The entire point of being a refugee is that you can't go home. It sounds like a trick question. "Haha, if you could go home then you're not really a refugee, so we're deporting you instead."
Perhaps that explains why almost nobody applied and only one got it last year. Many would love to go home. They just can't.
Some large percentage of those “refugees” go to their original countries for vacations[1]… so apparently it’s not so much being a refugee (as in being persecuted), but rather economic and welfare opportunists who refuse to integrate. Now, true, western economic migrants don’t always integrate, however, they typically have set stays and plan going back to their home counties and aren’t a drain to the host countries.
There seems to be so much distinction between immigrants and citizens. Citizens can be 'smoochers' too, but you don't see anyone exiling them from their home countries.
As for integration, I don't see why people who are judgemental. There are tons of immigrants to the US who don't speak good English. Are you going to tell them to get the hell out of this country? What if they're parents of children who learn to speak English better than their native languages? That happened a lot.
People should be able to improves their lives. Sometime that means moving to a different country. Sometime that means struggling hard where they are.
Of course there are native moochers and if we could offload them to another country that wants to take responsibility for them great. Since there aren’t any that I know of, outside of western countries wanting to take responsibility for non-western countries’ social and economic shortcomings, it’s not viable. Do you see rich middle eastern countries taking in any refugees from anywhere in any significant numbers? Many of those countries are in better economic standing than European counties.
In the meantime, we can take care of our own and they can take care of their own, if that’s their culture; which may not be the case and it’s up to them to shape their own society how they want. We had to shed blood to get where we are with wars of independence as well as a civil war. Time for them to man up and shape their own societies to their own customs and liking.
We don’t need to be the Nannie’s of the world. We need to take care of our own problems, of which there are many, including homelessness, drug addiction, depreciated wages often exacerbated by cheap labor. No, I’m with the Bernie of the early nineties.
A country shouldn’t accept people who worsen their country. Where that line is, I dunno, but importing the dregs of society from all over the world is not a winning strategy.
> As for integration, I don't see why people who are judgmental.
People are judgmental because mass migration from high-crime countries transformed Sweden from one of the world's safest countries to having the highest rate of gun violence in the EU, and Sweden has been increasingly transparent about the situation.
Because of the political climate in most Western countries today, we can't have a rational discussion about negative effects of mass migration, or consider scenarios where the negative impact might outweigh the benefits. It's just a conversation we can't have without shallow knee-jerk accusations of racism and fascism and Nazism and so on.
> shallow knee-jerk accusations of racism and fascism and Nazism and so on
It's important to understand that, particularly in Sweden, it was actually neo-nazis who opposed immigration for a long time.
This probably isn't the case anymore, but it's hard to convince people who remember and were there that it isn't the case. It doesn't help when people don't bring numbers to the table (or the numbers that matter). Some incredibly stupid people feel compelled to bring race or ethnicity to the conversation and that can be very tainting. There doesn't need to be a lot of them, just a few can discredit.
I heard that some years ago a Swedish professorin who published some crime statistics got in trouble because the statistics showed that some subgroups are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime; however, some did not like this getting published because it show how bad some subgroups are within society --probably the same group would not have the same reaction if the statistics showed some other subgroup was being disproportionately reactionary.
The problem with such data is that it can be used to draw incorrect and incredibly racist conclusions.
The obvious conclusion is that those subgroups are particularly disenfranchised. Meaning they're more likely to be impoverished, earn less on average on a household basis, are more likely to be discriminated against, are more likely to live in high-crime areas, etc.
But if you don't include those statistics alongside the one you have, then you give the impression that some subgroup is just "magically" pre-disposed to crime. uh oh. Now you'll have people saying darker skin colored people are more animalistic in nature, their blood tainted. And now we've gone to Eugenics and before you know it, we're in Nazi land.
So you do have to be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions. And, if those conclusions COULD be drawn, you have to nip it in the bud. The absolute last thing neo-nazis need is fuel.
I'm not sure that this approach works. I think on some level trying to "hide" the data or whatever you want to call this process kind of validates a lot of neo-nazi beliefs
It's complicated and hard to tell. One should, at the very least, include other relevant data. That could very well be better than hiding. The problem is statistics can, and are, cherry picked constantly.
I think there's an opportunity here for some neo-nazi belief systems to get credibility from large organizations.
I think the bigger problem was how revelatory it was. You certainly could compare people at similar socioeconomic levels one native and the other immigrant and then make some conclusions. It's not a surprise that if you bring in people who are unproductive in your society that they will be problematic. It seems the establishment does not want to admit this is so and want to hide it to minimize the pushback. It's not that different from instead of low skilled immigrants you decide to release native criminal offenders early and then try to hide any recidivism figures. It's dishonest and does not allow the population to make a democratic decision for themselves.
Is there a difference between a refugee and a migrant? I'd suppose a migrant can take the money and go home and afford themself a better life, whereas for a refugee it will take much more than economic resources.
The problem in Europe is that many migrants try the refugee process though they're not in danger. They often throw away their documents so it's really hard to figure out where they're really from and it costs the states lots of money. At the same time they're taking places of real refugees.
By definition there’s a difference, but realistically most refugees are lying migrants, claiming refugee status when in fact they are not in real danger and just want the economic benefits.
The economic benefits of… having a couple of months of mandatory unemployment while the asylum application is processed? Followed by the same stuff you'd have to do if you hadn't done that?
The asylum process doesn't give you a significantly better foundation than if you had applied for work before moving, it's just a delay that may also get you rejected. It's like getting free meals from your hospital by pretending to be ill.
Och det förutsatt att du pratar svenska eller har ett yrke där du klarar dig utan. AI-översättning (så här) kommer inte att klippa det.
(Sechs Jahre nach meiner Ankunft in Berlin, und meine Deutschkenntnisse bleibt nur 'okay')
As little as possible might be more than they could get elsewhere. Plus if you don't have a tax ID you don't pay taxes.
Additionally they could be working in the gig economy. I swear I have never had a delivery from uber eats where the person doing the delivery was the same as the photo on the app. What's happening there is they are renting the account for the day.
Don't get me wrong these people are being exploited, but they could be making more than if they were home.
Even if someone is trying to game the system from a better position such as fleeing Ukraine, they're going to face competition from people *that poor*, who are otherwise in the same position.
Crucially, this is bellow the 24200 SEK (2.133,15 Euro) tax-free allowance where they wouldn't pay tax anyway.
> Don't get me wrong these people are being exploited, but they could be making more than if they were home.
Are you sure those people aren't trafficked, rather than in your country voluntarily? Such exploitation is also a problem, but I'd say a different one.
> Are you sure those people aren't trafficked, rather than in your country voluntarily? Such exploitation is also a problem, but I'd say a different one.
Weird switch: First you're saying "these poor bastards probably don't get paid much at all", and now it's "This might be so lucrative that it's profitable to traffic people to do it" -- how does that add up? Would you make a business of importing, say, Syrians or Pakistanis to Sweden, where they'll get social security in their own name, and can therefore easily get away from you and live on that?
Sure, many of them "have been traficked" in the sense that they've paid (what was at least to them) a fortune to be smuggled into Western European countries or at least up to their borders (for varying definitions thereof; like, say, the British border being in a camp on the French coast). But that's "traficking" in the sense of "price-gouging on travel tickets", not "being sold into slavery". People who pay a lot to get somewhere are pretty much by definition there voluntarily, aren't they?
One group of people that is apparently trafficked in the other sense are Roma (and probably Sinti, for all I know) from Eastern Europe, above all Romania, who are kept in ramshackle camps on the outskirts of cities and towns and set to begging more centrally all day long. But AFAIK they don't have any residential permits at all, neither permanent nor temporary. They're in the country not as refugees or any other kind of migrants, but under the Schengen open-travel rules, basically as tourists. If they get in trouble with the authorities they're often just rotated out for a while and then shipped in again. But not being official residents of the country they're not (AIUI) eligible for this migrant-go-home bonus, so irrelevant to this discussion.
> This might be so lucrative that it's profitable to traffic people to do it
Economics shift hugely if someone has to live 12 to a room and eat whatever they're given without caring about food poisoning etc.
> where they'll get social security in their own name, and can therefore easily get away from you and live on that?
That's presuming they are on the system. An actual asylum seeker is, a trafficked person probably isn't. And I may be willing and able to walk away, but I've not been moved to a mystery city without even knowing the language and where the only peers are in the same position as me.
That's where I think the problem is, not people who paid a lot for a ticket, which I don't count as "trafficked" but rather "scammed".
The largest of those numbers is €6.28/day, which may seem like a lot if you're coming from Syria, unless you look at the food prices. And if you're in a place with free food, the max is €2.12/day.
Low enough that Ukraine and Kenya look like economic powerhouses.
If you're from south (or east) of the Mediterranean and want easy money, there are many many easier and better ways to do so than travelling across half the continental EU to end up in one of the colder bits.
Refugees typically apply for asylum (you can look up what this means under international treaties). The base claim is that their lives are at risk in their home country, for example due to religious persecution.
The article used both terms, more or less interchangeably. I'm not sure why they weren't more precise about it, but it implies that they really have refugees in mind rather than, say, expat Portuguese.
It's a legal offer, they can't just turn their back on it. Though it could have consequences if the person wants to come back and claim refugee status again I guess.
But of course a lot of refugees are not really in danger but just try the refugee way for better economic opportunities. This amount is high enough to perhaps appeal to those. I think the main reason it wasn't popular is that the amount was negligible.
I think overall it's a good thing, it's voluntary and they free up spaces for refugees that are really in danger.
Well, assuming progress in the place they fled from, there are bound to be periods in between "You'll die if you go back now" and "It's perfectly fine to go back now". For instance, when the invaders have gone, but there are too few homes due to the destruction and winter is approaching.
Wars do end though. It’s not like there are no exceptions to this. Lots of refugees want better economic circumstances too. It’s not always a threat of violence back home.
Unless your side won, the war ending doesn't have any affect on whether it's safe for you to return or not.
In the case of Syria, the Caesar sanctions will probably cripple Syria's reconstruction. So there probably won't be much to return to for the foreseeable future.
My wife was a refugee in a war-torn country. The war ended and her family lives there peacefully for decades. It is possible. Not saying it always happens, I'm saying this is a reasonable thing for some people to do.
Was there really 'sides' in terms of people? Most people in Syria just fled the onslaught but were not part of either side (the Assad regime and the various rebel groups). And obviously we're not going to grant refugee status to some of these groups like Isis rebels.
But yeah it's in Europe's interests to quickly rebuild there
Has Sweden been destroying Africa? Yes, I know about Lundin Oil, what else? And the rest of Europe? Sources please? :)
Climate refugees are not Europe's responsibility. Check USA, China and India.
Why should Europe destroy USA relations over Iran. Why is Iran our responsibility?
The current war in the Middle East was started by Hamas on October 7th. Israel have my full personal support, but Europe does not "supply a ton of weapons to Israel". We are currently sending all stock to Ukraine. But again, the war got started by Hamas. Hezbollah is an Iranian puppet. Hezbollah shelled and rocket attacked Israel, is Israel not allowed to respond? Should Israel just take the attacks? Why is Israel responsible for the internal politics of Hamas/Palestine/Hezbollah?
I am MORE pro USA now than before. Has USA done bad stuff like war crimes? Sure. But let us be frank, the Cold War never went away. Now you are either with the USA and Europe side OR you are with Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea side. It is clear what side you are on.
The history that the land used to be Ottoman Empire, then under British rule due to WW1, Britain allowed Israel to be made, then Arab nations attacked Israel 3 times in war, Israel won 3 times, took some land, now Arabs are mad because they started wars that Israel won.
That about covers it.
>Europe should be on Europe's side. Not be the lapdog of the United States. But that's unfathomable for many people.
Putin talking point. Finland and Sweden are now in NATO. It's over for you, Ivan.
Britain allowed Israel to be made, then Arab nations attacked Israel 3 times in war, Israel won 3 times, took some land, now Arabs are mad because they started wars that Israel won.
And these are standard hasbara talking points. You're forgetting that they don't work on people who actually knows the basic history of the region.
I agree in part. We supported many proxy wars of the US and some that were based on total lies (2nd Iraq war, Afghanistan where we really had no business and accomplished nothing).
Iran, I don't know.. I feel like their beef is with the US and we're just not really a party in this whole mess. We don't owe them anything and they don't consider us friends either. As for Gaza you probably know that this is a hugely contentious issue even in Europe. A lot of us are really strongly against these weapon supplies. In the Netherlands citizens even managed to get a court order for the state to supply F-35 parts to Israel: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/dutch-cou...
Some countries like Germany are too pro-Israel due to some shame from actions in the past but I agree they should open their eyes to what is happening now. I don't condone what Hamas has done and is doing but both sides are bad. We shouldn't support either but bring them to the negotiating table.
> You don't get to complain about those people wanting to pursue happiness just like literally any of your country people.
This is a different issue from refugeeism IMO, although some economic migrants are claiming refugee status (and thus taking resources from those who are real refugees). It takes a long time to reject them because they often destroy their documentation. These are much more of a problem than real refugees. And they are giving the real refugees a bad name.
I'm very left-wing but I do think we need to limit immigration from outside EU. We can't open the gates without limit to anyone who wants to move here because it would destroy us too. The political polarisation is already so strong (a bit like the US in fact). The Netherlands has grown by several million inhabitants by immigration alone and in some cities migrants with a non-western heritage are now in the majority.
This is a problem because of pretty seriously different social norms (e.g. stances on LGBTIQ+ topics, freedom of opinion etc). And this polarisation is fueling the extreme-right parties which we already see happening in Europe. In the Netherlands the extreme-right party became the biggest one in parliament in the last election. I don't agree with their points but this polarisation is tearing the country apart, and we see the same in the rest of Europe (France only recently dodged a bullet there).
The issues that are being blamed on the refugees and migrants are squarely to blame on our previous neoliberal governments who completely neglected affordable housing programs and environmental issues (nitrogen, natural gas dependencies) so we're now in a severely limited situation. But knowing that makes no real difference to the situation.
And I don't think the middle east was really destroyed by us. In fact they have a lot more money than us. Africa yes but that's been much longer ago. And even countries that are free are shooting themselves in the foot with corruption. This is not our fault.
I think you're mistaken about the Africa situation. France participated in the NATO Libya operations to preserve the dominance of the CFA Franc in Africa.
80% of “refugees” vacation back in their source country. If they were truly afraid for their lives they wouldn’t be doing that. They just want a better life. Can’t blame them. Who wouldn’t?
I've known people to go back on vacations who probably shouldn't, but an outsider, weakly under the protection of a foreign country, who doesn't seem like they are going to get back into their old life is usually not a political priority.
Perhaps that explains why almost nobody applied and only one got it last year. Many would love to go home. They just can't.