Perhaps that explains why almost nobody applied and only one got it last year. Many would love to go home. They just can't.
[1]https://www.quora.com/A-recent-poll-conducted-in-Sweden-foun...
As for integration, I don't see why people who are judgemental. There are tons of immigrants to the US who don't speak good English. Are you going to tell them to get the hell out of this country? What if they're parents of children who learn to speak English better than their native languages? That happened a lot.
People should be able to improves their lives. Sometime that means moving to a different country. Sometime that means struggling hard where they are.
In the meantime, we can take care of our own and they can take care of their own, if that’s their culture; which may not be the case and it’s up to them to shape their own society how they want. We had to shed blood to get where we are with wars of independence as well as a civil war. Time for them to man up and shape their own societies to their own customs and liking.
We don’t need to be the Nannie’s of the world. We need to take care of our own problems, of which there are many, including homelessness, drug addiction, depreciated wages often exacerbated by cheap labor. No, I’m with the Bernie of the early nineties.
People are judgmental because mass migration from high-crime countries transformed Sweden from one of the world's safest countries to having the highest rate of gun violence in the EU, and Sweden has been increasingly transparent about the situation.
Because of the political climate in most Western countries today, we can't have a rational discussion about negative effects of mass migration, or consider scenarios where the negative impact might outweigh the benefits. It's just a conversation we can't have without shallow knee-jerk accusations of racism and fascism and Nazism and so on.
It's important to understand that, particularly in Sweden, it was actually neo-nazis who opposed immigration for a long time.
This probably isn't the case anymore, but it's hard to convince people who remember and were there that it isn't the case. It doesn't help when people don't bring numbers to the table (or the numbers that matter). Some incredibly stupid people feel compelled to bring race or ethnicity to the conversation and that can be very tainting. There doesn't need to be a lot of them, just a few can discredit.
The obvious conclusion is that those subgroups are particularly disenfranchised. Meaning they're more likely to be impoverished, earn less on average on a household basis, are more likely to be discriminated against, are more likely to live in high-crime areas, etc.
But if you don't include those statistics alongside the one you have, then you give the impression that some subgroup is just "magically" pre-disposed to crime. uh oh. Now you'll have people saying darker skin colored people are more animalistic in nature, their blood tainted. And now we've gone to Eugenics and before you know it, we're in Nazi land.
So you do have to be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions. And, if those conclusions COULD be drawn, you have to nip it in the bud. The absolute last thing neo-nazis need is fuel.
I think there's an opportunity here for some neo-nazi belief systems to get credibility from large organizations.
The title says it's going to be for migrants.
* at least that's how the words split in English, I don't know if the Swedish language divides up reality in the same way
HN crowd should understand the value of positioning your self in a better scenario
Och det förutsatt att du pratar svenska eller har ett yrke där du klarar dig utan. AI-översättning (så här) kommer inte att klippa det.
(Sechs Jahre nach meiner Ankunft in Berlin, und meine Deutschkenntnisse bleibt nur 'okay')
For the others asylum is not only an option to escape persecution but also a much better economic outcome
My suspicion is "as little as possible".
Additionally they could be working in the gig economy. I swear I have never had a delivery from uber eats where the person doing the delivery was the same as the photo on the app. What's happening there is they are renting the account for the day.
Don't get me wrong these people are being exploited, but they could be making more than if they were home.
The Syrian civil war reduced their GDP per capita from ~11,000 in 2010 to ~530 USD/year in 2022: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=Syria+gdp+per+capita+20...
Even if someone is trying to game the system from a better position such as fleeing Ukraine, they're going to face competition from people *that poor*, who are otherwise in the same position.
Crucially, this is bellow the 24200 SEK (2.133,15 Euro) tax-free allowance where they wouldn't pay tax anyway.
> Don't get me wrong these people are being exploited, but they could be making more than if they were home.
Are you sure those people aren't trafficked, rather than in your country voluntarily? Such exploitation is also a problem, but I'd say a different one.
Weird switch: First you're saying "these poor bastards probably don't get paid much at all", and now it's "This might be so lucrative that it's profitable to traffic people to do it" -- how does that add up? Would you make a business of importing, say, Syrians or Pakistanis to Sweden, where they'll get social security in their own name, and can therefore easily get away from you and live on that?
Sure, many of them "have been traficked" in the sense that they've paid (what was at least to them) a fortune to be smuggled into Western European countries or at least up to their borders (for varying definitions thereof; like, say, the British border being in a camp on the French coast). But that's "traficking" in the sense of "price-gouging on travel tickets", not "being sold into slavery". People who pay a lot to get somewhere are pretty much by definition there voluntarily, aren't they?
One group of people that is apparently trafficked in the other sense are Roma (and probably Sinti, for all I know) from Eastern Europe, above all Romania, who are kept in ramshackle camps on the outskirts of cities and towns and set to begging more centrally all day long. But AFAIK they don't have any residential permits at all, neither permanent nor temporary. They're in the country not as refugees or any other kind of migrants, but under the Schengen open-travel rules, basically as tourists. If they get in trouble with the authorities they're often just rotated out for a while and then shipped in again. But not being official residents of the country they're not (AIUI) eligible for this migrant-go-home bonus, so irrelevant to this discussion.
Economics shift hugely if someone has to live 12 to a room and eat whatever they're given without caring about food poisoning etc.
> where they'll get social security in their own name, and can therefore easily get away from you and live on that?
That's presuming they are on the system. An actual asylum seeker is, a trafficked person probably isn't. And I may be willing and able to walk away, but I've not been moved to a mystery city without even knowing the language and where the only peers are in the same position as me.
That's where I think the problem is, not people who paid a lot for a ticket, which I don't count as "trafficked" but rather "scammed".
B) This is of course in addition to the social benefits you get being officially unemployed in Western Europe.
If you're registered as an asylum seeker, you get this: https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/...
The largest of those numbers is €6.28/day, which may seem like a lot if you're coming from Syria, unless you look at the food prices. And if you're in a place with free food, the max is €2.12/day.
Low enough that Ukraine and Kenya look like economic powerhouses.
If you're from south (or east) of the Mediterranean and want easy money, there are many many easier and better ways to do so than travelling across half the continental EU to end up in one of the colder bits.
Lots of grey area in the middle of course.
Colloquially it's being used all over the place, but in legal contexts it's a very specific thing.
But of course a lot of refugees are not really in danger but just try the refugee way for better economic opportunities. This amount is high enough to perhaps appeal to those. I think the main reason it wasn't popular is that the amount was negligible.
I think overall it's a good thing, it's voluntary and they free up spaces for refugees that are really in danger.
EDIT: THIS IS WRONG AND I AM AN IDIOT WHO DIDN'T LOOK AT THE NUMBERS CAREFULLY.
So net migration of about 25 000 people in 2023, not a quarter millon.
EDIT: According to the World Bank, the number 250 000 refers to the total refugee population in Sweden, not the number of refugees coming annually.
In fact it looks like Sweden only resettled 5000 last year, a decrease on previous years.
In the case of Syria, the Caesar sanctions will probably cripple Syria's reconstruction. So there probably won't be much to return to for the foreseeable future.
But yeah it's in Europe's interests to quickly rebuild there
80% of “refugees” vacation back in their source country. If they were truly afraid for their lives they wouldn’t be doing that. They just want a better life. Can’t blame them. Who wouldn’t?
https://rmx.news/article/four-in-five-refugees-living-in-swe...
The downvotes are hilarious. No counter argument. Just “I don’t like it”. Well, I don’t either. But that’s how it is.