You will notice that I haven't talked about refugees, let alone letting refugees enter without asking questions.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
You will notice that I haven't talked about refugees, let alone letting refugees enter without asking questions.
Now I see why we can't get any right wingers to hang around.
He does have a response.
After reading some of his background and ideas, I must admit he seems a safer option than many others mentioned for the post. He's definitely a practical thinker and has a fine pedigree of people speaking up for him. That offers a small crumb of comfort when you consider all the other idiots Trump has put in to his cabinet and has as his advisors.
Since he's a Petraeus protege, I suspect Petraeus may have recommended him for consideration when Petraeus himself backed out. Similar to the way Tillerson was recommended for an interview from Bob Gates and Condi Rice.
Probably because the ones who are somewhat sensible won't appreciate being belittled by ten people at once.
The fact is that Sweden does have a massive problem with immigration. They let too many people in, if we want to be blunt about it, and now their infrastructure is struggling to cope. It's the first time in modern history that far right discourse has attained a level of popular consumption in Swedish politics. This is as a direct result of immigration policies.
The question I'd ask @SwansonsTache is how is this riot in Sweden directly linked to immigration? Because there is a difference between social dissonance as a result of immigration and outright violence being attributed to immigrants.
Personally, I think you have got more chance of juggling soot underwater on the end of a shovel, but it's worth a shot, mate.
But that's what I asked him. I don't have a problem with his general point about uncontrolled immigration, I won't pretend that Sweden should continue to let immigrants enter at the same rate, in fact I think that they shouldn't. But you can't link every stories to the current flux of refugees without basic it on facts and context.
Yeah, I'm asking the same question really. It's a legitimate query.
Far too many off topic posts in this thread now.
The way I see it the social dissonance in Swedish suburbs and no-go zones are a direct result of failed integration, a integration that always was bound to fail with the enormous influx of refugees and immigrants Sweden have had over the last 10 years, often at 3-4x the levels of what comparable Norway have had (where we don't have such problems). There is simply a systematic limit to how much pressure a integration system can take and how they can cope. When the discrepancy between the system and the amount of arrivals rise you get:
- Failed language training
- Not enough jobs or school places to cope
- Masses of unemployed, uneducated and therefore not integrated people living within a limited geographical area, a ghetto.
This is the perfect recipe for disaster and system failure, which we now see unfolding in Sweden.
Think about it for a moment, Norway and Sweden are literally identical in how our societies are built up, social security, schooling etc - but there is one difference, Norway have had a more restrictive policy and therefore limited the amount of arrivals, this has led to us more successfully integrating our arrivals.
The amount of arrivals in Sweden last year is comparable to England receiving, housing and integrating a population the size of Birmingham - each year *
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...in-the-world-was-overwhelmed-by-migrants.html
There simply must come an understanding on the political left that the limitation and restriction on amount of arrivals is the most effective and necessary integration measure. It might not be ideologically what they want, but from a purely practical and realistic viewpoint it is the only solution.
Were the riots yesterday, earlier this year, last year or so forth done by immigrants? I don't know since there seldom or never are any arrests or identification brought forth.
But what I do know is that these riots and social problems we are seeing are due to failed integration, which again are due to a too big amount of arrivals in a short span of time.
Anyone denying that fact are discussing from an ideological and emotional viewpoint, and not a factual one.
And that is what I pointed out and meant in my inital post - Trump was wrong about the one isolated incident he commented about, but as a whole he is right about the system failure and resulting problems Sweden now are experiencing.
Last edited:
Failed integration of immigrants, along with their 2nd-3rd generation families, is a primary reason parts of Western Europe are in so much trouble in the short to medium term future. Most notably in France.
would you say the issue is not that they are receiving immigrants, but more the amount they are getting and the way they are preparing to integrate.
Please don't leave the discussion. This thread needs more conservatives, or at least not so much ridiculously left viewing posters to give more balance to the thread in my opinion.
Sweden took in a lot of refugees even before the current crisis. There is a high threshold to the labour market in Sweden. Even for a janitor job or cleaner you need at least a high school degree and industry jobs often university. Nearly half of the refugees have 9 years or less in school. It takes 15 years to get 50% into employment and it plateaus around 60%. There is no infrastructure in place to educate hundreds of thousands with varying backgrounds to required level. No employer will take the risk of hiring someone for 20 pounds an hour and who might to take up another employees time for months of training.
Yes as I wrote above the numbers are simply not sustainable. No country the size of Sweden can realistically be expected to successfully integrate such numbers.
Sweden today spend as much on their refugee and integration program as the UNHCR budget for the entire middle east, just think about that for a moment - a country with 10mill people spending those amounts.
Integration and refugee costs are today higher than their entire spending on defence, police, prosecutor system, schooling and health spending.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-sweden-forecast-idUSKCN0SG0I220151022
But I won't derail the thread more, I've gotten my viewpoints through and what initially started as a comment on a comment made by Trump has spiralled into a bigger discussion about immigration policies in general.
Maybe I'll establish a "safe zone" thread for us snowflakes where factual and realistic policies and politics can be discussed without parallells being drawn to mass murderers and fascists. But that is for another day.
Who are the 'ridiculously left viewing posters' in this thread?
How do you explain those same things happening in some other cities and places where immigration isn't the deciding factor but social inequality? For example somewhere like Chicago which is has an absolutely ridiculous murder rate and many of the perpetrators are American born and American born through multiple generations?
There are similarities around the world of these things happening and also in history, and they are not always directly linked to immigration, thats not to say immigration doesn't have a factor in those cases btw. What I am trying to point out is that low income, no hope etc leads to crime and that immigration isn't always the root cause. Immigration can be a factor that compounds the issue yes, but is it the actual problem?
Last edited:
I agree with a lot of the points re Sweden. In general the EU should just have a strong joint approach where immigrants are registered in e.g. Turkey and Greece and then distributed to the rest of the EU on e.g. GDP/capita basis. As we know that didn't really happen.
Of course this whole discussion conveniently sidesteps the fact the US and Sweden have nowhere near the same refugee policies in place, so we probably should get back to Trump.
Of course this whole discussion conveniently sidesteps the fact the US and Sweden have nowhere near the same refugee policies in place, so we probably should get back to Trump.
@SwansonsTache want to say fair play for sticking around and that some of the criticisms of you have been over the top and non-constructive.
On the main point you raise, specifically about the cause of failed integration being due to high immigration numbers in a short time frame, where did you get your evidence from? The issues may be linked, but where is the evidence that there is a causal relationship for your theory (high numbers + short time period = failed integration)?
You've cited some good examples of why people fail to integrate (language barriers, low living standards, housing availability, education, employment etc etc) but from my perspective, surely a re-think in terms of how those services are delivered could be as effective as just stemming the flow.
Another question, do you not think that restrictive policies are just treating the symptoms of the global issues we face? To some extent I agree (or understand your point is possibly more accurate) that short term benefits may be seen by individual societies turning more people away - but at what point do we begin to ask where those people will go? There is no end-goal for this strategy (in my humble opinion).
What options are we leaving people fleeing war and oppression by radical regimes if the richest countries on the planet are not prepared to support them. Who else will? And bearing that in mind, how are we as a globe going to stop radical movements in other parts of the world from growing and spreading? For the most part it's not our problem now, whose to say that it won't be our problem in the future if we isolate ourselves from any responsibility to act. Which includes the responsibility to care for those who need our help.
Last edited:
Craig Melvin is a good journo
As I've written in several of my posts the main problem isn't with the actual refugees, it is the enormous influx of economic migrants and people piggybacking on countries open border policies that are the main problem. These have no right to asylum but as linked in several of my other posts Sweden estimates that the last three years 46000 people have gone underground in Sweden while their asylum application was being processed. These often take refuge in the no-go zones and add to an already difficult situation.
Thoughts about economic, practical and social factors must be considered in a debate that I feel is too driven by emotion, and imo the left is the worst when it comes to this, often calling factual debate and debate about system limitations for racist and cold hearted.
I've linked some articles in my quoting of you above.
I am not leaving this discussion but I won't derail this thread further since this has all spiralled a bit away from the original post I made which was a reflection upon Trump being wrong about the singular incident he cited from Sweden, but actually being right in a broader perspective about Swedens failed immigration and asylum policies.
Perhaps we'll have a thread discussing the whole debate that my inital comment sparked, but this is not the thread for it.
thing is I don't know what to believe. Re the numbers and Crime rate and even being able to correlate them with immigrants and their influx into the country. The thing with stats and numbers is that you can interpret them to suit an agenda. On Don Lemons show the original journalist that brought up the story and lemon count agree on the numbers and what they meant.
Some sweeds have no idea what they are talking about some agree.
I agree that those are all valid social concerns; concerns which have played out elsewhere in the last twenty years or so. Still, it doesn't hint at any prescience on the part of Trump. On the one hand, Sweden has a well known social problem. On the other hand, Donald Trump appealed to Ami Horowitz for legitimacy when his initial point of a terrorist attack in Sweden was proven to be falsehood.
Horowitz said:
The above is a typical example of right wing rhetoric trying to link immigration with a direct threat on a nation's body politic. That rhetoric, and I don't exaggerate, is literally fascist. It's the same rhetoric we see in Italy at the turn of the previous century. An outside threat which you characterize as dangerous to the homogeneity of some idealized version of state. It's also not backed up by facts.
So whilst Sweden does have a massive problem on its hands with immigration, one which will see the right wing continue to rise in that country, there is still no validity to Trump's initial comment about a terrorist incident, and little validity to his intimation that the rate of rape is somehow on the rise due to immigration.
About the only thing which can be legitimately linked with large scale immigration is large scale social unrest, usually as a direct result of environmental conditions. Poverty, more or less. The unemployment rate for immigrants in Sweden is quite high, and has experienced growth since roughly 2008 (measured here as part of the foreign born labour market). Until that situation is remedied, which will take a long time in Sweden due to some peculiarities which restrict those foreign born citizens from the workplace, nothing will get much better. More here.
I don't know why people think this issue is so sensitive and those pointing it out are 'brave' - it's common sense.
Of course record numbers of asylum seekers/refugees in a short period of time will result in serious issues of integration (and everything that goes with it - uptick in crime, social unrest etc etc).
For example and there are applications NOT all were obvious successful - asylum seekers in Sweden
2014 - 81,000 people
2015 - 163,000 people
Swedish Govt realizes, it is getting swamped and things are getting out of hand, brings in temporary border controls -
2016 - 29,000 people
Sweden of course took in 100,000+ Bosnians who were escaping annihilation from the genocidal Serbians, in the 90s.
A country, any country might be able to sustain/integrate large numbers of immigrants (skilled, educated, students), but massive numbers without any filters - that's going to be extremely difficult, especially for a nation that has a population of a mere 10mil and a benefits system which is beyond generous.
Of course record numbers of asylum seekers/refugees in a short period of time will result in serious issues of integration (and everything that goes with it - uptick in crime, social unrest etc etc).
For example and there are applications NOT all were obvious successful - asylum seekers in Sweden
2014 - 81,000 people
2015 - 163,000 people
Swedish Govt realizes, it is getting swamped and things are getting out of hand, brings in temporary border controls -
2016 - 29,000 people
Sweden of course took in 100,000+ Bosnians who were escaping annihilation from the genocidal Serbians, in the 90s.
A country, any country might be able to sustain/integrate large numbers of immigrants (skilled, educated, students), but massive numbers without any filters - that's going to be extremely difficult, especially for a nation that has a population of a mere 10mil and a benefits system which is beyond generous.
Last edited:
Sweden stuff -
As expected -
As expected -
Its good that Trump and Bannon are laser focused on fixing all of Europe's problems... in America.
It's pretty clear their goal is an eventual war on Islam. They want America to be the forth reich and Muslims are the new Jews.
Otherway round pal. Because of the rise of Islamic Anti-Semitism - Jews are the new Jews.
yawn....still got a long, long, long way to go before catching up to the 6mil, the beautiful west wiped out.
I don't agree with the concept of who is or isn't 'the worst', that's subjective and irrelevant. But I do agree with you for the most part, especially the bit I've highlighted in bold. Intolerance of opinion doesn't often lead to convincing someone that their arguments aren't as conclusive as they thought they were.
Points made by the likes of Trump, Brexit and potentially others to follow (Wilder, Le Pen, AfD) are helped by an inability from the left and centre grounds to take opposing views as credible opinion. Despite how much we may dislike others perspectives. Factual debate is also a tricky one as it's often the case that only facts supporting certain viewpoints are acknowledged as facts depending on which side of the argument you sit on.
Going back to your original point then (bold and italic). It's simply not acceptable for Trump to get something like that wrong. The intent behind it (using Germany and Sweden) appears to be to scare the American people sufficiently in order to support his radical immigration policies.
In your opinion, Trump was right about broader immigration policies - I'm assuming you have derived your opinion from this quote? “Sweden. Who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.” In my view, that is completely out of context with what Trump meant by the manner in which he spoke and what he had said just prior to giving Germany and Sweden as examples. He said, "we've got to keep our country safe" implying that both Germany and Sweden were unsafe due to their respective immigration policies. For me that is only designed to make the people fear immigration and has nothing to do with any knowledge Mr Trump might like to claim he has about the broader implications of other nations immigration policies.
Trump admin outlines plan to crack down on undocumented immigrants
Washington (CNN)The Department of Homeland Security Tuesday officially laid out the Trump administration's plans for aggressive enforcement of immigration laws, including a potentially massive expansion of the number of people detained and deported.
The department released guidance memos signed by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly issued to heads of key agencies, which describe how the government plans to implement two executive orders President Donald Trump signed last month on border security and interior enforcement.
The memos, which were obtained and reported on by CNN over the weekend, serve to expand upon the orders, which are unrelated to the controversial travel ban currently tied up in the courts and being re-written by the White House.
The guidance explains how the administration plans to put in place the goals dictated in Trump's executive orders, including vastly increasing the resources to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, building a wall along the southern border and taking a hard-line position on undocumented immigrants.
Through the memos, Kelly expands the government's immigration enforcement by instructing agencies to implement unused parts of existing law and by clarifying standards for certain protections, which add up to having sweeping implications for the processing of undocumented immigrants in the US.
For one, the implementation vastly grows the number of individuals who can be deported using "expedited removal" procedures, which affords immigrants almost no court proceedings. Under the new policy, if someone can't prove he or she has been living in the US continuously for two years, he or she could now be eligible for expedited removal. Previously, this was limited in practice to people apprehended within 100 miles of the border and who had arrived within the past two weeks.
The memos also make a series of changes as part of ending so-called "catch and release," where undocumented immigrants awaiting court proceedings are granted parole and leave to enter the country pending court dates that can be years in the future.
This story is breaking and will be updated.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/dhs-immigration-guidance-detentions/index.html
so enhancement of certain things but mainly stricter implementation.
Washington (CNN)The Department of Homeland Security Tuesday officially laid out the Trump administration's plans for aggressive enforcement of immigration laws, including a potentially massive expansion of the number of people detained and deported.
The department released guidance memos signed by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly issued to heads of key agencies, which describe how the government plans to implement two executive orders President Donald Trump signed last month on border security and interior enforcement.
The memos, which were obtained and reported on by CNN over the weekend, serve to expand upon the orders, which are unrelated to the controversial travel ban currently tied up in the courts and being re-written by the White House.
The guidance explains how the administration plans to put in place the goals dictated in Trump's executive orders, including vastly increasing the resources to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, building a wall along the southern border and taking a hard-line position on undocumented immigrants.
Through the memos, Kelly expands the government's immigration enforcement by instructing agencies to implement unused parts of existing law and by clarifying standards for certain protections, which add up to having sweeping implications for the processing of undocumented immigrants in the US.
For one, the implementation vastly grows the number of individuals who can be deported using "expedited removal" procedures, which affords immigrants almost no court proceedings. Under the new policy, if someone can't prove he or she has been living in the US continuously for two years, he or she could now be eligible for expedited removal. Previously, this was limited in practice to people apprehended within 100 miles of the border and who had arrived within the past two weeks.
The memos also make a series of changes as part of ending so-called "catch and release," where undocumented immigrants awaiting court proceedings are granted parole and leave to enter the country pending court dates that can be years in the future.
This story is breaking and will be updated.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/dhs-immigration-guidance-detentions/index.html
so enhancement of certain things but mainly stricter implementation.
People may not agree with you in this thread, but you're a good poster. This is an example to the random WUMs who drop in on this thread and spam it with hot air. I expect you'd be getting a more tempered reaction if there hadn't been so many of them spouting unsubstantiated rubbish in recent months.
We don't want him here. The Speaker of the House of Commons stated that he was no happy with the idea of a Trump visit and some fascists tried to get him ousted from his position for having an opinion. Luckily they couldn't garner the support to pull it off.
You can't plan for refugees, they migrate in reaction to events. You can't say 'oh we've got some room, now is a good time for your civil war'. Unless you advocate killing them at your borders they wont be stopped
They must be really bad shots to shoot to kill and not kill anyone
But you can balance their influx by rejecting more "standard" immigrants. I also think that asylum seekers shouldn't be allowed to roam into the country until their status is determined, which isn't always the case.
As far as I know there aren't any wars in Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Balkan or numerous other countries where immigrants (yes I call them immigrants and not refugees, because they are not legitimate refugees by UNHCR definition) come from. People from these nations flock to Sweden and not Norway, due to our more restrictive policies and also the signals we send. Sweden have preached an open border policy for decades now, and have been very naive in doing so.
I guess. The source is the Swedish police though that specified that it was an "effect shot" meant to kill and not a "warning shot". It is being made a huge case out of in Scandinavian media since it is literally unheard of in Scandinavia with such if it isn't a shootout.
Anyway, won't derail the thread more. You guys go on discussing Trump now.
- Status