Refugee Crisis 2 - a warm welcome in Germany

[Crixus]

Muslims will destroy Louvre and all that shit :lmao: I thought the homeless housing was bad, but this definitely takes the prize

 

Seriously. I smoked a fatty straight after reading that comment and it made me LOL. In fact, I was nearly ROFLMFAO, for real. :D

[Lyanna Stark]

True Metis

 

I accept that. But through those struggles the countries of today emerged. And if my ancestors fought for freedom in my country, I don't feel it is fair that people come from somewhere else to benefit from it, instead of fighting to do the same in their own countries.

 

Freedom ain't free, and so on and so forth.

 

LOL

 

This is baffling. And bizarre.

 

How large a percentage of wars, historically, have been fought because of "freedom in my country"? The world wars? The Balkan war of the 90s? Hell, go back to the 30 year war if you want to see something really baffling. Or what about Napoleon's wars. Freedom? Not quite. People have *fought* but freedom has generally been on far less importance than other factors.

 

 

Further, freedom as in, democracy? Or is this John Galt-land? This whole "people should stay the hell where they are" is also not only realistic or viable, but also historically false. People have always moved, small scale or large scale. Territory has shifted. And the whole niggardly OMG my stuff, nobody can have my stuff so shoo out of my area and go die somewhere else pls is as baffling as it is inhumane. Not to mention that most people ARE still in the area closest to the conflict. Only a small portion has fled to Europe, to take the recent conflict as an example. Facts and figures from June this year.  Among them:

* 12 million refugees in the areas around the conflict (inside Syria, Turkey)

* 250.000 Syrians have applied for asylum in the EU. (making it around 2% of all the refugees as of June)

* Hence around 98% are still in the "near" area

 

 

Muslims will destroy Louvre and all that shit :lmao: I thought the homeless housing was bad, but this definitely takes the prize

 

Yeah I mean, really.

 

Cos obviously all muslims as a collective hate art, culture and civilisation and just...stuff, for well,...reasons.  :blink:

[Altherion]

Yeah about that. Some clever dude dug up the newspaper clips from the 90s when the war in former Yugoslavia took place. It was all "OMG refugee crisis" and how the Bosnians and the Serbs would be a burden and Ruin Our Way of Life (TM). Turns out the average salary or the former refugees are only a tad below the one the native borns get, and interestingly, children of the refugees have a higher attendance in higher education, meaning the net effect on Sweden was a. lots more taxpaying people b. young people with a higher than average will to get a Proper Education.

I think you are being somewhat optimistic. There is a substantial difference in the backgrounds of people from the former Yugoslavia and those from Syria and Northern Africa, but never mind that. The main problem is that while indeed the first wave of immigrants usually manages to adapt and doesn't cause too many problems, for their children to thrive, the situation in society as a whole must be rapidly improving and that has not been the case in Western nations for quite some time. If that is not the case, then you get a situation perfectly described by one of the immigrants themselves in an article from the previous thread:

Among immigrants, a wide generation gap exists regarding perceptions of life in Sweden. “Our parents say we should feel thankful,” said Rami al-Khamisi, a Husby youth activist whose family moved here from Iraq. “They feel thankful themselves because they lived through wars. But those of us who were born here have nothing to compare our lives with.”

The prospects of the second generation are quite limited. You mention that their parents receive lower salaries, but also keep in that most of their inheritance has been left back in their home country as has most of their network of personal connections. They aim for more higher education because that is one of their only avenues to prosperity... and then, just like everybody else, discover that nowadays merely having a degree doesn't guarantee you a good job.

 

They are in essentially the same position as the lower and lower-middle classes of the natives, but unlike the natives, they blame discrimination for their situation. More likely that not, there is some truth to this, but it is not the main reason for their plight -- the problem is that there is only so much room at the top and it's hard to get there starting from near the bottom. Regardless, they then start riots or join unsavory groups (how many thousands of Europeans have recently travelled to the Middle East to fight?) or engage in various other antisocial behaviors.

[Lyanna Stark]

I think you are being somewhat optimistic. There is a substantial difference in the backgrounds of people from the former Yugoslavia and those from Syria and Northern Africa, but never mind that. The main problem is that while indeed the first wave of immigrants usually manages to adapt and doesn't cause too many problems, for their children to thrive, the situation in society as a whole must be rapidly improving and that has not been the case in Western nations for quite some time. If that is not the case, then you get a situation perfectly described by one of the immigrants themselves in an article from the previous thread:

 

 

The prospects of the second generation are quite limited. You mention that their parents receive lower salaries, but also keep in that most of their inheritance has been left back in their home country as has most of their network of personal connections. They aim for more higher education because that is one of their only avenues to prosperity... and then, just like everybody else, discover that nowadays merely having a degree doesn't guarantee you a good job.

 

They are in essentially the same position as the lower and lower-middle classes of the natives, but unlike the natives, they blame discrimination for their situation. More likely that not, there is some truth to this, but it is not the main reason for their plight -- the problem is that there is only so much room at the top and it's hard to get there starting from near the bottom. Regardless, they then start riots or join unsavory groups (how many thousands of Europeans have recently travelled to the Middle East to fight?) or engage in various other antisocial behaviors.

 

 

Right, so Husby? Is basically like using Dagenham as a template for London and as a basis for judging the city as a whole.

 

Also, I'd contest that children of immigrants as a rule only blame discrimination for their situation. Obviously it is a factor, but not the only one. Which is obvious when looking at the larger patterns of unemployment.

 

As for the third, "they" don't just start riots. Due to a combination of factors, second generation immigrants have to some degree ended up in areas almost like ghettoes, with very low socioeconomic status, i.e. the new underclass. I'd say it is very dangerous and not to mention wrong to blame rioting on some sort of "foreign" gene, or "foreign culture" since then you'd have to ask the same thing about the 1992 riots on LA.

 

Besides, on average, the Syrians are not analphabet shepherds who've lived isolated in mudhuts and need to move 300 years into the future to learn how to use a dishwasher. I am really curious why you think there is a huge difference between someone from Syria and someone from say, Bosnia, when it comes to general level of education or ability to "fit in" to Swedish or German society. 

 

The main groups I know where analphabetism has been an obstacle have been for Somalis and for some Kurds (not all) due to the fact that society has been either absent or severely disrupted for so long that education has been hard to come by. Even so, I encountered highly educated kurds at University who had to redo their education despite having worked in the field for years, because reasons. So this whole ZOMG uneducated masses are going to cost bazillions is unfounded. Sure, there needs to be organised languages courses and the Powers that Be will need to figure out paths for people who already have an education to be able to quickly re-enter the work force, but the whole "these people can't fit in" is alarmist. As evidence by statistics regarding the last huge wave of refugees, it is also not true when one looks at the numbers. Regardless of how many interviews are conducted in Husby, or Rosengård, or Angered.

 

I mean, go check the development indicators for Syria (pre-war) and the whole idea that we are talking about some illiterate tribes people who won't be able to fit into a modern society is crushed straight away.

[The King in Black]

 

Seriously. I smoked a fatty straight after reading that comment and it made me LOL. In fact, I was nearly ROFLMFAO, for real. :D

 

 

 

LOL

 

This is baffling. And bizarre.

 

How large a percentage of wars, historically, have been fought because of "freedom in my country"? The world wars? The Balkan war of the 90s? Hell, go back to the 30 year war if you want to see something really baffling. Or what about Napoleon's wars. Freedom? Not quite. People have *fought* but freedom has generally been on far less importance than other factors.

 

 

Further, freedom as in, democracy? Or is this John Galt-land? This whole "people should stay the hell where they are" is also not only realistic or viable, but also historically false. People have always moved, small scale or large scale. Territory has shifted. And the whole niggardly OMG my stuff, nobody can have my stuff so shoo out of my area and go die somewhere else pls is as baffling as it is inhumane. Not to mention that most people ARE still in the area closest to the conflict. Only a small portion has fled to Europe, to take the recent conflict as an example. Facts and figures from June this year.  Among them:

* 12 million refugees in the areas around the conflict (inside Syria, Turkey)

* 250.000 Syrians have applied for asylum in the EU. (making it around 2% of all the refugees as of June)

* Hence around 98% are still in the "near" area

 

 

 

Yeah I mean, really.

 

Cos obviously all muslims as a collective hate art, culture and civilisation and just...stuff, for well,...reasons.  :blink:

 

 

I think you are being somewhat optimistic. There is a substantial difference in the backgrounds of people from the former Yugoslavia and those from Syria and Northern Africa, but never mind that. The main problem is that while indeed the first wave of immigrants usually manages to adapt and doesn't cause too many problems, for their children to thrive, the situation in society as a whole must be rapidly improving and that has not been the case in Western nations for quite some time. If that is not the case, then you get a situation perfectly described by one of the immigrants themselves in an article from the previous thread:

 

 

The prospects of the second generation are quite limited. You mention that their parents receive lower salaries, but also keep in that most of their inheritance has been left back in their home country as has most of their network of personal connections. They aim for more higher education because that is one of their only avenues to prosperity... and then, just like everybody else, discover that nowadays merely having a degree doesn't guarantee you a good job.

 

They are in essentially the same position as the lower and lower-middle classes of the natives, but unlike the natives, they blame discrimination for their situation. More likely that not, there is some truth to this, but it is not the main reason for their plight -- the problem is that there is only so much room at the top and it's hard to get there starting from near the bottom. Regardless, they then start riots or join unsavory groups (how many thousands of Europeans have recently travelled to the Middle East to fight?) or engage in various other antisocial behaviors.

 

 

While Muslims have always been a sort of punching bag for the West, in a modern context, they never where seen any more negatively than any other alien socio-political  diaspora or lower than any other economically backward community. Post 9-11 however, global geo-politics has been shaken up to such an extent that Islamaphobia has become acceptable in the West (even encouraged in some places ). There's an active attempt on the parts of  many to create a narrative where there never was an Arab Civilization ; the middle east has been plagued by barbarian Islamic tribes since forever. This in turn has created an enviornment where every aspect of their culture (as an extention to them )is actively despised ; thus i doubt there are many who'll be making an active attempt to not cooperate in their integration ; this might range from physical assaults, to a comprehensive political effort to target them on every occasion to gain political milleage out of the situation.

 

This is why I think a uniform assylum policy will not come into frutation any time sooner. Somebody upthread said how nations like Hungary are upset that Germany unilaterally took a decision for all of them ; the problem is anti-Muslim sentiment runs high here (and now I've no doubt it's specifically anti-muslim, since there parts  are themselves no strangers to economic immigration or mass- assylum aeeking exoduses ). When the PM accepts that they don't want the refugees because of their religion and ethnicity, then it becomes clear they weren't going to cooperate in any way no matter what.

 

I wonder what this means for Western Europe and germany specifically. Let's see how this works ; if Germany succeeds in the refugee's integration and still manages to be Europe's economic powerhouse, it'll hopefully lead to a receding of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment in atleast europe (though this is a long shot ; the one sure shot win here is in England atleast the ultra-right can be once and for all be told to stfu )

[HexMachina]

France to welcome 24,000 refugees, and also to ready air strikes against IS positions in Syria.

 

David Cameron is also supposed to set out further details of the UK response later today.  Reports say that the figure he agrees to accept is likely to be more than 10,000.

 

I have to say, its rather disheartening to be reading an article on the UK's less than remarkable response while also watching a news report on the response in Germany.

[The King in Black]

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjADahUKEwjc6YzQ8eTHAhWiKKYKHSnYBco&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2F2015%2F9%2F5%2F9265501%2Frefugee-crisis-europe-syria&usg=AFQjCNF0LBPuj4GuwK85nUGBUuBpEx6z1Q&bvm=bv.102022582,d.dGY

 

 

I especially agree with the parts in the article that deride rich countries or their inaction, as well as why exactly they are afraid of migrants (and exactly what sorts of migrants )

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DWS

Now that we're in the era of "corporations are people", I can't help but wonder when people will attain the same freedom of movement as we afford things like commodities and consumer goods?

Corporations have always been considered people. That is why they are called "Corporations" they are "incorporating" the legal fiction that a "corporate person" stands between the shareholders of a corporation and the rest of the world who might want to make such shareholders liable for corporate actions.

This is not a new idea. Corporations have existed since the middle ages.

Entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights were found in ancient Rome, and the Maurya Empire in ancient India.[10] In medieval Europe, churches became incorporated, as did local governments, such as the Pope and the City of London Corporation. The point was that the incorporation would survive longer than the lives of any particular member, existing in perpetuity. The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347.

[HobbsTuna]

To be honest, the Syrian refugees are really lucky that Germany is relatively prosperous right now, so that people feel generous at the moment. I remember it was very different at the beginning of the 1990s when tens of thousands of Bosnian refugees came, and people were not very happy. At all. As integrating East Germany was costing so much already, and people in the East especially felt that the West Germans should concentrate on only helping them, not any foreigners.

 

Public opinion at the moment is in favour of the refugees as the media portray them as deserving help, and that they are a potential asset for the job market. That might change once the media coverage changes or if too many refugees come.

 

Relatively prosperous being the operative term here, meaning that the slide of our middle class in poverty has slowed down somewhat, momentarily at least. As far as I'm concerned our priority should trying to limit the impact of globalization on my countrymen, people, I have a social contract with, people, who have paid for my education, who will pay for grandpas pacemaker.

 

Regrettably I find plenty of outlets for my charitable impulses. Have a link for inspiration. (German)

 

Not that I expect great success in this. Social democracy has stopped working as it presupposes that the State posses enough regulatory power to counter the tragedy of the commons and rein-in the more self-destructive impulses of the market. As long as companies can just pick up and move when they don't like taxation or regulation, as long as we are locked in a race to the bottom with polities whose attitude regarding wealth-redistribution, healthcare, environmental protection is "fuck-you-I-got-mine", the situation will continue to deteriorate for our low income people. 

 

 

 

What if their time of crisis lasts decades, though? It's not like Syria has any likely path to stabilisation right now. Many civil wars have lasted for years or decades without a clear winner.

 

I expect the honeymoon period to last until the next downturn. The money will soon enough try up. The refugees will still be here.

 

 

 

That's the problem. Germany doesn't have enough children to sustain their current economic or demographic position in Europe. Some models suggest that the UK could surpass Germany as the richest economy in Europe in less than 20 years due to the German population growth crawling to a stop. An influx of immigration now could help Germany's future economic situation, as long as it is well-managed and the new immigrants are integrated into the country, which is a pretty big if. But the German position on this isn't entirely irrational.

 

Well, as far as I'm concerned there are several approaches to this.

 

One would be an actually functioning childcare system that allows 2 parents two work and still have kids (sufficient funding would help with this. Side node: expected cost for the German state caused by the refugee crisis is usually quoted between 6 to 10 billion euros next year).

 

Two would be suitably pragmatic immigration. This would mean learning from the Anglo-sphere and only admitting people, who will be a net contributor to your society.

 

So setting up detention centers in North-Africa/Turkey and sieving for every bit of human potential you find (Education, Language, Intelligence). In fact if my government would be suitable pragmatic they would be going over every war-zone on the world with a fine-tooth comb picking up the choice bits. Also low-income countries with suitable cultural appreciation for learning, pick up a PISA report, correlate with low-income, go to town (Vietnam comes to mind here).

The rest. Well, the teenage, an-alphabet from Somalia may have brass balls I will never posses but that ain't a marketable skill. Say high to capitalism, hope you enjoy your stay. You might as well tell him the truth, statistically speaking he is not worth the effort. If you make it to the opposing coast we will pick you right back up and dump you here again, on the wrong side of the wire and if you drown on the way, we will be sorry but not terrible much because we rather wouldn't pay for your upkeep.

 

Yes, that will kill a lot of people. Yes, also children. No that is not the problem of the German state. From Saudi-Arabia to America people seem to be able to deal just fine with any guilt complexes. I guess we can too.

 

 

 

This. So much.

 

Combined with Werthead's point about Germany's demographics and our current fiscal situation (we've never been in better shape, really), this is just about the perfect opportunity to rejuvenate our social security systems before the issue becomes so pressing it damages our economy. Integration will still require a lot of effort; but reforming our social security net to the degree necessary without immigration would require at least as much effort - and leave the refugee issue unsolved.

 

I would agree to that if only the refugees were net contributors.

 

Most recent study on the contribution of immigrants to the German State (in german). Cliff notes in English.

TLDR: Report states that immigrants pay in more due to taxes and social contributions than they receive due to pay-outs to the tune of 3 300 € per head and year. This is widely reported. Economist with it's own research institute goes: Nu-uuh. You are not telling the whole truth because if you take into account all the spending the state has (administration, infrastructure, police, defence etc.) and distribute that on a per-capita basis the balance turns negative to -1800 € per year and head or -79 100 € during the lifecycle of an immigrant (compared to -3100 € of the German population during their lifecycle). There was a variety of rebuttals and counter rebuttals, the interested and german-speaking may read here and here.

 

I do think that immigration is necessary for the long-term prospects of the nation, but it needs to be motivated by cold-eyed pragmatism not humanitarian considerations. Solidarity is, as far as I'm concerned, reserved for fellow citizens. Once an immigrant is in, (s)he is one of ours and needs to be taken care of, so sorting before you take them in is essential.

 

I have no intention of letting my home turn in (even more) of a quasi-american shithole, but if we want to protect, what globalization left us of, the social state we need to triage our intake.

 

I'm utterly unpersuaded of the relevance of wars fought centuries ago to a modern political crisis.

 

What about wars fought years, ago? I can't help but feel that our British and American friends were all gong-ho, where bombing Iraq and Libya was concerned. Wars the German government is on public record as pointing out as very Bad Ideas, indeed. They seem a lot less inclined to help clean up the spill over, they caused.

 

Fun fact: The yearly US intake of asylum seekers is hard-capped at 70 000. Germany expects 800 000 this year at a quarter of the population.

 

 

 

Right, so Husby? Is basically like using Dagenham as a template for London and as a basis for judging the city as a whole.

 

Also, I'd contest that children of immigrants as a rule only blame discrimination for their situation. Obviously it is a factor, but not the only one. Which is obvious when looking at the larger patterns of unemployment.

 

As for the third, "they" don't just start riots. Due to a combination of factors, second generation immigrants have to some degree ended up in areas almost like ghettoes, with very low socioeconomic status, i.e. the new underclass. I'd say it is very dangerous and not to mention wrong to blame rioting on some sort of "foreign" gene, or "foreign culture" since then you'd have to ask the same thing about the 1992 riots on LA.

 

Besides, on average, the Syrians are not analphabet shepherds who've lived isolated in mudhuts and need to move 300 years into the future to learn how to use a dishwasher. I am really curious why you think there is a huge difference between someone from Syria and someone from say, Bosnia, when it comes to general level of education or ability to "fit in" to Swedish or German society. 

 

The main groups I know where analphabetism has been an obstacle have been for Somalis and for some Kurds (not all) due to the fact that society has been either absent or severely disrupted for so long that education has been hard to come by. Even so, I encountered highly educated kurds at University who had to redo their education despite having worked in the field for years, because reasons. So this whole ZOMG uneducated masses are going to cost bazillions is unfounded. Sure, there needs to be organised languages courses and the Powers that Be will need to figure out paths for people who already have an education to be able to quickly re-enter the work force, but the whole "these people can't fit in" is alarmist. As evidence by statistics regarding the last huge wave of refugees, it is also not true when one looks at the numbers. Regardless of how many interviews are conducted in Husby, or Rosengård, or Angered.

 

I mean, go check the development indicators for Syria (pre-war) and the whole idea that we are talking about some illiterate tribes people who won't be able to fit into a modern society is crushed straight away.

 

I don't know about Sweden but statistical data for Germany contradicts you. In the study I linked above some 40 % apparently had some kind of higher education. Preliminary data from the Syrian refugees seem to indicate that only 30 % have that, so I fully expect the situation to worsen.

 

EDIT Corrections to above statement: Please see next post.

[baxus]

I don't know about Sweden but statistical data for Germany contradicts you. In the study I linked above some 40 % apparently had some kind of higher education. Preliminary data from the Syrian refugees seem to indicate that only 30 % have that, so I fully expect the situation to worsen.

 

Getting 240,000 people with higher education for a fraction of the cost of educating them yourselves is a bargain.

Not to mention the huge potential they may represent for Germany, if only handled right.

 

Out of curiosity, what is the percentage of highly-educated population in Germany?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

True Metis

 

I accept that. But through those struggles the countries of today emerged. And if my ancestors fought for freedom in my country, I don't feel it is fair that people come from somewhere else to benefit from it, instead of fighting to do the same in their own countries.

 

Freedom ain't free, and so on and so forth.

 

When it comes to anti-migration rants in general, that's always the part that catches me between uncontrollable laughter and utter disbelief.

 

Basically you did benefit from the fights/sacrifices of your ancestors, but you do not want to benefit others from it. General note, being born into a wealthy and stable country is not an achievement. Or did you yourself fight for freedom in your country? Just resting on the laurels/achievement of your ancestors and claiming credit for it, hardly seems fair to me.

 

No, I don't suggest to pick up arms travel to Kobane and help the Kurds in their struggle. I just advice a more humble position, and not blabber about freedom ain't free stuff, when you actually got/inherited it for free.

[Altherion]

Due to a combination of factors, second generation immigrants have to some degree ended up in areas almost like ghettoes, with very low socioeconomic status, i.e. the new underclass.

 

This is more or less the point I was trying to make. Why do you think it will not happen again? The combination of factors is exactly the same: their parents are coming over with almost nothing and education is less useful as a means of social advancement than it has been at any time in the past century.

 

While Muslims have always been a sort of punching bag for the West, in a modern context, they never where seen any more negatively than any other alien socio-political  diaspora or lower than any other economically backward community. Post 9-11 however, global geo-politics has been shaken up to such an extent that Islamaphobia has become acceptable in the West (even encouraged in some places ). There's an active attempt on the parts of  many to create a narrative where there never was an Arab Civilization ; the middle east has been plagued by barbarian Islamic tribes since forever. This in turn has created an enviornment where every aspect of their culture (as an extention to them )is actively despised ; thus i doubt there are many who'll be making an active attempt to not cooperate in their integration ; this might range from physical assaults, to a comprehensive political effort to target them on every occasion to gain political milleage out of the situation.

 

The issue in Europe is not 9/11 or global geo-politics. Many people don't particularly want any more of them because they have a tendency to riot as well as the more recent trend of shootings (e.g. Charlie Hebdo, a cultural event and then a synagogue in Copenhagen, a train between Amsterdam and Paris). The mainstream elites don't care and would prefer to increase the labor force regardless of the consequences so this is a valuable place for somebody to gain votes and the right-wing parties are milking it for all it is worth.

[HobbsTuna]

 

Getting 240,000 people with higher education for a fraction of the cost of educating them yourselves is a bargain.

Not to mention the huge potential they may represent for Germany, if only handled right.

 

Out of curiosity, what is the percentage of highly-educated population in Germany?

 

 

Corrections:

 

40 % with of higher education are apparently only applicable for the immigrants over the last few years (my mistake), see Abbildung 13 (= graph) in the pdf I linked. The average education of the immigrants already living in Germany seems much lower.

 

You can also find projections on the impact of the state budget for various immigration scenarios in Abbildung 12.

 

Another mistake I made: Apparently 15 % of refugees attended University(tertiary education levels) (phrasing seems to imply that they did not necessarily finish though) and another 16 % grammar school (secondary education levels). Source (in german)

 

Regarding your question the tertiary education levels in Germany are apparently below OECD aveage at 28 to 31 % (depends on how you count), partly explained by the vocational training, which apparently takes in alot of people, who would attend Uni in english speaking countries.

 

OECD Report (english)

[baxus]

Even if it were 15%, still Germany would get 120,000 highly-educated people, in addition to their universities' regular output.

Is that not enough?

 

And that's if we assume that refugees would be evenly distributed among EU countries, which I most sincerely doubt.

 

EDIT:

Bear in mind that a big part (I don't have the data, so I won't pull percentages out of thin air) of refugee population is made of little kids and/or adolescents who aren't old enough to have gotten to university or even grammar school.

[Jo498]

Without fluency in the language of the country, many skills of "highly educated" will be worth much less. Germany might have been too anal about formally recognizing some foreign degrees (although often there are very good reasons for being wary) but language is obviously the main hurdle in most professions.

 

To me, it seems that the issue is distorted by several factors. While it might sound like a nice idea to "sell" several 100000s refugees p.a. with worries about demographics and the work force, this cannot really decide humanitarian or moral considerations. Because the humanitarian considerations have to take first the need of the refugee in mind, not their skill (or lack thereof). And that there are some people who'd just love to have a hundred or so more applicants for a position because they can pay less for a qualified worker, is also a fact that has nothing to do with humanitarian motives and obviously makes the situation for many workers/unemployed worse, not better.

 

And at some stage humanitarian considerations will be overruled by practical issues. And thousands of nice people handing sweets to refugees at the train station should not make us forget that there are also hundreds of nasty idiots willing to torch refugee camps and probably a lot more who will tolerate only so many refugee camps in the neighborhood.

Not only in the long run but pretty quickly Europe has to face that we have to do much more to stabilize and improve at least the situation in some of the Balkan states. Of course one should also try to do something about Syria and Iraq (and try to hand the US at least part of the bill if they will not take the people) but this is a huge mess that may not be cleared up or "pacified" for several decades.

[HobbsTuna]

Even if it were 15%, still Germany would get 120,000 highly-educated people, in addition to their universities' regular output.

Is that not enough?

 

And that's if we assume that refugees would be evenly distributed among EU countries, which I most sincerely doubt.

 

EDIT:

Bear in mind that a big part (I don't have the data, so I won't pull percentages out of thin air) of refugee population is made of little kids and/or adolescents who aren't old enough to have gotten to university or even grammar school.

 

 

Enough for what? With enough research I could give you a reasonable guesstimate what kind of percentage of highly educated people Germany would need in its refugee stream, according to the projections of Bertelsman Foundation at least, ( I might give it a try during the weekend but I got other things to do, too) to break even.

 

As far as I'm concerned I'm not really interested in breaking even. The German state is an interest group for the German population, the job of it's government is not to break even but to maximize. The correct way to guard our self-interest is taking in everyone with an education and leave the rest to the wolves  the tender mercies of our allies.

 

Also all refugees we are talking about are already in Germany, so considering the European echo regarding to a possible quota system, I very much doubt that anyone will take a single one of our hands.

[JoeyBanana]

Immigrants. Refugees.

 

Apples. Oranges.

 

Also, Bertelsmann. We meet again. There is no time to explain, just trust me. Bertelsmann is a bad guy. Don't listen to him!

[Lyanna Stark]

 

 

I don't know about Sweden but statistical data for Germany contradicts you. In the study I linked above some 40 % apparently had some kind of higher education. Preliminary data from the Syrian refugees seem to indicate that only 30 % have that, so I fully expect the situation to worsen.

 

EDIT Corrections to above statement: Please see next post.

 

Not sure what data you are looking at, but the data I quoted was not about refugees, but about second generation immigrants from Yugoslavia, which when it comes to Sweden was the latest large wave of immigrants which had to be integrated into society, hence the comparison. 

 

Since we are now looking at a large wave of immigrants with at least partially higher education, and we have a similar situation to what happened in the 1990s, it is logical and rational to look at the results of that, don't you think? The result is therefor, yes the immigrants are generally good tax paying citizens, making somewhat less than the average Swedish wage, but not by a huge margin, and the children of this immigrant wave are doing even better than their Swedish peers when it comes to higher education. However, at the time, the alarmist reports were extremely similar to what we see today. It was all about huge waves of strange foreigners "ruining our way of life" and how they would be unemployed en masse etc.

 

Which, going by statistics, didn't happen. If we then want to be logical, it makes sense to use this fairly recent example to help us get an idea of what to expect. 

 

In other words: the sky is not falling, and this is an organisational issue. Further, since it was fairly recent, logically, we should have some ideas of how to tackle it even better this time, if the politicians can me decisive and make the correct planning decisions. Unfortunately, the latter may not be so certain. But again, this is not a question about weird muslims/brown people/odd foreigners coming to change our culture/taking our jobs/our dole/our pensions but an issue the state bureaucracy can handle if it makes the preparations and plan accordingly.

 

Perhaps strangely, I completely agree with your assessment about social democracy being dead and libertarian robber capitalism overrunning Europe, but to then fold onto oneself and kick the ones further down the ladder, as you suggest we do by barb wiring a fence around our countries is baffling. If you want to be a social democrat, where is your sense of justice, of decency, of solidarity? Should we let children die on the shores of Europe because we prefer to kick downwards instead of taking our politicians to task? Who are, by the way, elected by the people they are supposed to serve. Ideally, at least.

 

 

 

This is more or less the point I was trying to make. Why do you think it will not happen again? The combination of factors is exactly the same: their parents are coming over with almost nothing and education is less useful as a means of social advancement than it has been at any time in the past century.

 

 

The issue in Europe is not 9/11 or global geo-politics. Many people don't particularly want any more of them because they have a tendency to riot as well as the more recent trend of shootings (e.g. Charlie Hebdo, a cultural event and then a synagogue in Copenhagen, a train between Amsterdam and Paris). The mainstream elites don't care and would prefer to increase the labor force regardless of the consequences so this is a valuable place for somebody to gain votes and the right-wing parties are milking it for all it is worth.

 

 

The first bolded is a huge oversimplification, which ignores a number of facts, not the least is the property market in Sweden which has been highly dysfunctional for over 30 years. It also ignore structural problems in the labour market, poor organisation and prioritisation when it comes to language courses for immigrants and an authority responsible for immigration that is in dire need of reformation.

 

Further, you use Husby as an example, which is about as unbiased to use as an example of "muslims in Europe" as it is to use Compton as an example of how African Americans prefer to live. You also use "They have a tendency to riot". Who are "they"? Immigrants? Muslims? People from Syria? Someone else? 

 

Charlie Hebdo is an awful, terrible thing, but so is what Anders Behring Breivik did, too. The fact that there are crazy extremist nutcases doesn't mean that all muslims or all Norwegians are crazy extremist nutcases.

 

Your analysis of the mainstream elites is correct, but they don't care about many things, generally, as long as they get to keep their cash and live in their lush homes in upscale neighbourhoods which don't accept immigrants. So to point out that they don't care about immigrants is meaningless if you don't also add that they don't call about creating more socioeconomic problems, period. They are the ones driving the development away from a social democratic society, and up to now, they've been benefiting from the fact that like HobbsTuna, people have been tricked in kicking downwards instead of up. It's much harder for Average Joe to fight the system and the money and mush easier to blame Hassan or Fatima for the worsening social security. After all, they can't defend themselves, unlike the wealthier classes.

[Altherion]

The first bolded is a huge oversimplification, which ignores a number of facts, not the least is the property market in Sweden which has been highly dysfunctional for over 30 years. It also ignore structural problems in the labour market, poor organisation and prioritisation when it comes to language courses for immigrants and an authority responsible for immigration that is in dire need of reformation.

It's not so much an oversimplication as a generalization -- the crisis is not specific to Sweden and in truth I know much less about Sweden than I do about, say, France. The bolded part is true regardless of which country they wind up in. That said, are you arguing that the situation in Sweden with respect to the labor market, housing, etc. has gotten better? That would be interesting as in most other places it is even worse than it was in the 1990s.
 

Further, you use Husby as an example, which is about as unbiased to use as an example of "muslims in Europe" as it is to use Compton as an example of how African Americans prefer to live. You also use "They have a tendency to riot". Who are "they"? Immigrants? Muslims? People from Syria? Someone else?

For the riots, poor immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. For the shootings, Muslims. The current wave of refugees is almost entirely an overlap of the two (the exceptions have a slightly easier time of it as some countries have explicitly said that they're willing to accept Christian refugees).
  

Charlie Hebdo is an awful, terrible thing, but so is what Anders Behring Breivik did, too. The fact that there are crazy extremist nutcases doesn't mean that all muslims or all Norwegians are crazy extremist nutcases.

Breivik is literally a single case. There have been multiple attacks on cultural events in Europe (and even one in the US) in the past two years and thousands of Europeans have traveled to Syria and Iraq to commit the very atrocities that are driving these refugees. It is most certainly not all Muslims or even a sizable minority thereof, but it is equally certainly more than a single madman.

[Ojji]

 

-

I'm curious; do you want more immigrants in Sweden?