Well, the far right has been saying the same things for decades, even before WW 2. The immigrant groups have changed, but their opponent's arguments have not. Today, the issue isn't "immigration", per se, it's about who the immigrants are. The arguments about them wanting to take over, not wanting to integrate or participate in society, or learn the language, could be used against immigrant groups anywhere. There's also no secret why there is more crime, drugs and social problems in areas where new immigrants settle. It was true for the Irish and Italians and Russians who've come to the US. I.e., their neighborhoods had higher crime, but 90% of the people had nothing to do with it.
Then, there's the issue of terrorism, not crime, per se. Granted all the crimes committed by immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries. Is there a terrorism problem there?
Anyway, nothing illustrated by Sweden't problems can be used as a rationale for excluding Muslims from the U.S., particularly on the basis of their threat as terrorists. Afa addressing crime (such as drug use, etc.), I'd bet that the problems in Sweden are just as widespread among Swedes as they are among people from W. Virginia. Have you read about the epidemic there?
http://wvpublic.org/topic/needle-and-da ... c#stream/0People want to address, discuss, or solve a problem should pick problems that are closer to home. Sorry for the tangent, but I think that talk of Swedish problems is a complete distraction for the wrong reason. I.e., I'm tired of the argument "Look at Sweden." We'd be f-in lucky, imo, if we turned into Sweden
.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."