Sweden: ‘Force municipalities to accept refugees’

[kosse]

Municipalities in Sweden should be required to accept refugees (http://www.thelocal.se/tag/refugees), a government inquiry has concluded.

Next week the results of a state commission will be presented which suggest that all municipalities should be forced to take in refugees, reports the Dagens Samhälle newspaper.

Last year county administrative boards took over responsibility for managing the receiving of refugees. Since then, the boards have begun a dialogue with municipalities on how many refugees every municipality should accept.

But if a municipality refuses, the process now grinds to a halt.

“If the Migration Board (http://www.thelocal.se/tag/Migration_Board) decides that 10,000 people will be placed out in the country and the county administrative board can only find places for 9,500, then the boards much be able to force municipalities to accept refugees,” said Monica Werenfels-Röttorp, who led the government inquiry, to the TT news agency.

Around 25 municipalities in Sweden refuse to take in refugees, often pointing to housing shortages when saying no. But such an excuse ought not to serve as an argument which absolves a municipality from responsibility, argues Werenfels-Röttorp.

The report will be handed over to integration minister Nyamko Sabuni on Monday. TT/The Local (news@thelocal.se/08 656 6518)

http://www.thelocal.se/12116/20080530/



Looks like the pockets resistance are being wiped out in Sweden to achieve a better tomorrow.

[Laworkerbee]

Looks like the pockets resistance are being wiped out in Sweden to achieve a better tomorrow.


Insh'Allah

[s005288]

Yup, it's clearly going the wrong way. The people say no, but the elected government says F U. Same story here in Norway.

It must be the lovely climate we have here up north, just below the arctic circle, that attracts these "refugees" :bash:.

[Leaper]

**** yeah! More targets! :roll:


(This is really sick)

[signatory]

Notice that Kosse removed the date from the article.

Published: 30 May 08 06:39 CET

This proposal has already been shot down by government who is against the idea.

[Leaper]

THANK GOD FOR THAT!


"Insh'Allah?" - November Oscar!!!

[signatory]

From the gov...

New law September 29 2008, http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/7617/a/112204

Babelfished context:


The solution is not to place people under a calculated method of allocation and force them to stay in the designated municipality at least two years, as the Social Democrats have proposed.

We will give the individual the best possible conditions for integration. It should however be made using incentives where individuals take responsibility for their integration

There's also coming a law that says immigrants can't take in relatives unless they can support them on their job and housing.

http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/11216/a/116656

Kosse should either stay more up to date on Swedish news or worry more about Finnish Schools or something like that IMO.

[wilhelm]

There's also coming a law that says immigrants can't take in relatives unless they can support them on their job and housing.

That has REALLY worked elsewhere. Ask the British for example...

The naievity is astounding....

[VPR]

I will say it again, I really feel sorry for Sweden, Norway - the end result will be similar to France (perhaps on a smaller scale though)

or how I would say Pizdets Evrope

[Leaper]

Please inform me. France?

[Jaeger07]

Same thing is going on in Norway. Communities with 800 people is asked to build a refugee-shelter for 400 refugees. :|

Big surprise the central government has had an extremely hard time getting new shelters built... AFAIK the number has gone down.

Personaly I can not see why we must accept refugees. We could do a much better job at helping people in conflict areas where they live.

[Rynnäkkökivääri]

Why can't America take them? America has Muslim communities already, integration would be much easier for the refugees.

[Laworkerbee]

Why can't America take them? America has Muslim communities already, integration would be much easier for the refugees.

How about nobody takes them and they stay where they are and improve their lives instead?

[Ghelp]

How about nobody takes them and they stay where they are and improve their lives instead?



x2



...........................................................

[Calanen]

How about nobody takes them and they stay where they are and improve their lives instead?

Because that would be racist.

You must accept unlimited immigrants, regardless of their:

- English ability, skillset or level of education;

- beliefs about overthrowing your government,

- rejection of western values;

- propensity not to participate in society and to freeload off welfare;

- adverse effect on levels of crime, hostility or destruction of your own culture and values.

otherwise you need to be sent to the Anti-Racist Re-Education Camp for Intolerant and Racially Prejudiced people until you are deemed rehabilitated. I have already notified my local Multicultist Enforcement Block Commissar of your transgression of the Infalliable Law of Multiculturalism Comrade.

Remember, as the sign above the gate says 'Tolerance Will Set You Free'

[LRPV]

You crack me up Calanen.:)

[1911-a1]

Please inform me. France?

Palestinians (and others) rioting because some thug got shot by the cops.

Edit: Many immigrants seem to have a problem with the police already. I hear about police cars getting stoned every week when they're in "the ghetto" (tensta, husby etc) on my radio scanner. That's not right.

[Divine]

Yeah... we need a lot more "reefuges" here. Plz give us more!

[Parx400]

Why can't America take them? America has Muslim communities already, integration would be much easier for the refugees.


We already do, its called the boarder with Mexico.

[Rynnäkkökivääri]

How about nobody takes them and they stay where they are and improve their lives instead?
This would be the best solution, but in some cases the refugees may risk death for cooperating with nations- why should they be forced to stay? I doubt a man who works with ISAF in Afghanistan would be very ****e to terrorism.

[Laworkerbee]

This would be the best solution, but in some cases the refugees may risk death for cooperating with nations- why should they be forced to stay? I doubt a man who works with ISAF in Afghanistan would be very ****e to terrorism.

I agree, the noble thing to do is to take in such a man. The majority of the others I just don't see the reason and actually think it does a disservice to their respective homelands.

[Mousepad]

Remember, as the sign above the gate says 'Tolerance Will Set You Free'

Hahahaa rofl. I wonder, will world financial crisis teach leftys something?

[Breakfast in Vegas]

How about nobody takes them and they stay where they are and improve their lives instead?Because there is no free money in Palisomolistan. Jeez, who's gonna pay for the Playstation?

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Because that would be racist.

You must accept unlimited immigrants, regardless of their:

- English ability, skillset or level of education;

- beliefs about overthrowing your government,

- rejection of western values;

- propensity not to participate in society and to freeload off welfare;

- adverse effect on levels of crime, hostility or destruction of your own culture and values.

otherwise you need to be sent to the Anti-Racist Re-Education Camp for Intolerant and Racially Prejudiced people until you are deemed rehabilitated. I have already notified my local Multicultist Enforcement Block Commissar of your transgression of the Infalliable Law of Multiculturalism Comrade.

Remember, as the sign above the gate says 'Tolerance Will Set You Free'

Heh, the true nature of Calanen reveals itself...

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Heh, the true nature of Calanen reveals itself...And he's right.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Really?

Wasn't the mighty USA founded on immigrants?

He's not right, it's another R word that he is.

[b0sco]

And he's right.

Yep. 12345

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Really?

Wasn't the mighty USA founded on immigrants?
Yes, it was and continues to welcome immigrants from all over the world, with the understanding that they abide by and respect the laws and government of the United States of America.

He's not right, it's another R word that he is.I can't say as I don't know him personally.

But what he wrote is correct nonetheless.

Or do you feel personally attacked by such concepts as:
* Refugees should learn language of the nation they are entering, or at least English so they can communicate.

* Refugees should accept the form of government of the host nation and abide by their laws.

* Refugees should accept and live by the cultural values of the nation they move too.

* Welfare is an opportunity to find work/adapt to society in a productive way.. not a meal ticket and free pass. Welfare isn't free... somebody worked to earn the tax revenue that is spent on welfare.

* Abide by the country's laws and be fully punished when breaking them, despite whichever cultural background they come from originally.

Besides, is "refugee" a race?

[clean]

Really?

Wasn't the mighty USA founded on immigrants?

He's not right, it's another R word that he is.

Coffee, black. No cream, no sugar, and hold the irony.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Yes, it was and continues to welcome immigrants from all over the world, with the understanding that they abide by and respect the laws and government of the United States of America.

So, his sarcastic comment in support of a post suggesting that the US doesn't take any more refugees/immigrants is what then?


I can't say as I don't know him personally.

But what he wrote is correct nonetheless.

Right. So you can only disagree with him if you know him personally?

More like you won't say. Why would that be? You're not afraid to be honest are you?


Or do you feel personally attacked by such concepts as:

Oh, ok. The old "If you disagree you must be either a leftist liberal nutcase or a refugee/immigrant (and therefore subjective/biased)" insinuation. Obviously I'm not the one feeling attacked.

Way to go at attempting to put me in my place. You fail though.


*Refugees should learn language of the nation they are entering, or at least English so they can communicate.

Certainly. Does that not happen at the moment? Are you saying that refugees/immigrants don't do that? What, at all? Or is the percentage that do not hight enough for you? Got the fugures to support your belief?


*Refugees should accept the form of government of the host nation and abide by their laws.

Sure they should.

But what about citizens of the nation, born and bred (but not from refugee/immigrant stock, if you can find some) that don't accept the form of government or abide by their laws?

Is there a separate set of rules for them?


* Refugees should accept and live by the cultural values of the nation they move too.

So all refugees/immigrants coming to America should convert to Christianity and celebrate Easter and xmas, etc?

I didn't realise that each country had a set of concrete cultural values that all citzens rigidly adhered to. How does that work in reality?


* Welfare is an opportunity to find work/adapt to society in a productive way.. not a meal ticket and free pass. Welfare isn't free... somebody worked to earn the tax revenue that is spent on welfare.

Just a set of rules that to be effective must be enforced properly. Doesn't matter what your background is, freeloaders come in all flavours. If the system isn't working then the system needs to me modified. Who is untimately responsible for that? The refugees/immigrants or the 'host nation' population and their freely elected officials?


* Abide by the country's laws and be fully punished when breaking them, despite whichever cultural background they come from originally.

Obviously.

What about Native Americans? Their culture see's things differently to the greater population of America and their culture pre dates any other in the country.

Surely by your definition, theirs is the culture that all immigrants should adhere to?


Besides, is "refugee" a race?

Not that I'm aware of. Just so happens though that most immigrants are o a different race to the country they immigrate to. Ironic that.

[DS73]

Really?

Wasn't the mighty USA founded on immigrants?

Yes, on immigrants from UK and some northern european countries (many dutch, big number of scandinavians, some germans and later, with buying Louisiana, big number of french-- please note that "big number" means around 100.000). Massive influx of immigrants from the rest of Europe came long long after when US was already rich, relatively stable (especially if compare with home countries) and, guess what, english speaking country.
Just some glance into american history;
http://www.ellisisland.org/genealogy/ellis_island_history.asp
or http://www.ellisisland.org/immexp/wseix_5_0.asp?
and just a reminder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
that is how that mighty country started.

And some more information:


The general requirements for naturalization are:
...
5. Know English and information about U.S. history
and government (English and Civics)...."taken from http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf

so much for R word.

EDIT: USA don't have policy of accepting refugees. AT all, none, nothing.
All cases are considered only on individual bases.

[PeterG]

Wasn't the mighty USA founded on immigrants?



And what happened to those that already lived there..?

[[ KOOSHAB ]]

Question!
What happens when the oil in the Middle-East runs out?
Will our governments be willing to take such heavy amounts of immigrants?

[Pigdog]

So, his sarcastic comment in support of a post suggesting that the US doesn't take any more refugees/immigrants is what then?

I'd say a jab at the people who are so quick to brand others that are not all too accepting of particularly unappealing immigrants as racists.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

So, his sarcastic comment in support of a post suggesting that the US doesn't take any more refugees/immigrants is what then?It was both funny and accurate. Immigrants and refugees should adapt and accept their new nation, not try to adjust it to their own set of values and/or live by their own rules just because they feel like it. What's so difficult about that to understand? Or do you disagree?

Right. So you can only disagree with him if you know him personally? I don't disagree with his post.

More like you won't say. Why would that be? You're not afraid to be honest are you?No, quite the contrary. I believe refugees present the host nations with significant problems at little benefit. Much of these problems could be avoided if the governments and social structures of the host nation were more strict regarding immigrant crime and welfare for example. Immigration can be positive (it has served the US very well), but there must be standards that are to be met.



Oh, ok. The old "If you disagree you must be either a leftist liberal nutcase or a refugee/immigrant (and therefore subjective/biased)" insinuation. Obviously I'm not the one feeling attacked. Way to go at attempting to put me in my place. You fail though.It was a question, not an accusation. Read into it what you may.


Certainly. Does that not happen at the moment? Are you saying that refugees/immigrants don't do that? What, at all? Or is the percentage that do not hight enough for you? Got the fugures to support your belief?No I don't have the fugures and I've never had the fugures.



Sure they should.
But what about citizens of the nation, born and bred (but not from refugee/immigrant stock, if you can find some) that don't accept the form of government or abide by their laws?
Is there a separate set of rules for them?One law for everybody, that's all I ask.



So all refugees/immigrants coming to America should convert to Christianity and celebrate Easter and xmas, etc? ? Where's that come from? Not from me.
I didn't realise that each country had a set of concrete cultural values that all citzens rigidly adhered to. How does that work in reality?It is a difficult question, one that politicians and governments stumble over in interpretation. There are some fundamental things about "western culture" that are established in our cultures. Equal rights for women. Opportunity for education for all. etc. etc.

Just a set of rules that to be effective must be enforced properly. Doesn't matter what your background is, freeloaders come in all flavours. If the system isn't working then the system needs to me modified. Who is untimately responsible for that? The refugees/immigrants or the 'host nation' population and their freely elected officials?The government must change the legislation and enforcement before the immigrant/refugee will realize that welfare isn't a money tree, agreed.

Obviously.
What about Native Americans? Their culture see's things differently to the greater population of America and their culture pre dates any other in the country.
Surely by your definition, theirs is the culture that all immigrants should adhere to?That example is 100 years old. Without excusing the injustice done to Native Americans, times have changed. Ever been to the Res? I have. The res has it's own laws, own jurisdiction, own tax system. Indians can get free tuition to many state universities. Housing is free for many. Etc. Etc. Problem isn't solved or corrected by government support alone and the time pre-settlers in America cannot be brought back...nor should it, but it can hardly be used as an example for today's immigration problems in Europe. Native Americans were made up of hundreds of different tribes. It cannot be considered a country or homogeneous culture in that sense, certainly not one in which immigrant Europeans were living within "the" Native American culture.

[Macs.]

Ban Breakfast in Vegas.

He is a R-WORD.

Equal right for women ? I think you are crazy in your head, respect all other cultures OK ??? I keep my women under a Burka and hit them with a stick, respect my culture.

[Elemental666]

Ban Breakfast in Vegas.

He is a R-WORD.

You just R-WORD. That's disgusting and you are also a bigot and a bigot.

[Niels]

Equal right for women ? I think you are crazy in your head, respect all other cultures OK ??? I keep my women under a Burka and hit them with a stick, respect my culture.
Respect 100%. That's how America got created too, so. If you disagree with me you are a N-word R-word and you will be banned okay. That's how tolerant of all people and their opinions I am.

[Supe]

Really?



He's not right, it's another R word that he is.

Complete and utter bollocks. He's spot on. Nor does Cals post constitute racism.

You might find this link of interest regards US immigration btw: http://www.vdare.com/pb/060502_vanderbilt.htm

Swedish immigration policy is humanistic but short sighted. They do not appear to have weighed the social/economic impact of absorbing a large number of migrants in a very short time period nor do they appear (Swedish posters please comment if I am wrong) to have adequately planned to integrate migrants into the wider community. Malmo for example appears to be a city that has absorbed a greater share of migrants but without dispersing them to other cities, has created insular neighbourhoods. One where the migrant experience is that of living in a bubble and where us and them attitudes can thrive.

From my point of view, you want your nation to be as stable and secure as possible and so a responsible govt must factor in the importance of social cohesion and be wary of adverse of negative impacts to the wider community. Feel good policies is not good policy.

An interesting read here:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938
(there's a bit of rhetoric within but does provide a bit of perspective on some sentiments that perhaps govt did not address when it embarked on its scheme to resettle people en masse)


From the gov...

New law September 29 2008, http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/7617/a/112204

Babelfished context:

There's also coming a law that says immigrants can't take in relatives unless they can support them on their job and housing.

http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/11216/a/116656


(bold font by me).

Obviously there's been realisation at the Govt level that mass migration is long term unsupportable by the State.

[Kampfbaer]

Nearly all western countries need immigrants due to low rate of birth, but we need the right immigrants, with the needed skills, respecting our values and and learning the language of the country they are moving to.

Sadly in Germany it seems, that our politicians are to dumb or ignorant to act accordingly.

Nevertheless more must be done to improve the living conditions in the countries, those immigrants are coming from!