Cultural enrichment

[DominiqueX]

Like Hawker said, only a small portion of the refugees in Europe are from syria. And there are many other countries that are safe and less far away than Europe, so why not going there in the first place? If safety from terrorists is the only thing you want, then you don't have to come all the way from the middle east to our countries, that are so far away. But that's not the only thing that bothers me. But I'll explain it regarding your quote here:

3) If they come to Europe, it's mostly because 4 yrs have passed since the start of the Syrian civil war. Yes, at first they escaped to countries around. Where they were placed in tents, in the middle of a desert. Why can't they just stay there. Gee I wonder. Spend 4 yrs with them there, and come back to tell us.

What do these people expect? xD
Look, there are so many refugees that are so incedibly ungrateful that I want to puke because of it. Especially in the region where I live. There is nothing wrong with living in tents, again, what did/do they expect? Should we give everyone a house with three floors, a car and a beautiful garden? These people flood our countries in big masses and expect that we treat them as gods or something.

They complain about not being able to drive with the bus the whole day for 2,60€.
They complain about hospital-food and reject it, without even opening it.
They complain that they don't get a car for fuqing free.
And much more.

Germany, like Europe in general, is not heaven or the godly paradise, where everyone can get anything he/she wants, for free. They have to be grateful for that what they already get. For example, our home- and jobless people are no longer able to visit the food bank (or food assistance center, don't know which name is correct in english) more than once in a month, because of the refugees. Also, in Germany, refugees get up to 3 times more money for food in a month, than our own home- and jobless people. Great, isn't it? They still reject it and still complain, which is so disgraceful.

If what they get is not enough, anyone of those who complain should go back to the country where they come from, whichever it is.. and look for satisfying food, effortless money and much more over there. If they were really fleeing from war, then they would be grateful for every single day they can live here and every single thing, for every penny they get.

 

[Deadlift]

We Italians are much worse

 

[Scooby Doo]

lol let me rephrase: all I meant was that how do you explain the not being able to digest it part? I'd like to hear the fysiological explanation for that argument.

Actually cheap food, the one they serve in hospitals and in military excercises, does in fact contain just the needed nutrients. That's the whole point of it. It isn't good, but it keeps you going. So you still get all the nutrients needed for living. I don't see that being a problem for anyone?

I've heard that as they are always served water and bread, they get diarrhea in camps of my country. Just one example.

As I said, the doctor, when I was in hospital, told a fellow when he complained, that the food is just enough for him not to die of starvation so he shouldn't complain. So I never denied it's not enough to survive: but that's all it is enough for- in the long run you'll get weakened. But again, it depends on which hospital we are talking about- as there is no unified menu, at least in my country.

Btw look what I've found:

"The catering company that provides food to the refugee camp complies with a set of guidelines imposed by the German government. Meals are different every day, but variety only lasts a little over a week. After that, the soupy meals begin to repeat themselves."

^ Basically what I said about my experience. First I started refusing the soup in the hospital, because I simply couldn't swallow the same messy liquid -I can't even tell what soup it was- after a few weeks.

“We didn’t come here to eat,” says Basel. “The food is bad, we complain; but after three minutes we forget about it.” Despite the tedium of cafeteria-style meals—ironically served in the old high school’s cafeteria—there is enough food to fill their anxious stomachs. “You get bored of bread, butter, and jam,” he continues, “but there is so much waste.” While breakfast falls short of being a satisfying feast, it is wholesome: modest buns, milk, water, jam, fruit, and one awkward spicy green pepper. For dinner, the men eat the wieners, mortadella, or prepacked burger patties given in the morning. Soon, abandoned yogurt cups and plastic cutlery begin to pile up on the planks used as tables, among tobacco and rolling paper. "

^ Apparently, despite they complain about the food getting boring and not really satisfying, they still eat it. So it's not true that all of them refuse the food. The majority still eats it.

"The first night of my stay in the camp, Basel asked a friend with a smuggled electric stove and pan to cook for us an unprecedented delicacy: scrambled eggs. The occasion merited the use of olive oil, one of his most precious possessions. The eggs were served hot on the large, unauthorized pan."

^ However, it's quite funny that they have to smuggle in an 'unauthorized pan' if they want to cook something on their own: somethign as simple as scrambled eggs. What a luxury! And this is not a unique case. I've heard that many a times migrants are denied bringing food they bought into the camp.

You must be registered for see links

Finland returns home 20 000 out of 32000 asylum seekers. Most of them are Iraqis. How ignorant are you if you don't see something wrong with that picture?

1/5 of the refugees coming to Europe are Syrian so why are you focusing on them? We're talking about Iraqis here and economic migrants. Many parts of Iraq have been declared as safe. Also do you realise these people pass many peaceful countries on their way to Finland? Again do you see what's wrong with that picture?

1) First of all, that doesn't negate anything I said above.

2) "Some of the asylum seekers sold their last jewellery items to afford a ticket to return home. Alla Hadrous, who owns a gold shop and runs a travel agency, told Euronews that a lot of people had already left: "I don't have the exact figure, but it's a lot. Some have had to sell their valuables ... in order to buy a ticket back to Erbil or Baghdad."

In Finland, the situation is similar. Finnish officials said last week that almost 70% of Iraqi asylum seekers whose applications were processed last year abandoned their claim and returned home.

According to Finnish immigration services, from about 3,700 Iraqi asylum seeker claims the country processed, almost 2,600 were expired, which means the applicants had disappeared or cancelled their requests."

You must be registered for see links

Apparently, Finland didn't just return these people home, they went home or disappeared on their own.

3) According to EU stats, the recognition rate for asylum seekers in the EU28 is about 50%. There are significant differences though per country. Finland has a higher recognition rate than the average, while in my country it's only 20%. Yet much more migrants have passed through here, than in your country. Which doesn't mean that the people who cross through here, are less eligible for protection, but that my country's administration is a failure.

This is the chart for the 3rd quarter of 2015:

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

In case of Syrian and Iraqi asylum seekers, the recognition rate is about 90% and higher. It's people from Kosovo, Albania and other such places, that drag the average down.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

4) In the above stats, out of 135k migrants/asylum seekers, 33k were syrians- that's 1/4, not 1/5.

That's for the 3rd quarter, though. For the whole year of 2015, it looks like this:

"According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the top three nationalities of the over one million Mediterranean Sea arrivals in 2015 were Syrian (49%), Afghan (21%) and Iraqi (8%). Of the refugees and migrants arriving in Europe by sea in 2015, 58% were men, 17% women and 25% children."

You must be registered for see links

The EU and the UNHCR are a bit more reliable sources than dailymail.

5) 'Peaceful' country doesn't mean much. If the country cannot provide a fair process to decide whether someone is eligible for protection/refugee status, and in case of granting that status/protection, to provide the things such a status entails, then that country has failed to fulfill the laws regarding refugees.

6) Obviously if someone is just an 'economic migrant', then that person will not get the refugee status, so I don't see what you are trying to prove here.

 

[Hawker]

1) First of all, that doesn't negate anything I said above.

1) Yes it does. KonanX said that it's good that they leave (as it's obvious they are not in the need of asylum). You implied that she is ignorant and went on to talk about how many syrians there are in the Middle-Eastern countries as refugees. Dafuq has that got to do with Iraqis in Finland? To which I replied that most of the asylum seekers here are Iraqis, not Syrian. And the northern and southern parts of Iraq have been declared as safe for Iraqis by our goverment. So if Isis is present at the middle parts of Iraq why aren't they going in the other parts?

You must be registered for see links

Actually your point that most of the Syrians are in the surrounding countires (Lebanon, Jordan etc.) goes against your own point because it shows that those who are in need of an asylum accept the nearest safe haven. Most of those who risk their lives to go further have done so for economic reasons.

2) "Some of the asylum seekers sold their last jewellery items to afford a ticket to return home. Alla Hadrous, who owns a gold shop and runs a travel agency, told Euronews that a lot of people had already left: "I don't have the exact figure, but it's a lot. Some have had to sell their valuables ... in order to buy a ticket back to Erbil or Baghdad."

Spoiler

In Finland, the situation is similar. Finnish officials said last week that almost 70% of Iraqi asylum seekers whose applications were processed last year abandoned their claim and returned home.

According to Finnish immigration services, from about 3,700 Iraqi asylum seeker claims the country processed, almost 2,600 were expired, which means the applicants had disappeared or cancelled their requests."

You must be registered for see links

Apparently, Finland didn't just return these people home, they went home or disappeared on their own

.

2) So? Dafuq has this has to do with anything? Finland is actually paying these flights. Most of those who are returned have actually chosen to not pay for their flight. Because they have that option. It costs us about 1000 euros per person and millions in total. So again bad for us, good for them.

In Finland, the situation is similar. Finnish officials said last week that almost 70% of Iraqi asylum seekers whose applications were processed last year abandoned their claim and returned home.

According to Finnish immigration services, from about 3,700 Iraqi asylum seeker claims the country processed, almost 2,600 were expired, which means the applicants had disappeared or cancelled their requests."

So this doesn't ring any bells? Yes it's true that Finland didn't reject every one of the 20 000 applications because like you pointed out many left on their own. Lol. So I guess they weren't in dire need of a safe haven after all? If they truly would have needed one, they would have stayed and not worried about long processing times.

You must be registered for see images

"Refugees" boarding a return flight in Finland to Iraq

3) According to EU stats, the recognition rate for asylum seekers in the EU28 is about 50%. There are significant differences though per country. Finland has a higher recognition rate than the average, while in my country it's only 20%. Yet much more migrants have passed through here, than in your country. Which doesn't mean that the people who cross through here, are less eligible for protection, but that my country's administration is a failure.

This is the chart for the 3rd quarter of 2015:

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

In case of Syrian and Iraqi asylum seekers, the recognition rate is about 90% and higher. It's people from Kosovo, Albania and other such places, that drag the average down.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

3) You fail to account two simple things: most of the refugees are young male and and most of them lie about their age to avoid deportation. In Denmark a study found that 3/4 of the refugees claiming to be adults were actually minors.

You must be registered for see links

In Norway the numbers are 9/10 then who are over 18 and claim to be under 18:

You must be registered for see links

Also they have fake id's and they lie about their origins and claim to be Syrian. In Germany the number for those faking their identity is 30%. This again goes to prove that if you have to result in lying about your identity you are conceding to the fact that your true origins might not get you an asylum:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

So do those numbers of yours really matter when the reality is that most of the refugees lie about their origins, have fake id's, don't have id's at all etc. The goverments are powerless in this situation and thus the high recognition rates as they have no other choice other than to change international laws that are binding them. That's why this is a huge problem! And this is what happens:

"German government admits it cannot account for 600,000 of its 1.1million asylum seekers – and many could be using multiple identities to travel across Europe"

You must be registered for see links

So it does infact mean that they are less eligible for protection. Add to that the fact that they do not stay in the first safe country they arrive to. But we both agree atleast that the goverments have failed in this.

4) In the above stats, out of 135k migrants/asylum seekers, 33k were syrians- that's 1/4, not 1/5.

That's for the 3rd quarter, though. For the whole year of 2015, it looks like this:

"According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the top three nationalities of the over one million Mediterranean Sea arrivals in 2015 were Syrian (49%), Afghan (21%) and Iraqi (8%). Of the refugees and migrants arriving in Europe by sea in 2015, 58% were men, 17% women and 25% children."

You must be registered for see links

The EU and the UNHCR are a bit more reliable sources than dailymail.

4) You refuting my information because of the source it was published in is a fallacy. You should focus on the information, not the source. The Daily Mail's information is actually based on EU's official statistics EUROSTAT:

You must be registered for see links

Fact check? Ok:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see images

That UNHCR information seems a bit odd and is contradictory towards that of the EU's. But if in fact it is so that the amount of Syrian refugees has gone to 40% of all refugees during the last two quarters of 2015, then my above arguments prove that this is because other than Syrians pretending to be Syrians.

5) 'Peaceful' country doesn't mean much. If the country cannot provide a fair process to decide whether someone is eligible for protection/refugee status, and in case of granting that status/protection, to provide the things such a status entails, then that country has failed to fulfill the laws regarding refugees.

5) So tell me again which country has failed to provide a fair process or failed to fulfill the laws regarding refugees as I already proved you that most/many of the migrants coming to the Nordic countries and to Germany are infact illegal migrants or lying about their age?

6) Obviously if someone is just an 'economic migrant', then that person will not get the refugee status, so I don't see what you are trying to prove here.

6) But they do because they lie. That's my point. This has gone out of control​

 

[Scooby Doo]

Like Hawker said, only a small portion of the refugees in Europe are from syria.

And as I showed, that's not exactly true. According to UNHCR, in 2015, about half of the migrants that arrived from the Mediterranean, were Syrians.

Also, you asked why don't they go to Iraq? Like, who doesn't go to Iraq? Iraqis? It'd be pointless to ask if Iraqis go to Iraq, as by definition, they live in Iraq So apparently your question is relevant only in regard of the Syrians.

As I showed, there are more than 200k Syrians in Iraq, and 4 million more in other surrounding countries, as well as 7 million IDPs.

You'd do well to explain how Iraq can be expected to host those 11 million people?

I also wonder why you think that Iraq, a country invaded by the US and its allies (including some European countries), is more expectable to take care of refugees than Europe?

Did you forget what ISIS stands for? Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

And there are many other countries that are safe and less far away than Europe,

And as I said, 4 million Syrians are in the surrounding countries, yes. In fact, in general refugees always flee to a surroundign country, usually. F.e most afghans fled to Iran and Pakistan.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

So, instead of spouting stereotypes, it's time to look at reliable statistics. Only a small percent of the refugees come to Europe, and to say that countries like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan or Turkey are safe- that shows you don't know the circumstances there, or you just don't care.

What do these people expect? xD

First of all, I guess they expect their rights to be observed. They have the right for a fair process to get their case examined.

Look, there are so many refugees that are so incedibly ungrateful that I want to puke because of it.

And I guess you have the right to puke, just like they have the right to complain.

Especially in the region where I live. There is nothing wrong with living in tents, again, what did/do they expect?

Nothing wrong with living in tents? Please tell me you're not serious.

Should we give everyone a house with three floors, a car and a beautiful garden?

Obviously not.

These people flood our countries in big masses and expect that we treat them as gods or something.

I don't think they expect that.

They complain about not being able to drive with the bus the whole day for 2,60€.
They complain about hospital-food and reject it, without even opening it.
They complain that they don't get a car for fuqing free.
And much more.

Originally we were discussing food, all I said is I understand why they'd refuse it- as for bus and a car, that's another question.

Germany, like Europe in general, is not heaven or the godly paradise, where everyone can get anything he/she wants, for free. They have to be grateful for that what they already get.

I never disagreed that they should be grateful, I specifically made this clear earlier. But you are focusing only on teh bad apples, while I saw many pictures with them saying thanks to Europeans, and I also saw and read stories where they rightfully complain about their treatment.

If what they get is not enough, anyone of those who complain should go back to the country where they come from, whichever it is.. and look for satisfying food, effortless money and much more over there. If they were really fleeing from war, then they would be grateful for every single day they can live here and every single thing, for every penny they get.

You don't seem too grateful either when you complain in threads about not being able to do whatever you want and that you have to work instead of just traveling the world...

1) Yes it does. KonanX said that it's good that they leave​

It's funny though how you are always riding each other's D.

(as it's obvious they are not in the need of asylum). You implied that she is ignorant and went on to talk about how many syrians there are in the Middle-Eastern countries as refugees.

She asked why don't they go to Iraq. I told her that they actually go to Iraq, as there are 200000 of Syrian refugees in Iraq, and another 4 million in the surrounding countries, so only a small percent of them come to Europe. She was indeed ignorant to this fact.

Dafuq has that got to do with Iraqis in Finland?

You must be registered for see images

I didn't know this is a thread on Iraqis in Finland, excuse me.

You'd also do well to decide whether this is a thread on migration, or a thread where you can show the bad apples to demonize all [muslim] (im)migrants.

Like, what does an uzbek woman beheading a child in Moscow have to do with Iraqis in Finland? :yeah: Is the urge to post something negative about muslims that irresistible that you had to double post for that to revive the thread?

To which I replied that most of the asylum seekers here are Iraqis, not Syrian.

Aaaandddd???? You think only Syrians can be eligible for refugee status? Don't be that ignorant.

Also, while most migrants/asylum seekers may be Iraqis in Finland, I showed that altogether only 8% of the migrants/asylum seekers are Iraqi, and their recognition rate in the EU is close to 90%. I'll post the link again, maybe it'll sink in this time, but I understand it's hard to accept statistics when they don't fit your agenda.

You must be registered for see links

And the northern and southern parts of Iraq have been declared as safe for Iraqis by our goverment. So if Isis is present at the middle parts of Iraq why aren't they going in the other parts?

You must be registered for see links

1) That article is not from your government.

2) You are also ignoring the fact that there are 200000+ Syrians that indeed went to 'those other parts', but please tell me how do you expect Iraq to take care of millions of refugees?

3) A country third of which is occupied by a terror organization, even if the rest is not directly threatened, well, that's not a safe country. At least not by EU standards. Maybe in your layman head.

But the EU doesn't even recognize Serbia as a 'safe third country'.

"...Thus the current Serbian asylum system is not sufficiently functional and is neither unable to ensure the proper determination of international protection needs for an increasing number of asylum seekers, nor does it provide effective protection for those qualifying for refugee status.

The above being a pre-condition for considering a country as safe third country, Serbia cannot be regarded as such.

Hungarian asylum authorities wrongly consider Serbia as a safe third country in their daily practice and wrongly exclude asylum seekers arriving in Hungary through Serbia from an in-merit determination of their protection needs.

Hungary’s practice of applying the safe third country concept for Serbia is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights."

You must be registered for see links

If Serbia is not a safe third country, then please tell me how Iraq is. Your government can cry all it wants, just like my government, and you can cry along with them, but saying that these countries are safe, is a violation of international law.

Other than that, many asylum seekers have returned to their homes on their own, so you should be glad about it. If they refuse food, you should rejoice, as they'll starve to death so you don't have to worry about them islamizing your country.

Actually your point that most of the Syrians are in the surrounding countires (Lebanon, Jordan etc.) goes against your own point because it shows that those who are in need of an asylum accept the nearest safe haven. Most of those who risk their lives to go further have done so for economic reasons.

Not really. There are 7 million IDPs within Syria, and as the civil war rages on, more and more of these IDPs have to leave the borders of Syria. As countries like Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan are full, they'll naturally go further to Europe.

Also, just because they are given a tent in the middle of the desert, it doesn't mean they are safe there, or that the state they are in, can grant them actual protection. The problem is that you laymen think that 'safe' means that noone holds a gun at your head. But that's not what it means.

2) So? Dafuq has this has to do with anything? Finland is actually paying these flights. Most of those who are returned have actually chosen to not pay for their flight. Because they have that option. It costs us about 1000 euros per person and millions in total. So again bad for us, good for them.

But according to that article, it's often the migrants themselves who sell their last possession to go home. I also wonder how can your government pay for the flights of those who disappear...like, you transport ghosts or what.

In any case, I'd be glad to see a source.

So this doesn't ring any bells? Yes it's true that Finland didn't reject every one of the 20 000 applications because like you pointed out many left on their own. Lol. So I guess they weren't in dire need of a safe haven after all? If they truly would have needed one, they would have stayed and not worried about long processing times.

Yet, again, the recognition rate of Iraqi refugees in Europe is close to 90%.

The problem is :

" In late November, the number passed 30,000, nearly ten-fold increase compared to the previous year.[145] More than 60% of asylum seekers who arrived during 2015 came from Iraq."

You must be registered for see links

That's about 18-20000 migrants. 70% of which returned home. (I'll post the link again:

You must be registered for see links

)

That's 14000 people at most. So you are focusing on these 14000, asking me why am I focusing on the 3-400000 Syrians (only in 2015!) 98% of whom get the refugee status, or the other ~60000 Iraqis 88% of whom are recognized as refugees, according to EU stats.

So, I still don't see what you are arguing for here. I never disagreed that those who are not eligible for refugee status, shouldn't be granted that status..No shi*t Sherlock. If you are not eligible for something, you won't get it. Very simple. I don't think there is a disagreement on that.

But anyone saying that Iraq is a safe country and why don't the refugees go there, is ignorant, and I don't want to repeat for the 3rd time why.

"Refugees" boarding a return flight in Finland to Iraq

You posting these emotionally charging pictures is a typical sign of someone following an agenda here. I could post pictures of children crying and such, but there is no point an a picture war.

3) You fail to account two simple things: most of the refugees are young male and and most of them lie about their age to avoid deportation. In Denmark a study found that 3/4 of the refugees claiming to be adults were actually minors.

You must be registered for see links

In Norway the numbers are 9/10 then who are over 18 and claim to be under 18:

You must be registered for see links

First of all, who conducted these 'studies'? That's not specified in those articles.

Secondly, I don't have to account for it. Nowhere it is said that only children are eligible for protection. And it's quite obvious they lie about their age because they are afraid of getting deported.

Also they have fake id's and they lie about their origins and claim to be Syrian. In Germany the number for those faking their identity is 30%. This again goes to prove that if you have to result in lying about your identity you are conceding to the fact that your true origins might not get you an asylum:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

I wonder, though, what makes you think I haven't heard about that, or that I can't account for that?

First of all, even if 30% of those who claim to be Syrians, are in fact lying, that still means that hundreds of thousands of them are refugees.

Also, your articles say that forging passports is mostly proliferating in Turkey. I wonder, though, who the hell would ask for a passsport to be forged apart from Turkish people, Syrians, Iraqis, or the Pakistani and Afghani migrants that pass through Turkey. Now, it's very easy to sort out those who are not Syrians: just ask them questions in arabic, with a syrian dialect. Turkish, Pakistani, Afghani migrants can be sorted out most certainly that way.

Thirdly, having documents is not a requirement to apply for asylum. However, I don't want to be that naive, obviously someone using a fake passport, does raise suspicion- and I never said that these people should be allowed to roam free. So I'm not arguing for -and never did- accepting everyone- but these things should be examined in a fair process. Now, when a country like mine, builds a fence and admittedly doesn't want any migrant here, that means this country doesn't give two sh*ts about its international obligations or the rights of refugees. As I said, if someone is just an economic migrant- go send him back, I don't have a problem with it. The problem is you're demonizing all of them based on montaged videos from biased sources, and you are implying that most of these people are not refugees but economic migrants- but this should be decided in a fair legal process, not based on your assumptions or suspicions. When in fact, again, even if 30% of those claiming to be Syrians, are liars, that still leaves us with 70% of them who are indeed Syrians- hundreds of thousands of people. And you are asking me why am I focusing on them? Why are you focusing on those who leave your country? They have left, rejoice. But don't ignore those who really need help. The fact that you have a problem with most of them being male, shows that either you are sexist, or you never looked at the history of migration. In 2001, 75% of Colombian refugees in Costa Rica were men. Later the trend has changed, though. Which means that the first swarm of refugees is usually male, while later the females join them.

You must be registered for see links

In 2011, only 47% the refugees from all over the world were female.

You must be registered for see links

So do those numbers of yours really matter when the reality is that most of the refugees lie about their origins, have fake id's, don't have id's at all etc. The goverments are powerless in this situation and thus the high recognition rates as they have no other choice other than to change international laws that are binding them. That's why this is a huge problem! And this is what happens:

"German government admits it cannot account for 600,000 of its 1.1million asylum seekers – and many could be using multiple identities to travel across Europe"

You must be registered for see links

Again, to be eligible for refugee status, you are not required to have documents when you enter the country. Now people lying about their documents raises some suspicion, but as I said, it's not that hard, or at least it shouldn't be that hard, to get an arabic interpreter and decide if the person is from Syria or not- or an interpreter who speaks urdu and farsi/pashtu, to decide if the person is afghan or pakistani..etc. But again, not only Syrians are eligible for refugee status. The recognition rate for Iraqis, again, is close to 90%, it's 70% for Afghans, and close to 90% in case of Eritreans. Stats YOU can't account for.

Changing international laws is not an argument to refute the current obligations these countries have acceeded to on their own free wil.

So it does infact mean that they are less eligible for protection.

There is no such thing as less eligible for protection. You are either eligible, or not. You either meet the criteria or not. Now of course it's a legit question what should be done to those who don't cooperate - but first we should ask ourselves, if we have done our best to prepare for the situation? Many countries simply adopted a policy of refuting asylum applicants based on different excuses, pretending that none of those people are eligible for protection, or as if they were not even here. Many people forge their documents exactly because they know that the authorities in some countries are already applying a policy mentioned above, and they hope that with a Syrian passport they will be accepted.

4) You refuting my information because of the source it was published in is a fallacy.

You not comprehending my words is idiocy, no offense.

I didn't refute your data simply based on the source. I didn't just say 'I dismiss your data because it's dailymail'. I provided other data, and if you have to choose between the two, in case they are contradictory- as they are- ,then only a biased or an ignorant person would choose a news site with the reputation of fox news, compared to the EU or the UN.

The Daily Mail's information is actually based on EU's official statistics EUROSTAT:

You must be registered for see links

Yeah, from 2014

And if you check the original source (something dailymail didn't link, oops)

You must be registered for see links

...then you'll see that those 20% being Syrian was still the highest percentage.

And my stats from 2015 still stand.

That UNHCR information seems a bit odd and is contradictory towards that of the EU's. But if in fact it is so that the amount of Syrian refugees has gone to 40% of all refugees during the last two quarters of 2015, then my above arguments prove that this is because other than Syrians pretending to be Syrians.

The EU stats was for the 3rd quarter of 2015, while UNHCR's data was for the whole year. I couldn't find the EUROSTAT data for the whole year of 2015, most probably as there is no such summary yet, especially considering that eurostat's webpage says that the next time they plan to refresh it, is 2016 March- so we can expect it soon I guess.

Anyway, I still don't see what you are arguing for. It's as if you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

- We are not even in a disagreement that economic migrants should not be accepted. This is confirmed by the laws as well. Obviously an economic migrant will not get a status he is not eligible for.

- But to say that Iraq, Turkey, or even countries like Serbia, are safe, well, according to EU criteria, they are not, as they doesn't have the capacity to register all those people, to process their application in a fair procedure, and in case they are eligible for refugee status, to provide them with the rights and catering prescribed by the law. Just because some countries put them in tents in the middle of nowhere where at least they are not being bombed, that doesn't mean it's a 'safe third country'.

- While you complain about a few thousand of them complaining about the food or the lenghty process, the thing is that hundreds of thousands- that is, the majority of them- are indeed eligible for protection. This is confirmed by the recognition rates I posted from EU stats.

- My post was originally addressed to Konanx's comment, so good job diverting that course of discussion. But I'll remind you, it's not true that no refugees have fled to Iraq. In general, most Syrian refugees have fled to surrounding countries, while the number of IDPs is even higher than that of refugees.

5) So tell me again which country has failed to provide a fair process or failed to fulfill the laws regarding refugees as I already proved you that most/many of the migrants coming to the Nordic countries and to Germany are infact illegal migrants or lying about their age?

See all the above. My country, Hungary itself has failed to provide them with a fair process, as the authorities are just sending them back to Serbia saying it's a safe country-then Serbia either sends them back further, or transports them to the Croatian border from where Hungary transports them to the Austrian one: without registering them or anything

You didn't prove anything, tbh. You don't even understand the terms you are using. An asylum seeker is not an 'illegal migrant' until their case is examined and their application is refused: in which case they can be transported back to their place of origin only if their lives are not threatened there. Therefore, even if they are lying -something most politicians do, so why don't we deport them too-, it doesn't automatically mean they should be refused all kinds of protection, and be deported just like that. Now of course confirming all that, and proceeding all these procedures is troublesome, but how is it the aslyum seekers' fault that the European governments and authorities are incompetent?

But again, we both agree that those who are really just economic migrants, such as people from Kosovo or Albania, or the Iraqis you mentioned, well yeah they shall be denied protection- and they will be denied, at least according to Eu stats, only a very small percentage of them are granted the refugee status. But in case of Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, or Eritreans, the recognition rate is very high, and most of the asylum seekers are still from these places. So no, you didn't prove that most of these people are economic migrants. Most of these people are Syrians, Iraqis, Afghan, and Eritreans: 70-98% of which are recognized as refugees. This is from EU and UNHCR statistics. Obviously those Iraqis that returned home from Finland, or those Syrians who faked their passport, are not in these stats. But you are focusing on 30% of those falsely claiming to be Syrians, and the 70% of the 20000 Iraqis having entered Finland, while ignoring the hundreds of thousands that are eligible for protection, and saying you have proved that most of them are just economic migrants...well it'd be ridiculous if we were not talking about real people here in real need of help.

6) But they do because they lie. That's my point. This has gone out of control

While it's true this has gone out of control, what's your proof that those who got the refugee status, have lied? You insiting that 'German authorities admitted that 30% of those claiming to be Syrians, are liars', doesn't disprove that 70% of them were not liars. And we are talking only about Syrians here. Only in Germany... (Btw why would you bring up fake syrians in Germany, if you want to talk about Iraqis in Finland...inconsistency much? )

Again, we shouldn't punish those who need real protection, just because a number of them are only economic migrants. Inbefore you say: but they can't be distinguished! -Well, how is that the real refugees' fault? Again, we shouldn't punish them for something like that, excluding them from protection.
And again, the fact is: most of them are not economic migrants. Maybe in your country it's true for Iraqis or in Germany it's true for those 30% of people having claimed to be Syrian (btw their passport being fake still doesn't mean they can't be really Syrians)- but I hope you're aware that this accounts for only a minority of them.

As for them complaining about stuff is a different issue, it again doesn't mean in itself that they are not eligible for protection. In any case, they definitely can't be sent back to Syria or other places where they would be in danger. As Turkey and other such counries are not safe either as per EU standards, it's questionable if they can be sent back there- not to mention, how do you compel, let's say, Turkey to accept them back?​

 

[Hawker]

I will reply tomorrow, but let my summarise some of my thoughts for now:

1. There are different views on whether certain parts of some Middle-Eastern and North African countries are safe or not. For example Sweden was denying asylum applications from Iraqis from South and North Iraq in last september when Finland's official stance was that the whole Iraq was unsafe. However we quickly researched the issue and came to the same conclusion as Sweden. I only have Finnish sources for this so that's why I didn't post them earlier:

You must be registered for see links

2. Smuggling refugees is a million euro business. They are told tactics and ways to achieve a safe haven because this is in the best interests of the smugglers.

3. Like I already showed you, there are studies that prove that most of the refugees in Nordic countries are lying about their age. Also like I showed 1/3 of refugees is lying about their origins in Germany. As a logical conclusion one would say that if you have to lie about anything about your personal information you are conceding to the fact that your real information would lead to denying the asylum application. My point is also that they are accepting these applications because they can't know for sure if they are lying! Also do you truly believe this is just a phenomenon limited to Germany?

4. If you are looking for a safe haven, you would stop in the first safe country. That's just logical. There are thousands of refugees coming to Finland from Sweden! Is Sweden a warzone?

5. Iraqis and even Afghanis having a high recognition rate doesn't actually mean that they deserve to be accepted. It's a sign of once again, a failed system. Like I said in point 2. they are told to lie. Like said in point 3. they do lie. Like I said in point 1. many parts of Iraq have been declared as safe. And like you also said Syrians who have proven to be in the most dire need of safe haven only form about more than 40% of the current migrant flow. That leaves almost 60% for the rest. We should keep in mind that the rest of the 60% do not ,in light of the ever changing situations in those countries and the studies considering their application behaviour, explicitly have the reasons to be accepted as an refugee.

6. Most importantly what I'm saying is that Europe doesn't have the resources or the money (as you stated your surpise about the flights) to withstand this crisis if it goes further. This whole crisis is the fault of a bad system. People take advantage of it. Clearly I think that everyone who truly needs safe haven should be helped, but this is current system does not work. We should help people at the source of the problems: in their country! Or we should atleast allow these people a temporary permit to stay in our country till the war is over, and then send them back. Because the assimiliation of muslims just doesn't work. It has failed before in almost 10 countries and what do you think will happen now as there are tens of thousands more of them? We now have 20 000 of young males with no touch of context to our culture, with no ways of getting emplyed or married. The current unemployment rates in Finland is 200 000-300 000 and they are just about to cut 30% of my student support. Also it was just announced that the refugees are suspected of 8% of sexual crimes in Finland! And they make 0,5% of the population. So excuse me if I'm frustrated for us to spend millions to fly smiling Iraqis back to their home and us trying to assimiliate these people!

 

[Scooby Doo]

I will reply tomorrow, but let my summarise some of my thoughts for now:

1. There are different views on whether certain parts of some Middle-Eastern and North African countries are safe or not. For example Sweden was denying asylum applications from Iraqis from South and North Iraq in last september when Finland's official stance was that the whole Iraq was unsafe. However we quickly researched the issue and came to the same conclusion as Sweden. I only have Finnish sources for this so that's why I didn't post them earlier:

You must be registered for see links

Indeed there are different views: national governments are interested in declaring more and more places safe so they don't have to accept the asylum seekers from those places. I have already dealt with this argument: my country even declared that Serbia is a safe third country: but according to the EU, it is not. Obviously your government or my government can keep sending these people back, but it's still a violation of international law. It may have severe consquences, or maybe these countries will be lucky and get away with it.

Again, 'safe country' doesn't mean only that noone's holding a gun at your head. It also includes- or should include- that the state of the country can provide real protection to its citizens and those applying for asylum.

3. Like I already showed you, there are studies that prove that most of the refugees in Nordic countries are lying about their age.

And like I told you, that alone doesn't mean that they can be denied protection. Or, do you really think that someone who's 19, from let's say, Homs, claims to be only 17, from Homs...should be sent back to Homs? :yeah:

Also like I showed 1/3 of refugees is lying about their origins in Germany.

That's not exactly what the sources said. 30% of those claiming to be Syrians, have a fake passport. It's not the same as 1/3 of refugees lying about their origins. Just because the passport is forged, the person may still be from Syria, it's just he/she didn't have his/her passport with himself/herself when he/she fled, or just lost it on the way. Many a times it's the smugglers that take away the passports to threaten them. Also, many a times the news were about refugees throwing away their passport at the border- it's because they thought that way they will automatically be accepted: so depending on the false information they hear, they behave differently. The fact still remains, and I don't see how can you be in denial, that in any case 70% of these are indeed from Syria. Also, I'm quite sure that if the German authorities know that someone is not from Syria- then they won't give the person the refugee status if he/she is not eligible. If they do- then they are incompetent, and the problem is you're trying to blame it on the migrants alone. You say these people are savages and incompatible with our values- well, which values? Values we can't uphold either? They shoudl respect our laws, that the governments and authorities don't enforce either?

As a logical conclusion one would say that if you have to lie about anything about your personal information you are conceding to the fact that your real information would lead to denying the asylum application.

Or they are just afraid. And thus it's pointless to look for logic in an emotion. And you still don't seem to get it. By your reasoning, they lie about their age, because if they admitted that they are older than 18, then their application would be denied- but it is nowhere said that only children can be given the refugee status. If they lie, it's because they are going for certain, and the process would be faster.
By your reasoning, those who have a fake passport, can't be Syrians, therefore their application would be refused- when it is nowhere said that you need documents to apply for refugee status, and it is nowhere said that only Syrians can be refugees.

My point is also that they are accepting these applications because they can't know for sure if they are lying!

Then how can you be sure that the German authorities saying that 30% of those claiming to be Syrians, are in fact not Syrians (which btw is not exactly what the articles say, as I posted above, but never mind), is true? Hm?

And I'll repeat again because it's just funny that you are still avoiding it, maybe you have hardships with math: even if 30% of those claiming to be Syrians, are no Syrians, 70% of them are still Syrians. You focusing on the majority in Finland leaving: as I said, 70% of the Iraqis left which means 14000 people. While the number of asylum seekers in 2015 was more than a million. As I said, according to UNHCR, 49% of these (that is, almost half) were Syrians. 21% of them were Afghans. And 8% Iraqi. Whether the 30% with fake Syrian passports are included (which again doesn't mean in itself that they cannot be Syrians), is not known, but suppose they are not: it still means 1/3 of them are Syrians. And as I said, not only Syrians can be eligible for refugee status, many parts of Afghanistan or Pakistan are indeed dangerous. Inbefore you ask again why don't they just go to surrounding countries: well, they do. See my above chart to Konanx. However, let's say it turns out that an Afghan guy claimed to be a Syrian. He doesn't speak arabic he speaks pashtu, so he is a fake. Now it turns out he comes from a refugee camp in Iran. Can you send him back? Can you claim that this person is just an economic migrant? Well he may seem to be an economic migrant in Europe, but if you send him back to the Irani refugee camp, you admit that this person is a refugee in Iran. And Iran is not a safe country either as per the above mentioned EU criteria. Even if you'd deny the refugee status, you may not send him back as per the principle of non-refoulement. But even if you conclude that doesn't stand here: you can't send him back if Iran doesn't accept this person back. So, most probably this person will stay, with a subsidiary form of protection. Now as for people from Kosovo or Albania, it's different, they are indeed economic migrants from within Europe, and Germany few years ago managed to stop them going to Germany.

4. If you are looking for a safe haven, you would stop in the first safe country. That's just logical. There are thousands of refugees coming to Finland from Sweden! Is Sweden a warzone?

What you claim to be a safe first country, is not the same as what the Eu recognizes as such. Turkey is not a safe first country, Greece is not a safe first country, Serbia isn't a safe third country...etc. As these countries fail to register these peole and process their applications, as well as they fail to accommodate them and in case they are eligible for a refugee status, provide them with the rights it entails: they are not safe countries.

But I agree that Sweden is obviously a save country, and the migrants coming from there, should be sent back to Sweden. Also, btw, I never disagreed that if someoen doesn't like it here, the person just go back where he/she came from. Like the 14000 Iraqis in your country. The point is that most of them are still from unsafe countries where you can't send them back to. It's another question if they go back on their own.

However:

Sweden received 162,877 asylum applications in 2015 (the highest per capita number in Europe), mainly from Syrians (51,338), Afghans (41,564), Iraqis (20,857), Eritreans (7,231) and Somalis (5,465). In 2015, Sweden granted protection to 32,631 asylum applicants, whereas it rejected 9,524 applications (the proportion of positive decisions out of materially considered applications was 77%). The main beneficiaries of protection were Syrians (18,523 positive decisions, with a 100% recognition rate), Eritreans (6,542 positive decisions; 100% recognition rate) and Afghans (1,088 positive decisions; 74% recognition rate).

You must be registered for see links

Out of the processed 41000 applications, Sweden did accept 32000. That's an average of 77% recognition rate. The majority is apparently eligible of refugee status. Maybe it's the Iraqis whose application was not processed, or refused, that go to Finland.

5. Iraqis and even Afghanis having a high recognition rate doesn't actually mean that they deserve to be accepted. It's a sign of once again, a failed system.
Like I said in point 2. they are told to lie. Like said in point 3. they do lie.

And as I said, telling a lie doesn't necessarily mean they don't deserve to be accepted.

Tbh it's quite sad and funny at the same time how you first insisted that only 1/5 of the migrants are Syrians, then you were shown that's only a 2014 data, in 2015 it was 49%, then you say most of them are lying about their origins, but you provide a source which says only 30% of them have a fake passport (which, for the umpteenth time, doesn't mean that the person can't be Syrian, it just means he forged a document for himself- something that is not even a requirement to apply for asylum, nor being a Syrian is a requirement).

You saying most of them are lying, is a lie in itself, and in any case, as I said, but I'll say it again, after all who cares if I've spent 5 hrs today answering your bs, it doesn't automatically mean that they are only 'economic migrants'.

Like I said in point 1. many parts of Iraq have been declared as safe.

Definitely not by the EU or the UNHCR. In any case, Iraqis account for 8% of the aslyum seekers. And anyway, this is kinda irrelevant to my original post to Konanx. Only a small percent of the refugees come to Europe, so it's quite funny you call 1 million people coming to the EU which has 500 million citizens and it's one of the richest parts of the world, a crisis: so what should Turkey say about its 2 million Syrians, what should Iran say about its 1000000 afghan refugees, what should Lebanon say about its 1 million refugees...etc? These countries are full, they can't provide the refugees with accommodation to begin with. In fact, only a fraction of the Syrian refugees in Turkey are in camps. Most of them are roaming randomly. No wonder that some of them come to Europe, as they can't go back to Syria, nor can they cound on the Turkish government solving their needs. You may say that their lives are not threatened in Turkey so they shouldn't complain, but being a refugee entails much more than just that. Inbefore you ask again why am I focusing on Syrian refugees again, well, because they are still the biggest nationality seeking asylum in Europe, even if a portion of those claiming to be Syrians, are not Syrians. You can keep focusing on the 14000 Iraqis who got fed up with your country, but there are hundreds of thousands left.

And like you also said Syrians who have proven to be in the most dire need of safe haven only form about more than 40% of the current migrant flow. That leaves almost 60% for the rest. We should keep in mind that the rest of the 60% do not ,in light of the ever changing situations in those countries and the studies considering their application behaviour, explicitly have the reasons to be accepted as an refugee.

49% to be precise. And as I said, people from other countries have just as much right for a fair trial to get their case examined. And refugee status is not the only form of protection, btw. As I said, even if someone is not a refugee as per the Geneva convention, you may still not send him/her back to a place where his/her life is endangered.

6. Most importantly what I'm saying is that Europe doesn't have the resources or the money (as you stated your surpise about the flights) to withstand this crisis if it goes further.

My surprise was about you claiming that you pay for the flights of all those people: but many of them just disappear, which means you can't fly them back to Iraq: so that's apparently not included in the costs.

Also, as you said, it's a flawed system. Maybe if the asylum seekers and migrants were properly informed, they wouldn't resort to lying, and if the countries had the capacity to process the applications, they wouldn't disappear.

. We should help people at the source of the problems: in their country! Or we should atleast allow these people a temporary permit to stay in our country till the war is over, and then send them back.

Most Syrians would go back to Syria if it was possible, but as the civil war has been going on for 4+ yrs, there is less and less hope for that. It's very much possible that a generation will grow up during the time of the civil war. Just like a generation of afghans has grown up since 1980. To say that these people should just stay there, is inhumane. Also, most of them do stay there, or in the surrounding countries, so no, not everyone wants to come here and cut your head off. But once they are here, sending them back is troublesome: send them back where? To the refugee camp they are coming from, in Turkey or Iran? Where their places are probably already occupied. And the gvmnt there can't provide them with further provision.

Because the assimiliation of muslims just doesn't work. It has failed before in almost 10 countries and what do you think will happen now as there are tens of thousands more of them?

If you expect them to assimilate, that is to give up their religion, their language or their former identity, obviously it won't work.

Now as for integration, that's another question: but it requires affirmative gvmnt policies and an open society which doesn't demonize islam and doesn't call all muslims terrorists or savages :yeah:

Fact remains that the majority of muslims in Europe are living peacfully, even if they are overrepresented in crime stats: somethign which should be of no surprise to anyone having opened a criminology book: it's been an established fact for like a hundred years that minorities are overrepresented in crime stats, like gypsies in my country or the blacks in the US, or Polish in the UK.

You must be registered for see links

We now have 20 000 of young males with no touch of context to our culture, with no ways of getting work or a wife. The current unemployment rates in Finland is 200 000-300 000 and they are just about to cut 30% of my student support. Also it was just announced that the refugees are suspected of 8% of sexual crimes in Finland! And they make 0,5% of the population. So excuse me if I'm frustrated for us to spend millions to fly smiling Iraqis back to their home and us trying to assimiliate these people!

Your frustration is understandable, but to me it's also understandable that some of them complain about hospital food, or why they are also frustrated after having lost their homes, their families, having spent all their savings, having spent weeks traveling, and having nothing to lose, then arriving here and some countries deny their entrance, my country refuses their applications in 10 minutes (you can google the article), etc.

Like, you told me about food in the military. I'm quite sure you didn't come from a war torn area, I'm qute sure you had your family to send you packages, I'm auite sure you had pocket money you could spend on food, and I'm sure that at least once in three months you could visit home. And a year of military service may be nothing compared to up to 4 yrs spent in a refugee camp in a desert.

The point is, I'll still go with official statistics, which say most of them are eligible of refugee status, and the EU/UNHCR criteria to determine what a safe country is.

 

[Hawker]

Okay now I figured you are Kobak. Lmao. I swear I thought you argued like a religious person at some points and also you seemed to take this personally and now it's clear, because I'm talking with a muslim.

Nevertheless you bring up some good points but at this point I think it's fair to say that the people that are lying are economic migrants more than they are in need of an asylum. Yeah I don't know this for sure know but so far everything points into that direction. You saying those who have fake passports could be Syrians is less probable than them being from somewhere else.

The baseline is this: Current system does not work. There are too many economic migrants. Intergration does not work. These are two totally different cultures. Realistically speaking nothing good will come out of this and I'm sure deep down you know this.

I don't have time to adress each of your points for now, but I'll just leave you here with this:



So we can all have sweet dreams of this lovely phenomenon called Merkel's utopia.​

 

[Scooby Doo]

Okay now I figured you are Kobak. Lmao. I swear I thought you argued like a religious person at some points and also you seemed to take this personally and now it's clear, because I'm talking with a muslim.​

Took you a while. :yeah: Anyway, it's funny how you jump at who I am, instead of what I say. I could just say it's pointless to argue with you because, well, you are Hawker. There is a reason why your threads are either deleted or abandoned- it's quite sad you had to doublepost to revive the trhead. Maybe I'll get it closed soon

You assuming that I take it personally because I'm a muslim, is an ad hominem in itself. You take it quite personally too. Your self admitted frustration is an emotional response to begin with.

Anyway, my position would be the same if I were not a muslim: you can search back my posts from 1,5 yrs ago when I was not a muslim :yeah: I'm also a lawyer and someone volunteering for a human rights organization head of which is a Christian, so probably I'm still less biased than you.

Nevertheless you bring up some good points but at this point I think it's fair to say that the people that are lying are economic migrants more than they are in need of an asylum. Yeah I don't know this for sure know but so far everything points into that direction. You saying those who have fake passports could be Syrians is less probable than them being from somewhere else.

I don't bring up good points, I bring up official data. You claiming it's fair to say they are lying, is your assumption, which doesn't hold more value than me saying that no, it's fair to say most of them are not economic migrants.

I already dealt with your objection: even if all of those with fake Syrian passport are from other countries, that still means 70% of those who claim to be Syrians, are indeed Syrians, and it'd take April's Fool Day to say that 30% means the majority now. As I also said, even if they are, let's say from Afghanistan, they may still be eligible for protection. Especially that having passports is not even a condition for asylum.

It is further strenghtened by the recognition rates. You surmise that the authorities are so stupid that they grant the refugee status to liars- something you can't prove. Do you hear me? You don't have proof! Do you know what proof means? Oh you don't, but I already taught you that one, so you should know that You. Have. No. Proof. Deal with it

It's also funny you rather accuse everyone with lying who disagrees with your agenda.

Also, please tell me, German authorities apparently know that 30% of those claiming to be Syrians, are supposedly not Syrians- so why would they give the refugee status to those whom they know to be fakes? Or maybe they know something you don't. Maybe they know that telling a lie doesn't automatically exclude you from the permission to stay.

The baseline is this: Current system does not work. There are too many economic migrants. Intergration does not work.

The problem is you blame it all on muslims. It doesn't work because, well, they are muslims. You don't even want it to work, it's so much easier to say they are economic migrants so they should be sent back. I wonder why did Europe invite them after the 2nd world war, though.

These are two totally different cultures. Realistically speaking nothing good will come out of this and I'm sure deep down you know this.

You making assumptions about what I know deep down, is not an argument. Realistically speaking, most muslims live peacefully in Europe. Keep being in denial. But most of them are peaceful.

I don't have time to adress each of your points for now, but I'll just leave you here with this:


So we can all have sweet dreams of this lovely phenomenon called Merkel's utopia.

'Merkel's utopia' has nothing to do with my points. You keep throwing in red herrings.

The point is, Eu and international laws define the refugee status, and other terms like safe third country. The same EU and UN statistics tell us that most of the asylum seekers were indeed eligible for aslyum. Note that these organizations also use the data provided by the governments themselves. Eu and UNHCR inform us about the criteria for a safe third country, something that countries like Turkey, Serbia, Hungary...etc don't meet. You can work with alternative definitions, assumptions...etc. but don't call them facts.

 

[Awkward Linguist]

Lmao Kobak went balls deep. RIP thread.​

 

[Scooby Doo]

Anyway I'm tired, I don't have 5 hrs every day to argue with assumptions.

Here is the webpage (also available in English) of my teacher in international law, he's specializing in refugee law, he's holding lectures in Oxford and all over the world, write an e-mail to him if you have the balls, he likes arguing those students that raise the same questions:

You must be registered for see links

 

[Hawker]

Lmao Kobak went balls deep. RIP thread.​

Yeah let's just ignore all the increased crime statistics, failure of muslim migrates in 10 European countries, hundreds of thousands of economy migrants, the fact that we don't have any money or resources to keep this invasion going or the fact that the employment rates for muslims are ridiculously low! Most of them are just leechers. Or the fact that French people are a minority in their own country by the year 2040. Or the fact that 80% of Germans are against Merkel's immigration policies and the rest of Europes people will follow this kind of thinking. Or the fact that many refugees are liars who do anything to get a goverment paid life. Let's just ignore all that lmao.

Anyway I'm tired, I don't have 5 hrs every day to argue with assumptions.

Here is the webpage (also available in English) of my teacher in international law, he's specializing in refugee law, he's holding lectures in Oxford and all over the world, write an e-mail to him if you have the balls, he likes arguing those students that raise the same questions:

You must be registered for see links

Yeah maybe he is more intelligent than our president who agrees with me hahah. Who is also a lawyer by his former profession. But yeah I realize that you are the ultimate muslim apologist of this site and you didn't bring anymore facts into this than I did. "Assumptions" lmao.

 

[DominiqueX]

And as I showed, that's not exactly true. According to UNHCR, in 2015, about half of the migrants that arrived from the Mediterranean, were Syrians.

Also, you asked why don't they go to Iraq? Like, who doesn't go to Iraq? Iraqis? It'd be pointless to ask if Iraqis go to Iraq, as by definition, they live in Iraq So apparently your question is relevant only in regard of the Syrians.

As I showed, there are more than 200k Syrians in Iraq, and 4 million more in other surrounding countries, as well as 7 million IDPs.

You'd do well to explain how Iraq can be expected to host those 11 million people?

I also wonder why you think that Iraq, a country invaded by the US and its allies (including some European countries), is more expectable to take care of refugees than Europe?

Did you forget what ISIS stands for? Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.


And as I said, 4 million Syrians are in the surrounding countries, yes. In fact, in general refugees always flee to a surroundign country, usually. F.e most afghans fled to Iran and Pakistan.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

So, instead of spouting stereotypes, it's time to look at reliable statistics. Only a small percent of the refugees come to Europe, and to say that countries like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan or Turkey are safe- that shows you don't know the circumstances there, or you just don't care.

I was not talking about all refugees on this planet. I meant those from the "original" post of Hawker, which started this thing here today. Why were they here if they are soo glad to be back home? Would be better if I said "stay" instead of "go to", my bad. Your so-called "unsafe" Iraq can't be so bad if people go back there on their own free will. If it was the hell on earth that they have to flee from, they would choose other countries instead of going back.

First of all, I guess they expect their rights to be observed. They have the right for a fair process to get their case examined.

Not if they are disrespectful, ungrateful pieces of ***, which seems to be the case a lot in Europe.

And I guess you have the right to puke, just like they have the right to complain.

But they don't have the right to complain. We live in an emergency situation, there have to be a lot of compromises.

Nothing wrong with living in tents? Please tell me you're not serious.

No, I'm serious. In such a situation, they can't all live in "their" own houses. We are no wizards that can create millions of houses in seconds. Currently, everwhere in Germany (and maybe other countries, not sure), there are already builing container-homes for the refugees. It's not that they would live in a tent forever.
Also I hope that all of them leave eventually, so their shelter needs to be temporary.

Obviously not.

But?

I don't think they expect that.

Looks like it, when they get way better treatment than a lot of native Germans and still complain about everything.

Originally we were discussing food, all I said is I understand why they'd refuse it- as for bus and a car, that's another question.

Oh, I remember. You were the dude that said hospital-food is trash. Then I won't continue this with you.

I never disagreed that they should be grateful, I specifically made this clear earlier. But you are focusing only on teh bad apples, while I saw many pictures with them saying thanks to Europeans, and I also saw and read stories where they rightfully complain about their treatment.

I know that there are also refugees that are indeed grateful, but they don't matter to me or this topic. I'm only speaking of these "bad apples", because they are a serious problem while the others are not.

You don't seem too grateful either when you complain in threads about not being able to do whatever you want and that you have to work instead of just traveling the world...

Comparing apples with pears, ok.
I'm surely more grateful than these people that I'm talking about ^-^

 

[Narushima]

You must be registered for see links

"Islamists in Norway claim to have formed a 'Soldiers of Allah' group in response to the rise of the right-wing vigilante group the Soldiers of Odin.

Norwegian newspaper VG quoted Islamist sources in Oslo as saying the new group, officially calling itself Jundullaah, would patrol the streets of the capital.

"In response to the infidel group Soldiers of Odin patrols, we Muslims have chosen to create a group that will patrol the streets, first in Oslo, to prevent evil and encourage the good," VG quoted its source as saying.

There were also claims that the Soldiers of Allah would wear a black hoodie decorated with black Islamic State flags as their official uniform.

Norwegian police have not commented on the group.

A report on The Local quoted Hadia Tajik, an MP with Norway's Labour party, as saying there was no place for vigilantism in Norway,

"I assume that the police, who are the only ones who have the authority to patrol the streets and use force, are following these groups as closely as the circumstances require," she said.

Named after the Norse god, the Soldiers of Odin were formed in Finland but spread to Norway this year.

The group describes itself as "patriotic" and uses anti-immigration rhetoric.

Its members are often seen wearing black coats bearing the group's insignia, and have been spotted patrolling the streets in some of Norway's major cities."

More of the gifts that diversity keeps on giving. Of course the enrichment of gang culture is hardly new, last year there was a brawl between ISIS supporting Islamists and Kurds on the streets of London, and it happened in Germany, too, I think. And there will be more and more of these blessings in the near future, no doubt.

 

[Narushima]

What a nice little poem Trump used to personify the whole Islamic refugee situation.

[video=youtube;yeJ-iv3MOTo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeJ-iv3MOTo[/video]

 

[Hawker]

What a nice little poem Trump used to personify the whole Islamic refugee situation.

[video=youtube;yeJ-iv3MOTo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeJ-iv3MOTo[/video]

I hate Trump as a person, but this is actually a great video. It's obvious he didn't come up with the idea of connecting that poem to the current migrant crisis, but it's spot on.

And as I showed, that's not exactly true. According to UNHCR, in 2015, about half of the migrants that arrived from the Mediterranean, were Syrians.

Yes.

Also, you asked why don't they go to Iraq? Like, who doesn't go to Iraq? Iraqis? It'd be pointless to ask if Iraqis go to Iraq, as by definition, they live in Iraq So apparently your question is relevant only in regard of the Syrians.

Knee jerking. You know what she meant. Let me phrase it differently for your brain: why aren't Iraqis from the bad areas going to safe areas of Iraq?.

As I showed, there are more than 200k Syrians in Iraq, and 4 million more in other surrounding countries, as well as 7 million IDPs.

You'd do well to explain how Iraq can be expected to host those 11 million people?

You must be registered for see links

" it is anticipated that the Syrian refugee population currently in Iraq will probably remain at a similar level or increase slightly"

So the numbe of Syrian refugees is more or less staying the same. So what do we have left? Iraqis in Iraq. Are you seriously asking how is Iraq expected to handle it's own citizen? That were already living there? Lol brilliant logic.

Did you forget what ISIS stands for? Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Like I said, northen and southern parts of Iraq are safe:

You must be registered for see links

So, instead of spouting stereotypes, it's time to look at reliable statistics. Only a small percent of the refugees come to Europe, and to say that countries like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan or Turkey are safe- that shows you don't know the circumstances there, or you just don't care.

Irrelevant. What matters to Europe is the amount of refugees coming to here.

Finnish and Swedish goverments declared those parts safe. I trust them more than you.

I didn't know this is a thread on Iraqis in Finland, excuse me.

That's your own strawman. You replied to my post which was specifically about Iraqis in Finland.

Like, what does an uzbek woman beheading a child in Moscow have to do with Iraqis in Finland?

Again your own speculation. That post was about the news I linked.

Aaaandddd???? You think only Syrians can be eligible for refugee status? Don't be that ignorant.

Nope, but it's clear that there are safe places in Iraq. People are even returning there by their own will.

Also, while most migrants/asylum seekers may be Iraqis in Finland, I showed that altogether only 8% of the migrants/asylum seekers are Iraqi, and their recognition rate in the EU is close to 90%. I'll post the link again, maybe it'll sink in this time, but I understand it's hard to accept statistics when they don't fit your agenda.

Yes that maybe the case for rest of Europe, but not for Finland. Also again those numbers are easily explained by the fact that most of them are lying about their age = don't get deported.

You must be registered for see links

While 8% (for the 3. quarter of 2015) of total accepted asylum seekers are Iraqis the amount of Iraqis coming into Europe currently is 16%.

1) That article is not from your government.

Didn't say it was. Doesn't change the fact that parts of Iraq are safe.

2) You are also ignoring the fact that there are 200000+ Syrians that indeed went to 'those other parts', but please tell me how do you expect Iraq to take care of millions of refugees?

I expect them to take care of their own citizens. A big part of them atleast.

3) A country third of which is occupied by a terror organization, even if the rest is not directly threatened, well, that's not a safe country. At least not by EU standards. Maybe in your layman head.

I didn't say the whole country was safe. But parts of it. Again that's your own strawman.

Apparently it is by Swedish and Finnish officials who are denying the applications of many Iraqis and returning them back home. Maybe they are also laymen lol.

But the EU doesn't even recognize Serbia as a 'safe third country'.

"...Thus the current Serbian asylum system is not sufficiently functional and is neither unable to ensure the proper determination of international protection needs for an increasing number of asylum seekers, nor does it provide effective protection for those qualifying for refugee status.

The above being a pre-condition for considering a country as safe third country, Serbia cannot be regarded as such.

Hungarian asylum authorities wrongly consider Serbia as a safe third country in their daily practice and wrongly exclude asylum seekers arriving in Hungary through Serbia from an in-merit determination of their protection needs.

Hungary’s practice of applying the safe third country concept for Serbia is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights."

You must be registered for see links

If Serbia is not a safe third country, then please tell me how Iraq is. Your government can cry all it wants, just like my government, and you can cry along with them, but saying that these countries are safe, is a violation of international law.

I'm not going to read that whole pdf. Few points though:

1.) It's from 2011 = 5 years old.

2.) Please quote me the part where it says that's EU's official stance on the situation of Serbia.

3) Even if you do quote that part, then you should also prove that that is the current stance also, as I said that's a 5 years old report.

Not really. There are 7 million IDPs within Syria, and as the civil war rages on, more and more of these IDPs have to leave the borders of Syria. As countries like Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan are full, they'll naturally go further to Europe.

Further Europe? Meaning past the safe countries in Europe into the countries that offer the best welfare?

Also, just because they are given a tent in the middle of the desert, it doesn't mean they are safe there, or that the state they are in, can grant them actual protection. The problem is that you laymen think that 'safe' means that noone holds a gun at your head. But that's not what it means.

They are safe. If they get food, shelter, water and a place in country that is not having a conflict then yes they are safe. It's not an ideal situation and I pity them, but this is the situation for now.

But according to that article, it's often the migrants themselves who sell their last possession to go home. I also wonder how can your government pay for the flights of those who disappear...like, you transport ghosts or what.

Most of the current refugees whose application were declined have not even left yet so I fail to see your point. The fact is that most of the asylum seekers going home are going to be sent home by goverment paid flights.
It's a different story for those who disapperead, but luckily they do not compose the majority of the ones who we rejected.

In any case, I'd be glad to see a source.

I only have Finnish sources for this. In the first link it says that last year the cost of return flights to Finland was 3 million euros. In the second link it is estimated that the grand total for the upcoming return flights can rise up to 12-19 million euros.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Yet, again, the recognition rate of Iraqi refugees in Europe is close to 90%.

The problem is :

" In late November, the number passed 30,000, nearly ten-fold increase compared to the previous year.[145] More than 60% of asylum seekers who arrived during 2015 came from Iraq."

You must be registered for see links

That's about 18-20000 migrants. 70% of which returned home. (I'll post the link again:

You must be registered for see links

)

That's 14000 people at most. So you are focusing on these 14000, asking me why am I focusing on the 3-400000 Syrians (only in 2015!) 98% of whom get the refugee status, or the other ~60000 Iraqis 88% of whom are recognized as refugees, according to EU stats.

So, I still don't see what you are arguing for here. I never disagreed that those who are not eligible for refugee status, shouldn't be granted that status..No shi*t Sherlock. If you are not eligible for something, you won't get it. Very simple. I don't think there is a disagreement on that.

But anyone saying that Iraq is a safe country and why don't the refugees go there, is ignorant, and I don't want to repeat for the 3rd time why.

1) Don't you see what you're saying? 70% of Iraqis left a safe country to supposedly dangerous country? Now if 16% of current refugees coming to Europe are Iraqis then the reason why I'm focusing on these obvious economic migrants in FInland is because in the big picture their portions are rapidly increasing.

2) So you are comparing the amount of Iraq refugees in Finland to the whole amount of Syrian refugees in Europe? What you fail to see is that this pattern with economic migrants is not just happening here in Finland.

3) EU directive consists of recognizing two form of refugee status: First is recognizing the asylum meaning the actual refugee status and the second is the subsidiary protection for those who don't fulfill the terms of an actual asylum, but to whom it is justifiable to allow a residence permit because it's not justifiable to deport them back to their homeland. On top of these two, in Finland there is a third category: the so called category for humanitarian protection:

"If you do not meet the requirements for asylum or subsidiary protection, you may be granted a residence permit on the basis of humanitarian protection. A residence permit may be granted if you are unable to return to your home country or country of permanent residence due to an environmental catastrophe that has taken place there or because of a poor security situation there. Such a poor security situation may be caused by an armed conflict or a difficult human rights situation."

You must be registered for see links

According to Eurostat, of all the positive decisions in the third quarter of 2015 there were 9% of those that were based on humanitarian reasons.

Now Finland is planning to remove this category, because it's a relic from the times when there wasn't a crisis like this. We or any country in EU for that matter, can't afford using this category anymore as the refugees who go under this category are not running for their lives.

You posting these emotionally charging pictures is a typical sign of someone following an agenda here. I could post pictures of children crying and such, but there is no point an a picture war.

True.

First of all, who conducted these 'studies'? That's not specified in those articles.

Doesn't matter in the case of Denmark, when all that matters is that Danish Immigration Service used it. So that's a proof of it's validy. Don't know about Norway though, but again Sveriges Radio referenced to it in their article so it's fair to assume it is a real and a valid study because SR is Sweden's national publicly funded radio broadcaster. Much like BBC in UK.

Secondly, I don't have to account for it. Nowhere it is said that only children are eligible for protection. And it's quite obvious they lie about their age because they are afraid of getting deported.

But don't you realise that these factors are what are raising the recognition rates? According to international laws a country cannot deport under aged asylum seekers. Most of the refugees in Nordic Countries are lying about their ages.

I wonder, though, what makes you think I haven't heard about that, or that I can't account for that?

First of all, even if 30% of those who claim to be Syrians, are in fact lying, that still means that hundreds of thousands of them are refugees.

Spoiler

Also, your articles say that forging passports is mostly proliferating in Turkey. I wonder, though, who the hell would ask for a passsport to be forged apart from Turkish people, Syrians, Iraqis, or the Pakistani and Afghani migrants that pass through Turkey. Now, it's very easy to sort out those who are not Syrians: just ask them questions in arabic, with a syrian dialect. Turkish, Pakistani, Afghani migrants can be sorted out most certainly that way.

Thirdly, having documents is not a requirement to apply for asylum. However, I don't want to be that naive, obviously someone using a fake passport, does raise suspicion- and I never said that these people should be allowed to roam free. So I'm not arguing for -and never did- accepting everyone- but these things should be examined in a fair process. Now, when a country like mine, builds a fence and admittedly doesn't want any migrant here, that means this country doesn't give two sh*ts about its international obligations or the rights of refugees. As I said, if someone is just an economic migrant- go send him back, I don't have a problem with it. The problem is you're demonizing all of them based on montaged videos from biased sources, and you are implying that most of these people are not refugees but economic migrants- but this should be decided in a fair legal process, not based on your assumptions or suspicions. When in fact, again, even if 30% of those claiming to be Syrians, are liars, that still leaves us with 70% of them who are indeed Syrians- hundreds of thousands of people. And you are asking me why am I focusing on them? Why are you focusing on those who leave your country? They have left, rejoice. But don't ignore those who really need help. The fact that you have a problem with most of them being male, shows that either you are sexist, or you never looked at the history of migration. In 2001, 75% of Colombian refugees in Costa Rica were men. Later the trend has changed, though. Which means that the first swarm of refugees is usually male, while later the females join them.

You must be registered for see links

In 2011, only 47% the refugees from all over the world were female.

You must be registered for see links

This is not just the problem in Germany and it's not just the 30%:

"90% of those arriving to Serbia from Macedonia claim to be Syrians"

"Serbian border police say that 90 per cent of those arriving from Macedonia, about 3000 a day, claim they are Syrian, although they have no documents to prove it. The so-called Balkan corridor for the migrant flight starts in Turkey, then goes through Macedonia and Serbia before entering the European Union in Hungary.
"You can see that something is fishy when most of those who cross into Serbia enter January 1 as the date of their birth," border police officer Miroslav Jovic said. "Guess that's the first date that comes to their mind."

You must be registered for see links

Again, to be eligible for refugee status, you are not required to have documents when you enter the country. Now people lying about their documents raises some suspicion, but as I said, it's not that hard, or at least it shouldn't be that hard, to get an arabic interpreter and decide if the person is from Syria or not- or an interpreter who speaks urdu and farsi/pashtu, to decide if the person is afghan or pakistani..etc. But again, not only Syrians are eligible for refugee status. The recognition rate for Iraqis, again, is close to 90%, it's 70% for Afghans, and close to 90% in case of Eritreans. Stats YOU can't account for.

Changing international laws is not an argument to refute the current obligations these countries have acceeded to on their own free wil.

You promoting a way to identify fake refugees does not mean that EU countries use that in their refugee process. It shouldn't be that hard yes, but apparently it is.

Yes and because of for example UK and Finland for example that use a non EU directive based category to identify the people who are allowed to have a resident permit and because many are lying about their age, it the reason why the recognition rates are so high. I couldn't find the statistics for age demographics for Iraqi refugees in the whole Europe, but in Finland 2000 underaged Afghanis and 600 underaged Iraqis who travelled alone came to seek asyulum.

You must be registered for see links

Also about 13% of the current Syrian refugees are of ages 12-17.

You must be registered for see links

If the portions for this specific age group are anywhere near these figures with Iraqis (they probably are alot more) and if most of them are lying their age as proved above then that's a big portion of refugees that could be sent back to their home and decrease the recognition rates.

There is no such thing as less eligible for protection. You are either eligible, or not. You either meet the criteria or not. Now of course it's a legit question what should be done to those who don't cooperate - but first we should ask ourselves, if we have done our best to prepare for the situation? Many countries simply adopted a policy of refuting asylum applicants based on different excuses, pretending that none of those people are eligible for protection, or as if they were not even here. Many people forge their documents exactly because they know that the authorities in some countries are already applying a policy mentioned above, and they hope that with a Syrian passport they will be accepted.

Bolded, that's your opinion. If it goes against the official policies of some countries then boohoo I guess. Doesn't make people forging their passports right or even eligible for protection.

You not comprehending my words is idiocy, no offense.

I didn't refute your data simply based on the source. I didn't just say 'I dismiss your data because it's dailymail'. I provided other data, and if you have to choose between the two, in case they are contradictory- as they are- ,then only a biased or an ignorant person would choose a news site with the reputation of fox news, compared to the EU or the UN.

They both used EU statistics.

Yeah, from 2014

No the first two quarters of 2015. They also mentioned 2014 but they also referred to 2015 statistics.

"The figures from Eurostat, the EU's official statistical agency, show that migration from April to June was running at double the level of the same period in 2014." You just got owned.

And if you check the original source (something dailymail didn't link, oops)

You must be registered for see links

...then you'll see that those 20% being Syrian was still the highest percentage.

And my stats from 2015 still stand.

No that's not the original source, because it's focusing on the year 2014. I even posted a photo of the demographics of the first two quarters of 2015. And it says that Syrians still make up the single biggest nationality among asylum seekers visiting EU. So I also admitted this. Work on your reading comprehension skills lmao.

You didn't prove anything, tbh. You don't even understand the terms you are using. An asylum seeker is not an 'illegal migrant' until their case is examined and their application is refused: in which case they can be transported back to their place of origin only if their lives are not threatened there. Therefore, even if they are lying -something most politicians do, so why don't we deport them too-, it doesn't automatically mean they should be refused all kinds of protection, and be deported just like that. Now of course confirming all that, and proceeding all these procedures is troublesome, but how is it the aslyum seekers' fault that the European governments and authorities are incompetent?

Bolded: never did I assert such a statement. So I understand the terms just fine.

I never said it was the refugees fault because I specifically said that this crisis is happening because of a flawed system. Now many of them lie about their age and origin, but that's just because they are depending our system to be so weak.

But again, we both agree that those who are really just economic migrants, such as people from Kosovo or Albania, or the Iraqis you mentioned, well yeah they shall be denied protection- and they will be denied, at least according to Eu stats, only a very small percentage of them are granted the refugee status. But in case of Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, or Eritreans, the recognition rate is very high, and most of the asylum seekers are still from these places. So no, you didn't prove that most of these people are economic migrants. Most of these people are Syrians, Iraqis, Afghan, and Eritreans: 70-98% of which are recognized as refugees. This is from EU and UNHCR statistics. Obviously those Iraqis that returned home from Finland, or those Syrians who faked their passport, are not in these stats. But you are focusing on 30% of those falsely claiming to be Syrians, and the 70% of the 20000 Iraqis having entered Finland, while ignoring the hundreds of thousands that are eligible for protection, and saying you have proved that most of them are just economic migrants...well it'd be ridiculous if we were not talking about real people here in real need of help.

If 30%-90% who are not Syrian claim to be Syrians wouldn't you agree that the stats are wrong on who's actually Syrian? I'm not saying most of Syrians are not eligible for protection, but that most of Iraqis, Pakistanies etc. aren't.

While it's true this has gone out of control, what's your proof that those who got the refugee status, have lied? You insiting that 'German authorities admitted that 30% of those claiming to be Syrians, are liars', doesn't disprove that 70% of them were not liars. And we are talking only about Syrians here. Only in Germany... (Btw why would you bring up fake syrians in Germany, if you want to talk about Iraqis in Finland...inconsistency much? )

No I don't just want to talk about Iraqis in Finland, but I was merely pointing out an consistency in behaviour. Because this deceitfulness is not happening just in Finland, Norway, Denmark, Germany and in Serbia. We have all the reason to believe that the same pattern is repeating itself in other countries of Europe aswell.

Again, we shouldn't punish those who need real protection, just because a number of them are only economic migrants. Inbefore you say: but they can't be distinguished! -Well, how is that the real refugees' fault? Again, we shouldn't punish them for something like that, excluding them from protection.
And again, the fact is: most of them are not economic migrants. Maybe in your country it's true for Iraqis or in Germany it's true for those 30% of people having claimed to be Syrian (btw their passport being fake still doesn't mean they can't be really Syrians)- but I hope you're aware that this accounts for only a minority of them.

As for them complaining about stuff is a different issue, it again doesn't mean in itself that they are not eligible for protection. In any case, they definitely can't be sent back to Syria or other places where they would be in danger. As Turkey and other such counries are not safe either as per EU standards, it's questionable if they can be sent back there- not to mention, how do you compel, let's say, Turkey to accept them back?

That's why this is a difficult issue and yeah I'm not saying all the innocent should be punished, but we have to do something.

Also I'd like to point out this:

ISIS promised to infiltrate 500 000 migrants to Europe as a psychological weapon

You must be registered for see links

Now -- > Nato Commander: ISIS spreading like cancer among refugees:

You must be registered for see links

So it's obvious that the refugee flow poses alot of risks and threats to us. How would we decrease the amount of refugees coming in here? One way would be to help them in their own country, as I've said. Anether step would be to remove all the factors that are attracting refugees to indeed cross many safe countries just to get into that specific country. Instead of dealing with this rationally and methodically and finding out who is an actual war refugee we just swung the doors right open

You must be registered for see images

In Finland one of those factors was when our PM offered his house to refugees:

You must be registered for see links

But I'd like to focus on Sweden here. The attraction factors for refugees to come into Sweden and the results of being the country in Europe that has the most immigrants per capita.

"As most of Europe’s leading countries appear to be trying to follow Sweden’s lead, economist Tino Sanandaji, himself an immigrant, told Wente, warns that the “generous” country is facing some major problems, particularly when it comes to employment and crime

Sweden has had an unusually open policy towards refugee and family immigrants. The Swedish Migration Agency estimates that around 105,000 individuals will apply for asylum only this year, corresponding to over one percent of Sweden’s entire population."

“… the open attitude towards granting immigrants asylum is not matched by good opportunities on the labor market. An in-depth study by the daily paper Dagens Nyheter shows that many migrants struggle to find decent work even ten years after entering the country. … The median income for the refugees in the group was found to be as low as £880 a month. The family immigrants of refugees earned even less. Ten years after arriving in the country, their median income was merely £360 a month. These very low figures suggest that a large segment of the group is still relying on welfare payments. Dagens Nyheter can show that at least four out of ten refugees ten years after arrival are supported by welfare. The paper acknowledges that this is likely an underestimation.”

“In Sweden, where equality is revered, inequality is now entrenched,” writes Wente. Citing staggering unemployment rates for immigrants, even after 15 years of living in the country, and skyrocketing welfare costs (58% of welfare payments go to immigrants, 16% of the population)"

"Forty-two per cent of the long-term unemployed are immigrants, Mr. Sanandaji said. Fifty-eight per cent of welfare payments go to immigrants. Forty-five per cent of children with low test scores are immigrants. Immigrants on average earn less than 40 per cent of Swedes. The majority of people charged with murder, rape and robbery are either first- or second-generation immigrants. “Since the 1980s, Sweden has had the largest increase in inequality of any country in the OECD,” Mr. Sanandaji said.

It’s really very simple, Mr. Sanandaji explained. You can’t combine open borders with a welfare state. “If you’re offering generous welfare benefits to every citizen, and anyone can come and use these benefits, then a very large number of people will try to do that. And it’s just mathematically impossible for a small country like Sweden to fund those benefits."

You must be registered for see links

Sweden: offers taxpayer-funded benefits to lure alienated jihadists home

You must be registered for see links

More refugees have sought asylum in Sweden in 2015 than any other year in the country's history, with 86,000 people applying for asylum.

You must be registered for see links

Sweden accepts the most refugees per capita:

You must be registered for see links

Since Sweden opened its doors to mass immigration, rapes have skyrocketed by a staggering 1400%, with most of the culprits being immigrants.

You must be registered for see links

Now more than half (58%) of Swedes think the number of immigrants being allowed into the country is too high, with 20-25 percent of Swedes now supporting the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats party.

You must be registered for see links

shouldn't this be a democrasy right?


So you see Swedes are slowly destroying their country. And we will follow if we won't change our policies and laws. This should not be about doing something that you think will increase the quality of life for third world citizens. This should be thought out from pragmatic point of view and only helping those who are in the most dire need of help. Because we can't handle these huge numbers. ISIS terrorists. Welfare leechers. Increased crime. We won't save refugees by destroying our own country. We can't afford to be the moral superpowers.

Also I'd like to point out earlier that you pointed out that minorities are used to doing more crimes than natives and this is explained by socio economic factors? This only goes to downplay the fact that when talking about muslims they do even more crimes than minorities do on average. For example in France and Denmark there have been studies which have counted in socio economic factors and found out that despite those factors muslims do still more crimes than native citizens.

You must be registered for see links

One last example: The Czech Republic, which didn’t open its borders to mass immigration and maintained a stable population number for 100 years, has the fastest growing economy in Europe.

You must be registered for see links

​