"No way back, Sweden will never be what it was"

[Barnabas]

Please explain what you mean by "reasonable".

Deeper background checks. I mean adults are counted as children. The age isn't even correct. So who knows what else they lied about? Origin? Involvement in criminal activities? Having better quotas so other countries don't strip every able bodied youth from another country leaving the former country in a mess financially.

[Deleted]

Deeper background checks. I mean adults are counted as children. The age isn't even correct. So who knows what else they lied about? Origin? Involvement in criminal activities? Having better quotas so other countries don't strip every able bodied youth from another country leaving the former country in a mess financially.

Yes we don't have a proper system in place. You know why that is? I'll give a hint, it has nothing to do with "the left".

[Deleted]

Deeper background checks. I mean adults are counted as children. The age isn't even correct. So who knows what else they lied about? Origin? Involvement in criminal activities? Having better quotas so other countries don't strip every able bodied youth from another country leaving the former country in a mess financially.

We actually have people hired that are working for the migration board that are there to listen to peoples accents to tell what region they are from. Can some fool them? Yes, but most can not. We have age testing coming up too. What you are complaining about has mostly already been fixed.

You can't see if they have any involvement in criminal activities in their home countries as the officials there are not exactly able to or willing to cooperate with our authorities to do the needed checkups. As it turns out, it's hard to get accurate records from countries that are in conflict or disarray.

[Ryme]

We actually have people hired that are working for the migration board that are there to listen to peoples accents to tell what region they are from. Can some fool them? Yes, but most can not. We have age testing coming up too. What you are complaining about has mostly already been fixed.

With respect, perhaps this should have been there to begin with. I think a lot of what annoys people on the other side of this to you is that they said this should have been in place, but we're silenced as bigots/racists.

Canada went surprisingly far, excluding men only. This, in my view, wasn't the correct move but at least they went with it from the start.

Edit: Above is misleading, Endus clarifies below.

[Deianeira]

So just because Adolf said it, its a bad thing. Good people can say bad things, and bad people can say good things.
You argument is like that of a child.

- - - Updated - - -


No it just mean he is a swedish citizen. A swedish ethnic is by definition swedish.


For a moderator you have quite a few idiotic statements to say the least.
Be sure to infract me for the 15th time.

Well as i see it is you that have the idiotic statements. And ethnic Swedes are not waht we are talking about. But i assume that is what you guys ALWAYS was talking about that we are somehow superior because we are Ethnic Swedes.

[Endus]

Canada went surprisingly far, excluding men only. This, in my view, wasn't the correct move but at least they went with it from the start.

That's not actually how it worked. We had (have, it's ongoing) a program to bring in refugees, and we instituted a process that deliberately selected the most at-risk individuals and families for preferential selection. The same way that, in a hospital emergency room, you engage in triage to take care of the most urgent cases first. That meant, in this case, that there was a range of factors that were considered; women were given preferential consideration, because of the harsh treatment they faced in some of these camps and in their homelands, children (for obvious reasons), and families, so her husband/brother/etc could be brought over with her, to avoid separating them. As well, LGBT individuals faced pretty significant discrimination, and were also selected, to get them out of that.

It wasn't that we "excluded men"; we brought over plenty of men. It was that hetero, single adult men weren't the most at-risk individuals, and we invested our funding in taking in someone else who faced greater threats. If we ran out of more at-risk individuals, we'd be taking the less at-risk ones too. Given the numbers involved and the costs of transporting them halfway around the world, that's unlikely to happen, though.

[Deleted]

If Breivik did anything he brought Norway closer together, since pretty much everyone condemned his actions. Or did something else happen in your make believe world?

- - - Updated - - -



Norway and Denmark have used age checks by looking at teeth and a your wrist/hands.

If you claim to be a child you have to prove it here , but in Sweden you have to give your permission to have these tests done, but you can still claim to be a child.

The proper system are in place, but it seems Swedes are abit afraid to demand evidence for claims made.

- - - Updated - - -



Mind you, its the same left that claims pride parades through the city is racist towards muslims.

It's obvious the Swedish system isn't fit for purpose.

[Dezerte]

So you're reducing the problem to a single person on their own, not the collective problem we get? How many zones where the rescue forces are being ambushed and stoned and is filled with criminal activity has Breivik created? ZERO.

I didn't mean that there are no problems, but as far as Scandinavia is concerned right-wing extremism has been a lot more frightening and dangerous. Organized crime is more serious, whereas no-go-zones (the few that exist in Sweden) are more simple in their origin - segregation and resentment. It's both a problem because refugees/immigrants rather socialize with people that are more familiar to them and the poor immigration/refugee-policies on integration and finally the resentment that is felt (which right-wing extremism is fueling and encouraging, hence why I said it may ultimately be them who destroy Sweden with their hate and anti-social behavior). When you don't feel welcome, resented even, is a sure-way for returning the favor.

If you wanna go for the individual approach: Who killed more people, Breivik or that islamic immigrant terrorist using a truck to mow over a crowd?

I did say Scandinavia, as it would be most relevant in a thread about Sweden. No threat from radical Islam has even come close to that here. If we're going to play the numbers game we would inevitably end up with Hitler (and thus fulfilling the Internet prophecy).

And since I know you'll accuse me of it I may as well jsut deny it now so you don't have to bother: I don't support Breivik...

I wouldn't, and the majority of Muslims don't support these sort of things either.

[Endus]

Yet, when Europe wants to do this its somehow racist :P

No one's said that selecting at-risk refugees for preferential access is "racist". What's "racist" is calling refugees "rapists" and trying to exclude them wholesale.

[Deleted]

If you wanna fill up some places, do it in africa, there alot more room. If any place in the world needs a better workforce its that place.
Scandinavia is doing fine.

First off, this isn't a matter of choice, secondly no you're not doing fine, you're aiming towards a demographic crisis like the rest of the western world, thirdly, do you enjoy your global economy? Then you can't expect to remain the little insular countryside reality Scandinavia is.

If you don't like that, get out of Europe and global economy. If you want a "Finland for finnish" you need to set up borders and policies that clash with the free market.
Not saying it's wrong mind you. I'm saying you can't have the best of both worlds.

[Ryme]

It wasn't that we "excluded men"; we brought over plenty of men. It was that hetero, single adult men weren't the most at-risk individuals, and we invested our funding in taking in someone else who faced greater threats. If we ran out of more at-risk individuals, we'd be taking the less at-risk ones too. Given the numbers involved and the costs of transporting them halfway around the world, that's unlikely to happen, though.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

[Forogil]

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Except that it is simple not true: single men were excluded due to security concerns, not because they weren't at risk.

Single adult men are very much at risk in war-zones - or any other form of violence, e.g. by being conscripted at gun-point to fight in the war (and soldiers have a habit of dying).

If you look at what the news report you see the real reason:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lies-1.3330185

Sources tell CBC News that to deal with some ongoing concerns around security, unaccompanied men seeking asylum will not be part of the program.

The official government site state that it is due to security concerns:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugee...ome/phase1.asp

To reduce security risks and still provide a new home for refugees, we gave priority to vulnerable refugees who were a low security risk, such as women at risk and complete families. This was in line with Canada’s overall approach to refugee resettlement.

[Endus]

Except that it is simple not true: single men were excluded due to security concerns, not because they weren't at risk.

Single adult men are very much at risk in war-zones - or any other form of violence, e.g. by being conscripted at gun-point to fight in the war (and soldiers have a habit of dying).

If you look at what the news report you see the real reason:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lies-1.3330185


The official government site state that it is due to security concerns:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugee...ome/phase1.asp

Which isn't actually contradicting me. It's stating reasons why vulnerable individuals were prioritized. Security was also a factor, yes. But we didn't "exclude men"; plenty of fathers and such were brought in as part of those 25,000 government-sponsored refugees.

[Deleted]

Yes, calling every refugees rapists is racist too. Why are you trying to pin this on me?
But have you tried explaining your stance as "women and children/disabled and homosexuals first" in Europe? Especially when the migration was at its peak last year.
You are gonna be called every name in the book.

- - - Updated - - -



Greece, italy, Spain are doing greeeeeeat i hear? No problem with unemployment, Euro and sheet.
Meanwhile in scandinavia.....

Demographic crisis, and the solution is: Import muslims! Got it...

People need to start having +3 babies in Europe and NA. While the asians might wanna slow down abit.
But of course, its selfish for us westerners to have children in a world with a population crisis.

Italy and Spain are countries of several magnitude larger than Sweden Norway or Finland. 60 million people are harder to manage than 10 million. The comparison doesn't even stand. Greece's trouble are economic, so not sure where does Greece fit in this. Why did you actually name those countries?
Not sure where you see this refugee crisis as a solution to the demographic crisis. This refugee crisis was the result of specific actions, not some sort of event that occurred due to a will to import people.

Yes we need to do more kids. It's ridiculous. We're one of the safest richest corner on the planet where kids would grow educated and well fed, yet we don't have kids.

[Forogil]

Which isn't actually contradicting me. It's stating reasons why vulnerable individuals were prioritized. Security was also a factor, yes. But we didn't "exclude men"; plenty of fathers and such were brought in as part of those 25,000 government-sponsored refugees.

You are straw-manning again - no-one have claimed that Canada "excluded men".

The original statement was that you "excluded men only"; which is a somewhat odd way of writing "excluding single men"; which is exactly what the Canada did according to news sources and the government itself - due to security concerns.

[Endus]

You are straw-manning again - no-one have claimed that Canada "excluded men".

Really?

Canada went surprisingly far, excluding men only.

So pretty much just wrong. (Ryme did retract this in response to my later post replying to it, I'm only citing it to demonstrate the origin).

The original statement was that you "excluded men only"; which is a somewhat odd way of writing "excluding single men"; which is exactly what the Canada did according to news sources and the government itself - due to security concerns.

There is no way to parse English to make that grammatically work.

And your own source contradicts your claim; security was a component, but not the only reason.

[Deianeira]

It doesn't change the fact that most Swedes act like that. It's part of the culture.

And you are proud of that and want that to stay? That just tells me all i need to know about you if that is the case.

[Deleted]

And you are proud of that and want that to stay? That just tells me all i need to know about you if that is the case.

I don't make any judgement about whether it's bad or not, I am just stating things as they are. I can't change their perceptions, it's useless for me to worry about it. It doesn't affect my life in any manner if someone won't call me Swedish.

[Forogil]

Really?

Yes.

There is no way to parse English to make that grammatically work.

Correct, that there is no way to parse "excluded men only" to mean "excluded men"; so obviously it meant something else - and the context is that Sweden and some other countries had a large inflow of "unaccompanied men" claiming asylum - whereas Canada excluded them.

Thus in that context the logical explanation is that it means that groups or individuals that were "men only" were excluded from being taken to Canada - which is correct.

As for not making it work grammatically - is that some veiled attempt at making fun of people not writing proper English?

And your own source contradicts your claim; security was a component, but not the only reason.

One of the sources could possibly be interpreted in that way, the other flat out stated:
"Sources tell CBC News that to deal with some ongoing concerns around security, unaccompanied men seeking asylum will not be part of the program."

And the support for your claim that single men are less at risk in a war-zone?

[Deleted]

What was it before exactly?