Utan invandring stannar Sverige

The book is generally praised for its accessibility, being described as easy to read and thought-provoking. Reviewers highlight its importance and urgency in discussing the effects of immigration on society, presenting research that suggests it can be a success factor. It offers interesting facts and provides insights into how statistics can be interpreted or even manipulated. The book is also noted for challenging certain common misconceptions related to immigration, such as the value of temporary residence permits.

However, several reviewers point out significant shortcomings. A recurring criticism is the book's repetitiveness and the need for substantial editing to improve clarity, flow, and balance. Some feel it could be significantly shorter and more impactful. The presentation style is also a point of contention, with critics finding it condescending or "preachy," particularly regarding the use of capitalised summaries at the end of chapters. Furthermore, the book is seen as overly focused on specific economic premises, sometimes simplifying complex issues or quickly dismissing alternative viewpoints. It is also criticised for neglecting certain relevant areas of discussion, such as the impact on gender equality, criminality, or religion, and for lacking the author's usual strong analysis of media's role in shaping opinions.

In conclusion, the book tackles a crucial subject with a clear pro-immigration stance, primarily from an economic perspective. While it offers valuable insights and facts for readers interested in the economic benefits of immigration, particularly those who align with free-market and pro-globalization viewpoints, its execution is marred by structural and stylistic issues. It would appeal to readers looking for an accessible, albeit opinionated, overview of immigration's economic impact, especially if they are open to a more direct, almost didactic, presentation. However, those seeking a strictly academic, comprehensive, or perfectly balanced analysis, covering a wider range of societal impacts beyond economics, might find it lacking due to its editorial flaws and perceived biases.