There's something missing from the European immigrant crime wave narrative

A recent piece in the New York Times describes a disturbing trend in Sweden --- weapons of war, including hand grenades and AK-47s, have been flowing into immigrant-heavy neighborhoods.

An article in The Spectator sketches Swedish streets as immigration-fueled warzones: Dutch exchange student killed by a stray bullet during an execution-style murder at a pizzeria; an uptick in gun violence; a deluge of hand grenade attacks in areas comprised mainly of immigrants. Paramedics and firefighters allegedly can’t enter certain neighborhoods without heavily armed police escorts.

The author, Paulina Neuding, laments that a rising tide of violence is “what happens when you fail to integrate immigrants and instead tolerate the creation of a society within a society.” It’s not clear that violent crime is soaring, as the title of her piece declares.

Tino Sanandaji points out, in National Review, that some types of crime have gone up in Sweden (gang shooting, arson and sexual assault), while others have decreased (assault, car thefts and property crimes). These changes track fairly well with international trends.

Nonetheless, Neuding is probably onto something. The Scandinavian country has substantially increased its share of non-Western immigrants and asylum seekers in recent years, and we cannot fully dismiss the anecdotal evidence of flare-ups in immigrant communities.

Sanandaji wrote an earlier piece exploring the potential causes of the 2013 Stockholm riots, in which schools, cultural centers and well over 100 cars were torched in the predominantly immigrant suburb of Husby.

He ultimately points to the Swedish government’s generosity as the culprit. The robust social safety net in Sweden, from which immigrants pull more than their native-born neighbors, creates a “welfare trap.” But the economic disincentive to work is only half the story for Sanandaji. He also criticizes Swedish political elites for espousing multiculturalism, which encourages non-European implants to cling to their own customs, values and habits.

A 2003 study found immigrants in Sweden were more likely to use welfare services than natives.

He’s more or less right in his observations. A 2003 study found immigrants in Sweden were more likely to use welfare services than natives. And various “multicultural” policies from European policymakers have had adverse effects on assimilation.

Both authors appear to be correct on their assessments of poor integration, as well. A 2015 analysis of 27 different indicators of immigrant integration across EU and OECD nations found substantial problems with immigrant assimilation in Europe, particularly for non-European immigrants, while the findings for the United States were positive. In America, immigrants are overwhelmingly patriotic and draw fewer welfare benefits than their native counterparts. Importantly, American immigrants tend to commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens.

Are America’s integration successes linked to a more prudent welfare allowance for immigrants and government policies, which encourage adoption of Western norms and values? That’s likely part of it, but Sanandaji’s causal story lacks a critical link.

Swedish immigrants aren’t just avoiding work because they’d rather fall back on cushy government benefits. An analysis of Europe’s assimilation of Muslim immigrants relative to the United States revealed that it’s much more difficult to find work as an immigrant in Europe than in America.

In the United States, immigrants have a lower unemployment rate than natives. Conversely, most European countries show a significantly higher unemployment rate for immigrants, particularly for non-EU migrants. Unemployment among foreign-born men in Sweden is over 16 percent compared to less than seven percent native-born men, and foreign-born women face a 15 percent unemployment rate compared to six percent for native-born women. These disparities are significantly worse for African and Asian immigrants.

A variety of labor controls, including minimum wages, collective bargaining and severe legal liability for firing employees have made it expensive for Swedish employers to hire new workers. The labyrinth of regulations have been crushing employment opportunities for immigrants (particularly Muslim immigrants) and their children for decades. That these same people seem content to collect a government check makes more sense in light of their employment plight.

Meanwhile, the United States is the least regulated labor market among the developed countries analyzed in the Cato report. American labor markets are much less rigid than their European counterparts and thus significantly less likely to disadvantage immigrants in employment, Muslim or otherwise. This helps to explain the higher employment of immigrants in the U.S. labor market. Cato’s analysis concludes that “European labor market controls and regulations explain the differences between American and European outcomes.”

Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet for solving Sweden’s problem.

These findings are necessary in any conversation on this topic, because a vast body of research suggests that employment is strongly associated with crime avoidance, as is unemployment with criminal activity. Unsurprisingly, one study found that “we can in general explain between 50% and 80% of the gap in crimes between children of immigrants and children with a native-Swedish background with family resources (e.g. employment and education) and neighborhood segregation.”

Having a job facilitates the development of meaningful relationships with other citizens, increases skills and language proficiency, boosts self-esteem, and offers hope for the future. This is as true for native-born citizens as it is for immigrants. Any conversation about immigrant crime in Europe that leaves out employment, then, is incomplete.

Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet for solving Sweden’s problem. Integration is a gradual process and immigrant enclaves have formed over decades. Still, it’s nothing short of a fool’s errand to greet newcomers with a maze of obstacles to employment, materially incentivize them to stay home in the likely event that they can’t find work, and expect them to become flag-flying patriots.

Our European friends are typically skeptical of anything that smacks of Americanism, but they would benefit from occasionally copying our notes. Until that happens, much of the ongoing anxiety regarding immigration-related crime will persist. But both research and experience tell us the first step should be letting immigrants get jobs.

MORE FROM YOUNG VOICES

Jonathan Haggerty is a justice policy analyst at R Street Institute and a Young Voices Advocate. Follow him on Twitter @JHaggrid.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Trump's mineral deal with Ukraine: What you need to know

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

As President Trump approaches his 100th day in office, Glenn Beck joined him to evaluate his administration’s progress with a gripping new interview. April 30th is President Trump's 100th day in office, and what an eventful few months it has been. To commemorate this milestone, Glenn Beck was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Their conversation covered critical topics, including the border crisis, DOGE updates, the revival of the U.S. energy sector, AI advancements, and more. Trump remains energized, acutely aware of the nation’s challenges, and determined to address them.

Here are the top five takeaways from Glenn Beck’s one-on-one with President Trump:

Border Security and Cartels

DAVID SWANSON / Contributor | Getty Images

Early in the interview, Glenn asked if Trump views Mexico as a failed narco-state. While Trump avoided the term, he acknowledged that cartels effectively control Mexico. He noted that while not all Mexican officials are corrupt, those who are honest fear severe repercussions for opposing the cartels.

Trump was unsurprised when Glenn cited evidence that cartels are using Pentagon-supplied weapons intended for the Mexican military. He is also aware of the fentanyl influx from China through Mexico and is committed to stopping the torrent of the dangerous narcotic. Trump revealed that he has offered military aid to Mexico to combat the cartels, but these offers have been repeatedly declined. While significant progress has been made in securing the border, Trump emphasized that more must be done.

American Energy Revival

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s tariffs are driving jobs back to America, with the AI sector showing immense growth potential. He explained that future AI systems require massive, costly complexes with significant electricity demands. China is outpacing the U.S. in building power plants to support AI development, threatening America’s technological leadership.

To counter this, Trump is cutting bureaucratic red tape, allowing AI companies to construct their own power plants, potentially including nuclear facilities, to meet the energy needs of AI server farms. Glenn was thrilled to learn these plants could also serve as utilities, supplying excess power to homes and businesses. Trump is determined to ensure America remains the global leader in AI and energy.

Liberation Day Shakeup

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Glenn drew a parallel between Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and the historical post-World War II Liberation Day. Trump confirmed the analogy, explaining that his policy aims to dismantle an outdated global economic order established to rebuild Europe and Asia after the wars of the 20th century. While beneficial decades ago, this system now disadvantages the U.S. through job outsourcing, unfair trade deals, and disproportionate NATO contributions.

Trump stressed that America’s economic survival is at stake. Without swift action, the U.S. risks collapse, potentially dragging the West down with it. He views his presidency as a critical opportunity to reverse this decline.

Trouble in Europe

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

When Glenn pressed Trump on his tariff strategy and negotiations with Europe, Trump delivered a powerful statement: “I don’t have to negotiate.” Despite America’s challenges, it remains the world’s leading economy with the wealthiest consumer base, making it an indispensable trading partner for Europe. Trump wants to make equitable deals and is willing to negotiate with European leaders out of respect and desire for shared prosperity, he knows that they are dependent on U.S. dollars to keep the lights on.

Trump makes an analogy, comparing America to a big store. If Europe wants to shop at the store, they are going to have to pay an honest price. Or go home empty-handed.

Need for Peace

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump emphasized the need to end America’s involvement in endless wars, which have cost countless lives and billions of dollars without a clear purpose. He highlighted the staggering losses in Ukraine, where thousands of soldiers die weekly. Trump is committed to ending the conflict but noted that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has been a challenging partner, constantly demanding more U.S. support.

The ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East are unsustainable, and America’s excessive involvement has prolonged these conflicts, leading to further casualties. Trump aims to extricate the U.S. from these entanglements.