How Sweden became an exporter of Jihad

[Mister Cheese]

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37578919

Will be taking several quotes as this is a long article.

Sweden is a peaceful democratic state that has long been a safe haven for those fleeing conflict. Yet many young people whose families took refuge there are now turning their back on the country. More than 300 people have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq, making Sweden per capita one of the biggest exporters of jihadists in Europe.

Gothenburg is where much of the recruitment for jihad is taking place. With a population of just over half a million, this port city and former industrial powerhouse has seen at least 100 men and women leave to join militants fighting for the proclaimed caliphate.
It's one of Sweden's most diverse cities. A third of the population are from immigrant backgrounds, many of them Muslim, and in the north-eastern suburb of Angered, the proportion rises to more than 70%.

Sweden's massive housing shortage and long waits for rent controlled apartments in the centre of town mean that many new arrivals end up here, and stay here. This includes some of the 160,000 people who sought asylum in Sweden last year.

Angered has become a tough area to police. Parts of it are classified as "vulnerable", which in Swedish police terminology indicates a breakdown of law and order, among other things, and the emergence of a parallel society.

I am told that religious enforcers attempt to control the community to ensure Sharia law is adhered to. They allegedly harass and intimidate people - mainly women - for the way they dress and for attending parties where there is music and dancing, which they consider haram.
Meanwhile, two-thirds of children have dropped out of school by the time they are 15, and unemployment is 11% - high by Swedish standards. It's these vulnerable young people that the extremists target.

Suburbs like Angered have become pressure cookers of discontent.
You see this built-up resentment mainly with the second-generation "non-ethnic Swedes", as they're known here.
Many of their parents fled war-torn countries in search of safety and found it in Sweden. They appear grateful for what the country has offered them. Their children, however, often feel they've been discriminated against and left out of the system. Many young people I spoke to said they felt disconnected from the country where their parents came from - but didn't feel they were Swedish either.

But the reality is that right now young people from immigrant backgrounds are being radicalised.
Why would someone raised in Gothenburg want to leave one of the most peaceful and progressive countries in the developed world to join a violent extremist group in the Middle East?
With so many of them saying they don't feel Swedish, perhaps the bigger question is: has integration and Sweden's experiment with multiculturalism failed?

This is more proof that immigration on this scale does not work. These people come to your country, even the ones actually seeking asylum, feel like they don't belong and they end up joining the glorified gang that is ISIS. You need to help these people where they live, not have them come to us and force their problems on us.

[Independent voter]

I'm concerned that you baby the immigrants too much and give them too much social welfare. I'm also concerened that labor unions in Sweden don't want to give immigrants jobs.

These immigrants are used to hard work, all you have to do is give them a job.

We don't coddle our immigrants here and nearly all of them are self sufficient in six months time.

[Deleted]

I'm concerned that you baby the immigrants too much and give them too much social welfare. I'm also concerened that labor unions in Sweden don't want to give immigrants jobs.

These immigrants are used to hard work, all you have to do is give them a job.

We don't coddle our immigrants here and nearly all of them are self sufficient in six months time.

yeah its a problem, placing lots of immigrants into their own little communities and letting them sit on welfare, how are they ever expected to integrate? all it does it make locals hate them and become hostile and in turn they become hostile to the locals. I do think there should be some welfare in place, many immigrants coming from poorer parts of the world would never be able to afford to live in most of western europe without it, but there should be a lot more done to get them into either work or education, requiring them to take language courses would probably also help, they might not feel like such outsiders then if they spoke the local language a bit.

but yeah, getting them self-sufficient should be a priority.

[Majestic12]

It is unfortunate that some people feel that way. Sweden took in a lot of refugees so it only makes sense that a higher number of people want to go back and fight. We can't force people to change their ways.

[May90]

I'm concerned that you baby the immigrants too much and give them too much social welfare. I'm also concerened that labor unions in Sweden don't want to give immigrants jobs.

These immigrants are used to hard work, all you have to do is give them a job.

We don't coddle our immigrants here and nearly all of them are self sufficient in six months time.

You are confusing a typical US immigrant with a refugee. Refugees in the US also get quite a lot of help before they start relying on themselves (I just read a story from a homosexual guy from Russia who got asylum in the US and described how the government had been helping him for many months already). But due to the US geographical location, there aren't many refugees here, relative to other immigrants. It is quite hard for a refugee from ME or northern Africa to find a job in a European country, if they don't even know the language yet.

That said, of course, European countries could do a lot more. And they shouldn't ask, they should demand that the asylum seekers integrate in the society. Mandatory language courses and tests, government-sponsored work, and distributing them in a way that makes them live among Europeans and not their former countrymen - the problem wouldn't exist, if the approach was just a bit more pragmatic!

[Deleted]

yeah its a problem, placing lots of immigrants into their own little communities and letting them sit on welfare

We do not place them anywhere. If they live in their own little communities it is by their own choice. We do not interfere in where they decide to live.

As for the welfare comment; It is going to change. Currently they can say no to jobs and still keep their benefits, which they won't be able to soon or they lose the benefits.

I do think there should be some welfare in place, many immigrants coming from poorer parts of the world would never be able to afford to live in most of western europe without it, but there should be a lot more done to get them into either work or education, requiring them to take language courses would probably also help, they might not feel like such outsiders then if they spoke the local language a bit.

but yeah, getting them self-sufficient should be a priority.

There is already enough being done for them. The problem is that the government has been lying to themselves and the public. Take the syrians, they were proclaimed to be highly educated with 33% of them being highly educated when in reality only 10% were highly educated. They mixed up studying ANYTHING after high school as being highly educated, regardless of what it was with studying at a university and getting a degree. This created misaimed policies that missed the mark by quite a bit due to the numbers being wrong.

They were also taken for humanitarian reasons, not for getting put into work. The politicians have for a long time tried to convince the general population that the state finances benefits from taking them but have nowadays moved away from that line of thinking and instead urges people to accept cuts into the welfare to provide for the refugees.

They are creating a strong anti-refugee sentiment by pitting Swedish welfare vs refugees in this manner. It shouldn't be cuts into the welfare for Swedes to support refugees. The Swedish citizens should always come first here. This reflects in the Sweden Democrats, a party with its roots in nazism, gaining almost 1/5th of the voters in recent pollings. People are becoming increasingly unhappy with the situation. The current government seems to have no intentions of fixing it as they continue to let politicians in the party pit Swedish welfare vs refugees being provided for.

- - - Updated - - -

That said, of course, European countries could do a lot more. And they shouldn't ask, they should demand that the asylum seekers integrate in the society. Mandatory language courses and tests, government-sponsored work, and distributing them in a way that makes them live among Europeans and not their former countrymen - the problem wouldn't exist, if the approach was just a bit more pragmatic!

Exactly how would you pull off mandatory language courses and tests for refugees? We can't just send them back if they don't succeed in these things as we could do to a labor migrant.

We have government-sponsored work, or well, rather close to it. Employers can get a 85% wage subsidy when they employ them, which means they only pay them 15% of the wage and the state pays the rest.

We do not distribute the refugees, they decide where they want to live themselves.

[May90]

Exactly how would you pull off mandatory language courses and tests for refugees? We can't just send them back if they don't succeed in these things as we could do to a labor migrant.

We have government-sponsored work, or well, rather close to it. Employers can get a 85% wage subsidie when they employ them, which means they only pay them 15% of the wage and the state pays the rest.

We do not distribute the refugees, they decide where they want to live themselves.

Make it so asylum seekers have to attend mandatory language courses, and at the end of them (say, after 6 months) take tests. Tests shouldn't be hard, they should just make sure that the asylum seeker has put in some effort to integrate. 6 months later a more advanced test... Do not pay them welfare for a long time, expect them to start working (the subsidized work, which you described) at some point, etc. The way I see it, the arrangement should benefit both sides: the asylum seeker gets guaranteed safety, help and a nice country to live in, and the society gets an integrated worker benefiting it.

As for the distribution, I don't know about Sweden, but I know that, for example, Germany and Switzerland do distribute them, to an extent.

[Deleted]

I'm also concerened that labor unions in Sweden don't want to give immigrants jobs.

This is a complete fabrication of the issue. The problem is that they don't have high enough education to warrant paying them the same as a Swede that's gone through the Swedish school system as the education standards are a fair bit higher in the Swedish system than in many of the countries refugees come from. In some countries it's almost non-existant, like Somalia.

Why hire them if they can hire a Swede that has a better education and on average performs a lot better due to the education and are not struggling with the language and culture?

- - - Updated - - -

Make it so asylum seekers have to attend mandatory language courses, and at the end of them (say, after 6 months) take tests. Tests shouldn't be hard, they should just make sure that the asylum seeker has put in some effort to integrate. 6 months later a more advanced test... Do not pay them welfare for a long time, expect them to start working (the subsidized work, which you described) at some point, etc. The way I see it, the arrangement should benefit both sides: the asylum seeker gets guaranteed safety, help and a nice country to live in, and the society gets an integrated worker benefiting it.

Increasing social unrest even more among these communities as they won't be able to buy food or anything like that without the welfare benefits. I don't think that's a good idea.

[May90]

Increasing social unrest even more among these communities as they won't be able to buy food or anything like that without the welfare benefits. I don't think that's a good idea.

Well, I'm not suggesting cutting off welfare, just limiting the duration of it being issued, with expectation for the asylum seeker to eventually start relying on themselves - and helping them get to that point.

[Tijuana]

I don't recall mass migration in any other civil war in recent history. There has been war in the Middle East my entire life. What is different about this war, this time, that the entire population of a civil war nation needs to be exported? Why is the first time we ever did this now the status quo?

[May90]

I don't recall mass migration in any other civil war in recent history. There has been war in the Middle East my entire life. What is different about this war, this time, that the entire population of a civil war nation needs to be exported? Why is the first time we ever did this now the status quo?

One of the recent civil wars, the one in DRC, led to many millions refugees, for example. The reason most civil war refugee crises don't get much media attention is because they happen in the regions far away from the First World. This time it is only different because the refugees have arrived in Europe en masse.

[Deleted]

Well, I'm not suggesting cutting off welfare, just limiting the duration of it being issued, with expectation for the asylum seeker to eventually start relying on themselves - and helping them get to that point.

The ones who are interested in doing that are already getting to that point and are using the government provided help for doing so. The problem lies with those that are not interested in doing so. They won't get there no matter the incentive as they have no interest in it. This includes the people who are worried about their kids going to school in Sweden, voicing concerns such as (Paraphrasing, it's usually a lot of vile commentary included)"My kid is going to become accustomed to the Swedish way of living and I don't want that, they will be less (Insert what they are worried about)", "My daughter will not be one of those girls who sleep around with half the school", "My daughter shall not be with a swedish guy", "My son shall marry a muslim" and so on. Those people are the ones who have a problem with integration. We can't exactly change their minds. The problem does not lie with those who happily spend times with Swedes and happily learn the language and culture. It's the narrow-minded conservatives in the group, who are afraid that their kids will grow up to be "less muslim" or "less arabic" or whatever it is that they are worried about if they adapt to Swedish society.

Those same people and their kids often call immigrants or their kids that have adapted to the society "husnegrer"(House negros) or "husblattar"(Blattar derogatory word for arabs or any non-european immigrants).

[Tijuana]

One of the recent civil wars, the one in DRC, led to many millions refugees, for example. The reason most civil war refugee crises don't get much media attention is because they happen in the regions far away from the First World. This time it is only different because the refugees have arrived in Europe en masse.

So, what changed in Europe to create this desire to transplant an entire nation to within your continental borders?

[May90]

The ones who are interested in doing that are already getting to that point and are using the government provided help for doing so. The problem lies with those that are not interested in doing so. They won't get there no matter the incentive as they have no interest in it. This includes the people who are worried about their kids going to school in Sweden, voicing concerns such as (Paraphrasing, it's usually a lot of vile commentary included)"My kid is going to become accustomed to the Swedish way of living and I don't want that, they will be less (Insert what they are worried about)", "My daughter will not be one of those girls who sleep around with half the school", "My daughter shall not be with a swedish guy", "My son shall marry a muslim" and so on. Those people are the ones who have a problem with integration. We can't exactly change their minds. The problem does not lie with those who happily spend times with Swedes and happily learn the language and culture. It's the narrow-minded conservatives in the group, who are afraid that their kids will grow up to be "less muslim" or "less arabic" or whatever it is that they are worried about if they adapt to Swedish society.

Well, think about it this way. These people don't want to integrate, they are a big problem - but you want them to integrate. Say, "Either you integrate, or you leave. You don't like it - look for a refuge elsewhere". I see no reason to help people who want only to get the benefits of that help, and aren't willing to commit to responsibilities the help assumes. I mean, sure, every human life matters - but if people don't want to help themselves (in this case, integrate), then no one can help them.

If the asylum seeker cares about living in a Muslim-aligned society more than getting to safety from a warzone, then why not ask for asylum in one of the Islamic countries, instead of going to the place culture of which they dislike?

So, what changed in Europe to create this desire to transplant an entire nation to within your continental borders?

Nothing changed in Europe, what changed is the location and the scale of the conflict. If such a war happened, for example, in Colombia, you bet the US would be getting countless refugees as well!

[Deleted]

Well, think about it this way. These people don't want to integrate, they are a big problem - but you want them to integrate. Say, "Either you integrate, or you leave. You don't like it - look for a refuge elsewhere". I see no reason to help people who want only to get the benefits of that help, and aren't willing to commit to responsibilities the help assumes. I mean, sure, every human life matters - but if people don't want to help themselves (in this case, integrate), then no one can help them

Which would be a breach of human rights and various conventions we have signed, as it stands, we can't send them away.

[May90]

Which would be a breach of human rights as it stands, we can't send them away.

I fail to see why. You offered them asylum, which implies certain responsibilities they should comply with. What human right have you violated?

[Tijuana]

Well, think about it this way. These people don't want to integrate, they are a big problem - but you want them to integrate. Say, "Either you integrate, or you leave. You don't like it - look for a refuge elsewhere". I see no reason to help people who want only to get the benefits of that help, and aren't willing to commit to responsibilities the help assumes. I mean, sure, every human life matters - but if people don't want to help themselves (in this case, integrate), then no one can help them.

If the asylum seeker cares about living in a Muslim-aligned society more than getting to safety from a warzone, then why not ask for asylum in one of the Islamic countries, instead of going to the place culture of which they dislike?


Nothing changed in Europe, what changed is the location and the scale of the conflict. If such a war happened, for example, in Colombia, you bet the US would be getting countless refugees as well!

So, you had this same issue during the Iraq/US war? During the Iraq/Afghanistan war? During the Iraq/Iran war? I mean this region has been at war my whole life. I'm genuinely curious what causes all this refugee stuff this one time. Maybe this isn't the best place to get an intellectual answer, but I just assumed there would be a known and easily identifiable answer from the people where it is happening. /shrug

[Deleted]

I fail to see why. You offered them asylum, which implies certain responsibilities they should comply with. What human right have you violated?

Article 14, as we are denying them protection from persecution if they are sent away.

[May90]

So, you had this same issue during the Iraq/US war? During the Iraq/Afghanistan war? During the Iraq/Iran war? I mean this region has been at war my whole life. I'm genuinely curious what causes all this refugee stuff this one time. Maybe this isn't the best place to get an intellectual answer, but I just assumed there would be a known and easily identifiable answer from the people where it is happening. /shrug

Iraq/US war was nowhere near what's happening in Syria... The war itself lasted, what, around a month? In Syria it has been going on for over 5 years, with 3 major participants, each fighting the other two. Look at other conflicts of comparable scale: Congo wars, Somalia conflicts, Yugoslavian mess... All led to huge refugee outflows. Long civil war is no joke!

Article 14, as we are denying them protection from persecution if they are sent away.

But they are denying that protection themselves. You've offered them protection, they refused to comply with the rules in your country - is it still human rights violation from your side?

[Deleted]

But they are denying that protection themselves. You've offered them protection, they refused to comply with the rules in your country - is it still human rights violation from your side?

As far as I know we have no rules that states that you must integrate or that you must work or that you can't express any negative opinions about Swedes and the Swedish culture and what they think about their sons/daughters becoming less of whatever they worry that they will become less of.

When we can't even deport some criminals because of human rights issues, what makes you think we could deport non-criminals?