191–198 of 198 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umm, that's why there's a crisis. Do you think the numbers are wrong? Why, and by how much do you think they are wrong?
It's not credible that 75% of Syrians have left the country.
Only 5 million/18 million = 28% of the population has left the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing besides wanting to get to a better place (rather than fleeing from war) that makes people go all the way to Denmark. The fact is that the second you are in the nearest country where there is no conflict you are a refugee from the war, but the second you move further you are not more an actual refugee of war but rather a migrant. Now there are all sorts of reasons why we still accepts people as refuge…
Yes, we're between a rock and a hard place. When experience says the Dublin Agreement starts to break own under high stress, who should suffer the most? The refugees? The border countries? I certainly have no answers, but I can empathize better with the refugees more than I can those who insist that refugees are stuck in the first place they arrive.
But you are doing it again. Assuming the problem is mostly a refugee problem. It's not it's a migration problem, thats the one thats hard to solve and which can't be solved by doing what sweden and germany did.
Furthermore and as mentioned elsewhere. Many of these people are those with most resources, otherwise they wouldn't be able to actually make it so far. The real refugees, those who can't get away, them we are leaving with less resources because we end up spending money on those who come to the various european countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Germany alone got over a million of refugees in 2015 alone.
Correct. Also, let's not forget the Ukraine crisis, which brought ~900.000 refugees to neighboring countries (Poland and Russia mostly).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do refugees speak better German and Swedish then Portuguese?
The important question is can refugees communicate better in Germany and Sweden than in Brazil? One option is German or Swedish. It's very unlikely that a refugee will know either language. A large percentage of Germans and Swedes know English. If a refugee also knows English, that's one language possibility. Also, French is another widely spoken second language in Syria, though less common than English. (Remember, S…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The important question is can refugees communicate better in Germany and Sweden than in Brazil? One option is German or Swedish. It's very unlikely that a refugee will know either language. A large percentage of Germans and Swedes know English. If a refugee also knows English, that's one language possibility. Also, French is another widely spoken second language in Syria, though less common than English. (Remember, S…
You can make this argument foc any country in the world that has decent English level among population. Given the fact that Sweden has a lot of Arabic speakers, do you think that they should get even more or that maybe effort should be distributed more evenly?
That's why I think your question was poorly posed, and why I think it's obvious why a refugee, when given any sort of choice or allowed to express a preference, would have a bias towards German or Sweden over Brazil.
Do you not agree?
As for Sweden, I think we should accept more refugees and refugees should be accepted more evenly across the EU.
There's plenty of room. We accepted 160,000 asylum seekers last year, for a country with fewer than 10M people. The EU is 508M people, or 50 bigger than Sweden. 160K*50 = 8 million, while there are only 5M displaced Syrians outside of Syria. Many of those don't want to flee to the EU, while on the other hand there are about an equal number of displaced people from Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, what's the point of your question again?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think they're crossing the med instead of staying in Turkey?
Turkey doesnt give out refugee status and has little protection for refugees, including being able to return them to where they are fleeing from, it is completely overloaded with a lack of resources. While Europe makes it disgustingly hard for refugees to enter the human rights and eu law provided make it a much more realistic place to be stable / settled if you can get in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can make this argument foc any country in the world that has decent English level among population. Given the fact that Sweden has a lot of Arabic speakers, do you think that they should get even more or that maybe effort should be distributed more evenly?
Yes, I can. English is the modern lingua franca. That's why I think your question was poorly posed, and why I think it's obvious why a refugee, when given any sort of choice or allowed to express a preference, would have a bias towards German or Sweden over Brazil. Do you not agree? As for Sweden, I think we should accept more refugees and refugees should be accepted more evenly across the EU. There's plenty of room.…
Yes and no. It's a rational choice for a refuge but not for language reasons, let's be honest here.
>As for Sweden, I think we should accept more refugees and refugees should be accepted more evenly across the EU.
I agree that there is more place in Europe however Sweden seems to be out of capacity now. Last year new people where put into tents. There are no jobs, SFI is overcrowded (and always was kinda bad). Food for thought. I'm leaving Sweden after my SO finishes her PhD in a few months but boy that country has changed. I hope its for the better for old and new Swedes. Rapid immigration and big changes in fabric of society seem to have generated big party of right-wing crypto-nazis which is damn scary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're stopping just short of claiming genetic superiority here.
I read it as a preference for one's own cultural heritage, rather than anything to do with genetics or race.