For years, the Sweden Democrats have relied on a potent, zero-sum rhetorical device: the claim that every krona spent on asylum seekers is a krona stolen from the dinner tables of the nation’s elderly. It is a narrative of scarcity that pits the vulnerable newcomer against the vulnerable citizen, suggesting that the restoration of the Swedish welfare state is contingent upon the closure of its borders.
Writing in *Dagens Nyheter*, Bengt Westerberg, the former leader of the Liberal Party and current chair of the Frisinnade klubben, argues that this narrative has been exposed as a calculated bluff. Sweden’s doors to refugees are now effectively closed, yet reports of neglect and inadequate nutrition in elderly care facilities persist. The causal link between immigration levels and the quality of domestic social services, Westerberg suggests, was never a matter of budgetary necessity, but a political fiction.
The deeper concern for Westerberg is the normalization of this rhetoric within the broader Swedish right. Despite the empirical failure of the Sweden Democrats' primary argument, the Moderate and Liberal parties continue to treat Jimmie Åkesson not as a fringe agitator, but as a legitimate architect of future migration policy. By failing to challenge the fundamental dishonesty of the "refugees versus retirees" framing, the center-right risks anchoring Sweden’s political future to a fallacy.
With reporting from *Dagens Nyheter*.
Source · Dagens Nyheter
