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?

booyaka

You clearly have an incredible imagination. What you've managed to take from my post is pretty impressive.

Are you drunk?

You have taken what i have said and twisted it to suit what you want to believe.

I don't follow trends actually. I like what i like. And here's what I like the most - people giving a massive fuck about other people, especially when they have lots and can offer something to people who don't have lots, or are suffering or need help. I quite like the idea of treating all human beings kindly too. But that's probably not on trend.

Now you just knock yourself on twisting that into whatever you want it to mean. Have fun.

I completely agree with you, Gin. I suppose I just feel that we did what we did at the time, for whatever reason, and in doing so we took on moral obligations to those who helped us at the time. I feel that it's pretty low to try to avoid those moral responsibilities now that we (at least in the UK) are in happier times and are not being bombed to bits any more. I'm definitely not keen on military stuff generally (one of the few protest marches I've ever been on was Stop the War in 2003) and believe that it should be an absolute last resort. However, I do feel that war is so horrific that if you are asking anyone to die for a cause which you embrace then that comes with a really serious moral responsibility. I don't think that those two positions are inconsistent. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "freedoms" - I agree that that is perhaps a bit simplistic - but you take my point.

Out. Knock yourself out.

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 have done nothing to deserve good circumstances any more than they deserve shit circumstances.

Most people think we are overcrowded enough already. There is a housing shortage.
I don't want an open door policy. If you do why don't you leave this 'shit life' here and go and find 'a better one' in Sweden? There's nothing stopping you according to your logic.

I read this article yesterday, and noticed at the time that the headline doesn't really reflect the content of the article.

Surely the point is that, in a difficult situation, Sweden is mobilising the resources it needs in order to cope with a humanitarian crisis. As opposed to most other European countries which are standing by and doing fuck all (including our own government here in France which is leaving children, including unaccompanied minors, to live in appalling conditions).

Not all countries are doing fuck all. The UK has provided more than £900m in aid since 2011 to help refugees in the neighbouring countries they fled to. IMO this is a far better idea than saying 'We'll give you asylum if you can get here', which is what Germany and Sweden did and caused a stampede that led to many thousands of lives being lost and is now leading to massive unrest in those countries. To say nothing of all the other chancers who've leapt on the bandwagon and are trying their luck too. Or the ones buying Syrian passports for $2,000, which are indistinguishable from genuine ones. I wonder how many ISIS fighters are now sitting happily in Germany and Sweden waiting to strike?

Lndnmummy

Silly to say there is no room for any more immigrants though. Sweden has an enormous amount of unbuilt land. There is plenty of room.

And no houses on that land, no infrastructure, no hospitals. Do you know the geography of Sweden? Are you suggesting that the refugees spend the winter in tents in the Swedish forests? There is not enough habitable land ffs. It's unbuilt for a reason

Juneau, there are an estimated 2 million displaced Syrians in Turkey, 1.2 million in Lebanon, 1.4 million in Jordan.

£900 million in aid over four years is (let's be generous) £250m a year, or roughly £50 per refugee per annum. Of which the refugees will see only a small portion. While I don't doubt that Britain has done more than some, it will need a different order of magnitude of spending if we are to make conditions in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan good enough to persuade people to remain there in the long term.

With the best will in the world, Sweden's response has been considerably more generous, as has that of Germany. Other governments are happy to sit by and watch a humanitarian crisis develop, and in some cases - like in Calais - are actively seeking to make the refugee's lives even more miserable (and the UK and France both bear responsibility for events here).

Stripyhoglets Tue 10-Nov-15 20:05:45
The rest of the article went on to say (immediately after the extract posted by the OP) that the bloke was returning home to get his family and then come back, because it was taking too long to process him as a single person and then bring his family over and he is scared for them to stay there alone.

Thank you, Stripyhoglets, for clarifying that. I wonder why you left that bit out, OP?

Mistigri Only a fantasist would suggest that the UK should be the only country financing all those refugees. There are other countries to bump up the total. If the UK spent more, what would be the impetus for other countries to start spending? The UK is giving a fantastic amount of relief money and we shouldn't be outraged at the fact that we can't provide the whole amount ourselves.

hmmm yes i wonder why too op

:)

Mistigri With the best will in the world, Sweden's response has been considerably more generous, as has that of Germany.

It has to be put in context though. The UK has a rapidly increasing population, not lest due to a steady and consistent flow of migration. Germany has a stagnant population; Sweden's I believe would be falling drastically if it were not for migration. Neither have particularly good humanitarian records in even very recent history; Germany's is well documented, Sweden seems exceptionally good at pr but less so at integration of racial minorities and promoting tolerance of different viewpoints through education. There are also a huge number of third and fourth generation Swedish immigrants in the US and Canada whose grandparents and great grandparents were forced to emigrate themselves from Sweden not so very long ago, due to grinding poverty and famine. I wonder what those descendants think about Sweden's open door policy.

Sweden and Germany are also assured of getting the best of the refugees/migrants - the ones with motivation and money and education to get themselves to another country for a better standard of living. People likely to do the jobs Swedes and Germans don't want. Germany has long hosted Turkish people as gast arbeiters, ironic now that its getting so many brownie points out of the Syrians who migrated to Turkey now.

And what will be left of Syria? Syria was once a great country, a powerful and advanced trading nation. Will the immigrants be expected to lose their culture and language (like the Saami in Sweden?), to integrate (which will, realistically, prevent them or their children or grandchildren returning), or will we see the problems re integration that are now very characteristic of both Sweden and Germany.

To be honest, neither of them has great track records and I'm dubious of the motives, as well as the wisdom of the policy. I'm happy to take my chances in the UK.

I'm more inclined towards finland or iceland, but thanks for the suggestion.

Silly to say there is no room for any more immigrants though. Sweden has an enormous amount of unbuilt land. There is plenty of room.

Yes, let's not worry about where the money will come from, where the jobs for these people will come from, where the infrastructure to cope with it all will come from.....

You can tarmac the whole of Sweden and cover it in portakabins, it won't achieve anything though.

It'd be better to pick on the unbuilt land in the middle east & build on that - but bleeding hearts don't like that, it gives them less of a chance to sneer at others.....

Scremersford I don't disagree that context is important as are overall migration flows. This is why a Europe wide strategy is needed to determine objectively what level of migration can realistically be handled in each EU member state.

Why, though, do you think that Sweden and Germany "guaranteed" to get the "best" migrants? If that's true (and I'm not sure it is - actually I think it's a rather bizarre assumption) then it's because they have opened the door to those people.

What will be left of Syria? I think the realistic answer to that question is "nothing" at best and "another Iraq" at worst. The fact is that migration from Syria is likely to continue and there is no reverse (return) in view. That means that neighbouring regions need to be prepared for at least twice the number of refugees that we have already, and that Europe will need to act to avoid a humanitarian crisis - or to avoid it getting any worse (it is already a crisis in parts of Europe, with young children who did not need to die losing their lives every day in the shores of the Greek Islands). It won't be long before the first needless deaths are reported inside mainland Europe either; a cold snap or an outbreak of infectious disease could easily kill off the most vulnerable (babies, toddlers and the elderly) who are still on the road or in informal camps.

Mistigri Scremersford I don't disagree that context is important as are overall migration flows. This is why a Europe wide strategy is needed to determine objectively what level of migration can realistically be handled in each EU member state.

There is already very clear European law laying down the procedure for immigration into the EU. Germany is in breach of it. If its politicians are really incapable of seeing that hasty unilateral decisions in breach of EU law don't destabilise the whole of Europe, then they must have some other goal in mind that will strengthen the position of their own country instead.

Re the guarantee to get the best migrants - perhaps badly worded. Its not a guarantee, but in practice that is what will happen, when compared to other EU member states with less welcoming social benefit systems and immigration policies who are following current EU law.

I also find myself wondering why Syrian refugees and migrants are so favoured over other countries which are also suffering civil war, famine, hardship, etc.. Am I cynical to suggest that Syrians tend to have rather good education, and many of them to rather white in appearance when compared to someone for example from Sierra Leone, or Eritrea, or Senegal?

Its all a bit strange. There is more to this than meets the eye.

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.

How did I twist that Soppy? I note you've just chucked an insult and an accusation and done nothing to clarify or defend your position.

If your post means anything other that suggesting people who are born here have no more right to be here than any other person in the world you've worded your post epically badly.

And Probably, I find it extremely distasteful that you have repeatedly used Armistice Day to try and shut down a debate on the basis of a complete historical inaccuracy and a deliberate attempt to mislead.

I wasn't 'Bwhahahahaing' at refugees, or armistice day, but at the fact you'd tripped yourself up with your own total lack of historical knowledge again. And it's not a matter of which year deaths were worth more in, it's more to do with the fact there would have been virtually no deaths of Syrians at all (if any) except for those fighting on the side of the Nazis, because they didn't declare war on the Nazis until there was no chance they'd actually have to fight them.

If you're going to be sanctimonious and declare a subject beyond discussion because Syrians liberated Europe, you really ought to be sure of what you're talking about.

I don't have to clarify or defend my position to anyone, particularly someone whose attitude is as arsey as yours.

I thought about defending it, but i couldn't be arsed with a fight.

I think it's pretty clear what i'm saying. That we have no right to dictate where people can or can't go. That we are where we are purely through chance and that yes, people want to go other places to improve their lives, be it escaping extreme poverty, relative poverty, torture, war, FGM, rape, whatever and rather than adopting an attitude of "its not my problem" we should be trying to help.

Your rain forest comparison was just utter shite and you know it. My point wasn't about making people move, it was about helping people who do need to move.

Similar problems in Norway.

A couple of hundred migrants are cycling across the most northern (arctic) border from Russia daily. Yesterday there were 4 Syrians. They have come by plane and train through Russia, buys a bicycle (due to some weird law that you cannot cross the border on foot) and cycle across, where they dump the bikes as no longer needed.

Most are Afghan single men with permission to stay and work in Russia. They will most likely be sent on a direct flight to Kabul. Some grab a bike and cycle back when they hear they risk being sent to Kabul if their applications are not granted. Lets face it, they are not fleeing from terrors and war in Russia. They have Russian residency, a job and a life, they are economic migrants thinking they can tag along to the Syrians.

Migrants in the south are demonstrating for more food, as 3 meals per day are not enough, and they are bland and tasteless. They also complain it is dirty, and bins are overflowing, there is no wifi so they cant use their mobile phones to connect with home. The centers say they need to clean and tidy up after themselves, because there is nobody else coming in to make a mess and throw rubbish on the floor, and there will be wifi soon. Some have left and gone back saying Norway is worse than where they came from, seemingly having on patience for a small country that is suddenly trying to cater for thousands coming in with complex needs.

I just wander, how are the women and kids they left behind going to fend for themselves now?

That we have no right to dictate where people can or can't go.

We do actually, whether it's on a "you can't come in my house" level or a country level.

Another view is that they've broken theirs, why does that give them a right to come to ours rather than fix it?

I also found your posts very interesting providing food for thought Probablyunreasonable, history is so interesting but so difficult to get a reasonably objective sense of it.

The saddest thing is that there is so much hypocrisy when people talk about war. In the end, it's people in power (politicians, aristocrats, powerful business) who get their pants in a twist, provoke or declare war with the results that ordinary men, women and children die or get permanently injured and traumatised because of our 'leaders'' power trips and egomania. And then people talk about honour, he died for his country etc. of course we must be grateful to men and women offering to fight to keep a nation save, that can only be respected but our leaders have always and now are all too eager to go to war. Sorry a bit glum.

we have no right to dictate where people can or can't go.

What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say! No one can just up sticks and move to another country unless they have a right to do. We don't have that right any more than anyone else does. Countries have borders and entry requirements - that's life.

I'm away to throw myself out of the window. The combination of point missing and humanity lacking is too depressing for me.

Catcheez.

That list of countries who were WWII Allies isn't exactly exhaustive. The little African country that I grew up in sent and lost men - they weren't independent then but they are now.
Sad to think of those men wiped from history like that, today of all days.