Most Swedes recognise immigration is necessary to sustain economic growth

OddTrader said:
Very reasonable comments! Perhaps there should be periodic, say monthly or fortnightly, town hall forums for people who are interested in exchanging views and opinions.

Old, young, new migrant, long-time settled migrant, extreme, moderate, liberal, academic, politician, social worker, religious leader, researcher, policeman, medical doctor, bus driver, teacher, student, housewife, preacher, believer, non-believer, etc. etc.

Also discussion contents should be reported by major media channels. Even better broadcasting live.

That would be valuable documentary for worldwide audience. Probably a very popular too! A very hot burning topic!

Useful for researchers and policy makers as well!

Never too late to launch this project worldwide!
More...

I don't care what religion you believe in or how extreme or liberal or moderate or conservative you are, ONE thing needs to be established: If you disrespect humanity, if you disrespect life, if you disrespect dignity, if you disrespect other people's freedom to choose, then you are a CRIMINAL and you are NOT welcome and you need to be GONE!! If you are a citizen of a country, you go to jail and if you are a non-citizen of the country, then you get deported! There shouldn't be any compromise to that.

Only after the criminals are gone then you can have those periodic Townhall meetings to have civilized discussions.
 
Last edited:
JSOP said:
I don't care what religion you believe in or how extreme or liberal or moderate or conservative you are, ONE thing needs to be established: You disrespect humanity, you disrespect life, you disrespect dignity, you are a CRIMINAL and you are NOT welcome and you need to be GONE!! If you are a citizen of a country, you go to jail and if you are a non-citizen of the country, then you get deported!

Only after the criminals are gone then you can have those Townhall meetings to have civilized discussion.
More...

My guess is most governments are reasonably moderate in dealing with new immigrants, that they must have their legal reasons. Such as nowhere to send them back for now, otherwise causing/multiplying into more legal/ fiscal problems.

Perhaps there should be a walled zone for newly arrived asylums/immigrants for transitional and educational purpose, until they understand what they need to know and follow legally, including some of your comments.

Bad guys would be kept or returned there for much much longer time.

My 2 cents!
 

Sweden is a perfect example of how not to handle the Great Migration

Welcoming more migrants than you can look after leads to tragedy – as Sweden, with its traumatised street children, is now discovering

28 Jan 2016

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...of-how-not-to-handle-the-Great-Migration.html

Wednesday’s news – that it intends to deport up to 80,000 failed asylum seekers – certainly sounds tough. But in Sweden, the announcement was greeted with derision. A pattern has now been established: when asylum seekers have their case rejected, most disappear. They have no address, no papers and find it fairly easy to give Swedish authorities the slip. On average, seven out of 10 of those facing deportation just vanish. Or, rather, they stay in the country and keep gaming a system that could have been designed for ease of exploitation. No wonder the public scoff.
More...
 
So many experts over here, how do you know all that stuff?
I have a feeling that 50% here are watching the liberal news, and the other half fox news and similar networks.
And everyone is certain that he's right.
 
OddTrader said:
My guess is most governments are reasonably moderate in dealing with new immigrants, that they must have their legal reasons. Such as nowhere to send them back for now, otherwise causing/multiplying into more legal/ fiscal problems.

Perhaps there should be a walled zone for newly arrived asylums/immigrants for transitional and educational purpose, until they understand what they need to know and follow legally, including some of your comments.

Bad guys would be kept or returned there for much much longer time.

My 2 cents!
More...

No there should be NO difference between new immigrants/migrants/asylums/refugees and existing citizens of the host country when it comes to obeying the law of the host country IF they expect to receive the same treatment as the local citizens in terms of jobs, benefit payments and etc. If the local citizens are not allowed to do something according to the law of that country, WHY should the new immigrants be allowed to commit the same crime just because he/she is a new immigrant? If the newcomers regardless of their status are not able to obey the same law the same way as local citizens in any way, then they should get punished just like the local citizens. Benefits and duties go hand in hand and that goes for EVERYBODY in the country. If you break the law, you get punished the same way as local citizens. And since you are not citizens of that country, then you get deported, sent back to the country from which you come, very simple.

You don't go into a country expecting to receive all the benefits without even fulfilling the basic duty of not breaking the law of that country especially when that law is against something so fundamental like rape or murder. I don't understand WHY those governments choose to be so "moderate" against so heinous of crimes like rape and murder. These are not even issue of freedom of religion; these are issues of public safety. Murder and rape is not allowed in any religion and if they are allowed in a religion, then that religion is ILLEGAL!! A Thousand and One Nights is a fairy tale; this is the REAL WORLD. And if you don't like the law of the country that just opened their doors to you, then you LEAVE!!

Just like if I go to a country that disallows alcohol and I expect to live there and settle there, then I need to obey that country's law and abstain from alcohol. If I drink alcohol, then I expect to be arrested and punished. I cannot claim Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion because my religion expects me to drink alcohol. If I don't like the law of that country that does not allow me to drink alcohol, then I leave!!
 
Last edited:
I wish I know a bit more about the complexity of human rights laws especially related to asylums in order to respond to your comments.
 
OddTrader said:
Sweden is a perfect example of how not to handle the Great Migration

Welcoming more migrants than you can look after leads to tragedy – as Sweden, with its traumatised street children, is now discovering

28 Jan 2016

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...of-how-not-to-handle-the-Great-Migration.html

Wednesday’s news – that it intends to deport up to 80,000 failed asylum seekers – certainly sounds tough. But in Sweden, the announcement was greeted with derision. A pattern has now been established: when asylum seekers have their case rejected, most disappear. They have no address, no papers and find it fairly easy to give Swedish authorities the slip. On average, seven out of 10 of those facing deportation just vanish. Or, rather, they stay in the country and keep gaming a system that could have been designed for ease of exploitation. No wonder the public scoff.
More...

When asylum seekers are seeking asylum, they should PERSONALLY be present in the hearing and a decision should be made right away and if their application is rejected, then they get deported right away so there is no chance of them disappearing. If the asylum seeker chooses not to appear personally at the hearing, he/she should be deported RIGHT AWAY with NO chance to appeal. You don't even want to show up to ask to stay, WHY should the host country hear what you want to say? If a country chooses to hear appeals, then appeals are filed and heard while the asylum seekers are being locked away, so again, no chance to disappear. Asylum seekers are different from immigrants and refugee claimants because they are already physically IN the country that received them and they were only supposed to be there for a specific period of time so by the time when that their allowed-to-stay period has elapsed, they are already in the country ILLEGALLY so they are already breaking the law of the host country so arresting them and locking them away while their cases are adjudicated is perfectly within the rights of the host country. No host countries should feel guilty about that or be made to feel guilty about that no matter how those liberal media chooses to spin it with all those images of crying children.
 
OddTrader said:
https://www.masterstudies.com/Masters-Degree/Human-Rights/

http://ihrlmst.conted.ox.ac.uk/

http://programsandcourses.anu.edu.au/course/laws8234

...
More...

When you are not respecting the law of a country, you are infringing upon the human rights of those who DO respect the law of that country regardless whether you are a newcomer or an existing citizen of that country. You don't need a Master degree to understand that.

The host country is NOT imposing anything extra on the newcomer. All they are doing is imposing the SAME law on the newcomer as they impose on their own citizens, nothing extra. If their own citizen regardless of that person's religion is not allowed to harass someone, hit someone, rape someone, kill someone, then a newcomer shouldn't be allowed either regardless of his/her religion.

Thailand is a Buddhist country with 90% of its citizens Buddhists. In recent years there is a huge problem with that country's Buddhist monks committing crimes, those monks are arrested, prosecuted just the same.

Crimes knows NO religion. A crime is a crime is a crime. To say otherwise is to have hidden agenda, ulterior motives.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top