• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The Age of Migration: The EU and the US in Crisis

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
@King Stannis

Looks like Merkel has reconsidered a bit. Germans have stopped all trains from Austria and suspended Schengen Agreement.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-say-Munich-brink-humanitarian-disaster.html

I'm not sure what she expected. You have literally millions of people who'd probably go to Germany if they could, which is far beyond what they said they'd accept. Open borders clearly could not resolve that contradiction

What a bloody mess.

Lots of military-age males in those pictures. If they are unwilling to fight for their homes, why the fuck should anyone else?
 
This is all fucking tragic. I think this is the first time in my life that I am truly ashamed of the country I grew up in, even though I don't identify myself a lot with it to begin with. Danish society has gotten so fucking rotten with thinly veiled racism and ignorance I'm actually starting consider wether or not there are any other countries that would better to stay in. news stories every day about how our integration minister, who is a complete and utter fucking psycho, is putting ads in lebanese newspapers, basically telling people fleeing from war that they're not welcome, stories of migrants being spat on when they arrive at the border, asylum centres being subjected to vandalism, and most worryingly seeing the government too scared to speak out against it properly because the Danish People's Party basically have their balls in a vice. Now we basically have a bunch of narrowminded, intollerant yahoos running the country and making us look like outright cunts to the outside world.

It's absolutely mind-boggling to see your fellow countrymen spitting and cursing at people who risked their fucking lives to flee a fucked up situation. they're met with hatred and mistrust, accusations of being terrorists, moochers and only wanting to destroy danish culture. It's not hard to be compassionate in that situation, that's what is so fucking insane. being considerate isn't fucking rocket science. all you have to do is ask yourself: If I had fled my country with my family to survive, how would I want to be recieved? that's it! it's not that hard. and still people in my country are acting like complete fuckin' animals, basically making themselves out to be the monsters they consider the migrants to be.

Ugh. Fuck everything.
 
This is all fucking tragic. I think this is the first time in my life that I am truly ashamed of the country I grew up in, even though I don't identify myself a lot with it to begin with. Danish society has gotten so fucking rotten with thinly veiled racism and ignorance I'm actually starting consider wether or not there are any other countries that would better to stay in. news stories every day about how our integration minister, who is a complete and utter fucking psycho, is putting ads in lebanese newspapers, basically telling people fleeing from war that they're not welcome, stories of migrants being spat on when they arrive at the border, asylum centres being subjected to vandalism, and most worryingly seeing the government too scared to speak out against it properly because the Danish People's Party basically have their balls in a vice. Now we basically have a bunch of narrowminded, intollerant yahoos running the country and making us look like outright cunts to the outside world.

It's absolutely mind-boggling to see your fellow countrymen spitting and cursing at people who risked their fucking lives to flee a fucked up situation. they're met with hatred and mistrust, accusations of being terrorists, moochers and only wanting to destroy danish culture. It's not hard to be compassionate in that situation, that's what is so fucking insane.

I agree that there is no excuse for nastiness or hatred. But that doesn't mean you should be obligated to admit everyone who wants to immigrate to your country, either.

Being considerate isn't fucking rocket science. all you have to do is ask yourself: If I had fled my country with my family to survive, how would I want to be recieved? that's it! it's not that hard.

Well, that raises the question of who should be the primary beneficiaries of immigration policies - the citizens of a nation, or those who want to immigrate? Their interests obviously will not always be the same because those immigrating obviously will want as much financial support and assistance as possible, and people in the host country may not want to do that. But if the standard is "treat them how you'd want to be treated yourself", then it's open borders and benefits for everyone.

On the other hand, you can limit immigration without being an asshole about it.
 
Here's what large-scale immigration and generous welfare policies have done for Sweden:

Sweden’s ugly immigration problem

....Sweden has the most welcoming asylum policies and most generous welfare programs in the European Union. One typical refugee, Natanael Haile, barely escaped drowning in the Mediterranean in 2013. But the folks back home in Eritrea don’t want to know about the perils of his journey. As he told The New York Times, they want to know about “his secondhand car, the government allowances he receives and his plans to find work as a welder once he finishes a two year language course.” As a registered refugee, he receives a monthly living allowance of more than $700 (U.S.).

Sweden’s generous immigration policies are essential to the image of a country that (like Canada) prides itself as a moral superpower. For the past 40 years, most of Sweden’s immigration has involved refugees and family reunification, so much so that the words “immigrant” and “refugee” are synonymous there (unlike in Canada).

Sweden takes in more refugees per capita than any other European country, and immigrants – mainly from the Middle East and Africa – now make up about 16 per cent of the population. The main political parties, as well as the mainstream media, support the status quo. Questioning the consensus is regarded as xenophobic and hateful. Now all of Europe is being urged to be as generous as Sweden.

So how are things working out in the most immigration-friendly country on the planet?

Not so well, says Tino Sanandaji. Mr. Sanandaji is himself an immigrant, a Kurdish-Swedish economist who was born in Iran and moved to Sweden when he was 10. He has a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago and specializes in immigration issues. This week I spoke with him by Skype.

“There has been a lack of integration among non-European refugees,” he told me. Forty-eight per cent of immigrants of working age don’t work, he said. Even after 15 years in Sweden, their employment rates reach only about 60 per cent. Sweden has the biggest employment gap in Europe between natives and non-natives.

In Sweden, where equality is revered, inequality is now entrenched. Forty-two per cent of the long-term unemployed are immigrants, Mr. Sanandaji said. Fifty-eight per cent of welfare payments go to immigrants. Forty-five per cent of children with low test scores are immigrants. Immigrants on average earn less than 40 per cent of Swedes. The majority of people charged with murder, rape and robbery are either first- or second-generation immigrants. “Since the 1980s, Sweden has had the largest increase in inequality of any country in the OECD,” Mr. Sanandaji said.

It’s not for lack of trying. Sweden is tops in Europe for its immigration efforts. Nor is it the newcomers’ fault. Sweden’s labour market is highly skills-intensive, and even low-skilled Swedes can’t get work. “So what chance is there for a 40-year-old woman from Africa?” Mr. Sandaji wondered.

Sweden’s fantasy is that if you socialize the children of immigrants and refugees correctly, they’ll grow up to be just like native Swedes. But it hasn’t worked out that way. Much of the second generation lives in nice Swedish welfare ghettos. The social strains – white flight, a general decline in trust – are growing worse. The immigrant-heavy city of Malmo, just across the bridge from Denmark, is an economic and social basket case.

Sweden’s generosity costs a fortune, at a time when economic growth is stagnant. The country now spends about $4-billion a year on settling new refugees – up from $1-billion a few years ago, Mr. Sanandaji said. And they keep coming. Sweden automatically accepts unaccompanied minors. “We used to take in 500 unaccompanied minors a year,” he said. “This year we are expecting 12,000.”

Yet Sweden’s acute immigration problems scarcely feature in the mainstream media. Journalists see their mission as stopping racism, so they don’t report the bad news. Despite – or perhaps because of – this self-censorship, the gap between the opinion elites and the voters on immigration issues is now a chasm. According to a recent opinion poll, 58 per cent of Swedes believe there is too much immigration, Mr. Sanandaji noted. The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats party is now polling at between 20 per cent and 25 per cent.

Sweden is a cautionary tale for anyone who believes that Europe is capable of assimilating the hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants who are besieging the continent, or the millions more who are desperately poised to follow in their wake. The argument that these people are vital to boost the economy – that they will magically create economic growth and bail the Europeans out of their demographic decline – is a fantasy.

It’s really very simple, Mr. Sanandaji explained. You can’t combine open borders with a welfare state. “If you’re offering generous welfare benefits to every citizen, and anyone can come and use these benefits, then a very large number of people will try to do that. And it’s just mathematically impossible for a small country like Sweden to fund those benefits.”

Things will get worse before they get better. As Judy Dempsey, a senior analyst at a Berlin think tank, told The Wall Street Journal, “Europe hasn’t seen anything yet in terms of the numbers or the backlash.”

Meanwhile, Sweden’s neighbour, Denmark, has cut the benefits for refugees in half, and hastaken out ads in Lebanese newspapers warning would-be migrants to stay home. The Danes don’t want to be a moral superpower. They can’t afford it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...ation-problem/article26338254/?service=mobile
 
Last edited:
I agree that there is no excuse for nastiness or hatred. But that doesn't mean you should be obligated to admit everyone who wants to immigrate to your country, either.

Never said that either, there's a difference between admitting everyone and simply helping everyone to your abilities, be it providing shelter or helping go to another country that has the capacity for them.


Well, that raises the question of who should be the primary beneficiaries of immigration policies - the citizens of a nation, or those who want to immigrate? Their interests obviously will not always be the same because those immigrating obviously will want as much financial support and assistance as possible, and people in the host country may not want to do that. But if the standard is "treat them how you'd want to be treated yourself", then it's open borders and benefits for everyone.

On the other hand, you can limit immigration without being an asshole about it.

While I'm sure some people may be "shopping around" for the best place to be, I think that amount of people has been blown out of proportion as well as how heavily it weighs on the refugees. You don't leave your home and uproot your entire just to get a better dental plan. It's not about getting to a place with great financial aid first of all, It's about getting out of a fucked up situation.

Meanwhile, Sweden’s neighbour, Denmark, has cut the benefits for refugees in half, and hastaken out ads in Lebanese newspapers warning would-be migrants to stay home. The Danes don’t want to be a moral superpower. They can’t afford it.

Fuck this part so god damn much, this is all proof The Danish People's Party's propaganda has worked and has struck fear in the people outside of the cities. the danish financial aid is nothing special, it's not what makes or breaks our economy yet to the right wing parties it's being used as this magic sum for which you can get better schools, better health insurance, better everything. Those mandates they scooped up weren't won on financial reasoning, they were won by fear mongering and playing to the ignorance of the ignorant.
 
Never said that either, there's a difference between admitting everyone and simply helping everyone to your abilities, be it providing shelter or helping go to another country that has the capacity for them.

While I'm sure some people may be "shopping around" for the best place to be, I think that amount of people has been blown out of proportion as well as how heavily it weighs on the refugees. You don't leave your home and uproot your entire just to get a better dental plan. It's not about getting to a place with great financial aid first of all, It's about getting out of a fucked up situation.... the danish financial aid is nothing special, it's not what makes or breaks our economy

It's not what "makes or breaks" your economy yet. Though I wouldn't agree that citizens have no right to object until their economy is broken.

So you think Sweden's generous welfare system for immigrants isn't a significant factor in why migrants from the ME make the effort to all the way to Sweden, passing through but not staying in all the European countires to the South? Just look on a map - Eritrea to Sweden?? It's ludicrous. Why else travel all that extra distance, and cross all those extra borders?

Check out the Globe and Mail article, or the NYT article that is linked inside that. That Eritrean refugee is quoted as saying all this relatives at home want to hear about is the generous benefits in Sweden. Can't blame them, either. Who wouldn't want to.leave that crappy place for what they'd get in Sweden?
 
Last edited:
So you think Sweden's generous welfare system for immigrants isn't a significant factor in why migrants from the ME make the effort to all the way to Sweden, passing through but not staying in all the European countires to the South? Just look on a map - Eritrea to Sweden?? It's ludicrous. Why else travel all that extra distance, and cross all those extra borders?

Check out the Globe and Mail article, or the NYT article that is linked inside that. That Eritrean refugee is quoted as saying all this relatives at home want to hear about is the generous benefits in Sweden. Can't blame them, either. Who wouldn't want to.leave that crappy place for what they'd get in Sweden?

Like I said, I'm sure it's part of the of the decision, but they wouldn't leave if shit wasn't fucked up back home, which is how plenty of people are trying to frame the discussion as. You know another thing that weighs heavily to them is? job opportunities. It's next to impossible to find work in central europe right now, especially if you're an immigrant, Scandinavian countries can offer a lot more on that front as well. Should we then start putting up laws that make it harder for foreigners to get work as well to really make it undesirable?

Denmark is in the process of rebranding ourselves as cunts, and as a stout anti-cunt person, I'm not thrilled by the prospect.
 
Yesterday I participated in a picnic organized by something called WeConnect. The purpose of this organization is to put refugees in contact with the locals, to offer them (free) language courses and all sorts of different activities, as well as helping them to find work and a place to live among other things.

We had a lot of fun and it was very inspiring to see the potential impact of a dedicated grass-root movement. The refugees were truly thankful and they obviously enjoyed themselves and the special welcome they all received.

But there was one small thing that I noticed: out of the about thirty refugees who showed up most of them were between 20 and 30 years old. All of them were males.

I'm not trying to draw any conclusions out of this observation, but it does make me wonder: Where are the women? Where are the children?
 
Like I said, I'm sure it's part of the of the decision, but they wouldn't leave if shit wasn't fucked up back home, which is how plenty of people are trying to frame the discussion as. You know another thing that weighs heavily to them is? job opportunities. It's next to impossible to find work in central europe right now, especially if you're an immigrant, Scandinavian countries can offer a lot more on that front as well. Should we then start putting up laws that make it harder for foreigners to get work as well to really make it undesirable?

Gallup has dome some surveys on migration. They're all PDF's but you can find them by googling Gallup migration. Anyway, their surveys showed that a staggering 36% of the population of Subsaharan Africa wants to emigrate, and 21% of the population of the ME. The greater the perception that Europe is welcoming migrants, the more are going to risk the journey. So we're not actually talking about countries being willing to show just a little compassion and just let in a few thousand refugees. The real numbers are much higher.

Denmark is in the process of rebranding ourselves as cunts, and as a stout anti-cunt person, I'm not thrilled by the prospect.

Well, it's quite clear that a great many Danes, along with a growing number of other Europeans, don't see trying to limit migration as being "cuntish" at all. In fact, that's exactly how they might label your POV. So name-calling really proves nothing.
 
Yesterday I participated in a picnic organized by something called WeConnect. The purpose of this organization is to put refugees in contact with the locals, to offer them (free) language courses and all sorts of different activities, as well as helping them to find work and a place to live among other things.

We had a lot of fun and it was very inspiring to see the potential impact of a dedicated grass-root movement. The refugees were truly thankful and they obviously enjoyed themselves and the special welcome they all received.

But there was one small thing that I noticed: out of the about thirty refugees who showed up most of them were between 20 and 30 years old. All of them were males.

I'm not trying to draw any conclusions out of this observation, but it does make me wonder: Where are the women? Where are the children?

Apparently, the conditions of wherever those particular people came from were so unendurable that only women, children, and old people were strong enough to actually endure them.
 
Gallup has dome some surveys on migration. They're all PDF's but you can find them by googling Gallup migration. Anyway, their surveys showed that a staggering 36% of the population of Subsaharan Africa wants to emigrate, and 21% of the population of the ME. The greater the perception that Europe is welcoming migrants, the more are going to risk the journey. So we're not actually talking about countries being willing to show just a little compassion and just let in a few thousand refugees. The real numbers are much higher.

If people are living in fucked up situation I'd rather they try to get out of that situation and find safer place to be than stay. But that's just me.

Well, it's quite clear that a great many Danes, along with a growing number of other Europeans, don't see trying to limit migration as being "cuntish" at all. In fact, that's exactly how they might label your POV. So name-calling really proves nothing.

When that decision and POV is based on racism and ignorance (which it is, I saw the fucking election) I reserve the right to call people who think that way cunts. It's the same kind of people who would vote against Obama because he's black and not based on any other reasoning. That so many people are misinformed to that degree is partly a testament to the failure of the other parties to tak a strong enough stance against the pseudo racist rhetoric of he People's Party as well, but the result is the same: The People's party appealed to ignorance and had themselves a hell of an election. Good on them, I suppose. They're still cunts and they now have ridiculous amount of pull in the government, more pull than any radical party should ever have, regardless of their ideology.
 
Apparently, the conditions of wherever those particular people came from were so unendurable that only women, children, and old people were strong enough to actually endure them.

To anyone who didn't know your position already, I'm glad you spelled it out.

To anyone else wanting to know why most of the European refugees are more often male, but on the whole the break is actually 55/45, there's a few reasons.

1) Migrating to Europe as a refugee, as opposed to say Turkey, is extremely dangerous. Most families that do ultimately leave Syria intact, make the decision to have the women and children remain in a friendly nation awaiting the husband's legal recognition of refugee status - at which time, they can legally buy a plane ticket and immigrate rather than crossing illegally.

2) Syrian men are more able to leave; obviously. Syrian men are less likely to have families at the same age as Syrian women.

3) Most families have migrated to other nations that are closer and more open to refugees and have no intent on migrating to Europe. Europe has received less than 10% of the total refugee population, and is not representative of the crisis on the whole.

4) Entire families are financing these migrations with everything they have - which might not be much. They might only be able to afford to send one person.

5) Syrian men running from ISIS, rather than Assad, have substantially more to fear. Shiite men are, on a general case, singled-out and murdered in mass executions by a continual practice of ethnic cleansing. Shiite males have little chance of survival if their towns are taken by ISIS.

It's really a facile argument to suggest these people have left their home nations, after generations of living there, en masse, to live in refugee camps on the hope of getting better social programs (which they won't).

Such an argument demonstrates a keen ignorance of Syria, it's people, and the crisis that's unfolding.
 
Last edited:
But there was one small thing that I noticed: out of the about thirty refugees who showed up most of them were between 20 and 30 years old. All of them were males.

I'm not trying to draw any conclusions out of this observation, but it does make me wonder: Where are the women? Where are the children?

It's extremely dangerous to be a refugee, tons of people look to fuck you over, you are nothing but cattle basically and a lot fathers apparently make the decision to travel ahead first and if it proves safe the rest of family comes along. I've some fucking terrifying tales from refugees about how rough and dangerous it is, most of them were simply scared of subjecting their family to it, without being sure that the trip was worth it or safe enough.

Edit: @gourimoko pretty much nailed better than I could have hoped to.
 
It's extremely dangerous to be a refugee, tons of people look to fuck you over, you are nothing but cattle basically and a lot fathers apparently make the decision to travel ahead first and if it proves safe the rest of family comes along. I've some fucking terrifying tales from refugees about how rough and dangerous it is, most of them were simply scared of subjecting their family to it, without being sure that the trip was worth it or safe enough.

I should add that my impression was that just a few of these guys were fathers. Which should give credence to what you and @gourimoko are saying, as I would guess it'd be even better to send off your oldest son to Europe, while the father stays back with the family.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top