The European Refugee Crisis - MERGED

[latraviata]

A blog and the Clarion project.

Go on...

I'll take any decent evidence, doesn't even have to come from the "left media."

PregnantPornStar - i think you're right to point out we need to confront the worst excesses of every religion. But the different with the fundies we snark on is that we're careful to point the figure at specifically those practices we abhor. This isn't a "snark on Christians" site, it's a snark on a particular form of asshole site.

I think it get's very difficult when we start talking about "muslims" - 64% of whom apparently support Isis. That's not calling out the problematic stuff; that's calling out a whole group of people. The folks on shira patrol and "Muslims" aren't the same people.

I don't think anyone disputes the current situation is a mess. But we can say - the system is a mess without saying because of "those Muslims". We can talk about integration difficulties, without thinking everyone who wants to raise these issues are bigots. Every conversation struggles with both of these - you don't want to be called a bigot; and others reject the claim that "those people" are a "problem" because they're Muslim.

And round and round we go.

Re: intergration.

1) break up housing ghettos.

2) require incoming asylum seekers to migrate to particular areas - tie welfare payments to residence in areas etc.*

3) churches/sports clubs/mens groups/women's groups etc get (heavily) involved with integration programming (i.e.: so it doesn't happen at the multicultural centre; it happens in other places).

4) develop low-skilled, language training jobs. (i.e.: jobs that people can take, not in their ethnic communities).

I'm sure you can take those apart. They're just off the top of my head. No doubt others can add (it's 11pm here and I'm going to bed).

*this is a two edged sword - if you put people in a very different community, it's incredibly hard. So I'd say - this, but where there is work; with a strong community into which they are welcomed, invited to social events etc. Done badly, this can be a disaster. Done well, incoming migrants can be an enormous economic boon to depressed areas.

Yes the survey is in Dutch, do I really have to prove myself? Are percentages in my personal interest? No! Whatever numbers I deliver, they are always going to be criticised. Wrong source, wrong newspaper, wrong institute. This is personal expedence on this very forum. Sleep tight and dream on.

[PregnantPornStar]

A blog and the Clarion project.

Go on...

I'll take any decent evidence, doesn't even have to come from the "left media."

PregnantPornStar - i think you're right to point out we need to confront the worst excesses of every religion. But the different with the fundies we snark on is that we're careful to point the figure at specifically those practices we abhor. This isn't a "snark on Christians" site, it's a snark on a particular form of asshole site.

I think it get's very difficult when we start talking about "muslims" - 64% of whom apparently support Isis. That's not calling out the problematic stuff; that's calling out a whole group of people. The folks on shira patrol and "Muslims" aren't the same people.

I don't think anyone disputes the current situation is a mess. But we can say - the system is a mess without saying because of "those Muslims". We can talk about integration difficulties, without thinking everyone who wants to raise these issues are bigots. Every conversation struggles with both of these - you don't want to be called a bigot; and others reject the claim that "those people" are a "problem" because they're Muslim.

And round and round we go.

Re: intergration.

1) break up housing ghettos.

2) require incoming asylum seekers to migrate to particular areas - tie welfare payments to residence in areas etc.*

3) churches/sports clubs/mens groups/women's groups etc get (heavily) involved with integration programming (i.e.: so it doesn't happen at the multicultural centre; it happens in other places).

4) develop low-skilled, language training jobs. (i.e.: jobs that people can take, not in their ethnic communities).

I'm sure you can take those apart. They're just off the top of my head. No doubt others can add (it's 11pm here and I'm going to bed).

*this is a two edged sword - if you put people in a very different community, it's incredibly hard. So I'd say - this, but where there is work; with a strong community into which they are welcomed, invited to social events etc. Done badly, this can be a disaster. Done well, incoming migrants can be an enormous economic boon to depressed areas.

The blog is simply linking you to valid sources, so I don't think it is fair to ignore.

I am an Atheist. I see more problems, generally speaking, with Islam than I do with Christianity or any other religion. I have issues with religion in general, but my point is not to snark on religion as a whole. Islam has a lot of bad things. Does that mean all Muslims are bad? No, but that does mean that a lot of what they believe is bad. Sharia Law is bad and most Muslims do agree that Islam is only truly Islam if following Sharia Law and that Sharia Law should override all other laws. Islam is growing and fairly rapidly. I don't think it is unfair to question anything that is growing so rapidly and wondering what the long term impacts will be on the world.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... y-pew-says

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/reli ... 2010-2050/

[2xx1xy1JD]

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/ ... tatistics/

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/ ... -democracy

I checked out one link that related to Canada. http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-goo ... in-canada/ (unbroken, research institute) Some of their findings match my own observations. There is general appreciation for Canada as a peaceful and democratic country. Absolute repudiation of Al Quaida was more mixed (65%), and only a minority would totally repudiate Hamas, Hezbollah or the Iranian regime. Now, here's some interesting stuff: opposition to all forms of extremism was highest among those from Iran, and lower among those from other Middle Eastern countries. Support for the Muslim Brotherhood was not limited to those from the Middle East. Support for extremism was just as high among those born in Canada. The most radical political views tended to come from relatively secular people, often equipped with higher education in the social sciences.

So, what does that mean?

Simply living in a country does not cause people to adopt that country's values.

People do have appreciation for peace, democracy and personal safety.

At the same time, that appreciation won't always translate into a general change in world view, or affect their view of events abroad. Those views tend to be influenced by reactions against things that happen in their previous countries, and by things that they learn HERE from study groups or at university. People who lived under a government of religious extremists tend to reject extremism. People who lived under an authoritarian government that was less extreme than the people, and who saw Islamic organizations as less corrupt and closer to the people, will tend to be more extreme. Political stuff matters, it's not just about religious belief.

The surveys question on sharia was a bit unclear. In Ontario, Canada, there had been a proposal to allow Muslims to do religious-based arbitration on a voluntary basis, to deal with family law matters. The government first endorsed the idea, then suddenly opposed it once the media grabbed onto the story and there was a public outcry. In the end, the only change in policy was for the government to ban the existing Beth Din system for Orthodox Jews in family law arbitration, even though it had existed for years without anybody complaining.

Re: making or not making any comments on Islam:

I'd really, really like to have some focused discussion on the specific teachings and leaders that are problematic.

On the Sunni end: Hassan al-Banna was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Sayyid Qutb articulated a modern theology of jihad that was adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood. While the Muslim Brotherhood was generally opposed to the modern Arab states, Saudi Arabia spreads Wahhabism to maintain the support of clerics, and organizations that it supports publish and distribute Qutb's writings.

On the Shi'ite end, we have the teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeni.

[latraviata]

I checked out one link that related to Canada. http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-goo ... in-canada/ (unbroken, research institute) Some of their findings match my own observations. There is general appreciation for Canada as a peaceful and democratic country. Absolute repudiation of Al Quaida was more mixed (65%), and only a minority would totally repudiate Hamas, Hezbollah or the Iranian regime. Now, here's some interesting stuff: opposition to all forms of extremism was highest among those from Iran, and lower among those from other Middle Eastern countries. Support for the Muslim Brotherhood was not limited to those from the Middle East. Support for extremism was just as high among those born in Canada. The most radical political views tended to come from relatively secular people, often equipped with higher education in the social sciences.

So, what does that mean?

Simply living in a country does not cause people to adopt that country's values.

People do have appreciation for peace, democracy and personal safety.

At the same time, that appreciation won't always translate into a general change in world view, or affect their view of events abroad. Those views tend to be influenced by reactions against things that happen in their previous countries, and by things that they learn HERE from study groups or at university. People who lived under a government of religious extremists tend to reject extremism. People who lived under an authoritarian government that was less extreme than the people, and who saw Islamic organizations as less corrupt and closer to the people, will tend to be more extreme. Political stuff matters, it's not just about religious belief.

The surveys question on sharia was a bit unclear. In Ontario, Canada, there had been a proposal to allow Muslims to do religious-based arbitration on a voluntary basis, to deal with family law matters. The government first endorsed the idea, then suddenly opposed it once the media grabbed onto the story and there was a public outcry. In the end, the only change in policy was for the government to ban the existing Beth Din system for Orthodox Jews in family law arbitration, even though it had existed for years without anybody complaining.

Re: making or not making any comments on Islam:

I'd really, really like to have some focused discussion on the specific teachings and leaders that are problematic.

On the Sunni end: Hassan al-Banna was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Sayyid Qutb articulated a modern theology of jihad that was adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood. While the Muslim Brotherhood was generally opposed to the modern Arab states, Saudi Arabia spreads Wahhabism to maintain the support of clerics, and organizations that it supports publish and distribute Qutb's writings.

On the Shi'ite end, we have the teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeni.

Iranians are usually well adjusted to western society. Most Iranians have fled religious persecution in their homeland. I know a few Iranians (my dentist, professor colleague, a few colleagues from my son aka Cuteneurorad) and they are all atheist like myself.

[from the bible belt]

Let's not bash muslims/Arabs, never mind jews, christians, hindus all highly bashable but not muslims! Let's tolerate the intolerant, it is culture you know, it has nothing to do with islam and you should see my lovely muslim neighbours!! A shocking survey conducted by the left media shows that in at least West Europe 64% of the muslims are in favour of IS and the implementation of sharia law in western countries.

It is the culture for some jews, christians and hindu also. It is not just the islam which is doing these things against women and you know that very well. In india some crazy elder said that 2 sisters could end shouls be raped and send through the village without clothes to shame them because their brother dated a girl out of his cast.

It is not only the islam which has morons.

People are not their religion and religion is not the person.

[latraviata]

It is the culture for some jews, christians and hindu also. It is not just the islam which is doing these things against women and you know that very well. In india some crazy elder said that 2 sisters could end shouls be raped and send through the village without clothes to shame them because their brother dated a girl out of his cast.

It is not only the islam which has morons.

People are not their religion and religion is not the person.

Yes and that's why we have to tolerate the intolerant islam, which is by far the worst of all religions. You invited a refugee for dinner? You know the instructions right?

[from the bible belt]

Yes and that's why we have to tolerate the intolerant islam, which is by far the worst of all religions. You invited a refugee for dinner? You know the instructions right?

We tolerate the bible belt here don't we? We tolerate that they dictate when we have shops open on sunday (Hoekse waard? Zeeuwse eilenden?)We tolerate that a big big portion here in the netherlands is orchestrated because of the bible belt? Anyone wants to celebrate kingsday on sunday? NOPE. Can we have the memorial day for the end of WW2 on sunday? NOPE

We tolerate that nurses and doctors are allowed to not stick by the law that said we offer euthanasia don't we?

Before you get your go on islam maybe you can get strong for the people here who are not under that different "laws" then the muslims. We are the country of the hidden bible belt and we are okay whit it............ so it seems

ETA: why is islam worse then our own F****** bible belt?

[2xx1xy1JD]

I really don't see any point to declaring one religion to be "the worst". I don't see any point in declaring that all groups are the same.

I do see a point to doing a detailed and pointed examination of dangerous extremist trends within a religion - looking at the origins, the ideologues, the main publications, the organizations, the ways that it gets spread into the mainstream, etc.

In some cases, there is also cross-pollination. European anti-semitism, for example, got exported to the Arab world. Look up Wolf Blitzer's interview with the Hamas spokesman who was claiming that Jews use the blood of Christians.

[nausicaa]

Iranians are usually well adjusted to western society. Most Iranians have fled religious persecution in their homeland. I know a few Iranians (my dentist, professor colleague, a few colleagues from my son aka Cuteneurorad) and they are all atheist like myself.

Cause you know, atheists got that monopoly on being decent people.

[latraviata]

We tolerate the bible belt here don't we? We tolerate that they dictate when we have shops open on sunday (Hoekse waard? Zeeuwse eilenden?)We tolerate that a big big portion here in the netherlands is orchestrated because of the bible belt? Anyone wants to celebrate kingsday on sunday? NOPE. Can we have the memorial day for the end of WW2 on sunday? NOPE

We tolerate that nurses and doctors are allowed to not stick by the law that said we offer euthanasia don't we?

Before you get your go on islam maybe you can get strong for the people here who are not under that different "laws" then the muslims. We are the country of the hidden bible belt and we are okay whit it............ so it seems

ETA: why is islam worse then our own F****** bible belt?

Do people in the bible belt chop off heads? Are there bible belt youngsters roaming around the streets of Amsterdam robbing defenseless old people? Do they represent the highest rate of prison population? Do they shout death to all jews? Do they throw gays from tall buildings? Yes, we shouldn't allow the idiocy of bible belt lunes, but at least we can protest and discuss it without death threads. Still the bible belters is a very minor insignificant group without militant, armed crusaders in their midst.

[OkToBeTakei]

Yeah we get it latraviata ...you hate Islam. As is usual on this board you will defend this view with ever increasing arrogance rolling out at some point your academic qualifications and shouting down anybody who wishes not just to disagree but to have even a modicum of intelligent debate. You will continue to link blogs and statistics which have no sound statistical back up and then blame others or FJ for not taking them seriously. You are right FJ is predictable at times as are you.

Wake me up when the intelligent conversation others have asked for happens rather than you screaming hysterically about chopped off heads. Bearing in mind we are talking about Syrian refugees in the first place. Just all the same to you I guess :roll:

[from the bible belt]

Do people in the bible belt chop off heads? Are there bible belt youngsters roaming around the streets of Amsterdam robbing defenseless old people? Do they represent the highest rate of prison population? Do they shout death to all jews? Do they throw gays from tall buildings? Yes, we shouldn't allow the idiocy of bible belt lunes, but at least we can protest and discuss it without death threads. Still the bible belters is a very minor insignificant group without militant, armed crusaders in their midst.

Minor?

No, they dictate, still

And yes they do throw gays out off there system, they just shun them, you don't belong here and you are not family anymore. My friend got this message from his family.

You know what is going on here for years and years.

We know about the raped daughters, nieces and sons within the bible belt here. We are nothing better then the feared muslims.

[latraviata]

Minor?

No, they dictate, still

And yes they do throw gays out off there system, they just shun them, you don't belong here and you are not family anymore. My friend got this message from his family.

You know what is going on here for years and years.

We know about the raped daughters, nieces and sons within the bible belt here. We are nothing better then the feared muslims.

Yes I know I have been treating bible belt children for years. You are delusional!

[from the bible belt]

Yes I know I have been treating bible belt children for years. You are delusional!

Could be, i am just a child from the bible belt. I know nothing, that's okay. Kisss ;)

[2xx1xy1JD]

Do people in the bible belt chop off heads? Are there bible belt youngsters roaming around the streets of Amsterdam robbing defenseless old people? Do they represent the highest rate of prison population? Do they shout death to all jews? Do they throw gays from tall buildings? Yes, we shouldn't allow the idiocy of bible belt lunes, but at least we can protest and discuss it without death threads. Still the bible belters is a very minor insignificant group without militant, armed crusaders in their midst.

Let's try to separate out political/social stuff from things that are universally applicable to Islam but not any other religion.

The beheadings are obviously a huge issue. Islam is not the only religion to have used capital punishment for religious offenses - see the Inquisition and witch trials. More recently, Uganda had attempted to toughen the law against homosexual behavior to the point of imposing the death penalty, and had received some support from American Christians in its efforts to do so. It's not a difference of basic religion - it's a difference in the respect for the existence of a secular sphere, separation of religion and state and freedom of religion.

Muggings - this has nothing to do with religious doctrine. Depending on where you are, you can find juvenile delinquents and marginalized communities. It's a social issue.

Prison populations - again, not actually an issue of religious doctrine. It can reflect many factors, including breakdown of traditional structures, poverty, marginalized population at odds with general society, and/or racist law enforcement. In different places, different groups are over-represented in prisons. In the United States, African-Americans are over-represented. In Canada, it's Native Canadians. In Australia, it's Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. You can't blame those groups problems on Islam.

Screaming death to all Jews - It's a serious problem today in the Muslim world, especially among those exposed to the teachings of Sayyid Qutb or the Ayatollah Khomeni. During WWII, it was happening in the Christian and secular/atheist world. In the post-war era, much of Europe (particularly western Europe) repudiated its anti-semitism, but the views had spread to and survived in the Muslim world.

Nazi ideology was also anti-gay.

Bottom line is that I'd love to talk about the combination of factors which has been pushing extremist trends in parts of the Muslim world - but we don't have that conversation if people never go beyond "Islam bad, worse than other religions".

[OkToBeTakei]

I really don't see any point to declaring one religion to be "the worst". I don't see any point in declaring that all groups are the same.

I do see a point to doing a detailed and pointed examination of dangerous extremist trends within a religion - looking at the origins, the ideologues, the main publications, the organizations, the ways that it gets spread into the mainstream, etc.

In some cases, there is also cross-pollination. European anti-semitism, for example, got exported to the Arab world. Look up Wolf Blitzer's interview with the Hamas spokesman who was claiming that Jews use the blood of Christians.

I think 2XX maybe off for her family Friday but I agree this is of interest.

It's the broad sweep which causes hysteria and it is ignorance and fear mongering. Every religion has extremes and extremists. Good old catholics liked to set bombs for many a decade in their holy war. The conflict in Palestine/Israel is a two horse maybe more race. When arms are involved and delicate politics determining an unstable region there will be many fingers in many pies.

As others have mentioned vast swathes of Christian religions have histories subjugating women. Sharia law is held up as the horror about to be unleashed on the West. There historically has been large migration of Muslims to the UK and whilst there are isolated stories of religious extremism it is not the norm in large Muslim populations. Some of the youth joining ISIS are not even Muslim in origin. The small amount of Muslim youth joining or attempting to join have been found to be unhappy economically, they are second to third generation migrants whose parents are horrified by their actions. They are groomed and lured via the internet and the ideology and slick media of ISIS.

2XX is right, it is looking at the origins and trends of these extremists that can give insight into why they have a target audience.

ETA. Cross posted with 2XX got the day wrong maybe :lol:

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'll be off soon - different time zone, so I'm still at work. Need to get off the computer though, because it's my day to do carpool, then cook Friday night dinner, and I'm off the internet for the Sabbath and then getting ready for the Jewish New Year. I've got only Sat. night and Sunday to prepare for having 29 people over for dinner on Sun. night and 34 for dinner on Mon. night. Last night, the local grocery store looked like Toys'R'Us on Xmas eve. - lots of people, no chicken.

[OkToBeTakei]

I'll be off soon - different time zone, so I'm still at work. Need to get off the computer though, because it's my day to do carpool, then cook Friday night dinner, and I'm off the internet for the Sabbath and then getting ready for the Jewish New Year. I've got only Sat. night and Sunday to prepare for having 29 people over for dinner on Sun. night and 34 for dinner on Mon. night. Last night, the local grocery store looked like Toys'R'Us on Xmas eve. - lots of people, no chicken.

I figured it was soonish. Well have a blast. I daresay this debate will be here when you get back. I shall toast your New Year with a Gin :D

[laPapessaGiovanna]

I think it's naive to think that religions and ideologies are the cause of the current international turmoils. Throughout history those have always been facades hiding struggles for power, control of resources, money. Simple baits for ignorant (or lazy-minded, degreed pofessionals with no critical thinking abilities, daily fail as only source of information ppeople, arrogant and inexperienced youths) masses that have to be lured to be willing pawns in the hands of those who earn and thrive thanks to this chaos. No fundamentalist vision of the the world is better or worse than the others be it sold under the name of Islam, Christianity, Communism, Capitalism, "family values" or anything else.

Let's remember that the idea of a secular state is fairly new, only two centuries old and many in the western "democratic" world still don't grasp it (ie Ireland's laws on abortion, italian position on lgbt rights, in UK head of state and head of church are the same person etc) and are SEVERELY influenced by clergy and religious "values" in their political stance. With this I only want to say that in Africa and M.E. there are very young states and even younger (if at all) democracies, we cannot pretend from theeir citizens a political maturity that we also are struggling to fully understand and realize as a ccondition to recognise their refugee status. This said I believe we have to ask them to abide by our laws but we cannot mandate complete integration in our society and our values, it's not something we can force.

[PregnantPornStar]

There is absolutely no denying that there are issues with with extremists in all faiths. That is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the issues with Islam and peoples who live in a vastly different culture that ours. I have my issues with Christianity and am willing to discuss that at length, but that is for another thread.

The modern western world and modern Christianity are by far more progressive than Islam and those under Sharia Law. While there are those who may not be accepting of the LGBT community, birth control, atheism and women wearing leggings, we certainly don't need to worry about being stoned for doing so. Most people would agree, no matter how against it they are, that stoning someone for breaking the laws is not acceptable.

There are plenty of Muslims that agree with Sharia law. There are also plenty of Muslims that don't agree with "extreme" views on terrorism and are more "moderate" but that doesn't mean they don't agree with some aspects. It isn't even legal under Sharai Law to leave Islam. There are few that will truly speak out against violence and acts of terrorism or even Islam in general. If they do speak out, they are risking their lives. Ask Raif Badawi, Salman Rushdie, Mukhtaran Bibi to name a few.

I am not denying that the Western World doesn't have issues, that there are Christian extremists or that those extremists don't have supporters. However, those are few and far between and even if there are those that do agree with these extremists, even if just a little, you are not going to find many are incredibly outspoken about it. Why? Because Western Society frowns upon things like murdering Matthew Shepard or George Tiller. We generally do not support violence and people are certainly not afraid to voice that we are greatly opposed to violence.

Culture Shock is a very real thing. I often joke that I experienced more Culture Shock when moving to the southeast than I did when I moved to Europe. My New England self has never been able to fully embrace the south and never will be able to. I am too firm in my beliefs to completely assimilate. I don't think you can deny that it will be hard for the migrants and refugees.

Does that mean we just leave them all out in the cold? No, but it does mean we need to have very real discussions and realize think about what is very important and good about the western world and what about that we won't allow to be changed. Banning Sharia Law is a place to start. This means that even if you believe it, you cannot impose it on your family or live by it.

ETA: I also think it is important to question where the money to take in refugees will come from. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but taking in 800,000 people is not a small number. There is so much at stake, I don't think it is fair to anyone, including the refugees, to ignore these issues.

[Clementine]

http://www.infowars.com/german-schools-order-girls-not-to-wear-short-skirts-to-avoid-offending-muslim-migrants/

Can a fellow FJ'r, who lives in Europe, tell me if any of this is true, especially the stats about Sweden turning into the rape capitol, of the West? It seems so far-fetched.

I think we are, yes. I have no idea where they get the number 77,6% from though. Our crime statistiscs doesn't include ethnicity or religion. The government stopped including ethnic origin that in 2005.

The last two big reports concerning foreigners representation when it comes to crimes (made in 1995 and 2005) did show that men from the Middle East and North Africa were highly overrepresented when it came to more serious offenses such as murder, assault, robbery, drug dealing and rapes.

Our government stopped keeping track of national origin of criminals after the report was published in 2005.

We do have a new phenomenon here now that seems to be linked to immigrants: gangrape. There have been a number of them the last years, always with immigrants from Africa and the Middle East. A 20-year old woman was gangraped outdoor in central Stockholm just this week. The suspects were four teenagers, believed to be from Marocco, although the police isn't sure since they have no ID. Another one last month where an asylum seeker with an Arab name was caught last week. New cultural phenomenons that we just have to get used to, I guess.

[Clementine]

Forgive me Sundaymorning, but you're delusional. Western countries have had INCREDIBLY strict rules about who gets to enter in the last decades. It's because of the strictness of the rules (which are a totally modern, post WWII invention) that there is so much incentive for people to apply for asylum. And while you would be absolutely willing to give people asylum according to two criteria you have decided, there is already a very strict and much more restrictive test that applies, and will be applied to everyone currently claiming refugee status. I wonder what test you would have for determining "our values." If it's a simple belief in the democratic process, sure. Anything else, you're going to run into trouble.*

Further - the withdrawal of citizenship to people who don't adhere to our 'values' is going to run into a lot of problems with creating stateless people - you can't take away citizenship if you are going to leave someone stateless. If this is part of your strategy for dealing with refugees (and may people like the idea), please address how you deal with statelessness.

I think there are two separate issues that people are conflating.

1) What happens when there is a large influx of people with massively different culture to a host country? and

2) How do we deal with asylum seekers?

These are not the same issue. We conflate them at our peril. They are related, sure. But if we can distinguish them in our minds, it will help.

I think it's totally reasonable to point out that current asylum policy (esp permanent residence with family reunion) operates as a very particular incentive for very particular types of migrants. On the other hand, you don't want people sitting in limbo for 20 years. I don't think it would be unreasonable to introduce some middle ground between limbo and immediate PR.

On the oil states - well, no they're not taking people. Maybe they should. However they never said they would. Western states have said - for the last 50 years or so - we would accept refugees. Scream hypocrisy all you want, but I'm not sure it's there. We're being held to something we pledged to, simple as that.

The system was set up to accommodate the mass movement of people to avoid genocide. So.. you know. Pretty much exactly this. We might not like it, but you know... It was our revulsion at our (western state) conduct that prevented people escaping the WWII genocide that led us to set the system up - because we saw we didn't do the right thing and wanted to bind ourselves to better conduct in the future.

Sure, some people will take advantage of the system. Every system. In which case, we should be tweaking the system, instead of screaming to the heavens about the raping, scheming barbarian hordes.

Might I ask people who are against the influx of asylum seekers - what exactly would you have done instead? For both:

1) the abstract and not yet realised problem of future movement and

2) the hundreds of thousands of people already in Europe.

Aside: I do wonder when the first state will withdraw from the Refugee Convention. I'm still amazed Australia hasn't, though I think it's managed to effectively abrogate most of their responsibilities so they don't need to. The public shaming aspect must be all that's holding certain states bak.

*Yes, women. But where do you draw the line? And once it's set in stone, it has the possibility of freezing progress wherever we have drawn the current line. It's a real catch 22.

I need to adress the bolded. Speaking for Sweden. We have had a high rate of people coming here to seek asylum for years. Here is the scary part: more than 90% of the asylum seekers don't show any valid IDs or passports. It's up to the national migration board to try to establish if the story they are telling is believable or not.

The last few years the pressure on the people who are processing the asylum applications have been so high that they now have about an hour to determine if the person sitting in front of them is the person he/she claims to be, with the help of an interpreter, and if they should be granted asylum.

Not a very safe system if you ask me.

Add to that that there are 60 000 Swedish passports that get "lost" every year. A lot of them are sold to traffickers and used to smuggle asylum seekers. Or simply to travel the world with somebody else's identity.

As a result, we have hundreds of thousands of people that we really have no idea who they are, what they have done before they came here or if they really have asylum status. According to the security police, at least 1500 war criminals live in Sweden.

One that participated in the genocide in Rwanda in the 90's was prosecuted last week, but the majority of them will just continue to live their lives here, supported by the taxpayers.

http://www.thelocal.se/20150904/sweden- ... de-suspect

Another man from Rwanda living in Sweden that was sentenced to life in prison last year:

http://www.thelocal.se/20140619/swede-s ... a-genocide

Don't be surprised if the next IS terrorists perpetrating a terror attack have Swedish passports or have come here as false asylum seekers.

We also have 300 IS fighters who can come and leave the country as they want, since it's not illegal to join or support the Islamic State.

I really can't believe that the other governments in the EU (and the US) is letting us get away with this and I can't believe that our politicians have given themselves the right to expose us to these risks.

[Anny Nym]

I´m glad you joined the discussion ,@Clementine.

At the moment I´m on reading mode, because I´m a bit overwhelmed here at the moment.

But one question, what about the Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden? Aren´t many people voting for them, if the current reigning parties don´t do their job?

[Clementine]

I´m glad you joined the discussion ,@Clementine.

At the moment I´m on reading mode, because I´m a bit overwhelmed here at the moment.

But one question, what about the Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden? Aren´t many people voting for them, if the current reigning parties don´t do their job?

Thank you Anny Nym! I wish I had better news to share from my country.

Sverigedemokraterna (The Swedish Democrats) were elected into the parliament for the first time in 2010. They got 5,7 % of the votes and it sent chockwaves among the other parties. They other seven parties spent the next four years doing everything they could to not let the Swedish Democrats get any political influence whatsoever. The prime minister Fredrik Reinfeld, who was the leader of the Conservative party, even went so far as to say "the more people vote for the Swedish Democrats, the more liberal I will make the immigration policies". And then he made a deal with the Green Party (Miljöpartiet) to let all illegal immigrants in Sweden get free healthcare, dental care and school.

The problems and challenges that their very generous (and callous) policies resulted in were something that they refused to see, refused to talk about and anybody that tried to discuss it were shouted out and called "racists", thus effectively shutting them up.

The media spent four years shaming anybody who could have any remote connection to, or sympathy for, the Swedish democrats, setting aside any normal decency or moral when it comes to journalistic work. The second biggest evening newspaper Expressen have been cooperating with a hacker cooperative with ties to left wing extremists AFA (Anti-Fascist Front) to get their stories.

People who openly supported the Swedish democrats were kicked out of the union, could lose their jobs, their friends or no longer be wantes as volunters. Between 2010 and 2014, almost 500 000 people were given permanent residence here, the majority of them asylum seekers from the third world and their families. (We're a small country, about 9,5 M people).

The result? In the election in 2014, the Swedish Democrats got 12,86% of the votes to the parliament and became the third biggest party.

All the other parties then formed a coalition where the Socialdemocrats and the Green Party would get to form a minority government and all the other parties agreed to not vote against their propositions, but to lay down their votes. All to make sure that the SD would not get any influence, and thus setting aside normal democratic work in the parliament.

The result? SD now get between 20 and 25% of the votes in all polls, same as the other two big parties, the Social Democrates and the Conservatives. SD became the biggest party in a poll for the first time this week.

The problem is that the next election is in 2018 and unless the SD will get at least 51% of the votes (not likely that they will), they will still get no influence since all the other parties refuse to work with them.

Meanwhile we still have an influx of more than 100 000 immigrants per year, the majority of them refugees from the third world, who are needing huge support from the government in form of housing, financial support, education, school, childcare, dental care, healthcare, pensions. According to the current government, we need to build housing to accomodate 500 000 people the next five years to keep up.

That's the equivalent of a town the size of Gothenburg, the second biggest town in Sweden. We're not building a new Gothenburg as far as I know, nor do we plan to. How we're going to cope with the situation and the influx of people coming here is something that no politician can answer. They just call this "a challenge". Well, you can't live in a challenge, nor will a challenge get you hospital care or pay for your groceries.

Meanwhile 3 239 people applied for asylum last weak and the numbers are rising. To be continued...

By the way, if I said what I wrote above at my workplace, that would put me in a very umcomfortable position and would possibly render me a "private talk" with my boss. The politicians and media have managed to scare people from talking about the immigration politics other than in positive terms.

[Anny Nym]

Thank you for your elaborate explaination, Clementine. This reminds me alot about the situation in my country 5 years ago.

Is it okay to PM you ?