[Phantom Hoover]

Europe has seen massive, vicious cuts to government services and welfare programs because it supposedly does not have the financial resources to provide them.

[Col.Hornet]

The problem is not one of financial resources, as we have plenty.

Speak for your own behalf, that's not the case here. Facing 8 % unemployment rates with around 500 000 people unemployed - and yes, I'm aware the official number is lower, that's because they don't count those "practising for work" to be officially unemployed, those 30 000 "refugee" dudes are going to cost us quite a lot. Starting from building their apartments that cost around 200 k€ / apartment around the Helsinki region. Not to mention the government has finally started to cut the spending, albeit the cuts are not directed to right places if you ask me. These factors really put some pressure on the immigration policy and really do pit the "refugees" against unemployed. It is no wonder to see rising tensions, especially as it appears that the only way to get the norms of the Finnish society through the "refugees" skulls is apparently by beating the crap out of them.

Now that Russian economy is crashing down and their immigrant workers are looking for better places and jobs (and ooh yes, there's hundreds of thousands of them), it makes me wonder whether Finland should pull the Greeks, ignore the Schengen and Dublin treaties and start selling trips to Central Europe. You can say what you will about that but hey, there's no denying that we are learning the EU way fast.

Same thing applies for my country, but instead of Russians we have a lot of Ukrainian migrants/refugees here right now. Our state cannot afford a proper help for our own people, so unless EU won't pay extra money to provide a proper living conditions and language lessons this will end badly. Tell the poor Poles that their officials will help foreigners first with houses and money... I guarantee you guys. There will be no better way to piss them off and create hostilities.

Example from my own uni. In last year authorities decided to cut the scholarship for all students by 10% because of "financial issues". And rising them by 10% for all students from Ukraine at the same time <"becuz war". however, I know that only 3 of these guys were from Donbas.>. When they announced this officially I heard people whispering curses all across the room.

[Grizzly]

when you say 'responsibilities' are you referring to EU law (like the Schengen stuff), or more of general moral issues?

Sweden, as well as all other countries in europe, signed into the Refugee Convention which obligates them to care for refugees.

Europe has seen massive, vicious cuts to government services and welfare programs because it supposedly does not have the financial resources to provide them.

But it did have the financial resources to provide them. It had the financial resources to give our collective group of ****ups which we call the banking world a get out of jail for free card. It currently manages to deal with 8% unemployment rates. It can handle a 8.05% unemployment rate. To suggest that the various countries of the EU do not have the financial resources to handle a 0.05% increase of the population whilst Libya and Jordan are forced into a situation with far less financial resources in order to deal with a 33% is not very well thought out. I am not saying that Libya and Jordan are doing a stellar job: We wouldn't have a refugee crisis if they had not seen a sudden cut in the financial aid for refugees. The issue is more that a very succesfull political narrative is that our various societies are extremely precious and extremely brittle. But the truth is that, if they truly are this brittle that a bunch of refugees can tear it all down, it was never worth preserving and it sure as hell was not precious.

Our societies are a lot stronger then this. There is 1 refugee for every 2000 EU citizens, this should really be nothing more then a minor nuisance to handle. It all comes down to management. That management simply hasn't happened so far because of ostrich politics.

[666maslo666]

Sweden, as well as all other countries in europe, signed into the Refugee Convention which obligates them to care for refugees.

Refugee Convention provides only basic protections for refugees. You can have wide range of refugee policies while still being compatible with that convention. Both the approach of countries like Sweden and Germany, but also countries like Hungary and Australia, are compatible with it. So you cannot just point to a refugee convention to show Europe what we have to do.

[666maslo666]

The higher proportion of fighting age males (not sure if it's that high, but okay, I'll roll with it) has more to do with migration systems in many european countries, that make it much easier for asylum-seekers to bring over their relatives once they already have been processed.

This explains the issue but it does not explain it away. The fact that they left their families outside Europe points towards the fact that they were reasonably safe already, because you dont leave your family in a dangerous area. Which casts doubt on the claim that they are genuine refugees and strenghtens the case for economic migration as the motive.

Geunine refugees fleeing from armed conflict are simply not young male dominated, they should equally reflect all of society, or fighting age males may even be underrepresented, if anything.

[The E]

Geunine refugees fleeing from armed conflict are simply not young male dominated, they should equally reflect all of society, or fighting age males may even be underrepresented, if anything.

And you know this because....? No seriously. Use the power of statistics.

[Phantom Hoover]

But the truth is that, if they truly are this brittle that a bunch of refugees can tear it all down, it was never worth preserving and it sure as hell was not precious.

Yeah, let's just destroy society if it turns out that the real world isn't in alignment with your politics. Anything to avoid that awful fate of the right-wing being right about anything.

Personally I support progressive policies because I think they're actually a good idea, not because I think they're ontologically mandatory, but I guess I'm out of alignment with some other progressives on this forum because of that.

(I mean it was bad enough when The E was saying after the Paris attacks that terrorists gunning down hundreds of people in our cities is just the inevitable cost of democracy and there was no point trying to analyse or prevent it.)

[Bobboau]

Sweden, as well as all other countries in europe, signed into the Refugee Convention which obligates them to care for refugees.

Interesting, did not know about that. thanks for clarifying.

[Mikes]

Sweden, as well as all other countries in europe, signed into the Refugee Convention which obligates them to care for refugees.

Interesting, did not know about that. thanks for clarifying.

There was a discussion about that on the news recently. And when you get down to it... supposedly nothing in current EU law says you have to "give aid" to refugees "within your borders". Lending aid to refugees outside your borders appears a perfectly acceptable substitute. (I.e. like giving money to countries bordering Syria, Turkey, etc.) Not sure how it would actually hold up when challenged, just something that was on the news.

After all... if the refugee convention would mean you have to take in all refugees of the world it would be absurd. And if it did mean that, then wouldn't we actually have to bring them inside the country savely? I mean how cynic would it be to only take the ones that "survive" the horrible trip on their own?

Going down that line of thought only makes you notice that current refugee law is not really thought out and that the implementation often is anything but ethical either.

[Mika]

But it did have the financial resources to provide them. It had the financial resources to give our collective group of ****ups which we call the banking world a get out of jail for free card. It currently manages to deal with 8% unemployment rates. It can handle a 8.05% unemployment rate. To suggest that the various countries of the EU do not have the financial resources to handle a 0.05% increase of the population whilst Libya and Jordan are forced into a situation with far less financial resources in order to deal with a 33% is not very well thought out. I am not saying that Libya and Jordan are doing a stellar job: We wouldn't have a refugee crisis if they had not seen a sudden cut in the financial aid for refugees. The issue is more that a very succesfull political narrative is that our various societies are extremely precious and extremely brittle. But the truth is that, if they truly are this brittle that a bunch of refugees can tear it all down, it was never worth preserving and it sure as hell was not precious.

Our societies are a lot stronger then this. There is 1 refugee for every 2000 EU citizens, this should really be nothing more then a minor nuisance to handle. It all comes down to management. That management simply hasn't happened so far because of ostrich politics.

Veni, vidi and what the hell are my eyes seeing?

It had the financial resources to give our collective group of ****ups which we call the banking world a get out of jail for free card. It currently manages to deal with 8% unemployment rates. It can handle a 8.05% unemployment rate.

Hate to point it out, but this is a logical contradiction. Now that the money has been spent (yes I was very vocal against the bail-outs, where were you?), the money is already spent. I see this stupidity coming from left wing politicians all the time, and I do call them for this.

And what it comes to number games, feast your eyes on this:
The yearly Finnish budget is around 54B €. Now, those 30 000 dudes in the end - if we can't get rid of them - will all need an apartment (Why? Because people freezing to death around here is a big no no). That makes roughly 6B €, and that goes alone in the apartments. Note that measly 0.05 % increase caused a 10 % increase in the yearly budget! What do you think happens when around 100 000 more bunch up, as predicted for the next Spring?

And no, those 30000 apartments do not exist in the wild!

I really hope the EU gets its head off its ass before the spring time. Other than that, it's gonna be good bye to Schengen and good bye Dublin treaties!

[Dragon]

And no, those 30000 apartments do not exist in the wild!

They don't?

I don't think snow is all that expensive in Finland. Eskimos can like in 'em, why can't the refugees? Just ship them a truckload of snow and a user's manual, they'll figure it out.

Geunine refugees fleeing from armed conflict are simply not young male dominated, they should equally reflect all of society, or fighting age males may even be underrepresented, if anything.

And you know this because....? No seriously. Use the power of statistics.

He's probably right on that count. Where he is wrong is that refugees are "young male dominated". Trump said the same thing, which was promptly debunked:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/donald-trump/donald-trumps-false-claim-refugees-migrants-are-mo/
Fighting age males are underrepresented among refugees.

[Phantom Hoover]

Hate to point it out, but this is a logical contradiction. Now that the money has been spent (yes I was very vocal against the bail-outs, where were you?), the money is already spent. I see this stupidity coming from left wing politicians all the time, and I do call them for this.

It turns out money is a useful social fiction; the bank bailouts were not conducted by scraping clean the last seams in the money mines. Compare economic recovery rates in the US and Canada to those in the austere EU and it is clear that an extra few percent on the national debt is a much smaller problem than the entire financial system collapsing and leaving the economy moribund. Or, you know, listen to any of the overwhelming, nonpartisan majority of economists who will tell you the same thing.

[Macielos]

He's probably right on that count. Where he is wrong is that refugees are "young male dominated". Trump said the same thing, which was promptly debunked:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/donald-trump/donald-trumps-false-claim-refugees-migrants-are-mo/
Fighting age males are underrepresented among refugees.

Sorry, Dragon, but I think you are wrong here. The refugees ARE young male dominated. This data showing half of refugees are women and half are under 17 come from refugee camps in the middle east. That's right, women and children are still there as they cannot afford or don't want such a risky journey.

How about the ones coming to Europe? Well, I looked around and UN reports seem to confirm young male dominance among the refuges:

http://time.com/4122186/syrian-refugees-donald-trump-young-men/
About 62% of all migrants that have traveled to Europe this year, however, are men. A little under a quarter, 22%, are children and only 16% are women.

And a different source:
http://therightscoop.com/united-nations-says-72-of-syrian-refugees-are-men-only-13-are-children/

[MP-Ryan]

Seems I struck a Scandinavian nerve.

Many European nations - including a number of those with significant levels of radicalization now - have an integration problem because they have been passing laws in this spirit for years if not decades.  You (generally; no one here specifically) have an integration problem precisely because you have allowed mass immigration precisely while doing everything possible to ensure immigrants, particularly those of different ethnic and religious backgrounds, are stuck in immigrant enclaves, denied the same residency and ultimate citizenship rights as those born in those European nations, and actively suppressed in terms of their religion.

Some countries are overwhelmed and the flood hasn't been handled well?  Gee, you don't say.  It's too bad Europe doesn't have some sort of organizing body, or "Union" that could have centrally coordinated the intercept, documentation, and relocation of refugees within the continent.  Oh wait. 

European nations - and not all, but many - have historically opened the floodgates, instead of maintaining cohesive border policy, and then done everything in their power to ensure those immigrant cultures are held apart and unable to integrate.  Know why you have integration and radicalization problems?  Policies like this most recent one.  Feel free to contrast to the United States or Canada.  The US has 300 million people; Canada has 30 million.  Despite generous immigration and refugee programs, neither faces anywhere near the integration or radicalization problems of the troubled European nations because both embrace immigration and provide opportunities for immigrants to become full, participating economic and democratic citizens in short order, while allowing them to practice their cultures and beliefs inside the multicultural communities of the larger nation.

There remains a strong current of suspicion of different cultures and religions in Europe generally, and laws like this example simply put it on display.  It's disgusting.  Instead of writing laws to punish people who are already victims, why don't you try getting your collective **** together on how to coordinate the influx in an orderly, fair fashion instead of letting every country, no matter how well or little equipped, handle it alone.

[karajorma]

You might be right, but I do wonder how much of it is simply that Mexicans don't radicalise. If they did, I suspect the US especially would have a much larger problem.

[MP-Ryan]

You might be right, but I do wonder how much of it is simply that Mexicans don't radicalise. If they did, I suspect the US especially would have a much larger problem.

Both the US and Canada have substantial Muslim populations, both historic and due to recent immigration; radicalization rates remain much lower than across Europe, generally, and much of this is because of the way the countries of North America select and treat their immigrant populations.  In short:  we have functioning borders and federalized governments to manage them.  That's not to say we don't accept refugees, just that there is a screening process instead a Greek on the beach saying "Germany is that way, watch out for the Hungarians."

[karajorma]

I'm not saying the US and Canada doesn't have better policies (in many ways they do) but as has been pointed out in the past, you also do get the Muslim immigrants capable of taking a plane to America. You don't get any of the kind who float over in a boat and risk drowning all the way over.

If for instance, a movement started in Mexico to take back Texas by force if necessary and even if only 0.1% of Mexicans subscribed to it, I suspect you'd have a big problem in the Southern states very quickly.

[NGTM-1R]

If for instance, a movement started in Mexico to take back Texas by force if necessary and even if only 0.1% of Mexicans subscribed to it, I suspect you'd have a big problem in the Southern states very quickly.

This sort of thing has actually happened, you realize? Not with such strictly ethnic lines but the Texas or Alaskan seccessionists have made up more than 0.1% of those states in recent history. The result has been basically nothing. More than 0.1% of the South is probably still in favor of Jim Crow and racial segregation. That's not resulting in anything either.

[Grizzly]

But the truth is that, if they truly are this brittle that a bunch of refugees can tear it all down, it was never worth preserving and it sure as hell was not precious.

Yeah, let's just destroy society if it turns out that the real world isn't in alignment with your politics. Anything to avoid that awful fate of the right-wing being right about anything.

But I am not proposing that we destroy it: I am saying that if it's actually this weak that it can't handle a sudden refugee flow, then it has serious underlying issues. It's not like this is a new phenonom.

Hate to point it out, but this is a logical contradiction. Now that the money has been spent (yes I was very vocal against the bail-outs, where were you?), the money is already spent. I see this stupidity coming from left wing politicians all the time, and I do call them for this.

The money has not been spent: It has been given to the banks so that they could recover. Now that they are recovered, they are giving it back (or atleast, they should be giving it back).

Sweden, as well as all other countries in europe, signed into the Refugee Convention which obligates them to care for refugees.

Interesting, did not know about that. thanks for clarifying.

There was a discussion about that on the news recently. And when you get down to it... supposedly nothing in current EU law says you have to "give aid" to refugees "within your borders". Lending aid to refugees outside your borders appears a perfectly acceptable substitute. (I.e. like giving money to countries bordering Syria, Turkey, etc.) Not sure how it would actually hold up when challenged, just something that was on the news.

After all... if the refugee convention would mean you have to take in all refugees of the world it would be absurd. And if it did mean that, then wouldn't we actually have to bring them inside the country savely? I mean how cynic would it be to only take the ones that "survive" the horrible trip on their own?

Going down that line of thought only makes you notice that current refugee law is not really thought out and that the implementation often is anything but ethical either.

But currently, Sweden is not doing anything about refugees outside their borders either. As stated before by the UN High Commissioner, the entire reason we have this mess in the first place is because we are not doing anything about refugees outside our borders. We're, quite frankly, not doing anything about the refugee problem at all, untill they reach our countries at which point we choose both the most expensive and the least morally sound solutions.

[666maslo666]

He's probably right on that count. Where he is wrong is that refugees are "young male dominated". Trump said the same thing, which was promptly debunked:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/donald-trump/donald-trumps-false-claim-refugees-migrants-are-mo/
Fighting age males are underrepresented among refugees.

Hey, your own link actually proves me right:

The U.N. also tracks so-called "sea arrivals," refugees and migrants who cross the Mediterranean Sea to continental Europe. The counts a little more than 1 million people who have crossed into Europe since the start of 2015, with almost 3,800 dying during the journey.

The U.N. breaks those migrants into three categories: Adult men, 49 percent; Adult women, 19 percent; and children, 31 percent.

Yes, refugees in middle eastern refugee camps are not male dominated, because they are genuine refugees. But people coming into Europe are male dominated, which means there is a significant part of economic migrants among them.