To think Sweden's inability to cope with the consequences of its open-door immigration policy was both tragically predictable and a lesson to other countries not to follow suit?

[BackToTheNorth]

As reported in the Guardian (so this can't be dismissed blithely as 'Daily Fail propaganda'):

'Sweden’s army is to help manage the fallout from the country’s refugee crisis, with the civilian administration struggling to cope with an unprecedented surge in arrivals and a top official claiming there is no room left, in the short-term, for migrants reaching Swedish shores.'

'“We don’t have any more space,” the agency’s lead spokesman, Fredrik Bengtsson, said. State-owned accommodation has been full since 2012, he said, and now officials cannot find any more affordable private housing. “For the time being, all of these are finished as well, so for the last three or four nights we’ve had people sleeping in our [non-residential] centres across the country. Right now we’re just looking for people to have a roof over their heads."'

'Sweden is bearing a disproportional burden of the European refugee crisis, due in part to its pledge in 2013 to provide permanent residency to almost any Syrian who reached Swedish soil. Of the roughly 800,000 people to have arrived in Europe by sea this year, at least one in seven have ended up in Sweden, even though the country accounts for just one in 50 EU citizens. So far in 2015, more than 120,000 people have applied for asylum in Sweden.'

'This struggle to provide something as basic as accommodation has led to fears about Sweden’s ability to handle more complex refugee needs, such as education and healthcare. “How will they manage doctors and schools, and how will [refugees] learn Swedish?” asked Enar Bostedt, one of Sweden’s most experienced asylum lawyers. “That’s totally another issue that no one has had time to think about yet.”'

'Some refugees have lost patience with the backlog. “In Sweden the process is so slow, so I’m going back to Iraq,” said Hassanein, a 29-year-old technician, waiting at Stockholm central station, before his attempted homewards journey.'

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/10/sweden-calls-on-army-to-help-manage-refugee-crisis

AIBU to think that the naive utopianism of open-door advocates will lead to social and economic disaster in Europe, and that Britain's policy of taking 20,000 of the most vulnerable - and no more - is an infinitely-preferable compromise?

No your are right refugees should remain in the poorer neighbouring countries because they can cope better than the richer European countries.......... Nope that does not make much sense at all. Coping with refugees is a struggle and Sweden are putting the rest of Europe to shame.

The problem isn't an open door policy.
The problem is the sheer number of refugees from a hideous tripartite civil war (and neighbouring nations affected by the Caliphate in an already volatile enormous region). There are unprecedented numbers of people fleeing to the countries who helped bring 'democracy' to them.
Europe has focussed on free movement of people within its borders. Now millions are knocking on its doors. You could argue that our 20k from camps is abdicating responsibility for the people who have crossed Europe and leaving continental Europe to it.
There's no right answer.

What baffles me is why people think we have to dictate whether people should be able to leave their shit lives to try to find a better one. We were born in richer countries by chance. We have done nothing to deserve good circumstances any more than they deserve shit circumstances.

CloppySow, if that baffles you I think you must have a serious lack of imagination.

If we ended all border controls tomorrow it would not be pretty and in many cases would be fatal. The problems it would bring would be horrendous, probably to the levels of war.

I wonder how far you would take your 'just being born there' logic to apply to people having no right to be settled in an area with their community? Would you tell Amazon tribes being cleared for deforestation to put and shut up because they were 'just born there', or people in India displaced by pollution? Or indigenous people in Australia or the U.S.?

Or does your put up and shut up attitude only apply to poor white Europeans who aren't trendy enough of a cause for you to care about them?

Seriously, I'm flabbergasted. Does nobody appreciate the irony of posting this stuff on today of all days? This morning we're all going to celebrate a group of people who went through Christ only knows what in the name of democracy. The group comprises people of different nationalities and different skin colours. When we asked them to come and help us to protect our freedoms, they did so and presumably went to hell and back for us.

And now we have posters saying that their children and grandchildren must stay in their own countries, regardless of what political or economic or social difficulties they may face there, because it is very important that "our" way of life is protected and that we are not in any way inconvenienced by refugees. Has it genuinely not occurred to you that they are not "our" freedoms? Nobody could be so short sighted, surely? We didn't win them on our own. We won them with the help (and the blood) of thousands and thousands of the grandparents of the people to whom we are now denying those freedoms. We seem to be trying to claim that we are somehow more deserving of them than the children of the countries who stood up and helped us when it mattered. Those freedoms were won by all of those who laid down their lives. No single nation or group of nations gets to appropriate the freedoms that are hard won by people all across the world. Or is it the case that it was ok for people to come and die for us, but not to share in the way of life that they were fighting to protect for us?

Shame on you. What incredibly disrespectful things to say on Armistice Day.

probablyunreasonable- I love you

And booyaka your comparison to indigenous tribes is beyond stupid. You can't compare people being kicked off their land due to deforestation or whatever, for financial gain, and people believing they have the moral right to stay there, to people fleeing war torn countries (many of the wars which were incited by our own western powers) and seeking asylum elsewhere. Of course people who want to stay, and look after their own indigenous land should have the right to do so. And of course people should have the right to leave a dangerous, war torn land.

Only a incredibly immoral and/or stupid person would argue anything else.

Actually I think you'll find Syria and Syrian soldiers fought with the Vichy French government on the side of the Nazis and only stopped when they lost in battle to a British Invasion. But don't let a little thing like history get in the way of your rant.

No, bugger. You did not anywhere in your original post refer to refugees. You said that being born somewhere gave people no more right to be somewhere than someone who did not. No mention of refugees, just that.

Yet apparently when it comes to a trendy group you suddenly think they have a right to be there. So either people have some sort of right to the places where they live and they're born or they don't.

Or if they're you, they have a right to the place where they live if they have the right skin colour and ethnicity to satisfy your trendy right on credentials. But if you are a poor white British person, then you have no more right to live in the country of your birth than a Somalian war Lord or a South American drugs baron or a Russian mafioso.

bugger confused you with CloppySow. But read her comment, she wasn't referring to refugees, she was talking about economic migrants in general.

Actually, Booyaka, I would note that Syria declared war on Germany and Japan on 26 February 1945.

Also, you can't have it both ways; I thought that part of the objection to opening our borders was that nationals of other countries would try to get in and "piggy back" off the sympathy felt for Syria? A number of the objectors who have posted on MN have been up in arms about the fact that not all the refugees are from Syria and that some are from other places and are taking advantage of the possible relation of immigration rules. Some of the refugee countries of origin which have been mentioned are countries which made a significant contribution to protecting our current way of life.

Indeed, as you say, don't let a little thing like history hold you back.

hedgehogsdontbite I'm very proud to be a Swede just now. The word on the street here is still 'life first, practicalities second'. Not so proud to be a Brit. I find Britain's 'I'm alright Jack' attitude shameful and inhumane.

I was in Sweden this summer and I must admit I did wonder about the all too obvious immigrants wandering about with no jobs in the middle of the day in places like Kiruna and Skelleftea or Pitea, in or close to the Arctic Circle. Is it fair to remove people from their homeland long term in pursuit of some left wing utopian dream. Do many Swedes even want to live there? In many ways its great that Sweden can populate areas of its hinterland so far north, but its expensive in terms of provision of services, and yes, you do need far more people to pursue that dream, maybe people who don't have much choice of where to live.

Its like you are not allowed any criticism or genuine debate if you are Swedish. You must agree with everything, automaton style. Ignore outside influences, disparage countries with a slightly different approach, and tell yourselves you are wonderful all the time. Ignore the problems that Swedish women face with increasing rate of violent rape, and make it a crime to mention that when it is done by a second generation immigrant, because they must then at all times be referred to as Swedish.

I found these comments on the The Guardian article quite interesting:

"The Swedish elite are a strange set of people, its almost like a competition to show who is the most progressive by taking in any number of people regardless on impact on your own people"

"You forgot: the competition is even fiercer when it's about how self-hating you can be, and how much guilt you have"

"Swedish political figures such as the former PM Reinfeldt and The Swedish Centre Party's' Annie Loof made clear their intent to change Sweden, indeed the former virtually denied that indigenous Swedes had a claim on their country.."

"Its like some kind of competition between Liberals to see who is more Liberal than the other by allowing uncontrolled immigration. It really is a bizarre situation."

I'm glad I live in the UK. Hopefully it will all work out in time for Sweden, but its a very unprecedented experiment, and I'm not convinced by the humanitarian angle - Sweden has been desperate for more people for years, its been the easiest country to emigrate to by far for decades now. I wonder what all those descendants of Swedes forced to emigrate themselves not so very long ago due to grinding poverty and starvation in the US think about it. You would think they would want to move back to Sweden if it really were that great.

The thing is that most of the people coming to Europe left those 'dangerous war-torn lands' months or years ago and have been living safely in neighbouring countries ever since. By their own admission most are coming to Europe 'for a better life', not because they're in mortal danger. And that's why so many of them (60% or more), are fit, young men under the age of 25.

There was an article in The Guardian not so long ago featuring a series of interviews with different 'refugees'. One family had been living safely in Istanbul for two years and had run out of money so they were coming to Europe and declared themselves happy to settle 'in any country that will take care of us'. Sorry, but that's not the description of a refugee, that's a classic case of economic migration. But because they're Syrian they'll get asylum and that's just wrong IMO. They weren't in any danger, they just wanted a better deal for themselves. Well how many other people from outside Europe would that set of criteria apply to? How many billions?

those who fought with the Allies in the second World War

Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
China
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Estonia
France
Greece
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
South Africa
United Kingdom
United States
USSR
Yugoslavia

they should all be remembered on Armistice day (including the Axis civilian population who had no choice) but the numbers involved were greatest amongst the Commonwealth and Britain. I for one am grateful to all those who died to preserve our freedom and way of life.

Actually, Booyaka, I would note that Syria declared war on Germany and Japan on 26 February 1945

Bwhahahaha! History really isn't your thing is it? The war was basically over at that point in all but name, there had already been a conference at Ayala between the allies about what to do post war. Syria merely made a tokenistic gesture which involved no actual fighting. Declaring on the side of the victors when you know they've won and after they've invaded you to stop you fighting for the other side is not exactly the heroics you're claiming.

And when Syria DID fight earlier in WW2 it was very much on the side of the Nazis and Vichy France.

I mean, come on, anybody with a glancing knowledge of WW2 history would know that declaring war at the end of Feb 1945 was not declaring war at all.

I totally agree, Mollie, but I wonder whether perhaps the list doesn't take account of nations which are now independent but were at that time colonies and so didn't have an independent identity? For example, I believe that West Africa, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Ghana and Nigeria were also involved, although I will totally admit that that is the limit of my knowledge and I don't know what sort of numbers they contributed. Not sure that my view would be different if it were 5000 or 500,000, though - I think I probably feel that the principle is the same. If they're good enough to die for us, they should be good enough to live alongside us.

BuggerLumps And booyaka your comparison to indigenous tribes is beyond stupid. You can't compare people being kicked off their land due to deforestation or whatever, for financial gain, and people believing they have the moral right to stay there, to people fleeing war torn countries (many of the wars which were incited by our own western powers) and seeking asylum elsewhere. Of course people who want to stay, and look after their own indigenous land should have the right to do so.

Are we talking about Swedish oppression of the indigenous Asiatic population in Sweden, which they have oppressed and practiced genocide against for so long that their numbers in Sweden are now reduced to 25,000? Whom they still discriminate against, like to portray as stupid, covert to Christianity, refuse to provide funding for teaching in their non-European native language? Whose people they were still sterilising if disabled or suffering MH problems well into the 1970s? Whom they banned from buying land or property and whose human rights they still routinely ignore?

No-one knows why the Swedes seem to hate the Saami so much. They are stigmatised, because to be Saami in Sweden is to be regarded as inferior, as tainted somehow.

Its hard to reconcile that with a welcoming attitude to immigrants. Why should someone from Syria be seen as more worthy of government funding than a Saami reindeer herder or fisherman, who just wants their children to be educated in their own language, or to be given equal opportunity if they move to the city and apply for a job? How can the Swedes be tolerant to Muslims when they made practising of Saami religion illegal and persecuted those practising it and forced them to convert to Christianity?

This is still going on in Sweden right now. Sweden has only just ratified UN Conventions on the equal treatment of indigenous people, and has been very inactive in actually bringing them into force.

The problem is that the Saami are not nearly as trendy as liberals from the Middle East. There is no kudos in Sweden amongst the liberal elite for promoting the interests of the Saami. It will be interesting to see if they treat the recent migrant influx in the same way - e.g. banning their language, forcing them to convert to Christianity, and so on.

dsph-dev.provost.uiowa.edu/historycorps_sandbox/exhibits/show/indigenousstruggles1900/sami

freemuse.org/archives/5698

Ok, Booyaka, fine. Whatever. This is descending into an argument which I feel is itself a bit disrespectful, so I'll be on my way now. I'm not going to sit here on Armistice Day and discuss whether deaths in 1945 are worth less than those in 1944. That is pretty morally unpleasant.

And I don't really feel that "Bwhahahaha!" is the word we're looking for when talking about any of this stuff. Nice.

Some of the posts about ww1 are ever so simplistic here. The political situation was horribly complex and tense all over Europe during the preceding years. www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/england-declares-war-germany-1914 England declared war onn Germany to side with Belgium.

The thing to consider is that people during that time were incredibly nationalistic, not unlike now. They really wanted war to change things and many of the politicians wee power hungry and idiotic, in Germany as well as everywhere else in Europe and the world.

I am sad for all the young men who fell in ww1 and all the families who lost loved ones and had to fend for themselves after loosing a husband, father,, brother etc. what here they were Brits, Australians Syrians or Germans. It was horribly cruel and led to the depression and ww2. They are all human beings. I hate the rethoric of "to protect our freedom" it's so emotive and breeds anantagonistic spirit not one of peace, respect and humanity. I so wish people would learn from history so that war could be avoided where possible.

There's little point in burying your head in the sand and pretending we can just build a really high wall around the entire coastline of Britain.

The refugee crisis is real and an unavoidable consequence of increasing conflict and inequality across the world. Unfortunately Britain can't just take a 'I'm not playing' approach.

Infrastructure will be required no matter what. Better it be housing etc than detention centres.

One family had been living safely in Istanbul for two years and had run out of money so they were coming to Europe and declared themselves happy to settle 'in any country that will take care of us'. Sorry, but that's not the description of a refugee, that's a classic case of economic migration

Actually it's even worse than that. If they'd come with any real plan for supporting themselves that might be fair enough, but no - they wanted somebody else to "take care of them"

There's a very big difference between refuges and migrants, and while I'd hope nobody grudges migrants' wish to build better lives elsewhere, it's just too easy to jump on someone else's gravy train, cry victim and avoid any responsibility for that new life