Support NeoGAF

[TatteredHat]

The more popular migrant destinations should just start cutting benefits for migrants like Denmark did, maybe then we'd be more successful at evenly distributing them throughout the entire EU.

 

[TanookiTom]

If you look at asylum recognition rates, the picture is very different.

These numbers are already outdated and more importantly are not really comparable. For example: Germany was (and is still) receiving a lot of refugees from the Balkan countries, whose applications are denied while asylum applications from Syria are being excepted in more than 90% of the cases. So it also depends on where the asylum applicants come from.

Since Syrians make up a lot bigger proportion of asylum applications this year as compared to 2014, this will also increase the % of accepted applications.

The more popular migrant destinations should just start cutting benefits for migrants like Denmark did, maybe then we'd be more successful at evenly distributing them throughout the entire EU.

How is this going to change anything if many countries simply won't accept the refugees (just look at the UK all but sealing off the only "land crossing" through the euro tunnel.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Come the fuck on. They flee Syria, because it is hell on earth. Then they end up in neighbouring countries, where they have to live in misery, because the refugee camps are too overcrowded. Sickness, dirt, food scarcity and so on. Of course people want to get out.

So do people in other countries who have bad living conditions. Should wealthy EU countries just let anyone in because everyone and his family deserves a better live? Tell me how a Syrian refugee is more deserving to migrate into Germany than a poor Croatian teen that has no job and no future?

All people should have a right to escape from war but that so many of them insist to escape to very specific countries puts a really weird light on the whole movement. Can't understand why you don't see that.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Keep in mind that many migrants in Italy choose not to apply for refugee status, as that would make it impossible for them to move to richer countries that provide significant benefits.

If you look at asylum recognition rates, the picture is very different.

That second chart is interesting. Looks like countries like Switzerland and Malta deserve more credit than they get.

 

[TatteredHat]

How is this going to change anything if many countries simply won't accept the refugees (just look at the UK all but sealing off the only "land crossing" through the euro tunnel.

Wish I had an answer to that. At the very least, if will hopefully make the people less resistant to taking in refugees if they know they won't be living off of welfare as much.

 

[KingSnake]

Observe how the countries with least asylum requests accepted are the most dicks and most complaining ones. Also a lot of the vocal anti-refugees gaffers are from said countries.

 

[Alabamaman]

The more popular migrant destinations should just start cutting benefits for migrants like Denmark did, maybe then we'd be more successful at evenly distributing them throughout the entire EU.

Yes we should, but apparently it is against our constitution in Finland. We have the best benefits in Europe for migrants and it shows, almost 1000 people are coming across the Swedish border daily.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

How is this going to change anything if many countries simply won't accept the refugees (just look at the UK all but sealing off the only "land crossing" through the euro tunnel.

I don't even know what you're getting at here. The Chunnel should be sealed off to foot traffic. It's not safe for pedestrians. If you want a ticket on the train then buy one.

 

[Sickboy007]

These numbers are already outdated and more importantly are not really comparable. For example: Germany was (and is still) receiving a lot of refugees from the Balkan countries, whose applications are denied while asylum applications from Syria are being excepted in more than 90% of the cases. So it also depends on where the asylum applicants come from.

Since Syrians make up a lot bigger proportion of asylum applications this year as compared to 2014, this will also increase the % of accepted applications.



How is this going to change anything if many countries simply won't accept the refugees (just look at the UK all but sealing off the only "land crossing" through the euro tunnel.

Speaking of inflated numbers from nationals whose applications tend to be rejected, you might want to look at Nigerian applicants in Italy.

 

[TanookiTom]

Wish I had an answer to that. At the very least, if will hopefully make the people less resistant to taking in refugees if they know they won't be living off of welfare as much.

The solution for that is speeding up the asylum granting process and letting refugees work so they can earn their own money. In most countries asylum seekers can barely live off the money they're getting. And without any money of their own you cannot hope for them to integrate into society at all.

I don't even know what you're getting at here. The Chunnel should be sealed off to foot traffic. It's not safe for pedestrians. If you want a ticket on the train then buy one.

Well the refugees are clearly looking for options to "unofficially" enter the UK so buying a ticket might not be the best option, even ignoring the fact that they might not be able to even afford it. The irony about the EU asylum system is that you can only apply for asylum in a country once you actually entered that country. So if countries seal themselves off, they are basically saying that they don't want anybody to seek asylum there. Or how else should refugees ever end up in the UK?

 

[funkypie]

Regarding the ongoing school thing. Rapes have sky rocketed in Scandinavia in the last few years due to refugees and asylum seekers, just maybe that's why the school principal was worried. They even show a video to new arrivals in Denmark telling them not to rape.

A combination of poor education and a different set of values towards women comes to mind. Obviously this does not apply to legal migrants who apply for immigration.

 

[patapuf]

The solution for that is speeding up the asylum granting process and letting refugees work so they can earn their own money. In most countries asylum seekers can barely live off the money they're getting. And without any money of their own you cannot hope for them to integrate into society at all.

Speeding up the application process is what we're aiming to do in Switzerland as well.

It's not really that the money they have is not enough. It's that they aren't allowed to work and thus they are (mostly) young men with nothing to do. And especially for immigrants from foreign cultures working is very important for integration. You learn so many social rules and the language while working. That just doesn't happen lungering around at the train station. Your also less likely to commit crimes.

That said, the unemployment situation is already critical in some european countries, this amount of people in such a short time will cause problems no matter how it's handled.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

So do people in other countries who have bad living conditions. Should wealthy EU countries just let anyone in because everyone and his family deserves a better live? Tell me how a Syrian refugee is more deserving to migrate into Germany than a poor Croatian teen that has no job and no future?

All people should have a right to escape from war but that so many of them insist to escape to very specific countries puts a really weird light on the whole movement. Can't understand why you don't see that.

First, the first "safe" country is not Croatia. It's Turkey and Lebanon. They won't live there as normal teens. They live in massive tent camps, along with millions of other refugees. It's misery. So of course some people would want to go from there.

What are you implying with the bolded? I have to assume that you are implying that they would move to countries like Sweden to mooch off of a generous welfare state. But if that was the only reason, there should be just as many people coming to Norway and Finland as to Sweden. The reason they specifically go to some countries is that these countries tend to be more welcoming. If you wanted to get out of the misery of refugee camps in Lebanon, would you try to go to Hungary where you risk teargas from the police and getting kicked by journalists, and where you had to endure a public sentiment and atmosphere that would make people do such things? Or would you go to a country like Sweden that has a long history of successfully integrating and welcoming refugees (Finns, Chileans, Iranians, Balkan people and so on throughout the 20th century).

For the vast majority of refugees, there are no hidden motives, and no insiduousness involved.

 

[leatherhat]

Are you inhumane? Its a humanitarian crisis and compromises have to made. Jesus. How can you compare telling others to adjust a bit to letting people die? Whats wrong with you?

An open invitation like Germany sent out acts as a pull factor which caused this problem in the first place (an invitation they rescinded days later leaving Eastern Europe to fend for itself I might add). Get off your high horse and look at the reality of the situation. More people will be helped with a strict and well laid out system of accepting small amounts of people in each country. Not letting tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands people flow through Europe with no plan, but thats the situation we now have.

 

[Alabamaman]

But if that was the only reason, there should be just as many people coming to Norway and Finland as to Sweden.

What the hell are you talking about? All trains to northern Sweden are full of Iraqi asylum seekers coming to Finland.

 

[KingSnake]

An open invitation like Germany sent out acts as a pull factor which caused this problem in the first place (an invitation they rescinded days later leaving Eastern Europe to fend for itself I might add). Get off your high horse and look at the reality of the situation. More people will be helped with a strict and well laid out system of accepting small amounts of people in each country. Not letting tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands people flow through Europe with no plan, but thats the situation we now have.

You miss the part where tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people where already on European soil when that invitation was launched.

And you miss also the part where this problem is not new, Greece and Italy complain since at least a year, but it was "ok" when it was just on their soil. And all the other European countries went all Dublin regulation on it and

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Well the refugees are clearly looking for options to "unofficially" enter the UK so buying a ticket might not be the best option, even ignoring the fact that they might not be able to even afford it. The irony about the EU asylum system is that you can only apply for asylum in a country once you actually entered that country. So if countries seal themselves off, they are basically saying that they don't want anybody to seek asylum there. Or how else should refugees ever end up in the UK?

Why on earth would we want to make it easier for people to "unofficially" enter the UK? We've signed up for taking a certain number (20,000?) of refugees over the next five years. What was the point of that number if we're unwilling or unable to actually enforce it?

 

[JimmyRustler]

First, the first "safe" country is not Croatia. It's Turkey and Lebanon. They won't live there as normal teens. They live in massive tent camps, along with millions of other refugees. It's misery. So of course some people would want to go from there.

What are you implying with the bolded? I have to assume that you are implying that they would move to countries like Sweden to mooch off of a generous welfare state. But if that was the only reason, there should be just as many people coming to Norway and Finland as to Sweden. The reason they specifically go to some countries is that these countries tend to be more welcoming. If you wanted to get out of the misery of refugee camps in Lebanon, would you try to go to Hungary where you risk teargas from the police and getting kicked by journalists, and where you had to endure a public sentiment and atmosphere that would make people do such things? Or would you go to a country like Sweden that has a long history of successfully integrating and welcoming refugees (Finns, Chileans, Iranians, Balkan people and so on throughout the 20th century).

For the vast majority of refugees, there are no hidden motives, and no insiduousness involved.

Don't you get it? With them specifically targeting certain countries they should not be holding a war refugee status... It makes them economical refugees. Do you think a lot of people in Kosovo live a much better daily live than a refugee in one of the Lebanon camps? No, they do not. Believe me. I had classes about the situation there while I was in the military. So, why should we not take in people from Kosovo as well? What gives a Syrian refugee more right to migrate to Germany than someone from Kosovo?

If you want to flee from war, do it. What is currently happening around Europe goes beyond that though, which is why people are upset.

 

[leatherhat]

You miss the part where tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people where already on European soil when that invitation was launched.

And you miss also the part where this problem is not new, Greece and Italy complains since at least a year, but it was "ok" when it was just on their soil. And all the other European countries went all Dublin regulation on it and

Trust me I didn't miss any of that, and I said it was a disaster back then that Europe didn't even attempt to secure its borders. And that Mare Nostrum led to thousands jumping on dinghys and hoping the Italian Navy would pick them up . And that Gadaffi being overthrown would lead to Islamic terror griping Libya and a mass exodus from North Africa to Europe. Unfortunately the governments of Europe didn't agree with me.

 

[Sickboy007]

You miss the part where tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people where already on European soil when that invitation was launched.

And you miss also the part where this problem is not new, Greece and Italy complain since at least a year, but it was "ok" when it was just on their soil. And all the other European countries went all Dublin regulation on it and

They even had the gall to criticise Italy for not doing enough to lock migrants inside of its borders...which is exactly what Hungary did these past few weeks, to almost unanimous indignation.

 

[Alabamaman]

Why on earth would we want to make it easier for people to "unofficially" enter the UK? We've signed up for taking a certain number (20,000?) of refugees over the next five years. What was the point of that number if we're unwilling or unable to actually enforce it?

WOW 20k in five years? In Finland we are taking more in a month.

 

[TanookiTom]

Why on earth would we want to make it easier for people to "unofficially" enter the UK? We've signed up for taking a certain number (20,000?) of refugees over the next five years. What was the point of that number if we're unwilling or unable to actually enforce it?

Umm because granting asylum to war refugees is a human right and because the UK signed the according UN charta as well? Becuase the number of 20,000 refugees in five years is absolutely embarrassing for a rich country like the UK? Because it represents only a tiny fraction of the refugees fleeing to Europe every week? Because in doing so the UK basically says fuck you to the countries in which the refugees first arrive because of obvious geographic reasons?

So in the end you're saying: We did our teeny-tiny "make-ourselves-feel-better" contribution, we're done here for the next five years. Fuck you to the rest of Europe, fuck you to the refugees - laughable.

"Why on earth" you say - maybe because of a sense of compassion and responsibility? smh

Don't you get it? With them specifically targeting certain countries they should not be holding a war refugee status... It makes them economical refugees. Do you think a lot of people in Kosovo live a much better daily live than a refugee in one of the Lebanon camps? No, they do not. Believe me. I had classes about the situation there while I was in the military. So, why should we not take in people from Kosovo as well? What gives a Syrian refugee more right to migrate to Germany than someone from Kosovo?

If you want to flee from war, do it. What is currently happening around Europe goes beyond that though, which is why people are upset.

The fact that Syrians are dying by the hundreds and thousands each day. The fact that Syria has been caught up in a bloody civil war for years.

 

[justjohn]

WOW 20k in five years? In Finland we are taking more in a month.

Maybe you shouldn't. Not a big fan of Cameron but he's played this really well. We're talking asylum seekers straight from Syria and helping with financial resources. We've taken as much as we can and that's that. I don't understand why only western European countries are shamed into taking more when the rest of the world is doing nothing.

 

[KingSnake]

Trust me I didn't miss any of that, and I said it was a disaster back then that Europe didn't even attempt to secure its borders. And that Mare Nostrum led to thousands jumping on dinghys and hoping the Italian Navy would pick them up . And that Gadaffi being overthrown would lead to Islamic terror griping Libya and a mass exodus from North Africa to Europe. Unfortunately the governments of Europe didn't agree with me.

I still remember France's reaction from 2-3 years ago, following the Libyan refugees waves and the boat sinking. They suspended Schengen for a crisis that practically was created by them.

Maybe you shouldn't. Not a big fan of Cameron but he's played this really well. We're talking asylum seekers straight from Syria and helping with financial resources. We've taken as much as we can and that's that. I don't understand why only western European countries are shamed into taking more when the rest of the world is doing nothing.

No, you're not taking as much as you can, by any measurable indicator. You're taking as much as your political mentality allows you too.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Umm because granting asylum to war refugees is a human right and because the UK signed the according UN charta as well? Becuase the number of 20,000 refugees in five years is absolutely embarrassing for a rich country like the UK? Because it represents only a tiny fraction of the refugees fleeing to Europe every week? Because in doing so the UK basically says fuck you to the countries in which the refugees first arrive because of obvious geographic reasons?

So in the end you're saying: We did our teeny-tiny "make-ourselves-feel-better" contribution, we're done here for the next five years. Fuck you to the rest of Europe, fuck you to the refugees - laughable.

"Why on earth" you say - maybe because of a sense of compassion and responsibility? smh

The fact that Syrians are dying by the hundreds and thousands each day. The fact that Syria has been caught up in a bloody civil war for years.

Uh huh. Is there a war in Calais that I'm not aware of? These people are already safe, and no they don't have a right to enter the UK.

Edit:

If you want to complain that our quota of refugees (taken from Syria, where there is a war going on) is too small that's one thing. But in the original post I quoted you were complaining that we were preventing people from walking through the Channel Tunnel, which is just ridiculous.

 

[TanookiTom]

Uh huh. Is there a war in Calais that I'm not aware of? These people are already safe, and no they don't have a right to enter the UK.

As I said, you are just choosing to ignore the whole picture and think the job is done by taking up but a tiny fraction of Syrian refugees. Your stance is exactly the problem Europe is facing at the moment. Instead of working together to help ease the insurmountable human suffering, each country is being egoistical and inhumane.

Where do you suggest all the refugees go? You really don't care, do you?

 

[Alabamaman]

Maybe you shouldn't. Not a big fan of Cameron but he's played this really well. We're talking asylum seekers straight from Syria and helping with financial resources. We've taken as much as we can and that's that. I don't understand why only western European countries are shamed into taking more when the rest of the world is doing nothing.

Yes we should close our borders, but you've seen the reaction to Hungary's border control and we would be condemned as well.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

What the hell are you talking about? All trains to northern Sweden are full of Iraqi asylum seekers coming to Finland.

You should stop listening to True Finns propaganda.

Notice the difference between Sweden and Finland? My point was: Finland and Sweden have similar social safety nets. If that's all the refugees were interested in, the numbers for Sweden and Finland should be equal. That's obviously not the case, as you can see in the right chart in the picture above.

Don't you get it? With them specifically targeting certain countries they should not be holding a war refugee status... It makes them economical refugees. Do you think a lot of people in Kosovo live a much better daily live than a refugee in one of the Lebanon camps? No, they do not. Believe me. I had classes about the situation there while I was in the military. So, why should we not take in people from Kosovo as well? What gives a Syrian refugee more right to migrate to Germany than someone from Kosovo?

If you want to flee from war, do it. What is currently happening around Europe goes beyond that though, which is why people are upset.

Of course they do. Don't be silly.

 

[maniac-kun]

Uh huh. Is there a war in Calais that I'm not aware of? These people are already safe, and no they don't have a right to enter the UK.

Edit:

If you want to complain that our quota of refugees (taken from Syria, where there is a war going on) is too small that's one thing. But in the original post I quoted you were complaining that we were preventing people from walking through the Channel Tunnel, which is just ridiculous.

Well they dont have the right to choose the country. When they enter the EU they have to stay in the country they entered first. After that they are not refugees anymore.

 

[leatherhat]

As I said, you are just choosing to ignore the whole picture and take up a tiny fraction of refugees. Your stance is exactly the problem Europe is facing at the moment. Instead of working together to help ease the human suffering, each country is being egoistical and inhumane.

Where do you suggest all the refugees go? You really don't care, do you?

Some to Europe (in similar numbers to what the UK is taking) some to the US who is largely responsible for the destabilization in the Middle East. The rest to the Gulf states. Rich, culturally similar. It would be a great fit and if the world spent a fraction of the effort it does on shaming Europe on convincing them to take refuges they might actually do it.

You should stop listening to True Finns propaganda.

That chart is from 2014, Finland takes about 1,000 a day recently.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Maybe you shouldn't. Not a big fan of Cameron but he's played this really well. We're talking asylum seekers straight from Syria and helping with financial resources. We've taken as much as we can and that's that. I don't understand why only western European countries are shamed into taking more when the rest of the world is doing nothing.

2.2 million in Turkey.

1% is what UK takes out of that number, not counting Lebanon. So generous wow.

 

[Alabamaman]

You should stop listening to True Finns propaganda.

Notice the difference between Sweden and Finland? My point was: Finland and Sweden have similar social safety nets. If that's all the refugees were interested in, the numbers for Sweden and Finland should be equal. That's obviously not the case, as you can see in the right chart in the picture above.



Of course they do. Don't be silly.

Those numbers are from last year, there is literally up to a thousand people coming from Sweden every day.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

That chart is from 2014, Finland takes about 1,000 a day recently.

I realize after reading up on it that there may be some truth to what he was saying: https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6255265&playaudio=5453557

So I apologise for saying that was only True Finns propaganda. My main point still stands. There is even today a vast difference between the number of refugees taken in by Sweden and Finland. If it was all about economic migration for dat sweet safety net, both countries should have as many.

 

[KingSnake]

That chart is from 2014, Finland takes about 1,000 a day recently.

Not recently, expected on Friday, which is a totally different thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/finnish-pm-says-refugee-inflow-sweden-growing-121352792--business.html

The government said more than 11,000 asylum seekers, most from Iraq, have come to Finland so far this year, compared to just 3,600 in the whole last year.

It said the situation was getting tough in Tornio, in north of the country, where refugees come through the Swedish border after a long journey.

More than 500 refugees crossed the land border on Thursday and the government expected up to 1,000 arrivals on Friday.

edit: Not that it's not serious, but still not a basis for extrapolation.

 

[justjohn]

I still remember France's reaction from 2-3 years ago, following the Libyan refugees waves and the boat sinking. They suspended Schengen for a crisis that practically was created by them.



No, you're not taking as much as you can, by any measurable indicator. You're taking as much as your political mentality allows you too.

We've taken as much as we can and we are helping in other ways. We're talking about refugees here who need a safe place to settle until the war in their country is over. I proposed a few pages back that this is something the UN need to look into and make sure South America, Asia, Africa and especially the Gulf countries start doing their bit and take in some of them. If they don't want to go there because those countries are poor then in my eyes they stop being refugees and become migrants. Turkey alone is spending billions of their money looking after them. How's it fair that only a handful of countries are taking the brunt whilst everyone else looks the other way?

 

[leatherhat]

Not recently, expected on Friday, which is a totally different thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/finnish-pm-says-refugee-inflow-sweden-growing-121352792--business.html

Thanks for the correction.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

2.2 million in Turkey.

1% is what UK takes out of that number, not counting Lebanon. So generous wow.

I don't think I'd describe our quota as generous, but it is at least realistic and achievable. I mean, they won't be staying in 'camps' in the UK.

 

[Moral Panic]

Per population numbers are also misleading. It should be per population/km2. Densely populated countries shouldn't be expected to bear a greater burden and become even more densely populated. It doesn't make sense to say 'You are already extremely packed in therefore you should become even more so'.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Not recently, expected on Friday, which is a totally different thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/finnish-pm-says-refugee-inflow-sweden-growing-121352792--business.html



edit: Not that it's not serious, but still not a basis for extrapolation.

Why are there many people coming from Iraq? Isn't only the northern part in trouble with ISIS. There are tens of millions of people living there and there is war destabilizing the whole country like in Syria right.

Sure, it's not a good country to live in. But is it a real war zone still, where the other parts of the country can't help their own countrymen anymore?

Per population numbers are also misleading. It should be per population/km2. Densely populated countries shouldn't be expected to bear a greater burden and become even more densely populated. It doesn't make sense to say 'You are already extremely packed in therefore you should become even more so'.

Can't really agree with that. No country in Europe is so full that you literally can't fit more people. The problem is housing availability and the amount of time it takes to finish housing projects.

 

[leatherhat]

Why are there many people coming from Iraq? Isn't only the northern part in trouble with ISIS. There are tens of millions of people living there and there is war destabilizing the whole country like in Syria right.

Sure, it's not a good country to live in. But is it a real war zone still, where the other parts of the country can't help their own countrymen anymore?


Can't really agree with that. No country in Europe is so full that you literally can't fit more people. The problem is housing availability and the amount of time it takes to finish housing projects.

People were fleeing from Iraq since the US and Iraqi insurgency were fighting years ago.

 

[Alabamaman]

I realize after reading up on it that there may be some truth to what he was saying: https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6255265&playaudio=5453557

So I apologise for saying that was only True Finns propaganda. My main point still stands. There is even today a vast difference between the number of refugees taken in by Sweden and Finland. If it was all about economic migration for dat sweet safety net, both countries should have as many.

As the numbers keep multiplying it won't really take long to catch up. Sweden has double the population and their economy isn't in the gutter, so they are better prepared to take more.

 

[justjohn]

Why are there many people coming from Iraq? Isn't only the northern part in trouble with ISIS. There are tens of millions of people living there and there is war destabilizing the whole country like in Syria right.

Sure, it's not a good country to live in. But is it a real war zone still, where the other parts of the country can't help their own countrymen anymore?

.

A lot of non Syrians are pretending to be Syrians to get in.

 

[Sickboy007]

Why are there many people coming from Iraq? Isn't only the northern part in trouble with ISIS. There are tens of millions of people living there and there is war destabilizing the whole country like in Syria right.

Sure, it's not a good country to live in. But is it a real war zone still, where the other parts of the country can't help their own countrymen anymore?

Uuh are you serious? Iraq is basically a failed state right now. There are almost daily bombings in Baghdad.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Uuh are you serious? Iraq is basically a failed state right now. There are almost daily bombings in Baghdad.

Yes, I am. You barely read anything about it these days, so I was wondering if it is still as bad in the whole country, or just some regions.

 

[TatteredHat]

The solution for that is speeding up the asylum granting process and letting refugees work so they can earn their own money. In most countries asylum seekers can barely live off the money they're getting. And without any money of their own you cannot hope for them to integrate into society at all.

That would be ideal, sadly in the current situation we're already coping with (last I checked) around 1.2 million unemployed, and that's not counting any upcoming refugees.

"letting refugees work" isn't as easy a fix as it sounds when there is no work to give them.

edit:
Here's a breakdown of the current situation when it comes to immigrants living off of welfare, it's not pretty. But atleast the polish are doing well, that's nice.

Sourced from the Central Bureau of Statistics.

 

[Sickboy007]

Yes, I am. You barely read anything about it these days, so I was wondering if it is still as bad in the whole country, or just some regions.

Violence in Iraq is a non-story at this point.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Yes, I am. You barely read anything about it these days, so I was wondering if it is still as bad in the whole country, or just some regions.

It's just some regions is what I've heard. Basically, this appears to be the reason why many Iraqis want to go to Finland over Sweden
Basically, Sweden have updated their acceptance policies to account for the fact that not all of Iraq is still deemed to be dangerous, while Finland has not.

According to Muilu, SVT has been reporting that Iraqis may find it easier to receive refugee status in Finland which views a larger part of Iraq as being unstable than Sweden does.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/yle_in_stockholm_many_iraqi_refugees_continue_on_to_finland/8301671

 

[Forsete]

Watching the Sweden vs Denmark debate from yesterday regarding the current migration, holy shit what a difference.

Very enlightening.

 

[RoadHazard]

Per population numbers are also misleading. It should be per population/km2. Densely populated countries shouldn't be expected to bear a greater burden and become even more densely populated. It doesn't make sense to say 'You are already extremely packed in therefore you should become even more so'.

Absolutely moronic argument, now as ever. Is the UK more densely populated than Sweden? Yes, obviously. Has the UK run out of space to put people in? Lol, no. And does Sweden's large uninhabited areas mean that we can easily take in hundreds of thousands of refugees? Nope. We can't just throw the refugees into the woods and hope they manage. Housing, jobs and/or welfare money don't just magically appear in a place because you put a person there. We already have a massive housing crisis (there are tens, maybe even hundreds, of thousands of apartments missing), and not enough jobs for our own population. How is our low population density gonna help with that?

Population density is an absolute non-issue in Europe. Other issues are infinitely more relevant.

 

[Tacitus_]

Per population numbers are also misleading. It should be per population/km2. Densely populated countries shouldn't be expected to bear a greater burden and become even more densely populated. It doesn't make sense to say 'You are already extremely packed in therefore you should become even more so'.

Uhh what? You want to dump them in the middle of a forest or something?