[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51854378]For refugees (since the government has control over their movement) I would say distribute them across the country make them rely on their communities so you prevent the problem by stopping them moving into ghettos in the first place.[/QUOTE]
We are already doing this, resulting in towns of 2-3 thousand people taking several hundreds of refugees.
[QUOTE=PyromanDan;51854395]Sadly no, and it's not really a big surprise. Two apologists and a 16 yr old swede walk in to a thread; 16 speaks what he thinks and apologists use vague wording to describe the opinion's representation in the population.
[/quote]
Dunno what you mean by this - I don't really know who the apologists are or who the swede is so without that context its a little bit too vague for me to follow.
[quote]
Idk what if you not only stopped the immigration but also deported the existing ones? It's almost like the problem would literally leave the country.[/QUOTE]
Prospect of mass deportation of foreigners aside...
What about the people born in Sweden who live there? Like I said its not only immigrants.
So now you've deported a bunch of people, broken up families, taken workers from jobs, taken employers (and thus jobs) from natives, messed up your economy and international relations - and you will still have a bunch of poor communities in the country with the exact same issues as before. See, not really a solution.
[editline]21st February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=RB33;51854438]We are already doing this, resulting in towns of 2-3 thousand people taking several hundreds of refugees.[/QUOTE]
Not quite.
If sweden was accepting over 10% (as your strawman arguement suggests) of its population in refugees then it would be accepting near 1,000,000 refugees... which would be far too many.
The EU quota thing which was floated last year suggested Sweden take 5838 refugees. So take that as percentage of population and apply it to a town of 3000 people. Approx 1.75 Less than 2 refugees per town of 3000. Not even noticeable.
100s of refugees being put into small towns isn't the "scattered through the country" I suggested. The idea of putting them all in 1 area is, in my mind a bad strategy by the government - resulting partly from people having a nimby attitude to it. 2-4 refugees in a few towns nobody would notice. 200 in 1 or 2 towns and it becomes a problem which everyone hears about.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51854447]Not quite.
If sweden was accepting over 10% (as your strawman arguement suggests) of its population in refugees then it would be accepting near 1,000,000 refugees... which would be far too many.
The EU quota thing which was floated last year suggested Sweden take 5838 refugees. So take that as percentage of population and apply it to a town of 3000 people. Approx 1.75 Less than 2 refugees per town of 3000. Not even noticeable.
100s of refugees being put into small towns isn't the "scattered through the country" I suggested. The idea of putting them all in 1 area is, in my mind a bad strategy by the government - resulting partly from people having a nimby attitude to it. 2-4 refugees in a few towns nobody would notice. 200 in 1 or 2 towns and it becomes a problem which everyone hears about.[/QUOTE]
I don't know where you are getting 10% from, but it has actually happened in real life, not just in theory. In 2015, we took 150.000 refugees, a bit more than those 5838 suggested. If I calculated correctly that would be 45 refugees in that town if evenly split across the country. It will be noticeable, even if spread out.
[QUOTE=werrek;51852566]I'm really hoping the rest of the world sees how hard it is to integrate people of opposite culture into a progressive, western culture. Giving asylum to everybody of a different culture will lead to clashes like this[/QUOTE]
[I]Horseshit.[/I] Can you prove that? Because that sounds like something you pulled out of your ass. [URL="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/refugees-syria-iraq-integration-settlement-1.3364555"]The reports[/URL] [URL="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2016/12/13/294851/syrian-immigrants-in-the-united-states-a-receiving-community-for-todays-refugees/"]and statistics[/URL] [URL="http://www.dw.com/en/refugees-in-germany-i-want-to-integrate-but-how/a-19197142"]I've seen[/URL] say exactly the opposite. People coming to a new country, whether as refugees or vetted immigrants, fully want to integrate, but unless they're given help integrating (Language courses, cultural training, etc) you can't expect too much. Canada has taken in over 30,000 Syrian refugees to date, and we seem to be doing just fine.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51854641]Proof? Because that sounds like something you pulled out of your ass. The statistics I've seen say exactly the opposite.[/QUOTE]
He's probably looking at American Republicans, which I agree seem to be having major clashes with the progressive values of the western world, especially the values of Europe which they deem almost heretical.
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;51854663]He's probably looking at American Republicans, which I agree seem to be having major clashes with the progressive values of the western world, especially the values of Europe which they deem almost heretical.[/QUOTE]
Sure looks that way.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51854671]Sure looks that way.[/QUOTE]
They Call what Europe is doing Socialist/Communist-light.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51854675]They Call what Europe is doing Socialist/Communist-light.[/QUOTE]
It may be that conservatives are so resistant to change that they can't fathom people coming from different cultures actually wanting to integrate.
Why are they rioting exactly?
[media]https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/834040340818558977[/media]
People actually telling him not to go and that there is nothing to see there despite a riot happening lol.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51855045][media]https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/834040340818558977[/media]
People actually telling him not to go and that there is nothing to see there despite a riot happening lol.[/QUOTE]
Um, how is this guy relevant to this? Am I missing something?
[QUOTE=taipan;51853383]The Dutch police just like most European police use warning shots as well. This usually means shooting in the air. Since nobody has a gun here, this immediately strike fear into anyone involved.
Our countries are culturally different. That's why warning shots are useful in one country and unacceptable in another.
The dark side:
There is one instance known where a Dutch officer fired it's warning shot to low and hit an innocent bystander at a music festival on the beach.
The good side:
The police only killed 7 People last year. On a population of 17 Million[/QUOTE]
The police of Rotterdam has a team that uses GoPro's so people have a better understand what the police does to help our country. I found 2 recorded events where the police fired warning shots. They only use it when the situation is considered dangerous (code BTGV) and the suspect is not responding.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWz0_lfNy64[/media]
At 1:25
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvR_MYFINM[/media]
At 2:55
Keep in mind guns are extremely rare in the Netherlands and even the people that do manage to get one illegally are very inexperienced with it, so a warning shot in the air is very effective against a suspect.
[QUOTE=da space core;51855081]Um, how is this guy relevant to this? Am I missing something?[/QUOTE]
He's going directly into the dangerous no-go zones to find out the truth.
[video=youtube;NrTtjgI4PVk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrTtjgI4PVk[/video]
I was heading home today after grocery shopping at Fittja no-go zone, when I saw one of our most famous investigative journalists Janne Josefsson talking to some people with his film crew. So it seems a lot of people are jumping onto the bandwagon now :v:
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51851759]The fuck is wrong with them?
You shoot to kill, you don't flail around and try to spook people. You draw that gun, you draw it to eliminate a threat.
And before you construe this as "So you support rioters, huh???", I do not.[/QUOTE]
Relax dude, it's fine. Its called a warning shot for a reason.
[editline]21st February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=archangel125;51854641][I]Horseshit.[/I] Can you prove that? Because that sounds like something you pulled out of your ass. [URL="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/refugees-syria-iraq-integration-settlement-1.3364555"]The reports[/URL] [URL="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2016/12/13/294851/syrian-immigrants-in-the-united-states-a-receiving-community-for-todays-refugees/"]and statistics[/URL] [URL="http://www.dw.com/en/refugees-in-germany-i-want-to-integrate-but-how/a-19197142"]I've seen[/URL] say exactly the opposite. People coming to a new country, whether as refugees or vetted immigrants, fully want to integrate, but unless they're given help integrating (Language courses, cultural training, etc) you can't expect too much. Canada has taken in over 30,000 Syrian refugees to date, and we seem to be doing just fine.[/QUOTE]
Didn't you know there was an attack in Canada just last night by immigrants ? It's all over the news! SAD! /trump
[QUOTE=RB33;51855158]He's going directly into the dangerous no-go zones to find out the truth.
[video=youtube;NrTtjgI4PVk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrTtjgI4PVk[/video][/QUOTE]
Presumably the people who think Trump shouldn't be taken literally when he makes quite specific claims granted him the same sort of leeway when it came to Obama saying he was going to have the most transparent government ever, or that he was going to close Guantanamo, or when he said health insurance was going to be affordable for everyone.
I digged it though the way he and others have portrayed it. "The media and academics" take Trump literally and not, you know[I], literally everyone else [/I]who isn't a Trump supporter giving him endless benefit of the doubt.
[QUOTE=LittleBabyman;51854154]What's the word for a de-developed country?[/QUOTE]
USA
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
