Canada’s Immigration Fumble vs. Sweden’s Course Correction:
A Tale of Two Visions
The distinction between ideology and reality is essential for any political community to grasp. Policies based on an assessment of what is real will always yield better results than ideology-based decisions. The contrast between these two approaches is palpable when one compares Sweden and Canada on immigration.
For decades, Canada and Sweden were hailed as paragons of progressive immigration policies—open, tolerant, and willing to accept large numbers of newcomers in the name of humanitarianism and economic growth. But the two countries embarked on sharply different paths somewhere along the line. While Sweden has had a national reckoning, recognizing the failures of mass, unvetted immigration and moving decisively to protect its heritage, economic stability, and social cohesion, Canada remained long committed to a globalist vision that prioritizes high immigration numbers regardless of the consequences.
This divergence on immigration is not just a matter of policy but of philosophy, as the two countries' reaction to COVID also shows. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau openly declared that Canada is a ‘post-national state’ with no ‘core identity,’ which encapsulates the ideological foundation of his government’s approach to immigration, governance, and national policy. Inebriated with the feeling of Laurentian superiority, wanting to shame the US, he tweeted to the world that the world was welcomed in Canada. In contrast, Sweden has reaffirmed the importance of national identity and cultural cohesion, shifting toward policies prioritizing Swedish citizens' well-being over abstract humanitarian ideals.
The numbers and outcomes speak to those who will listen. Sweden has made a conscious effort to protect its future. Canada, meanwhile, appears still intent on hurtling toward a demographic and economic crisis of its own making.
In 2023, Canada welcomed 471,808 new permanent residents, with plans to increase to 500,000 annually by 2025. However, public backlash over housing shortages, collapsing healthcare services, and stagnant wages forced the government to lower the 2025 target to 395,000 slightly—still an unprecedented number for a country of just 40 million people. Canada has embraced immigration without restraint, choosing sheer quantity over any semblance of quality and sustainability. The government claims, to this day, that immigration is the only way to solve labour shortages and boost economic growth. This assumption ignores housing, wages, and public infrastructure strain.
Sweden, once the most open-door country in Europe, peaked at 163,000 asylum seekers in 2015, the highest per capita intake in the EU. But after years of failed integration, skyrocketing crime, and overburdened welfare programs, Sweden slammed the brakes on mass migration.
By 2024, Sweden recorded negative net migration for the first time in half a century—more people left the country than arrived. This was not an accident but a deliberate policy shift: Sweden tightened asylum laws, reduced welfare benefits for newcomers, made it harder for low-skilled migrants to obtain permanent residency, and is now debating the tightening of citizenship rules and the deportation of criminal elements as well as those who reject the fundamental traditions of its western heritage. The contrast is clear: Canada is sliding toward an uncertain failure, while Sweden is recalibrating to ensure national survival.
One of the most significant motivations behind Sweden’s pivot has been the growing crime crisis, an issue Canada chooses to ignore. Sweden's mass migration experiment resulted in a massive increase in gang violence, shootings, and bombings, particularly in immigrant-heavy suburbs of Stockholm, Malmö, and Gothenburg. In 2023, Sweden saw a record number of gang-related shootings and explosions, forcing the government to acknowledge what had once been taboo: mass immigration had led to parallel societies and crime-ridden enclaves. Sweden responded by tightening border controls, deporting criminal migrants, and requiring immigrants to integrate or leave. The Swedish government has explicitly stated that immigration must serve Sweden’s interests, not undermine them.
Meanwhile, Canada has failed to heed Sweden's warnings. While Ottawa insists that immigrants drive the economy, it has done little to address the growing issue of underemployment, wage stagnation, and the increasing burden on public services. The country’s largest cities—Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal—struggle to house and employ the record-breaking number of newcomers.
Yet, the government continues to push mass immigration as a political virtue. More troublingly, Trudeau’s ‘post-national’ philosophy has ensured that questions about national identity, integration, and social cohesion are dismissed as ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’ rather than addressed honestly. Canada has no robust national discussion on whether mass immigration is sustainable—because the federal government, submerged in the depths of racial and gender intersectionality, decided that national identity does not matter.
Sweden’s rational approach allowed it to reevaluate and turn around. Canada’s heavy-handed progressive authoritarianism is an obstacle to self-awareness and examining undesired results. The difference in how Sweden and Canada handled COVID-19 underscores the divide between nationalist pragmatism and woke ideological control.
Sweden's approach shocked the world: it refused to lock down. The Swedish government, guided by epidemiological science rather than political panic, rejected draconian restrictions and instead encouraged personal responsibility. Sweden’s economy remained open, avoiding the devastating financial and social consequences of prolonged lockdowns. Schools stayed open, ensuring children did not suffer prolonged educational and social disruptions. The country did not implement vaccine mandates or mass layoffs, allowing natural immunity and voluntary vaccination. By 2022, Sweden’s overall excess mortality was lower than that of heavily locked-down countries like Canada. The country emerged from the pandemic with a healthier economy, less social fragmentation, and greater public trust in government.
Canada, in contrast, took one of the most authoritarian approaches in the Western world. Lockdowns, vaccine mandates, travel bans, curtailing of unemployment benefits, and mass firings became the norm under Trudeau’s leadership. Unvaccinated Canadians were banned from air and rail travel, a policy condemned by civil liberties advocates. Small businesses were destroyed while large corporations thrived, increasing economic disparity. The national debt skyrocketed as Trudeau funnelled billions into poorly managed and often corrupt emergency relief programs. Even after the pandemic had ended, Ottawa continued enforcing punitive restrictions. The government refused to acknowledge that lockdowns had disastrous consequences for mental health, education, and the economy. Trudeau’s insistence on heavy-handed control reflected his broader philosophy: governance based on misguided ideological purity rather than practical solutions.
Given that Mark Carney, the likely successor to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, condemned the protests against the COVID regime in 2022 and accused the protestors of being thuggishly seditious rather than recognizing their rights and the legitimacy of their protests, it seems he shares the same progressive authoritarian perspective.
The economic consequences of the contrasting approaches in Ottawa and Stockholm have further highlighted the ideological and practical divide between the two countries. Sweden maintained relative fiscal discipline, avoiding excessive debt and stimulus that could destabilize the economy. The government relied on personal responsibility, market stability, and controlled spending to navigate economic recovery.
Canada, by contrast, doubled its national debt under Trudeau’s leadership, reaching over $1.2 trillion. Rather than addressing structural economic issues, Ottawa printed money, fueling inflation and eroding purchasing power. The result? Canadians are struggling with affordability, rising interest rates, and declining wages. The COVID response essentially undermined the country’s economy, public health, and trust in institutions and government. Despite this reality, Trudeau continued until very recently to push massive immigration as a “solution” while ignoring the structural problems his government created.
Sweden’s pivot is not a retreat into xenophobia but an acknowledgment of reality and a necessary course correction. The country has recognized that mass migration threatens its cultural heritage, economic stability, and national security if left unchecked.
Canada, however, remains trapped in a post-national fantasy. Trudeau’s insistence that Canada has no ‘core identity’ has given him carte blanche to overload the country with unsustainable immigration levels, impose authoritarian policies, and ignore economic realities.
The ideological stupor in Ottawa rejected rational options to deal with COVID in the same way that it drove the harmful open border policies to migrants. If Canada refuses to learn and change federal government policies, it will face the same fate as Sweden—but on an even more significant, more devastating scale.
It’s time for Canada to wake up before the damage becomes irreversible.