Mange norske medier har presentert oss for den somaliske økonomiske ”suksesshistorien” i USA. Sjeldent følges påstanden av fakta/statistikk/faglig kildereferanse. Dessuten har jeg aldri registrert at den verdimessige integreringen har vært et tema. Og verdier er tross alt viktigere enn økonomi. Det handler om høna og egget. Hvis ikke verdiene er på plass, vel, så er grunnlaget for økonomisk vekst og vitenskap skralt.
Jeg skal ta ett eksempel på norsk medias ”fremsnakking” av somaliere i USA. Aftenposten skrev følgende for noen år tilbake (2008), under tittelen USA: Somaliere rett i jobb
Gründeren og entreprenøren Hussein Samatar strutter av amerikansk selvtillit og stolthet over hva han selv og mange andre somaliske flyktninger har fått til i den amerikanske delstaten Minnesota. Der er bortimot 70 prosent av somalierne i jobb. Knapt 3 prosent er registrert arbeidsledige. Samatars optimisme stopper ikke der: – Du skal se at om fem til ti år vil Norge ha mange flere somaliere med suksess i yrkeslivet.
(…)
I Minnesota er somaliere blant de etniske gruppene som mottar minst statlig støtte og er mest økonomisk selvstendige.
Dette er altså fra Norges ledende abonnementavis.
Så flytter vi oss til bloggen til den svenkskurdiske økonomen Tino Sanandaji, og dermed brast idyllen. To år etter Aftenpostens artikkel, i 2010, tok han for seg statistikk fra American Community Survey 2006-2008, altså i samme periode som Aftenposten skrev saken sin. Først tar Sanandaji en tur innom den svenske eliten, være seg på den venstre eller høyre flanken. Her benektes objektive fakta i stor skala.
Immigration from the third world to Sweden has led to massive social and economic problems. However, the Swedish elites compactly believe in the ideology of multiculturalism. This is true both of the left and of the right. Their main strategy is to deny objective reality. If our lying eyes tell us that immigrants disproportionally commit crime, live off government benefits and cause negative social externalities, our eyes and our statistics must be wrong.
First, anyone who points out data about the effects of immigration is silenced using the effective ad hominem accusation of racism. Once everyone who is not a multi-culturalist is out of the way and the intellectual level of the debate is lowered to satisfactory levels, the elites are free to exaggerate the benefits, reject or underplay the problems, and make up fantasies about what would happen without immigration. So for example they have claimed that without immigration from the third world Sweden would not have olive oil in the stores or fast food. Or that immigrants, who even when they are younger than Swedes are a net burden on the welfare state, and who like everyone else age and eventually collect pensions, will somehow magically save the pension system.
Så, når noe ikke fungerer, legges skylden på verten. Så enkelt, så åpenbart. For eliten.
There is however a second strategy, that I want to write about today. This is when problems with immigration are acknowledged, but blamed on Sweden. Under the dominant multi-culturalist ideology immigration is axiomatically good, so any problems must be due to external factors. Each side self-servingly attributes the problems of immigration to what they don’t like about the Swedish system. The left therefore claims that the explanation of why half of non-western immigrants don’t work is racism by capitalist firms.
The reason immigrants are 6 times as likely to go to jail for committing crime is discrimination in the legal system, and the lack of funding for public services. The right conversely claims that problems associated with immigration are entirely due to the welfare state. Usually we rely on some sort of efficiency in the marketplace for ideas through competition. The left will point out the weak arguments of the right, and vice versa. The result is of course not perfect, but at least you don’t get away with anything. But when it comes to immigration the elites to the left and right in Sweden have formed an intellectual cartel.
Sanandaji kommer så til poenget: en svensk tenketank knyttet til Centerpartiet publiserte boken “Successful immigration”, der det hevdes at forskning viser at innvandring til Sverige er lønnsomt for økonomisk vekst og øker andelen arbeidsplasser. I nettopp denne boken trekkes Minnesota-somalierne (igjen) frem. Og så kommer påstanden: når de klarer seg så veldig bra i USA/Minnesota, så må det være den svenske staten, det svenske systemet det er noe feil ved siden det går så dårlig der?
Da tar Sanandaji oss med inn i de harde fakta, offisiell amerikansk statistikk før finanskrisen, som vel bør være litt mer etterrettelig enn anekdoten til Aftenposten basert på en personkilde med somaliskamerikanske røtter på besøk i Norge.
As we noted the right blames this on the welfare state. They have thus invented the story that Somalia immigrants in free-market Minnesota are a magnificently successful group, largely based on anecdotal evidence. If we could only copy the policies of Minnesota, they would thrive also in Sweden. Can we trust the research presented by this book? What does the data tell us?
I downloaded US Census American Community Survey 2006-2008 (before the crisis), which allows us to directly investigate Somali immigrants in Minnesota.
The average income of the working age adults in Minnesota is $38.000.
The average income of working age Somali immigrants in Minnesota is $13.800, or about one third(!).
As a comparison, one third of the average American income is Mexico. More than half of Somali immigrants in Minnesota are below the poverty line. Only one half of Somali immigrants in Minnesota work.
Those who work earn $21.000 per year, compared to $46.000 for Minnesotans on average. The median income of Somalis that work is $12000 per year, or about 9000 Swedish kronor per month (using 9 kronor to a dollar as a PPP-adjusted conversion rate).
The conclusion that this data tells us is that Somali immigration to Minnesota has been a complete disaster from the perspective of Minnesota. A group that earn one third of average income cannot possibly be a net contributor to the public sector (in the U.S those with low income pay virtually no taxes, yet consume public services).
Kan en gruppe som tjener en tredjedel av gjennomsnittsinntekten og der halvparten lever i fattigdom kalles en suksesshistorie?
Sanandaji svarer slik:
When a group with this dismal performance is cheerfully presented to the Swedish public as a “success-story” that we should emulate, we know that the intellectual level of the Swedish right has sunk very low.
Jeg tror vi kan sette to streker under konklusjonen hans.