Islam in Europe

riseagainstrocks · 08-16-2017, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilja

But in the end, the last statistic I read from 2016 said out of 162,000 refugees that came in 2015, only 494 got a job ( https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/1...-500-fick-jobb ). And, so far, out of all these "youths" coming to Sweden, most that were tested (and they have to agree to be tested) were found to be above 18.

I realize this is a rant, but it is tiring. I realize that there are many refugees who come here who need to come here. But when you work 40-60 hours a week and realize that the people living next door to you have their lifestyle completly financed by your taxes while you have to pay for it..well you get a bit annoyed. The fact that the vast majority follow Islam is just fuel for the fire. And if you point that out, suddenly you are a racist.

To your first part, those numbers are a tad misleading:
https://www.economist.com/news/finan...ees-sweden-are

Doesn't mean the lower participation rate isn't a problem, but the context behind the numbers is faulty. The actual foreign-borne participation rate in the workforce is 63-65%, compared to 76-77% for native born Swedes. The phrasing of your statistic (and the parroting of the number on the Daily Caller and Brietbart) implies that immigrants/migrants/refugees/foreign-born residents participate at less than a 1% rate in the workforce, as a whole.

Things that aren't considered: 1. Not speaking the language. 2. Not reading the language 3. Likely having spent the past the past three months prior to arriving in Sweden running from some smugglers and to others. 4. Likely having spent the past three months prior to arriving in Sweden living in an active warzone. 5. Swedish cultural bias towards native born Swedes for open jobs (by the way, I'm not making a moral judgment here - even me, on my liberal "high horse" prefer the company of like-minded people who share my cultural and aesthetic values).

Point being, when you see a statistic that scream "foreigners are weird, feckless, and only harm their new communities", take a second and see if the context of that statistic is being manipulated. To judge the influx of a couple hundred thousand refugees, many fleeing from civil war and ethnic cleansing, as a failure after the first year or two is ahistorical. This is not to say that maybe, on balance, these new arrivals will be bad for Sweden in the long term. But that would buck a global trend of immigration being a net positive for the communities that embrace it.

To the second quoted paragraph, I fail to see how identifying them as Muslim affects your argument in any way. Unless you're saying that because they are Muslim they are incapable of being productive members of Swedish society?

Lilja · 08-19-2017, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

To your first part, those numbers are a tad misleading:
https://www.economist.com/news/finan...ees-sweden-are

Doesn't mean the lower participation rate isn't a problem, but the context behind the numbers is faulty. The actual foreign-borne participation rate in the workforce is 63-65%, compared to 76-77% for native born Swedes. The phrasing of your statistic (and the parroting of the number on the Daily Caller and Brietbart) implies that immigrants/migrants/refugees/foreign-born residents participate at less than a 1% rate in the workforce, as a whole.

Things that aren't considered: 1. Not speaking the language. 2. Not reading the language 3. Likely having spent the past the past three months prior to arriving in Sweden running from some smugglers and to others. 4. Likely having spent the past three months prior to arriving in Sweden living in an active warzone. 5. Swedish cultural bias towards native born Swedes for open jobs (by the way, I'm not making a moral judgment here - even me, on my liberal "high horse" prefer the company of like-minded people who share my cultural and aesthetic values).

Point being, when you see a statistic that scream "foreigners are weird, feckless, and only harm their new communities", take a second and see if the context of that statistic is being manipulated. To judge the influx of a couple hundred thousand refugees, many fleeing from civil war and ethnic cleansing, as a failure after the first year or two is ahistorical. This is not to say that maybe, on balance, these new arrivals will be bad for Sweden in the long term. But that would buck a global trend of immigration being a net positive for the communities that embrace it.

To the second quoted paragraph, I fail to see how identifying them as Muslim affects your argument in any way. Unless you're saying that because they are Muslim they are incapable of being productive members of Swedish society?

Actually, your statistic is more misleading. Mine just refers to the amount of people seeking asylum during a given year and how many got jobs after a certain period of time according to arbetsförmedlingen (that is Sweden's national work office). Yours groups all foregn workers together. That isn't the group I was referring to.

I do consider language. Hence, we give refugees free language lessons/free education. They can even go to University free if they wish (allthough free education is a given right for all). Is Swedish hard? Yes. But there are no requirements for them to pass the language classes and they can take the same class over and over again and still get the benifits.

What happens if they cannot speak the language and they need to go to the hospital/sign their kids up for school/driver's license etc... We provide translators.

In other words, we (Sweden) have created a society where you do no have to learn the language or anything about the culture to get money. Is this advantageous to someone who just wants the money? Of course!

Do we consider that people might be emotionally scarred from living in active warzones? Yes. I said already you can be declared too emotionally scarred to work. In Sweden we have "Sjukskriven" which means you can be declarred too emotionally sick/physically sick to work and just live off of welfare. It is an accepted part of our society although the amount has risen, as a whole, over the last few years.

Do I buck the amount of refugees that Sweden took in...because we took in the amount of refugees from places such as Syria that countries such as the US and England said no too? Yes. It was stupid. We are a much smaller county, population wise, than most. There were no long-term plans in place. And we are paying for it with a huge increase in people using welfare . That is why I think the benifits should be cut for new refugees. For a while, women who arrived with children were getting retroactive benifits for their children who were not even born in this country. Is that fair?

Do Swedes hire swedes over non-Swedes? Don't most (if not all) countries prefer natives for most jobs?

Perhaps the point about saying most were followers of Islam was a bit much.
I am just tired of this feeling that I am expected to welcome rather than newcomers should just be thankful.

riseagainstrocks · 08-28-2017, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilja

Actually, your statistic is more misleading. Mine just refers to the amount of people seeking asylum during a given year and how many got jobs after a certain period of time according to arbetsförmedlingen (that is Sweden's national work office). Yours groups all foregn workers together. That isn't the group I was referring to.

I do consider language. Hence, we give refugees free language lessons/free education. They can even go to University free if they wish (allthough free education is a given right for all). Is Swedish hard? Yes. But there are no requirements for them to pass the language classes and they can take the same class over and over again and still get the benifits.

What happens if they cannot speak the language and they need to go to the hospital/sign their kids up for school/driver's license etc... We provide translators.

In other words, we (Sweden) have created a society where you do no have to learn the language or anything about the culture to get money. Is this advantageous to someone who just wants the money? Of course!

Do we consider that people might be emotionally scarred from living in active warzones? Yes. I said already you can be declared too emotionally scarred to work. In Sweden we have "Sjukskriven" which means you can be declarred too emotionally sick/physically sick to work and just live off of welfare. It is an accepted part of our society although the amount has risen, as a whole, over the last few years.

Do I buck the amount of refugees that Sweden took in...because we took in the amount of refugees from places such as Syria that countries such as the US and England said no too? Yes. It was stupid. We are a much smaller county, population wise, than most. There were no long-term plans in place. And we are paying for it with a huge increase in people using welfare . That is why I think the benifits should be cut for new refugees. For a while, women who arrived with children were getting retroactive benifits for their children who were not even born in this country. Is that fair?

Do Swedes hire swedes over non-Swedes? Don't most (if not all) countries prefer natives for most jobs?

Perhaps the point about saying most were followers of Islam was a bit much.
I am just tired of this feeling that I am expected to welcome rather than newcomers should just be thankful.

Sorry for the delay in responding. Life and all that.

You're right in that the Economist graph combines all foreign-born workers, so I can't make an apples to apples comparison. I'll also happily grant that the on-the-ground realities are more visceral and real to you, in Sweden, than to me, in the US. With regard to what's fair, that's up to the individual. I would probably have a different emotional reaction to the issue if I noticed a sharp increase in my taxes or a decrease in the benefits, or access to the benefits, that my taxes pay for. But I think my logical reaction would stay the same: approach them as human beings first, allow time for adjustment, and take it from there.

The easiest way (relatively speaking) to end this crisis is to end the conflict in Syria. I won't pretend to know how to do this, but having an ethnic minority dominate politics isn't a great way to start, especially in a society with thousands of years of 'tribe as politics'.

Your exasperation is noted and I sympathize. We have to remind ourselves that the overwhelming majority of these people have nothing and fled from certain death. I'm simply stressing compassion, but I understand that it's easy to do so from across the pond.