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?

FWIW I often wonder whether Angela Merkel hasn't gone quite mad, and if the Swedish elite in government actually know what they are doing half the time.

I'm uncomfortable about the singling out of other countries for criticism because they do not follow the example of one or two and have their own set of different conditions that apply to them.

Hopefully it will all work out in time but it might take several generations. I hope we don't end up with ghettos of disaffected second and third generation immigrants all over Europe who feel they are being discriminated against but who have lost their own cultural heritage.

juneau there is potentially an argument that the economic impact of migration could be very positive on depopulated parts of Europe, if governments get their regional policies right (and Germany probably has the best chance of reaping these benefits).

As someone said up thread, there are a lot of educated, skilled Syrians on the move, mainly because the middle classes are the ones who have been able to afford the cost of paying smugglers etc. A government which works out how to integrate those people, while staving off short-term social unrest from their own populations, will probably reap long term economic gains. But there will be short term costs that most european governments aren't prepared to pay (the costs are mainly political btw not economic).

Germany does need people. And they have a far higher standard of living than we do. Their housing is larger, cheaper and more freely available than ours is. Much fewer women are forced back into the workplace after having children because it's far easier for a family to get by on one income.

Germany can get by with a bit of a drop in living standards which will be involved in importing cheap labour.

But because we are in the EU, and fairly soon the refugees in Germany will all have the right to go everywhere else in the EU, it doesn't just affect Germany.

We already live in a low wage economy. Tax credits are a reflection of the fact that a hell of a lot of people aren't paid enough to survive. Housing is expensive, overcrowded and often unavailable. We've already got people living in sheds and garages, family homes carved up into bedsits and poky flats which cost a fortune, people crammed into substandard lets because it's all they can afford, families stuck in B & B limbo long term. Most mothers can forget about giving up work, because surviving on one wage is impossible. Sweden also has a much higher standard of living.

The fact is, if we open our borders willy nilly, the people who are going to suffer most are the very poorest. They're going to have more competition for more expensive, smaller, poorer quality housing, their wages are going to be suppressed, their children are going to have their education suffer and their public services are going to be the most stretched. Because you can guarantee refugees won't be put in the 'naice' leafy areas that their supporters tend to live in.

I don't really think they should be taking the hit for Germany's need for cheap labour.

I hope we don't end up with ghettos of disaffected second and third generation immigrants all over Europe who feel they are being discriminated against but who have lost their own cultural heritage.

Me too, but I'm pessimistic. People like to live near others who come from their country, speak their language, have the same religious and cultural norms - and it doesn't encourage integration. There are umpteen models of this around the world to look at from north American cities to French ones.

I agree very much with the last couple of posts.

The ignorance on this thread amazes me. Juneau, they can't applay for asylum in Hungary. Hungary doesn't want refugees there and treats them absolutely appallingly. It is a very xenophobic country and most asylum requests are refused. Prior to the laws the rushed in, refugees were subjected to horrific treatment. Medical treatment was refused, no shelters, no food provided. I spoke to many volunteers on the phone after they were there and the stories they told me will haunt me forever and I wasn't even there. A woman gave birth and the baby died in the freezing cold night, all because Viktor Orban refused UN help.

Countries like Bulgaria, Poland and the Czech Republic are extremely hostile to refugees and definitely not safe places either. Refugees in Bulgaria are beaten and robbed and shot at. There are also stories of people disppearing and rumours of human trafficking which are disturbing.

In the Czech Republic, refugees including children, are woken during the night,every night, by guards in uniform, to be counted. The trauma of the children locked up like this must be immense.

Turkey is not a safe place for refugees and they are unable to work there anyway.

The EU are 'woefully unprepared'. Hmm, I'm buying this. They knew this was coming. In many countries, inaction is a means of deterrence. This could have been planned for, but lack of will and belligerence and increasing inclination to appeal to the right wing has created the present situation. There is money there, but lack of unity does put pressure on Germany and Sweden and creates diffficulties, leading to the myth that this means 'there are too many'.No,there are not too many, there is no coherent plan or cohesion in the EU to address this. Therefore, the crisis is in the EU. The answer is agreement within the EU to a fair plan for distribution of refugees. We must continue to demand it.

The UNHCR has been largely absent from the majority of the countries recieving many refugees. In Greece and Moria they have done very little. Where the money goes is a mystery to me. At Lesbos, the workers take selfies and refuse to participate in any physical work. The majority of work is done by volunteers and kind hearted people. Ambulances have been donated by Celtic and Glasgow Rangers. Those patrolling the sea for drowning peope are funded by charity.

The majority certainly do want food and shelter. They are running from hell. People arrive in Greece with horrific injuries. Their journey costs 1000. A boat trip would be 30 Euro, but they are not allowed on that. When they arrive, quite often families are separated by eath. If Mum wasn't a strong swimmer, or the brother was the one suffocating at the bottom of the overpacked boat.

'Stampeding' across European countries to get here? You make them sound like an aggressive hoarde. These people are mostly grateful for the paltry help they recieve. A blanket or an apple is gratefully recieved.

'Safe' for months or even years. Juneau, you have no clue.

Nevermind 'I wonder what future generations will make of Sweden's open door policy.' I wonder what future generations will think of us, the Europeans that let so many people die. I wonder at thecoldness that hs entered so many people. I hope one day some of you find some compassion. My partner or I will be heading to Lesbos or the Balkans soon to help. We can all help in our own. Do it if you can and remember, they are humans like you and I, motivated by the same things as you or I.

Bully for you luna. They actually CAN apply for asylum in Hungary - as a bunch of them have (see this week's Economist for a handy little map with stats if you want the figures). And where the hell is Moria?

All asylum cases by refugees at the border in Hungary are rejected so no, they can't apply for asylum. Look up Moria if you want to know where it is. It's your job to redress the problem of your own ignorance.

Look up Moria if you want to know where it is. It's your job to redress the problem of your own ignorance.

To save anyone else the bother. After three pages of google-searching, I couldn't come up with anything better than:
"Moria (also known as Khazad-dûm or Dwarrowdelf) was the Dwarven underground city beneath the Misty Mountains." So it's in Middle Earth.

HTH

Yup - Moria, Mines of. That's the only one I know as well.

Moria is the refugee camp in Lesbos in Greece

Luna do you by any chance work for a charity involved in the refugee crisis? I can't fathom your lack of understanding of people who have jobs and family commitments, and your labelling of people as ignorant because they don't do exactly the same things as you and are European (presumed) is not particularly helpful.

Good luck when you do decide to go to either Greece or one of the Balkan states. It sounds as though your plans are well advanced, that you have narrowed them down to those two possible destinations.

I take it you are also a seasoned visitor to immigrant ghettos in European towns and cities within easier reach. Maybe you could share some helpful observations of them with us.

There is a lack of unity because Germany and Sweden are in breach of EU law and are promoting self interest to some extent because they have falling populations. Unless you are Hungarian I wouldn't tend to criticise what another country does as xenophobic, particularly as they have been fined severely by the EU Commission for previous breaches of EU law. Hungary is a lot less well placed to accommodate large numbers of refugees than Germany.

Moria is a refugee camp in Lesbos, Greece, although Luna confusingly writes as if they are two completely separate places. Here's a link if you want to contribute direct:

howtohelprefugees.org.uk/2015/10/24/support-refugees-in-moria-camp-lesvos/

Article on Moria

You do however live there

No, I do not. Nor have I ever, before you try to suggest that. You seem desperate enough to do so as your next move.

and follow the tiresome "Sweden is wonderful" line.

Something based on something I've said would be great. Otherwise I don't know whose arguments you think you're rebutting (or rather, attempting to mock), but they aren't mine.

And strangely cannot envisage Scotland or even Yorkshire as being part of the UK.

On what basis are you saying this gem? Can you actually try to connect your claims to things I have said? You seem to be struggling an awful lot with following the discussion so I suspect it would be helpful. Unless it is your intention to go round and round in circles with you accusing me of saying things I haven't said.

Wow, that's rude. "Where do you come from?" is one of those typically racist statements, designed to make the subject remember their place, and I have to say its not one I get in Britain.

I asked where you came from purely in order to mock your attempt at offending me via the nationality you imagined me to have. I wasn't about to assume you were British and criticise your reading comprehension by jumping straight to a criticism of the British school system, that would make me as bad, and as ignorant, as you (and I wouldn't use it as a substitute for argument, unlike you, it seems). This attempt at twisting the question, which had an obvious purpose in the context of your attempt to insult me via an attack of the school system in what you assumed to be my home country, to misrepresent it as racially motivated, as opposed to a means to establish which school system I should be criticising in return for your attempt at an insult, is pathetic.

I'm mixed race, British nationality and I'm not prepared to say exactly what my ethnic background is on here. However, it is one which gives me direct knowledge of the Saami situation in Sweden. So I'm surprised to hear I'm "off the mark".

I didn't ask your ethnic background. I'm not interested in your ethnic background, as should have been obvious. This is either a deliberate attempt to misrepresent me (again, a substitute for real argument) or your ability to follow the discussion is even worse than I initially thought. I suspect you're continuing to attempt to play dirty, though.

Your post was off the mark because it ignored what the specific discussion was about, i.e. a specific town discussed in a linked article. You are still ignoring that, despite it being pointed out specifically for you, now (see both above and below quotes of your post).

I've also lived in a number of different countries, and FWIW found The Netherlands to be just about the most racist. That's not to say the Dutch are racist people, and purely my impression. Britain does seem to me seems much less racist than many countries though. I've lived in Germany too, and like The Netherlands, away from party politics and tv speeches, there is a fair bit of resentment of so many immigrants living in towns and villages.

I'm really not sure how this is relevant to anything I have said. You seem to be engaging in a little monologue on the topic of racism for reasons best known to yourself.

Talk about "puerile ad homs" or "demonstrated flaws" all you like, but please get an atlas with lines of latitude on it. Heavily populated parts of Scotland are on the same latitude as the southern 1/3 Sweden, and they certainly are not particularly inviting of temperature in the winter.

We were talking about Lima, and only Lima. You need your atlas with lines of latitude yourself if you can't grasp that that is not on the same latitude as anything but the Shetland Islands, as already mentioned specifically so you would be able to understand this in the face of your apparent struggling.

Serious question: are you being deliberately obtuse and playing dirty tactics such as trying to accuse me of asking a racially motivated question and repeatedly misrepesenting my posts, or are you genuinely this unable to formulate responses on the basis of what you actually read?

Anyway, I'm done engaging with you. It's utterly pointless, whether it's option 1 or option 2.

In response to the question of my lack of understanding of people with jobs.

'We can all help in our own. Do it if you can and remember, they are humans like you and I, motivated by the same things as you or I.' I wrote this in a rush. It should read, 'We can all help in our own way. Do it if you can.' That certainly doesn't mean everyone can abandon their jobs etc. That is completely unrealistic. However, people can participate in helping 'in their own way.' What I mean by that is by donating, perhaps sending clothes or supporting volunteers or organisations that help.

Thanks for the luck. I agree anyone going needs it as it is likely to be hard work and traumatic.

I don't work for a charity. I don't think the large organisations have been effective on the whole.

It was clear I was talking about Moria in relation to the refugees there. A quick google of 'refugees Moria' brings up plenty of info.

I lived for many years in areas that would be described as 'ghettos.' These were predominantly Muslim areas. These areas are not without their problems, as are many areas where people live in poverty. Some problems may stem from culture, some definitely stem from racism and poverty. Anway, the argument that 'we better keep all of them out in case some of them are bad' seems abhorrent to me when so many people are dying.

I disagree that the Germany and the EU are breaking EU law. They are upholding it. Countries like Hungary, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic are breaking the Geneva Convention by not offering safety and by not treating refugees in a humane way. Hungary and the Czech Republic seem to have a rather imaginitive interpretation of the Dublin Rule. It is clear to me that European law needs to be altered to deal with what is happening. It is also clear that any law that allows large numbers to suffer and die would not be worth upholding.

The quotas for Hungary and a number of countries reluctant to accept them are not large. They are not disproportionate for the economies of those countries. The hostility toward refugees is largely 'show' in Hungary to satisfy the right wing and maintain Orban's popularity whilst appeasing those that may vote for the far right Jobbik party. These countries are exploiting xenophobic views to wield power. I would 'tend'to critiscise Hungary's government that controls the media and flames fear of immigrants, that stamps out political opposition, that encourages xenophobia. I don't think Orban speaks for the majority of Hungarians, I think he appeals to the far right racist ones. I find him monstrous, but it may be that he is preferable to Jobbik. Reading about them gives me a very bad feeling in the pit of my stomach.

I'm going back a few pages here but of course it is 'meaningless luck' where you're born.

And being born somewhere that has effective government and infrastructure and isn't a war zone is luck.

No-one has any control over where they are born or where their heritage is. And it is lucky if you're born somewhere which has better life opportunities (everything from healthcare, Police, economy, human rights and I could go on and on) than other countries.

And of course, if you're born somewhere that is doing better than a whole load of other places, your heritage and life is here.

It doesn't mean we say 'tough shit' to people who were born in a war zone, in a country with FGM, no human rights etc etc.

Because we were just luckier to be born somewhere 'better' than they were born.

And I'm not saying 'come on in everyone', I'm saying that when we can, we should allow people to have a better life because we're in a position to offer it.

I think that's what the poster who said that where you're born is luck. It is. And being fortunate to live somewhere safe and where the government can help, we should.

I think that poster was reacting to the type of people who say 'why is there a Polish food aisle in MY country?' If people want to come to MY country they should do x, y or z' 'why did I go down the road in MY country and not hear one word of English spoken'.

It's that weird sense of personal ownership or control that people have. Yes it's your country as in where you were born, where your family is from (possibly), your culture etc.

Be glad you were lucky enough to be born here.

Smilla No, I do not. Nor have I ever, before you try to suggest that. You seem desperate enough to do so as your next move.

Wow. You have to be one of the most unfortunately rude people I've ever come across.

I had confused your username, with its link to a Scandinavian/Greenlandic literary character, with a poster who had described her experiences of living in Sweden, and in particular, of buying an apartment. My mistake.

We were talking about Lima, and only Lima.

I had no idea that this discussion was limited to Lima, a tiny village near the tiny town of Mora in Sweden. I hardly think refugees will care - the point I was making, and which you find so offensive for some reason, is that much of northern Britain is actually quite far north, upland and is not dissimilar to places in Sweden in many ways. I don't really think its a particularly temperate location for tents either. A lot of the spare land in the UK is upland. Theres very good reasons why people don't live on the uplands of Dartmoor, or the Yorshire Fells, or the Cumbrian Mountains.

As for the rest of your rant, you flatter yourself if you think that I actually want to discuss something with someone that can spew out that level of vitriol. Goodness knows what you would actually do to someone in real life who irritated you. Completely over the top reaction.

laughingatweather

You're completely right that where we are born is a matter of luck. We are lucky to have been born in a wealthy, advanced liberal democracy. The difference between me and the no-borders types is that I think we have an absolute right to preserve our societies as they are, rather than be expected to sacrifice them on the basis of emotional appeals that win plaudits on MN and at dinner parties but diminish our liberty, prosperity, and social cohesion. Nor do I think any government has the right to permit unlimited immigration without a direct mandate for that policy from their electorates. Essentially, I want Britain to exist in a recognisable form a hundred years from now. On current trends, Japan almost certainly will, but Sweden will not.

SheStoops- I'm not a 'no - borders at all' type but the fact is that progress and immigration is a natural part of the development of a society.

We have no 'absolute right to preserve our societies absolutely they are' because it is not OUR society. It's a society we are part of and we value. But we don't own it, it's not a possession and the fact is, a society that is not open to other people isn't a society. It's a closed group. A society cannot be closed. A society develops and evolves through other people joining, bringing other experiences, viewpoints and backgrounds.

Britain will be in a recognisable form in 100 years. The same as it's been recognisable through centuries of expansion and immigration. It's always happened and always will. That's how the world works. It's not a bad thing, it's often beneficial.

No-one is asking you or anyone else to 'sacrifice' the preservation of your society. It won't be sacrificed.

What's happening is some people wanting to move here. And some people may be fleeing war or torture or persecution. Some may live in a country where they're not at immediate physical harm but they have no or limited access to decent and affordable health care, jobs, education or just basic human rights so their life and the life of their current or future children will be better.

Every single case should be judged on its merits. I have personal experience of UK asylum and illegal immigration laws and procedures and I have personally written letters in my job (MH) to court hearings to state that this person does not have a MH reason to be granted asylum or leave to remain in the UK on MH grounds.

But if we can help and it's right to do so, then we should. You don't have to sacrifice anything and Britain will change over time as it has done for centuries. It'll still be recognisable Britain. Nothing will be lost.

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-18/refugee-crisis-hits-sweden-s-rich-poor-divide-fueling-pay-debate

Sweden is considering reducing worker protections in order to integrate immigrants more quickly. Perfect example of the progressive's dilemma in action--that in the long run, countries can either have generous immigration policies or a generous welfare state/worker protections, but it is very difficult to combine the two.

I predicted this upthread when I said that the only way Sweden will be able to integrate its immigrants will be by becoming less like the Sweden we know. They are also talking about reducing the minimum wage in Germany.

Does the potential harm of increasing inequality in Sweden outweigh the benefits to the refugees of faster integration? I don't know. But it's a difficult problem with no easy answers.