Convince me that the Swedish refugee-immigration is sustainable and positive.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I'm gonna cut to the chase here. This is a cry for help.

This year, we in Sweden are estimating a total of 80000-100000 refugees from primarily the middle east(Iraq and Syria) and Africa(Somalia and Eritrea). The population of Sweden is currently about 9.5 million.

That means that the total population this year(and estimated the following years) is increasing with 1%. That's 1% that won't get any jobs(A significant number of them lack education and most importantly, none of them speak the language when they arrive, and our unemployment is currently at 8%)

The Swedish Welfare system is extensive, as you might be aware. We are going to have to pay for these people to have a place to live(there's already too few homes to go around as it is, which doesn't make it better) they will need food, they will need clothes and they will want(and need) to integrate into the Swedish society. But that's the thing.

For that, they absolutely positively MUST get jobs. But there aren't jobs for people who know the language. How on Earth is employment going to be provided to people who don't know the language? Who don't know the Culture? Who are, in every conceivable way, less profitable and harder to hire?

The result of this conundrum is segregation, growing unrest and (eventually) a collapse or dismantlement of the Welfare system.

There is currently one party propogating for a toning down of immigration. And that is Sverigedemokraterna. Every other party in the government despises Sverigedemokraterna, and wants nothing to do with them. Everyone wants to take in refugees.

But the thing is, I WANT to take in Refugees. Sweden should be as kind as the country can be and help people. But I will not, under any circumstances, allow our Welfare-system to be dismantled. And I see these current political trends as leading inevitably to that end.

I have been wrong before. And I sincerely hope I am wrong now.

I am against refugee-immigration. Please, convince me otherwise. And I do mean, "please".

I don´t think you´ll get many responses because frankly I doubt anyone but swedes plus neighbours know much about our immigration policies. Any answers you get are more likely than not going to be based on the immigration situation in the posters country.

But yeah, there´s not much to disagree with here. You must also keep in mind that the 100 thousand refugees will have relatives that come knocking, meaning the total number will be something closer to 150 thousand. The whole thing goes beyond being just bad policy, what we have is an entire parliament (minus one party) and all established media (pretty much including public service) that are backing a policy that isn´t just costly but will guarantee a rapid and artificial demographic shift. Add to that the poisonous rethoric that has been blossoming up recently where it has become acceptable to talk about "straight white males" or just "swedes" or "whites" in general in such a fashion that if someone talked about muslims or jews or blacks or homosexuals in the same fashion you would instantly know what kind of person you were dealing with. It´s not bad policy it´s just plain wrong.

The good news is that we are probably at the end of it. Things just can´t go on like this for much longer, if nothing else because the municipaities have started to stop accepting refugees and trying to force them to will probably piss of the local politicians pretty badly. Of course even if we start accepting exactly zero refugees right now we will still have huge problems with this for at least as long as you and I live, unless we turn to less humanitarian solutions. It can´t be overstated how very hard we´ve been fucked in the ass by people who claim to represent us.

Atrocious Joystick:
I don´t think you´ll get many responses because frankly I doubt anyone but swedes plus neighbours know much about our immigration policies. Any answers you get are more likely than not going to be based on the immigration situation in the posters country.

But yeah, there´s not much to disagree with here. You must also keep in mind that the 100 thousand refugees will have relatives that come knocking, meaning the total number will be something closer to 150 thousand. The whole thing goes beyond being just bad policy, what we have is an entire parliament (minus one party) and all established media (pretty much including public service) that are backing a policy that isn´t just costly but will guarantee a rapid and artificial demographic shift. Add to that the poisonous rethoric that has been blossoming up recently where it has become acceptable to talk about "straight white males" or just "swedes" or "whites" in general in such a fashion that if someone talked about muslims or jews or blacks or homosexuals in the same fashion you would instantly know what kind of person you were dealing with. It´s not bad policy it´s just plain wrong.

The good news is that we are probably at the end of it. Things just can´t go on like this for much longer, if nothing else because the municipaities have started to stop accepting refugees and trying to force them to will probably piss of the local politicians pretty badly. Of course even if we start accepting exactly zero refugees right now we will still have huge problems with this for at least as long as you and I live, unless we turn to less humanitarian solutions. It can´t be overstated how very hard we´ve been fucked in the ass by people who claim to represent us.

Yeah, I know I probably won't get many responses, but I wanted to try. So many of my friends claim we need to take in MORE people, and I just...sigh. I want to have a reasonable discussion with a reasonable person that has reasonable arguments for continued immigration.

But everyone who wants more immigration is either A) A liar and scoundrel, B) Has his head up his arse, C) Uses obviously flawed pleas to emotion, D) Is a radical feminist or E) A combination of the above.

This talk of straight White men being the plague of the Earth, upploppen i Husby...man, how did it come to this? Where did we go wrong? How did Everything become so fucked?

In your opinion, how has the integration of the previous groups of immigrants gone?

I began hearing reports ever since 2007 that integration is not moving at the pace that was advertised.

aelreth:
In your opinion, how has the integration of the previous groups of immigrants gone?

I began hearing reports ever since 2007 that integration is not moving at the pace that was advertised.

The thing with the previous immigrants was, that they all got jobs pretty much immediately. Hell, for most of the sixties and seventies, all immigrants who came came because we NEEDED more people to run the Swedish factories. And when you get a job at a Swedish factory full of Swedish people, that's pretty much all the integration you need. You'll learn Swedish okay, you get an ok salary, because of the bustling Swedish economy you've no problems getting a home for yourself(even if it is less prestigeful than the average swedes)

But the thing is, now there ARE no jobs. All the jobs with low educational demands have been exported to China or other such countries. If you want a job in Sweden(a real job that actually pays) you damn well better have at least 3 years of higher education. How many Iraqis or Syrians do you Think have that?

It's all about the jobs. And there are. Simply. No. Jobs.

awesomeClaw:
But the thing is, now there ARE no jobs. All the jobs with low educational demands have been exported to China or other such countries.

Might it be that Sweden should place a high tariff on the import of the products of such jobs, then, to stimulate domestic growth? Consider, for example, clothing companies whose factories in Asia and South America pay workers very shabbily. If the Swedish (and other countries', sigh) population were to accept higher prices for clothing---for a time---due to high tariffs on such goods, then eventually local factories could compete in local markets once again.

awesomeClaw:
If you want a job in Sweden(a real job that actually pays) you damn well better have at least 3 years of higher education. How many Iraqis or Syrians do you Think have that?

Specifically, the Iraqis or Syrians who have gotten away from their own country and made it to Sweden, though.

Now, couldn't say for sure what demographics they would be from, but aren't they more likely to be better educated than the average for their country, in that it's not easy to get away? Would take money, people with money more likely to have a good job, which is more likely to have education (or a number of other things, true)

OTOH, maybe the Us should be made to take Iraqi refugees, given who was behind the invasion (with lesser contributions from others, of course).

thaluikhain:

awesomeClaw:
If you want a job in Sweden(a real job that actually pays) you damn well better have at least 3 years of higher education. How many Iraqis or Syrians do you Think have that?

Specifically, the Iraqis or Syrians who have gotten away from their own country and made it to Sweden, though.

Now, couldn't say for sure what demographics they would be from, but aren't they more likely to be better educated than the average for their country, in that it's not easy to get away? Would take money, people with money more likely to have a good job, which is more likely to have education (or a number of other things, true)

OTOH, maybe the Us should be made to take Iraqi refugees, given who was behind the invasion (with lesser contributions from others, of course).

A fair and well-put point.

However, I somewhat misspoke. Even if the ones who come here have the finest education in the World, they're still not going to know the language, are they? And when you have 8% unemploymeny, any job that shows up is going to be hot stuff for a number of prospective workers.

Employers want their employees to speak the same language as them, and often they require them to speak it fluently. But with 100000 migrants each year, teaching them all Swedish becomes a herculean task.

I'd also like to thank for putting in the time to talk about this! I've been aching to have a sensible discussion about this topic for a while now, and you simply can't have that in this country in the current climate. The issue is so infected just touching it makes it explode with pus and blood. Often literally.

awesomeClaw:
A fair and well-put point.

However, I somewhat misspoke. Even if the ones who come here have the finest education in the World, they're still not going to know the language, are they? And when you have 8% unemploymeny, any job that shows up is going to be hot stuff for a number of prospective workers.

Employers want their employees to speak the same language as them, and often they require them to speak it fluently. But with 100000 migrants each year, teaching them all Swedish becomes a herculean task.

Language is going to be a serious issue, yes. Though, again, not sure, but I'm thinking that large amounts of educated Iraqis and Syrians would be likely to know English.

100,000, though...that number is going to cause problems whoever they are. If people from Denmark or Norway were to suddenly move to Sweden in that sort of numbers, that would be an issue. Sweden simply shouldn't expect to be able to take in that many people. Divide that number amongst the nations of Western Europe, though, and things are rather different...if you could somehow get that to happen.

thaluikhain:

awesomeClaw:
A fair and well-put point.

However, I somewhat misspoke. Even if the ones who come here have the finest education in the World, they're still not going to know the language, are they? And when you have 8% unemploymeny, any job that shows up is going to be hot stuff for a number of prospective workers.

Employers want their employees to speak the same language as them, and often they require them to speak it fluently. But with 100000 migrants each year, teaching them all Swedish becomes a herculean task.

Language is going to be a serious issue, yes. Though, again, not sure, but I'm thinking that large amounts of educated Iraqis and Syrians would be likely to know English.

100,000, though...that number is going to cause problems whoever they are. If people from Denmark or Norway were to suddenly move to Sweden in that sort of numbers, that would be an issue. Sweden simply shouldn't expect to be able to take in that many people. Divide that number amongst the nations of Western Europe, though, and things are rather different...if you could somehow get that to happen.

If everyone in Europe took their responsibility, then sure, that'd be just fine by me. I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I think it's such a shame it's not going to happen. Not in our lifetimes, at least. And that's bad, yeah, and we should definitely push that countries with more resources take in slightly more refugees than now.

But as you said, the answer is NOT taking in 100000 people each year. It can never be that.

I've held for years that the lid put on the Swedish debate on the issue, driving it underground, would leave it to fester and grow, ultimately exploding with a political force not seen anywhere in Scandinavia in recent memory.

It is only now, more than 12 years after debating the obvious became a thing, that things have stabilized in Denmark. And reflection have set in on the part of those who for decades disregarded the influx of social problems and utter destruction of social cohesion felt by the weakest parts of society, by accusing said groups of ignorant racism. Which is apparently still going strong in Sweden.

I don't know what the additional 12+ years will add to the Swedish melting pot, but I'm getting popcorn. In the meantime, Sweden is making its bed - loudly condemning all who don't follow suit - and will of course have to sleep in it. For centuries to come.

awesomeClaw:
If everyone in Europe took their responsibility, then sure, that'd be just fine by me. I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I think it's such a shame it's not going to happen. Not in our lifetimes, at least. And that's bad, yeah, and we should definitely push that countries with more resources take in slightly more refugees than now.

Yeah...I live in Australia, with a whole continent to ourselves and a population of some 22 million.

If 1,200 odd people rock up in boats, it's an emergency, and they are sent to some offshore prison run by dodgy private companies with human rights issues.

However, it seems that this is less due to xenophobia on the part of the general populace (though there's a lot of that, and it's been election winning in the pass), and more that it's something the government can look tough on. Social reform, the economy, and the plight of Aborigines (if anyone were to care about the latter) are hard problems to tackle.

Particularly galling as Australia likes to portray itself as the lucky country, land of the fair go and tolerance and all. And not without some justification, but that no longer seems a priority.

...

Another option would be to ensure the stability of other nations to avoid the need to resettle refugees, though there's only so much minor nations can do about that.

Imperator_DK:
I've held for years that the lid put on the Swedish debate on the issue, driving it underground, would leave it to fester and grow, ultimately exploding with a political force not seen anywhere in Scandinavia in recent memory.

It is only now, more than 12 years after debating the obvious became a thing, that things have stabilized in Denmark. And reflection have set in on the part of those who for decades disregarded the influx of social problems and utter destruction of social cohesion felt by the weakest parts of society, by accusing said groups of ignorant racism. Which is apparently still going strong in Sweden.

I don't know what the additional 12+ years will add to the Swedish melting pot, but I'm getting popcorn. In the meantime, Sweden is making its bed - loudly condemning all who don't follow suit - and will of course have to sleep in it. For centuries to come.

Mind if I come join you in a couple of years? I promise I won't steal any of your prised danish beer.

thaluikhain:

awesomeClaw:
If everyone in Europe took their responsibility, then sure, that'd be just fine by me. I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I think it's such a shame it's not going to happen. Not in our lifetimes, at least. And that's bad, yeah, and we should definitely push that countries with more resources take in slightly more refugees than now.

Yeah...I live in Australia, with a whole continent to ourselves and a population of some 22 million.

If 1,200 odd people rock up in boats, it's an emergency, and they are sent to some offshore prison run by dodgy private companies with human rights issues.

However, it seems that this is less due to xenophobia on the part of the general populace (though there's a lot of that, and it's been election winning in the pass), and more that it's something the government can look tough on. Social reform, the economy, and the plight of Aborigines (if anyone were to care about the latter) are hard problems to tackle.

Particularly galling as Australia likes to portray itself as the lucky country, land of the fair go and tolerance and all. And not without some justification, but that no longer seems a priority.

...

Another option would be to ensure the stability of other nations to avoid the need to resettle refugees, though there's only so much minor nations can do about that.

It's all so very complicated. I Think you're on the right track, but honestly, what are we as humble Citizens to do about it? Our voice is but one of a thousand.

At least we've got our Anonymous internet discussions to vent in.

awesomeClaw:

I'd also like to thank for putting in the time to talk about this! I've been aching to have a sensible discussion about this topic for a while now, and you simply can't have that in this country in the current climate. The issue is so infected just touching it makes it explode with pus and blood. Often literally.

That might be because right-wing extremists with roots in neo-Nazism are the people who are the loudest on this topic. And they are quite frankly hilariously biased and lacking in understanding. Yes, I am talking about SD.

But really, you have some misconceptions here. So let's get down to it:
1. Refugees are uneducated and penniless. As Thaluikhain has already pointed out, this point is simply not true. In fact, the average refugee to Sweden from either Africa or the Middle East is likely to have at least a complete High School education and a sizable portion have college degrees. Somalian doctors make up a significant minority of doctors in the Swedish healthcare system today. They are often fairly broke upon arrival in Sweden, owing to the fact that the only way to reach Sweden from Africa or the Middle East to seek asylum is to hire human traffickers.

2. They don't know the language. Which is why SFI exists in the first place. I've met enough immigrants in my line of work to know that SFI works, but could certainly use some refinement. The Chief Resident doctor on my ward told me how she (a chief resident of anesthesia from Russia) had to attend SFI to learn how to brush her teeth and apply shampoo. SFI should really aim a little higher than that, especially considering the education level of most refugees today.

3 There are no places to live. An increasing number of immigrants are being put in small communities outside of the big city areas, places which native Swedes are actually moving away from, that's how Migrationsverket get a lot of their apartments in the first place, trough signing contracts with landlords who are facing dwindling interest in their apartments. Nevermind that refugee care is a booming business, just look at how Bert Karlsson wanted to transform Spenshult Sjukhus into apartments for 800(!) refugees. When politicians says we are facing a shortage of rental apartments they are only correct in the big cities. Outside of the largest 20 cities, there are plenty of housing available... Most young Swedes don't want to live there anymore though.

4. There are no jobs for these refugees. Here's where we get technical. First of all, that 100,000 number is for all immigrants to Sweden. That includes Swedes returning home after living abroad, it includes people moving to Sweden to work here, people moving to Sweden to move in with their partner, people moving to Sweden to study and people seeking asylum in Sweden. Swedes returning make up about 15% of the number, people moving in from other Scandinavian countries another 15% and another 20% is divided between labor immigrants, students and general immigrants from first world countries for other reasons. That leaves us with about 50,000 refugees, still a respectable number.

Of those 50,000 at least half are expected to return to their country of origin upon cessation of the conflict or persecution that drove them from their home. That leaves us with 25,000 people who might be expected to stay in Sweden, of which more than half are, in fact, children. So in the end we have about 10,000 refugees coming to Sweden seeking Asylum. With an unemployment rate of 8% we have about 400,000 unemployed people in Sweden, which means that these 10,000 refugees will make up about 2,5% of the unemployed people in Sweden, assuming none of them get a job. But statistics from previous immigrants indicate that about 30% will find a job in Sweden within the first year. Suddenly that big mass of uncategorized immigrants is down to 7,000 unemployed adults (or 2% of total unemployment). Doesn't look so scary when we put it like that, does it?

On the other end of this spectrum we have the ever increasing shortage of nursing staff and employees for other welfare related jobs in Sweden. We absolutely need these refugees and we need them integrated and ready to get educated and work in Sweden if we are to retain our welfare system once the people born in the 50's start to retire. That "30,000 nurses by 2020"-line is serious business. Make no mistake, welfare and healthcare aren't the only areas that will be suffering from labor shortage within a decade. A labor shortage Sweden can only alleviate by having people immigrate here and stay.

awesomeClaw:
...
Mind if I come join you in a couple of years? I promise I won't steal any of your prised danish beer.

You're quite welcome. As is anyone else, of all colors and ethnicities.

Assuming of course you've all got an education, feasible starting capital, a clean criminal record, no massive social problems, no archaic anti-gay, sexist, anti-Semitic religious/political beliefs, and so forth. All those things generally required for successful immigration and integration into the job market of a progressive civil rights democracy, but which no one seem too concerned with these days.

Alas, the best beers - and worst policies - is found in Britain. Guess you can't win it all.

Gethsemani:

awesomeClaw:

I'd also like to thank for putting in the time to talk about this! I've been aching to have a sensible discussion about this topic for a while now, and you simply can't have that in this country in the current climate. The issue is so infected just touching it makes it explode with pus and blood. Often literally.

That might be because right-wing extremists with roots in neo-Nazism are the people who are the loudest on this topic. And they are quite frankly hilariously biased and lacking in understanding. Yes, I am talking about SD.

But really, you have some misconceptions here. So let's get down to it:
1. Refugees are uneducated and penniless. As Thaluikhain has already pointed out, this point is simply not true. In fact, the average refugee to Sweden from either Africa or the Middle East is likely to have at least a complete High School education and a sizable portion have college degrees. Somalian doctors make up a significant minority of doctors in the Swedish healthcare system today. They are often fairly broke upon arrival in Sweden, owing to the fact that the only way to reach Sweden from Africa or the Middle East to seek asylum is to hire human traffickers.

2. They don't know the language. Which is why SFI exists in the first place. I've met enough immigrants in my line of work to know that SFI works, but could certainly use some refinement. The Chief Resident doctor on my ward told me how she (a chief resident of anesthesia from Russia) had to attend SFI to learn how to brush her teeth and apply shampoo. SFI should really aim a little higher than that, especially considering the education level of most refugees today.

3 There are no places to live. An increasing number of immigrants are being put in small communities outside of the big city areas, places which native Swedes are actually moving away from, that's how Migrationsverket get a lot of their apartments in the first place, trough signing contracts with landlords who are facing dwindling interest in their apartments. Nevermind that refugee care is a booming business, just look at how Bert Karlsson wanted to transform Spenshult Sjukhus into apartments for 800(!) refugees. When politicians says we are facing a shortage of rental apartments they are only correct in the big cities. Outside of the largest 20 cities, there are plenty of housing available... Most young Swedes don't want to live there anymore though.

4. There are no jobs for these refugees. Here's where we get technical. First of all, that 100,000 number is for all immigrants to Sweden. That includes Swedes returning home after living abroad, it includes people moving to Sweden to work here, people moving to Sweden to move in with their partner, people moving to Sweden to study and people seeking asylum in Sweden. Swedes returning make up about 15% of the number, people moving in from other Scandinavian countries another 15% and another 20% is divided between labor immigrants, students and general immigrants from first world countries for other reasons. That leaves us with about 50,000 refugees, still a respectable number.

Of those 50,000 at least half are expected to return to their country of origin upon cessation of the conflict or persecution that drove them from their home. That leaves us with 25,000 people who might be expected to stay in Sweden, of which more than half are, in fact, children. So in the end we have about 10,000 refugees coming to Sweden seeking Asylum. With an unemployment rate of 8% we have about 400,000 unemployed people in Sweden, which means that these 10,000 refugees will make up about 2,5% of the unemployed people in Sweden, assuming none of them get a job. But statistics from previous immigrants indicate that about 30% will find a job in Sweden within the first year. Suddenly that big mass of uncategorized immigrants is down to 7,000 unemployed adults (or 2% of total unemployment). Doesn't look so scary when we put it like that, does it?

On the other end of this spectrum we have the ever increasing shortage of nursing staff and employees for other welfare related jobs in Sweden. We absolutely need these refugees and we need them integrated and ready to get educated and work in Sweden if we are to retain our welfare system once the people born in the 50's start to retire. That "30,000 nurses by 2020"-line is serious business. Make no mistake, welfare and healthcare aren't the only areas that will be suffering from labor shortage within a decade. A labor shortage Sweden can only alleviate by having people immigrate here and stay.

1. I'd like to see a source for that.

2. SFI works, when we take in few refugees. And to be fair, it doesn't work that incredibly well then either. With the current number of refugees, expect it to be a lot less effective. Most first-wave immigrants I've met in Gamlegården and the like don't know the language, and granted, that's not EVIDENCE, but Learning a language is a difficuly and time-consuming thing, that costs a lot of Money to teach out. Even with intensive studies, Learning the language will take a while. A costly while. That gives varying results depending on who studies. It's difficult to study the effectiveness of SFI, but it's a safe bet most immigrants will never become as good at Swedish as swedes. And that difference is all it takes.

3. In my neighbourhood, Näsby, all apartments are full. It's about 2km drive to the nearest big city(Kristianstad), and the neighbouring area, Gamlegåren, is all immigrants of middle-eastern/african descent. Gamlegården is 80 meters away from my apartment. All flats in Näsby are taken. Every single one. So you're telling me, that if the immigrants were to be removed from Gamlegården, noone would move in there because of lack of interest? That, I find highly unlikely.

4. Wrong. Provably wrong, in fact. http://www.migrationsverket.se/Om-Migrationsverket/Nyhetsarkiv/Nyhetsarkiv-2014/2014-07-24-Migrationsverket-hojer-asylprognosen-till-80-000.html

Hm. 89000 immigrants. Considering the situation in Iraq and Syria is only getting worse, that number is likely to increase. 100000, then.

Also, "from previous immigrants". These aren't previous immigrants, and these aren't previous conditions. Low-education jobs that require Little language skill are much more scarce, which were the primary jobs for those who couldn't speak Swedish before.

Imperator_DK:

awesomeClaw:
...
Mind if I come join you in a couple of years? I promise I won't steal any of your prised danish beer.

You're quite welcome. As is anyone else, of all colors and ethnicities.

Assuming of course you've all got an education, feasible starting capital, a clean criminal record, no massive social problems, no archaic anti-gay, sexist, anti-Semitic religious/political beliefs, and so forth. All those things generally required for successful immigration and integration into the job market of a progressive civil rights democracy, but which no one seem too concerned with these days.

Alas, the best beers - and worst policies - is found in Britain. Guess you can't win it all.

I'll be good. I'll have a good education, a solid starting capital and no stupid social issues. BUT!

I refuse to eat you danish pastry! That stuff is simply no good. Sorry.

Gethsemani:

1. Refugees are uneducated and penniless

I would also like sources that these fugutives are at least on average as educated (in relevant subjects) as the average swede. Even if it is true though how is this any better? Instead of tens of thousands of people competing for low end jobs you´ll have tens of thousands of people competing for high end jobs. Even then no matter how you put it the fact of the matter is immigrants as a group have a much higher level of unemployment and welfare dependency than swedes, something that is not going to get better if we keep doing the same thing.

3.There are no places to live.

Just because someone is making a profit that doesn´t mean this whole affair is profitable. Why am I supposed to feel good about some crooks and a few landlords in a dying market getting money from the government? We can´t make money off of providing care for each other, just like we can´t make money selling shirts to each other. We can provide the illusion that money is being made by moving it around but the only way to get more wealth is to insert new money into the circulation, a booming refugee housing industry does not do that. There´s also a good reason people are moving away from these communities and that is because with a few exceptions there aren´t any jobs to be had. The refugees won´t live in refugee housing forever and they will eventually end up unemployed in segregated ghettos or moving to the big cites and competing for what scant housing there is, just like everybody else.

4.

We are expecting roughly 56 000 refugees this year. With your numbers that gives us about 9800 new unemployed each year. Which is still more in just unemployed people than many countries with our population size even accept as refugees in the first place. Not to mention that you haven´t provided any sources for that half return when the conflict is over. I tried to search for it but I couldn´t find anything. Even if that is true you can´t just discount the cost of these people, especially as we aren´t a talking a one off expense here. This is every year for the foreseeable future if things continue this way. You also can´t write off children from the expenses ledger. These children will have a right to go to school, get healthcare, etc. They also cost. You also have to account for things like the overrepresentation in crime and immigration by relation that will also cost us, directly or indirectly.

As for massive worker shortage in the near future. There´s just no proof of that. Both you and I know that this is just a bullshit line politicians fire at you. Even if it was true it would make no sense to "stock up" on immigrants, with a little marketing plenty of immigrants from all over the world would come because they would be able to get jobs easy as shit.

The main problem here is the sheer volume and that it continues year after year. Our welfare system will not be able to handle this in the long run but I reckon that there will no longer be a political will to keep it running long before that happens.

awesomeClaw:

If everyone in Europe took their responsibility, then sure, that'd be just fine by me. I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I think it's such a shame it's not going to happen. Not in our lifetimes, at least. And that's bad, yeah, and we should definitely push that countries with more resources take in slightly more refugees than now.

But as you said, the answer is NOT taking in 100000 people each year. It can never be that.

And which country in Europe is not taking its responsibility? Many European countries are already facing significant social issues with ethnic minorities and many economies are still in recovery. And with the significant amount of Eastern Europeans who went to western europe for jobs there is even less room for people from outside europe. I'd say the only ones who seem to not take responsibility are the Swedish politicians who seem to have given up on pragmatism for the sake of idealism.

awesomeClaw:
...
I'll be good. I'll have a good education, a solid starting capital and no stupid social issues. BUT!

I refuse to eat you danish pastry! That stuff is simply no good. Sorry.

...but how will we ever live with people, if they can't eat greasy foodstuff in the morning?!

Oh well, just ask for a beer instead anytime you're offered danish pastry, and you'll soon be renowned for having evolved Danish customs and cuisine one step further.

awesomeClaw:

But everyone who wants more immigration is either A) A liar and scoundrel, B) Has his head up his arse, C) Uses obviously flawed pleas to emotion, D) Is a radical feminist or E) A combination of the above.

The title of this thread is "Convince me that the Swedish refugee-immigration is sustainable and positive."

This sounds like a rhetorical and even dishonest title, because this statement makes it seem like there is no convincing you. You've made your mind up, and anyone who disagrees with you is one of the above.

* * *

A huge caveat with immigration figures is that the majority of immigrants who enter the average Western country each year are gone within four years, because they never came with any intention of staying. Also bear in mind that 100,000 reflects a very diverse set of people. It includes Swedes returning from abroad, other Europeans (principally other Scandinavians due to the cultural links, I'd imagine), etc. I would suggest the proportion of non-Europeans who permanently settle in Sweden is probably around a fifth of its total immigration (if even that), of which most will ultimately be law-abiding and productive.

A quick note that there aren't jobs for them: there are. A look at Sweden's unemployment figures suggests unemployment in Sweden is modest, and that it's surely not showing a catastrophic, long-term immigration-related increase. There is no fixed amount of jobs a country can provide. To an extent immigrants create jobs simply because they have daily needs like anyone else, and those daily needs require employment to meet. Someone has to grow their food, build, rent and maintain their houses, sell them stuff, etc. More importantly perhaps, demand can meet supply: increase the labour supply, and businesses will make use of it.

This is not to say immigration is painless and the gates should be opened. Integration of people from very different cultures is tough and many have had traumatic experiences and/or less-enlightened cultures which can make them very troublesome. But it's not as bad as many suggested figures and more hysterical nationalist propaganda suggests.

I'm in the middle of moving to a new city so i don't really have the time to stay and chat but i felt that i should share my thoughts on the subject.

The reason immigration to Sweden will continue at the same or an accelerated pace is simply because Sweden as a country profits from it.

To put it simply, if we lump together all immigrants and look at the tax revenues: They collectivity pay more than they cost, and landing us quite a profit at that.
And that's not taking into account that they balance out our shrinking birth-rates.

Now people can think what ever they want about foreigners coming to Sweden but the idea that they somehow put a strain on the economy is a urban myth.

(Article in Swedish)
http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/invandrare-betalar-mer-till-samhallet-an-de-far-tillbaka/

(The cited report, in English)
http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/imo2013.htm

Agema:

awesomeClaw:

But everyone who wants more immigration is either A) A liar and scoundrel, B) Has his head up his arse, C) Uses obviously flawed pleas to emotion, D) Is a radical feminist or E) A combination of the above.

The title of this thread is "Convince me that the Swedish refugee-immigration is sustainable and positive."

This sounds like a rhetorical and even dishonest title, because this statement makes it seem like there is no convincing you. You've made your mind up, and anyone who disagrees with you is one of the above.

* * *

A huge caveat with immigration figures is that the majority of immigrants who enter the average Western country each year are gone within four years, because they never came with any intention of staying. Also bear in mind that 100,000 reflects a very diverse set of people. It includes Swedes returning from abroad, other Europeans (principally other Scandinavians due to the cultural links, I'd imagine), etc. I would suggest the proportion of non-Europeans who permanently settle in Sweden is probably around a fifth of its total immigration (if even that), of which most will ultimately be law-abiding and productive.

A quick note that there aren't jobs for them: there are. A look at Sweden's unemployment figures suggests unemployment in Sweden is modest, and that it's surely not showing a catastrophic, long-term immigration-related increase. There is no fixed amount of jobs a country can provide. To an extent immigrants create jobs simply because they have daily needs like anyone else, and those daily needs require employment to meet. Someone has to grow their food, build, rent and maintain their houses, sell them stuff, etc. More importantly perhaps, demand can meet supply: increase the labour supply, and businesses will make use of it.

This is not to say immigration is painless and the gates should be opened. Integration of people from very different cultures is tough and many have had traumatic experiences and/or less-enlightened cultures which can make them very troublesome. But it's not as bad as many suggested figures and more hysterical nationalist propaganda suggests.

First off, the reason for that comment was that many of those who argue against immigration use faulty logic or high-horse appeals to emotion. I wanted someone(much like you, in fact! ) to come in and give reasonable, "saklig" criticism of my ideas and beliefs. And you did just that, and I thank you for it. Now, onwards:

Again, 100000 refugees are most likely coming this year. Migrationsverkets projections are in fact 89000 refugees. And that was somewhere in june, I Believe. So more refugees are likely coming. I can link to a source, and I have.

Regarding the unemployment - this is tricky. Yes, demand creates supply. But there is a catch to that. Most migrants needs are already fulfilled by supermarkets such as ICA, and they are supplied housing by the Swedish Welfare-system when they get here. The housing in turn is provided to the government from such fine, upstanding Citizens as Bert Karlsson, who is most definetly not exploiting the situation to get filthy, filthy rich.

Any shops started by immigrants are likely to be small kiosks, with at most 2-4 employees. Which is fine, up until the Point where more migrants come and there's competition between the kiosks, whereupon one of them turns up bankrupt and we're back on page one.

Other swedes might get employed to help migrants, yes, but that doesn't make them more likely to get jobs. And you know as well as I a bigger supply of Labour usually means worse conditions for that Labour.

Krashnicoff:
I'm in the middle of moving to a new city so i don't really have the time to stay and chat but i felt that i should share my thoughts on the subject.

The reason immigration to Sweden will continue at the same or an accelerated pace is simply because Sweden as a country profits from it.

To put it simply, if we lump together all immigrants and look at the tax revenues: They collectivity pay more than they cost, and landing us quite a profit at that.
And that's not taking into account that they balance out our shrinking birth-rates.

Now people can think what ever they want about foreigners coming to Sweden but the idea that they somehow put a strain on the economy is a urban myth.

(Article in Swedish)
http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/invandrare-betalar-mer-till-samhallet-an-de-far-tillbaka/

(The cited report, in English)
http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/imo2013.htm

Notice how that is *all* immigrants? Meaning that it includes people returning to Sweden and migrants who come specifically to work? Of course it's positive when people who come here just to work work, and when swedes return to the country and work. Anything else would be asinine.

BUT, we're not talking about those people. We are talking about the 100000 refugees that are coming this year. And those, we have no statistics on. Which means we can only try and assume the situation. And I have high doubts that if the study was done on them, that the result would be the same.

awesomeClaw:

Regarding the unemployment - this is tricky. Yes, demand creates supply. But there is a catch to that. Most migrants needs are already fulfilled by supermarkets such as ICA, and they are supplied housing by the Swedish Welfare-system when they get here. The housing in turn is provided to the government from such fine, upstanding Citizens as Bert Karlsson, who is most definetly not exploiting the situation to get filthy, filthy rich.

Yes, but if Sweden's population is increasing, it will need more housing. That housing must be built by someone. If ICA get more custom, they can expand, build new stores, hire more staff. Or the company makes more profits, which go to shareholders, who buy more yachts and gold-plated mantlepieces that someone has to make, or they may invest back into companies that will hire staff, and so on.

Any shops started by immigrants are likely to be small kiosks, with at most 2-4 employees. Which is fine, up until the Point where more migrants come and there's competition between the kiosks, whereupon one of them turns up bankrupt and we're back on page one.

Firstly, how is that different from a native Swede? There's a constant turnover of competing businesses, such is capitalism. Secondly, immigrants don't need to start any businesses (although undoubtedly some will). They just need to be employed, by anyone, doing anything that's useful. At worst, someone's got to clean the toilets and pick litter off the streets.

Other swedes might get employed to help migrants, yes, but that doesn't make them more likely to get jobs. And you know as well as I a bigger supply of Labour usually means worse conditions for that Labour.

A bigger supply of labour doesn't necessarily mean worse conditions for labour: labour can be protected by any number of means. Immigration is not significantly implicated in worse pay and work conditions by studies, at least on a national level.

A far bigger problem for the average Western labourer is globalised competition - outsourcing first of manufacturing and now services to cheaper (often developing) countries. A second greater problem than immigration is the deregulation of labour laws and weakening of unions that enable worse pay and conditions. You can turn the tap of immigration off tomorrow, and your country is still going to be under these pressures.

It has been a catastrophe since the very beginning and the Swedes have had their homeland stolen from them. Send the refugees back to their home countries. It is not the western worlds fault for their failure.

The immigrants children will compete with the natives children. That is not equality, that is reverse colonialism under a different name.

awesomeClaw:
/snip

But OECD answered that specifically by not only presenting the numbers for "immigrants" but more specifically "foreigners"-that is non Swedish citizens.
And the numbers say show that not only do they turn a profit but an even bigger one than the other categories, and they do give several speculations as to why that might be.

Krashnicoff:

awesomeClaw:
/snip

But OECD answered that specifically by not only presenting the numbers for "immigrants" but more specifically "foreigners"-that is non Swedish citizens.
And the numbers say show that not only do they turn a profit but an even bigger one than the other categories, and they do give several speculations as to why that might be.

Wasn´t it only a profit if you didn´t count things like infrastructure, defense, social spending etc? If you spread those costs out equally over everybody in the country then it became a slight net loss, if you count the fact that immigrants and "second generation" immigrants (as a group, it´s important to realize that we are generalising here) cost things like the police and schools more then it becames a larger loss.

Not to mention that while a refugee is an immigrant an immigrant does not have to be a refugee. Where Sweden stands out is when it comes to refugees and immigration by relation (often families of refugees). A young adult immigrant who comes here on his own dime and starts working within three months can´t be compared to a refugee immigrant who from the very beginning will have to live off of the government and who in all likelyhood will not find work within a year (or for a long time after that). The fact that a guy who pays as much taxes as the next guy without having to be put through school will be a larger net plus does not mean we can import about a mid sized swedish city every year straight to welfare.

It is irresponsible to have historically high rates of immigration unless we also have historically low rates of unemployment. Someone, I don´t remember who, called what is going on "unemployment immigration". I think that is a pretty fitting term.

EDIT: I dug up some sources. One is a blog from an economist that goes over relevant parts in the report. The other is an inteview with an economist who has done his own research (resulting in a net cost of roughly 2% of our GDP). It should be noted that none of them actually agree with me on any fundamental level, they are just both decent economists who show a net loss.

http://www.tino.us/2013/06/oecd-invandringen-en-nettokostnad-nar-samtliga-budgetposter-raknas-in/

http://na.se/asikt/debatt/1.2118763--vi-borde-lagga-krutet-pa-integration-

Krashnicoff:

awesomeClaw:
/snip

But OECD answered that specifically by not only presenting the numbers for "immigrants" but more specifically "foreigners"-that is non Swedish citizens.
And the numbers say show that not only do they turn a profit but an even bigger one than the other categories, and they do give several speculations as to why that might be.

I looked it over and it seems to pretty descisively refute my analysis of the situation. Foreign unemployment at 16%. Not good, at all, but a catastrophe as I was making it out to be. I can't find anything to directly discredit it, so it seems "the house has gone bust" so to say.

Can anyone refute or otherwise discredit these OECD findings? I can't and if anyone has any counterarguments I'd love to hear them.

EDIT: Atrocious Joystick just did. Nice work.

awesomeClaw:

I looked it over and it seems to pretty descisively refute my analysis of the situation. Foreign unemployment at 16%. Not good, at all, but a catastrophe as I was making it out to be. I can't find anything to directly discredit it, so it seems "the house has gone bust" so to say.

Can anyone refute or otherwise discredit these OECD findings? I can't and if anyone has any counterarguments I'd love to hear them.

EDIT: Atrocious Joystick just did. Nice work.

Well the problem with those numbers is that they're very "large". I doubt the numbers are the same for Western European immigrants as they're for refugees for instance. You should probably expect the statistics regarding refugees to be quite worse.

For instance in Belgium there are 3 times as many EU-immigrants employed as non EU-immigrants. Yet there is only 1.8x as many EU immigrants. Or to put it simply, employment rate among EU immigrants is (roughly) 1.66x higher.

generals3:

awesomeClaw:

If everyone in Europe took their responsibility, then sure, that'd be just fine by me. I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I think it's such a shame it's not going to happen. Not in our lifetimes, at least. And that's bad, yeah, and we should definitely push that countries with more resources take in slightly more refugees than now.

But as you said, the answer is NOT taking in 100000 people each year. It can never be that.

And which country in Europe is not taking its responsibility? Many European countries are already facing significant social issues with ethnic minorities and many economies are still in recovery. And with the significant amount of Eastern Europeans who went to western europe for jobs there is even less room for people from outside europe. I'd say the only ones who seem to not take responsibility are the Swedish politicians who seem to have given up on pragmatism for the sake of idealism.

"Even less room", a concept I've always found a bit daft frankly. There are metrics derived from sociology about population density versus citizen wellbeing, but it's a rare developed nation state that's even approaching the negative end of that spectrum, and even then you can substantially ameliorate the shift in that direction with other measures like building affordable, spacious social housing.

Look at Scotland as a perfect example of the madness that is "we're full up!"; we need more migrants, we have a massive unpopulated wasteland of perfectly usable land stretching across much of the Highlands because aristocrats and corporate wankers from London need a nice clear shot at whatever animal has been dumped into their line of sight for them to kill, and yet it's only in the last ten years or so that we've managed to arrest a population decline, because this "we're full up!" drek has been stirred up by the tabloids and the politicians to the point where people actually believe the whole country is drowning in brown people(it's funny how it took all of five minutes for the anti-immigration types to go from "Ermagehrd, the Poles are coming! The Poles are coming!" to, in the main, "Solid work ethic, those Polish folks", yet the UK has had substantial immigration from the Indian sub-continent for decades and the same people are still grumbling about "too many Pakistanis". But they ain't racist guv, honest!).

If it were seriously just a matter of resources, of "pragmatism", distributing each fresh influx of immigrants around a fairly hefty number of semi-self-sufficient farming cooperatives which would give them work & dignity(and I don't mean as indentured labourers, they'd be producing for themselves only not being exploited by commercial enterprises), sustenance, and accommodations while they learn the dominant local language or educate themselves to the level required to get jobs in the real economy, that would be perfectly feasible and in the long run would cost governments far less than supporting those refugees that need it with straight-up cash.

Hey, maybe it really is different in Sweden, maybe they really have used up every square inch of arable land and livable space or are on course to do so, but the constant lies, distortions, and hysteria of the media and anti-immigration advocates in the UK have made me extremely skeptical about that side of this debate.

I do have one problem and it's the 'the immigrants are going to go back'. That requires stabilization in their home region, and that simply doesn't seem to be happening. Even if things begin to wind down in one area they suddenly light up in another area, destabilizing the region, again.

I think planning from that perspective is really short sighted. You should be planning for a long term stay, not a short term one. Even if you hope and have reason to believe a short term stay might be a thing, if you're wrong and you haven't calculated for a longer term then you've shot yourself in the foot.

Bentusi16:
I do have one problem and it's the 'the immigrants are going to go back'.

We know from existing statistics roughly how many will. And it's hardly difficult to devise a visa system that can enable a Western country to throw immigrants out if they overstay their welcome. Assuming, of course, the government can be bothered chasing them down to throw them out.

I don't know much about the problems Sweden is having with immigration, but I do think that immigrants are used as scapegoats for too many issues. As someone else said the people who are moving to Sweden are probably those who are rather well off and educated. They could greatly help Sweden. That is not to say that immigrants who don't successfully integrate into a host country can exacerbate problems. A poor, disenfranchised minority is never ideal, but it's not a black and white issue of hordes of immigrants coming to a host country to cause havoc.

Although if it's really bad, does Sweden have resources to deal with heavy immigration such as work visas and documents delimiting the duration that a person can stay? If not, then that's a problem.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked