Multiculturalism is an enriching experience!

[Einzig]

But on the other hand, we have Sweden, a country where the citizens have decided to offer one another an awesome standard of living. Their small population is taking on massive numbers of people from poorer nations.

Yes, mass immigration is bad for the majority that lives there and the people moving in too. The Netherlands was the previous country that took masses of low educated immigrants. The low educated immigrants do not get enough opportunities if there are too many others that also need help. Slowly is the keyword.

I guess I'm anti-immigration? But why escape from your broken, shi--y nation only to set up the exact same social structure in the new one?

I don't think anyone intends to bring their misery with them. Just like kids being beaten by their parents ending up beating their kids or victims of incest ending it up to their kids, it is not something they probably looked forward to be doing. And do you mean you are anti-mass-immigration or you have the idea that no one should move to any other country?

 

[Einzig]

Nope, i just note the fact that the people who come from Africa, especially North Africa, and west Asia, are much more likely to be involved in crime.
Secondly, not having a job is hardly a defense for committing crime.

Do you deny this?

I acknowledge that those that move involuntarily or forced are more likely to end up in a poor area in europe, because they do not have much in terms of wealth. A lack of means and an increased crime risk is directly related.
Do you deny that?

Why would they live anywhere else? They live in a place just like back home in Somalia or Iraq. The people look like them, speak their language and worship the same god as them.

They fled their home country because they probably did not enjoy living there, why would they look for the same here?

They don't have to work because we dumb ****ing Swedes just keep giving away our welfare to them. It must be a dream come true!

If that is the case, be angry at your government instead.
Besides that, you know that finding a job is even hard for Swedes themselves. Several friends have searched for a job over 2 years before they found something and they are "natives". You probably know that if your name is not Swedish you simply have an even harder time being hired no matter your degree or fluency in Swedish, in at least several sectors. If you are unhappy about that, debate the discrimination of employers.

I am open for debate but the majority of the arguments put forth here have been thoroughly discussed on another forum where i also post.

If you are done arguing, why start a new thread?

Yes, i have been assaulted and robbed, and my father once got assaulted, and knocked unconscious, on an open street by a gang of

Edited by LashL: 

to properly mask profanity

****skinned immigrants.

What a personal blessing immigration and multiculturalism has been for me!

I think no one would argue those guys should not be punished for what they did to you and your father. Did they get caught? Is your concern that they get an easier time being prosecuted, because they have a different ethnicity?
What if the crime solving rate was simply higher, the immigrants had an easier time getting a job thus getting out of poverty and decreasing crime rates. If you knew most criminals in your town looked like you, would that make you safer? What if they still had accents, but also had jobs, would you still feel invaded or accept them as any other part of society?

 

[Arcade22]

I acknowledge that those that move involuntarily or forced are more likely to end up in a poor area in europe, because they do not have much in terms of wealth. A lack of means and an increased crime risk is directly related.
Do you deny that?

No, and what do you think should be done about this?

They fled their home country because they probably did not enjoy living there, why would they look for the same here?

They 'fled' to Sweden because we have a living standard here that most of them can only dream about in their homelands.
They obviously want to live like its back home but only with a much higher living standard, all of it of course payed by the Swedish people.

If that is the case, be angry at your government instead.

I AM extremely pissed of on the Swedish government.

Besides that, you know that finding a job is even hard for Swedes themselves. Several friends have searched for a job over 2 years before they found something and they are "natives". You probably know that if your name is not Swedish you simply have an even harder time being hired no matter your degree or fluency in Swedish, in at least several sectors.

Then they should simply get a Swedish name and try to become assimilated.

The people who bitch about being discriminated, and still walk around with an niqab or Arabic scarf, and constantly speak Arabic, and have made no steps in trying to be assimilated, have none of my sympathy.

I think no one would argue those guys should not be punished for what they did to you and your father. Did they get caught?

The people involved in either incident have not been caught.

Is your concern that they get an easier time being prosecuted, because they have a different ethnicity?

No.

What if the crime solving rate was simply higher, the immigrants had an easier time getting a job thus getting out of poverty and decreasing crime rates.

Don't care, i would still be against immigration and multiculturalism.

If you knew most criminals in your town looked like you, would that make you safer?

No.

What if they still had accents, but also had jobs, would you still feel invaded or accept them as any other part of society?

The only immigrants i would 'accept' would be those who have made steps to become culturally assimilated and intermarry with other ethnic Swedes.
All others who may simply be working here or studying here and have not made any steps to be assimilated should simply be deported, IMO.

 

[Cavemonster]

Sure, but again, America is a massive country. Sweden has about the same population as New York City, and probably a smaller economy considering Wall Street and such. Additionally, our social structure dealing with those immigrants was basically to say, "Welcome to America, you're on your own." THus, there was incredible poverty and angst for those groups.

But America wasn't such a massive economy during many of these waves of immigration, and a huge amount of the immigration was into the urban areas which acted as a microcosm, so the amount of land is irrelevant.

 

[Juniversal]

Then you are wrong. Most immigrants segregate themselves inside places like Rosegarden, Rinkeby, Tensta and etc, where they live with people who look like themselves and behave like themselves.

And a quick look at the level of crime and unemployment that exist there shows that they are unable to behave like ethnic Swedes.

Well I meant ghetto in the American interpretation of the word i.e. poor, high crime in addition to being ethnically homogeneous, ect. It might be true that many self-segregate but do you really think they find being poor, jobless and in high crime areas desirable?

 

[TraneWreck]

But America wasn't such a massive economy during many of these waves of immigration, and a huge amount of the immigration was into the urban areas which acted as a microcosm, so the amount of land is irrelevant.

It was with respect to the numbers of people immigrating. Additionally, during most of those waves there was a massive amount of land to expand into, creating new farms, towns, and businesses. That isn't irrelevant at all. If you look at the Northern European waves, they expanded into midwestern areas and set up farming communities. This provided a consumer base for the items created in industrial cities.

Those opportunities don't exist in Sweden.

 

[TraneWreck]

Yes, mass immigration is bad for the majority that lives there and the people moving in too. The Netherlands was the previous country that took masses of low educated immigrants. The low educated immigrants do not get enough opportunities if there are too many others that also need help. Slowly is the keyword.

Agreed--excepting the US, which can take on a massive wave of people, those numbers are the killers.

I don't think anyone intends to bring their misery with them. Just like kids being beaten by their parents ending up beating their kids or victims of incest ending it up to their kids, it is not something they probably looked forward to be doing. And do you mean you are anti-mass-immigration or you have the idea that no one should move to any other country?

Well, sometimes they don't accurately analyze the source of their misery. As in the Muslim groups in Europe who want to establish their backwards religious customs like Sharia (obviously not true of all Muslim immigrants, but there are significant such movments in Europe).

Basically I am for anything that raises the standard of human rights on a world-wide scale. Thus, I am in favor of immigration until that immigration begins to negatively affect the destination country.

I was also thinking about this: what would the modern Western powers (US, Britain, France...etc) look like if their populations had simply fled when times were tough? Obviously there was no better destination in, say, 1066, and travel was much more difficult, but it was partly people staying in their countries and battling for political improvement that ultimately led to the state we have now.

What if Ghandi had said, "Screw this, I'm out..."

 

[Arcade22]

Well I meant ghetto in the American interpretation of the word i.e. poor, high crime in addition to being ethnically homogeneous, ect. It might be true that many self-segregate but do you really think they find being poor, jobless and in high crime areas desirable?

Well, the Swedish government tried to give them a choice to move to another place where more housing and work was available, but only a few were willing to move.

Link

 

[Einzig]

Agreed--excepting the US, which can take on a massive wave of people, those numbers are the killers.

I was also thinking about this: what would the modern Western powers (US, Britain, France...etc) look like if their populations had simply fled when times were tough? Obviously there was no better destination in, say, 1066, and travel was much more difficult, but it was partly people staying in their countries and battling for political improvement that ultimately led to the state we have now.

What if Ghandi had said, "Screw this, I'm out..."

I guess you really mean that you wonder what would have happened if there was no colonization done by Europe on other continents? If they stayed in their own region instead?

 

[Einzig]

Well, the Swedish government tried to give them a choice to move to another place where more housing and work was available, but only a few were willing to move.

Link

Just like many Swedes that studied in Lund. While Skåne has too many physicians and such (at least one of those told me), the rest of the more northern parts lack them. They refuse to move and get benefits until they can find a job in Skåne. They do not want to part with friends and find it cruel that regulations state that they should accept something around a 2 hour trip to work.

 

[TraneWreck]

I guess you really mean that you wonder what would have happened if there was no colonization done by Europe on other continents? If they stayed in their own region instead?

The European colonial powers were just another class of oppressors. Whether an objectionable internal system (France) or an external dominant force (India, China), at some point nations have to decide their own fate. Is it worth it to stay and fight or flee.

Obviously there are going to be situations that don't fit the model--realistically, what was Poland going to do about Germany and then the Soviets?--but countries like Iran, Mexico, some North African countries...etc. can make those kind of decisions.

Look at Vietnam. No country had it worse than they did when we were dropping bombs, napalm, and agent orange over every square foot of that poor little area. Yet 40 some years later the people that chose to stick it out have built a functioning country with a promising future.

Obviously it would be easier for everyone if the countries that were working didn't, say, drop bombs, napalm, and agent orange on the ones that were struggling.

 

[Cavemonster]

It was with respect to the numbers of people immigrating. Additionally, during most of those waves there was a massive amount of land to expand into, creating new farms, towns, and businesses. That isn't irrelevant at all. If you look at the Northern European waves, they expanded into midwestern areas and set up farming communities. This provided a consumer base for the items created in industrial cities.

Those opportunities don't exist in Sweden.

Okay, show me some math. You're making some number based claims here.

Claim: The size of the US economy during 19th century immigration in comparison to the influx of immigration was greater than the same ratio for scandinavian immigration today. Back it up with real numbers and sources.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

No, but I'd rather live in a place where the far, far, majority of people are ethnic Swedes and thus reduce the risk of being assaulted or robbed.

Yeah, because crime in the UK was far, far less than what it was after the Windrush docked. The 19th Century, what a crime-free time to live in.

You keep bringing up this 'ethnic Swede' as if it is an actual thing, despite never defining it. At the risk of repeating myself a 30th time, how long does an immigrant have to live in Sweden before they become an 'ethnic' Swede?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I think no one would argue those guys should not be punished for what they did to you and your father. Did they get caught?

More importantly, did they exist?

 

[Arcade22]

Yeah, because crime in the UK was far, far less than what it was after the Windrush docked. The 19th Century, what a crime-free time to live in.

Nice strawman. But you do agree that immigrants are much more likely to be involved in crime? Or do you deny basic reality?

You keep bringing up this 'ethnic Swede' as if it is an actual thing, despite never defining it. At the risk of repeating myself a 30th time, how long does an immigrant have to live in Sweden before they become an 'ethnic' Swede?

I have already explained this to you before, do try to keep up.

But i guess there are no separate Swedish people just like there is no separate Jewish people or separate Chinese people.

 

[Arcade22]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 12

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I have already explained this to you before, do try to keep up.

No, you haven't. I just don't think you understand the issue.

But i guess there are no separate Swedish people just like there is no separate Jewish people or separate Chinese people. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/188094b2d52bc5d842.gif[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/188094b75f85d8a1d1.gif[/qimg]

Tell me, how long (years, centuries) did it take for the immigrants who first came to Sweden to become ethnic Swedes? How long do people of African descent have to live in Sweden before they become ethnic Swedes?

 

[paximperium]

But i guess there are no separate Swedish people just like there is no separate Jewish people or separate Chinese people.

No there isn't. Why?

 

[Arcade22]

No there isn't. Why?

So what your saying is that there is no Jewish people with a Jewish culture? There is no Japanese people with a Japanese culture? There is no Swedish people with a Swedish culture?

 

[dudalb]

What we are saying is that Genetics have nothing to do with it. Thus a Westerner who is brought up as a Japanese and is accepted as such in Japan would be Japanese.