1. "You brought up screening and since it's the first step in immigration it logically follows that it's part of the reason for our success."

The fact that I referred to "screening" as "immigration screening", hello, yes, that is a good clue that I was saying it is a step in immigration (!). And yes, as I stated clearly, that screening best explains our high level of peaceful harmony, yes, that is what I wrote. So hello, who are you arguing with?

2.  "Why shouldn't the screening process be considered part of the immigration process?" Again, hello? I stated plainly that screening is part of the immigration process, where I called it "immigration screening".

3. No, it is not my "assertion" (roll eyes). It is a FACT that the mechanism for that man BEING in Sweden was a failure of SCREENING. He was not supposed to BE in Sweden, he was a REJECTED refugee applicant. If the screening had WORKED, he would not have BEEN there. His BEING there was NOT a failure of their "integration process".