent studies in Stockholm show that of all rapes reported to police, only one in five are investigated and only 5 percent of the cases reported lead to the prosecution of a suspect. It is estimated that violent crime is rising by 25 percent annually, and over the first half of 2004 the murder rate rose by 40 percent.
Political extremism is also on the rise. About five years ago, an estimate by anti-racist groups indicated that Sweden had more active members of Nazi movements than its neighbors, adjusted for population. Hate-crime rates are several times higher than in America. Nazis have killed and have tried to kill journalists. Recently a long-time Nazi leader was arrested and charged with trying to build an armed political movement. In a different case, a group of nationalists were rounded up for inciting and planning an "armed revolution in the welfare state," as they called it. Nationalist-racist parties are represented in almost two dozen city councils. I fear they will make a successful bid for seats in the national parliament next year. These parties are far more extreme and dangerous than, say, Denmark's right-wing Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People's party).
Sweden's Nazis and nationalists are preying on stress and frustration among the middle class. Serious economic hardship--with extremely high tax rates--has forced most Swedish families into welfare dependency and paycheck-to-paycheck living. Now that the costly welfare system is being rolled back but taxes are being kept at record levels, their situation is getting desperate.
Contrary to what Caldwell indicates, the Swedish welfare state has been on a retreat for roughly two decades. Sweden now offers among the harshest welfare programs in the European Union. Health care is in a deplorable state of deterioration, with quality problems and waiting queues far worse than in (for example) Canada. Functional illiteracy is steadily on the rise, as are taxes.
As if all this were not enough, Sweden also suffers from widespread political corruption. The Social Democrats--who practically run the country as a one-party state--are at the root of this, which means the problem is getting worse, not better. Nationalist-racist parties are likely to profit widely from corruption in the near future. When they do, it will make an already shaky democracy even shakier.
Sven R. Larson
Saratoga Springs, NY
Mind the Golden Door
Tamar Jacoby falsely presents President Bush's guest worker program as an alternative to an increase in the Border Patrol, sweeps of workplaces and neighborhoods, large-scale deportations, and enhanced identification systems ("Law and Borders," Feb. 28). But raising the legal quota on foreigners permitted to work in the United States will not "solve" the illegal immigration problem unless it is coupled with greatly enhanced border security.
Not every illegal immigrant is a good-hearted worker who deserves a chance to get right with the law. The rising number of illegals on welfare and in prison indicates that more immigrants are coming into the country than even our robust economy can absorb. People come across the border in search of better conditions, but not always in search of honest work. They come because living in America is better than staying at home, even if poor or unemployed. Criminals and terrorists come for reasons of their own, and will prefer to stay in the shadows.
There will have to be a vigorous effort to round up and deport those who are not eligible for the guest worker program or who, for whatever reason, do not come forward. If there are 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants living in America, as Jacoby says, even a small percentage of such a large number will pose significant enforcement problems. There will still be a lucrative market for false documents, smugglers, and gang recruiters. Amnesties always increase the flood of migrants, unless blocked by expanded border and internal police efforts. No guest worker program can be said to have restored the integrity of our immigration system and the rule of law if it is still possible to enter the country and operate outside of the system.
From a political perspective, Bush's proposal cannot be sold to the public or Congress without being linked to greatly improved border security. Jacoby makes no proposals--nor has the Bush administration--that would actually close the southern border to illegal entry. Without action on the border, conservatives should reject the Bush proposal as incomplete and unworkable.
William R. Hawkins
U.S. Business and Industry Council
Washington, DC
Tamar Jacoby misses three of the main reasons why stopping illegal immigration is necessary and overdue.
First, I have been a law enforcement officer for 27 years in a city that is very affected by illegal immigration. We have a day-laborer center that used to support 50 to 60 day laborers (illegal aliens) looking for day jobs. The center now routinely has over 140 laborers trying to find work, even though only 60 to 70 will get hired on a daily basis.
Because the chance for daily work is only about 50 percent, many more illegal aliens prefer to stand on the sidewalks in and around the Home Depot here in town. They stand on people's lawns, they stand in front of other business, they litter, they urinate, and they defecate. Their sheer numbers intimidate single women and children into avoiding the area. There are simply more illegal aliens than there are jobs available. Even though I work in southern California, I have gotten calls from Florida, Georgia, and West Virginia in the last three months because cities there are all having similar problems. There are just more low-tech workers than our economy can support.
Second, the drive by conservatives to bring in more cheap labor for business does the poor in our own country a disservice. I know of U.S.-born Mexican Americans working as maids in hotels who are afraid to ask for a raise or benefits because they are scared they will be replaced by illegal aliens. Most fast food restaurants are now staffed by illegal aliens, who take jobs that used to go to our teenagers. More and more entry-level jobs are being taken over by the people coming here "just to feed their families."
But what about Americans? They want to feed their families, too. By supporting the influx of an ever-increasing supply of cheap labor, conservatives condemn America's poor to staying poor. This is hardly "compassionate."
Third, we have no idea who these people coming over the border are. They have no identification, so we cannot run their records. Some of the "day laborers" standing on our sidewalks are convicted of very serious crimes on an almost daily basis. Some might eventually be deported, but many will cross back over the border to confront us again and again.
Illegal immigration is illegal, and it has many consequences. These include classroom overcrowding, which the children of illegals make even worse, and the rising cost of medical care, which is exacerbated by millions of illegal aliens who have no money but must be treated. We are all paying the staggering costs of illegal immigration . . . for what? So we can provide American businesses with cheap labor? How shortsighted.
Mark Hansen
California
Tamar Jacoby responds: William R. Hawkins and Mark Hansen are dead wrong about immigrants' impact on the U.S. economy. Far from a permanent underclass "on welfare and in prison," undocumented male immigrants are more than twice as likely as comparably educated native-born men to be participating in the labor force--an astonishing 96 percent of them are either working or between jobs. As illegal immigrants, they aren't eligible for welfare. And studies show that the foreign-born commit roughly the same amount of crime as other people with similar incomes and education levels--if anything, slightly less. As for Hansen's claims about "staggering costs," economists find cities and states with high numbers of immigrants have considerably healthier economies than cities and states with few foreign workers. Wages are higher, unemployment is lower, and incomes rise faster. Why? Because immigrants help grow a regional economy, benefiting not just the businesses where they work--Is there anyone left in America who thinks only greedy businesses gain from economic growth?--but also local retail services and everyone who uses the amenities made possible by the expanded tax base.
Of course, both Hawkins and Hansen are right: The status quo is unacceptable--that was one of the main points of my article. Insecure borders, widespread disrespect for the law, chaotic hiring practices that undermine the quality of life in our communities--if this is the price of immigration, it's too high a price to pay. But it needn't be the price. As President Bush understands, the solution is to acknowledge our labor needs and the immigrant flow they generate and then--once we've taken our heads out of the sand--find ways to manage the consequences of the influx. Once we've created legal channels for the foreign workers we need--and only then--we'll be able to take control of the border and defend ourselves against would-be terrorists. Once they have legal standing, even the newest arrivals will find it easier to bargain for decent wages, much reducing the likelihood they will undercut U.S.-born workers. And once we own up to the impromptu hiring that is so beneficial for our communities--one of the great advantages of immigrant laborers is that they are so flexible and responsive to market conditions--we can create more orderly procedures, including hiring halls, to minimize its adverse effects.
Hawkins and Hansen are hung up on the symptoms of an outmoded, inadequate immigration policy. What they don't see are the larger benefits of the immigrant influx--or the way we can turn it even more to our advantage with a more realistic approach.
Erratum
In Christopher Caldwell's "A Swedish Dilemma" (Feb. 28), we wrote, "Danes under 25 who marry foreigners no longer have the right to bring their spouses into the country." That should have read, "Danes under 24 . . . "