Amount of people seeking refugee in Sweden have gone down in 2016

[Khaza-R]

Why don't Saudi Arabia and Qatar take in syrian refugees since they were promoting revolution in Syria? i find it funny.

I know this is shocking for some people, but muslims aren't a hive mind.

Syrians have lived in a secular state for a long time. Most want nothing to do with Islamists, especially ones that implore Wahhabism like Saudi Arabia.

[Deleted]

It's possible they've said that (perhaps in an attempt to combat the growing anti-refugee sentiment), but accepting refugees is not about financial gain - it has always been a humanitarian cause.

It was the main argument used if you actually listened to what the politicians said. That we need them for economical and demographic purposes. They only swithed to arguing from a humanitarian point of view after people started getting loud about it.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/sa...cle23869147.ab

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/politik/ste...-vi-som-avgor/

[PosPosPos]

It was the main argument used if you actually listened to what the politicians said. That we need them for economical and demographic purposes. They only swithed to arguing from a humanitarian point of view after people started getting loud about it.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/sa...cle23869147.ab

And why does it matter either way?

Doing a good deed is doing a good deed, regardless of the motivations behind it.

[Deleted]

And why does it matter either way?

Doing a good deed is doing a good deed, regardless of the motivations behind it.

Because people were deceived that it would help with the systems that are now struggling. It didn't help, it put more pressure on them rather than relieving pressure. If you're gonna take them then you should be honest with people what it will lead to, not deceive them to trick them into accepting them under the illusion that we will benefit from it and then have said systems have to make massive cuts because of adding them to the pool when they can't contribute enough.

Nationalism in Sweden was pretty much dead but the politicians deceit jumpstarted it and fed it.

[Cathululock]

Because people want to leave those countries for a reason. They don't want to leave them to go somewhere exactly the same. Sweden is a sinking ship and the refugees aren't stupid they are economic migrants. The Swedish government is stupid and its people are complicit to cultural suicide. From almost perfect liberal socialist utopia to hellhole in half my life time. Simply amazing.

[PosPosPos]

Because people were deceived that it would help with the systems that are now struggling. It didn't help, it put more pressure on them rather than relieving pressure. If you're gonna take them then you should be honest with people what it will lead to, not deceive them to trick them into accepting them under the illusion that we will benefit from it and then have said systems have to make massive cuts because of adding them to the pool when they can't contribute enough.

Nationalism in Sweden was pretty much dead but the politicians deceit jumpstarted it and fed it.

Then it was just allegedly mishandled, plenty of refugees were taken in decades back and contributed to a positive in the system before it came into this ridiculous partisan spotlight.

Arguing in favor of anecdotes in recent history(by recent, I mean maximum of like 5-10 years) and against decades of historical data is the modus operandi of the alt/extreme right movement. Don't fall into it.

[Deleted]

Then it was just allegedly mishandled, plenty of refugees were taken in decades back and contributed to a positive in the system before it came into this ridiculous partisan spotlight.

Arguing in favor of anecdotes in recent history(by recent, I mean maximum of like 5-10 years) and against decades of historical data is the modus operandi of the alt/extreme right movement. Don't fall into it.

Labor migration, people bringing over those they have met in other countries to be in a relationship and that kind of immigration is beneficial. Taking refugees has never really been beneficial here. It might be in countries with a less developed welfare system where the state doesn't subsidize their pay, let them attend school for free, give them healthcare for free, pay their rent and food if they don't have enough and where they actually have to work to get by.

[PosPosPos]

Labor migration, people bringing over those they have met in other countries to be in a relationship and that kind of immigration is beneficial. Taking refugees has never really been beneficial here. It might be in countries with a less developed welfare system where the state doesn't subsidize their pay, let them attend school for free, give them healthcare for free, pay their rent and food if they don't have enough and where they actually have to work to get by.

The problem was there weren't any plans to integrate these refugees.

When you take in refugees, you have to make sure they obey the house/ground rules in exchange for shelter and hospitality. That means they need to do the equivalent of helping out around the house or paying the rent. They aren't honored guests, they are tenants at that point. And obviously, your nation mistakes the latter for the former.

[Zython]

It's still too many refugees.

We should bring people in through the labor migration system that we have if we're to bring people in to work. Not take refugees. Refugees are a net loss.

Nah.
/10char

[Deleted]

Nah.
/10char

Great argument right there.

[Zython]

According to latest numbers the amount of people seeking refugee in Sweden has gone from 160 000+ to 27 000, a decrease of about 80%. The only group of people that have increasingly decided to come to Sweden are Turks, most likely because of the coup and following events.

My opinion is that we need more people, especially young people. Our collective workforce is going to be stretched to it's limits in a couple of years when the biggest age-group is turning 65+ and thus stop working. But at the same time we can't just accept anyone, this is a tricky problem.

Do you think Sweden should do more or is 27 000 enough?

Source: Migrationsverket.se and http://www.sydsvenskan.se/2016-12-25...med-80-procent

Makes sense. Refugees usually don't go to places planning war crimes.

- - - Updated - - -

Great argument right there.

It's everything you deserve.

[Deleted]

The problem was there weren't any plans to integrate these refugees.

When you take in refugees, you have to make sure they obey the house/ground rules in exchange for shelter and hospitality. That means they need to do the equivalent of helping out around the house or paying the rent. They aren't honored guests, they are tenants at that point. And obviously, your nation mistakes the latter for the former.

No shit? Do you understand why people are against it here then?

[Zython]

No shit? Do you understand why people are against it here then?

Because their only exposure to people darker than a Twinkie is what they've seen on 24 and Homeland.

[Deleted]

Because their only exposure to people darker than a Twinkie is what they've seen on 24 and Homeland.

Hah. Hah. You so funny. Not.

[Zython]

Hah. Hah. You so funny. Not.

A "Not" joke? Really? I'd say you can do better than that, but you probably can't.

[PosPosPos]

No shit? Do you understand why people are against it here then?

So you admit you are barking up the wrong tree and having a knee-jerk reaction?

If you get a pet without first training it, and it obviously cause problems down the line, is it the fault of 1)getting the pet in the first place or 2)not training the pet?

Likewise, if you don't integrate refugees and they cause social issues, is it the fault of 1)accepting refugees in the first place or 2)politicians being stupid and not integrating them?

[Deleted]

So you admit you are barking up the wrong tree and having a knee-jerk reaction?

If you get a pet without first training it, and it obviously cause problems down the line, is it the fault of 1)getting the pet in the first place or 2)not training the pet?

Likewise, if you don't integrate refugees and they cause social issues, is it the fault of 1)accepting refugees in the first place or 2)politicians being stupid and not integrating them?

It's the fault of both of them.

[PosPosPos]

It's the fault of both of them.

Why? In your own words:

Great argument right there.

[Deleted]

Why? In your own words:

Because there is no real integration plan in place for people but there's vastly different outcomes between the different migrant groups. You don't see any problems like what we see with middle eastern and africans with the thai, chinese or vietnamese. The thai and vietnamese are low educated groups too. In fact, middle eastern groups are often better educated than the thai or vietnamese.

So, why do the thai, chinese and vietnamese not need handholding to behave?

[PosPosPos]

Because there is no real integration plan in place for people but there's vastly different outcomes between the different migrant groups. You don't see any problems like what we see with middle eastern and africans with the thai, chinese or vietnamese. The thai and vietnamese are low educated groups too. In fact, middle eastern groups are often better educated.

So, why do the thai, chinese and vietnamese not need handholding?

So again, by your own admission, it's because there's no integration plan, and not because these refugees are problematic. Everything else can be attributed to your own biases and assumptions, rather than reality.