LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+56 56 0
Published 3 years ago with 8 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • Boethius (edited 3 years ago)

    This is ridiculous. I grew up in the country, and country folk know exactly what problem this is: "City slicker". They're scared because it's new, but you can't expect to be a fucking refugee, be penniless, jobless, not even know the language, and get somewhere in an entirely foreign society. The conditions, <<The 19 cabins are spartan and clean, with running water and heat. Most have two bedrooms, a toilet and shower, a kitchen with an oven, a refrigerator and a microwave, and a washing machine and television.>>, this is spectacular for refugees. This is amazing. I'd be paying $80,000-160,000 to get such a cabin in my country. I want to be a refugee if I can get a cabin like that, but since I'm a country person I'm very accustom to the labor and environment involved.

    I only have one significant issue to raise about this: They're isolating refugees and effectively preventing them from being able to incorporate into society. This can only spell severe problems much later for Sweden, and create isolated ethnic groups within Sweden that will cause schisms between developed society and utterly backward ignorant rednecks. You absolutely cannot let a situation develop where refugees or immigrants create isolated communities, because they'll never integrate and remain forever hostile.

    It's unfortunate nobody, I think, will mention that in the news. It'll all be about their treatment, or their emotional reaction, or some nonsense. Not about the real danger of failure to integrate that can result from this isolation. What happens when these refugees literally wall off their town and declare themselves a separate state? That's an extreme possibility, but it is a possibility.

    What they need are libraries. What they need are teachers. They need active involvement of the Swedish government to convert them to productive citizens as swiftly as possible. This is not bleeding heart syndrome, it's reality and necessary for integration. They all need to learn Swedish, they all need jobs, they all need to learn about Sweden as much as the citizenry. This, even more than housing, needs to be prioritized.

    • Qukatt

      "You absolutely cannot let a situation develop where refugees or immigrants create isolated communities, because they'll never integrate and remain forever hostile."

      I absolutely agree. It's hard work though and generally the people in charge don't like this sort of hard work :/

      • Boethius

        That is why public criticism must be levied, but I am not Swedish. I know not the language and, in Sweden, would be charged with something akin to a hate crime for daring to suppose refugees are blameworthy for bad behavior in a country willing to host them. At the same time, the opposite party who seem to be minorities and who may agree, would scream the devil for daring to suppose their country must commit to the service of the refugees at all. Even though, in the long term, this would benefit Sweden by ensuring integration takes place. This is the danger of ideology, and unwillingness to reason for your own benefit.

        I have the same opinion of the immigration problem in America. As best we can, make the Mexicans integrate. We also need to stop the sending of money to these countries as most of them come here, work a few years, and return home to retire as the money goes many times farther in south American nations. If you come to this country, you will speak the language, and you will spend that money here. To do otherwise, to not speak the language, to send money elsewhere, and to not integrate, results in a horrible crashing of every menial job they occupy to minimum wage. A janitor who might've been paid $12 or more an hour, is now paid minimum wage because large houses of closely hemmed in immigrants can afford it. Native Americans can't, and have no ability to form these closely hemmed familial groups, and thus remain jobless or impoverished with no ability to leave to a country where exported minimum wage translates to a homestead.

        The radical authoritarian left, however, considers this racism. I have almost been fired for complaining I could not understand a coworker who did not know English, although I've learned Spanish enough to be ~50% fluent. What's more, due to this I know they swear and curse and insult me and other English speakers all of the time. They use racial slurs. Yet, for the authoritarian left, they can't possibly be racist. So I get a warning for being assaulted by someone who took offense that I was whinging about this (and not even being vulgar about my whinging), who doesn't get fired, and HR does nothing about the continuous Spanish racial slurs and vulgarity.

        This is the danger of leftist authoritarianism, and lack of willingness for people to integrate. We must fix this, and "right" spectrum of politics need to stop being so mindlessly ideological so as to exclude all reasonable people from their parties. Being white in these developed countries is swiftly becoming a curse.

        • Qukatt

          the minimum wage thing you speak of is on the businesses that employ people not on immigrants themselves. Businesses will absolutely do the legal bare minimum for their employees which is why certain things that should absolutely be a no brainer end up needing to be legislated. Things like max working hours and breaks and safety issues. Things like equal opportunity hiring and creative dismissal. Things like minimum age allowed to work.

          None of that is an immigration issue. If businesses can get away with employing foreign workers less because they'll accept it (because lets face it, if you can't speak English in an English country and you have to support a newly arrived family quickly then any job coming at you you gotta grab!). In most countries (i know it to be true of mine) you must look to hire from people within the country first before looking at candidates from other countries. It doesn't apply to people already migrated into the area. So naturally you need to force a higher minimum wage.

          And i don't think you mean Native Americans in the context here. Naturalised Americans perhaps or American Citizens.

          I can't speak as to the racism you are talking about because I live in a radically different culture from the US. I won't make comment on your political parts.

          • Boethius (edited 3 years ago)

            Businesses will do the legal bare minimum for employees, hence the premise: Immigrants from worse countries expect less. The native population has a higher expectation and standard of living, but also smaller family units, and can't out-compete collections of far larger families who can afford to work for less as a result. This has the effect of displacing native populations from entry level labor markets of untrained immigrant laborers. In other words, the types of immigrants coming in are what make it an immigrant issue, because our society takes advantage of it to utterly kick out the floor of labor costs. This exact same thing happened during post WW2 Europe, with migrant workers to Britain, and the resulting disbanding of unions thereof and all worker rights so hard fought for.

            The point is, again and to be clear, that unskilled labor immigrants who can work for less roll-back all progress made by the native laborers of a society which accepts those immigrants en-mass. This is, by definition, an issue caused by mass migration of unskilled labor.

            • Qukatt

              you can't really compare to post WW times because Migrants then were highly sought what with so many people being dead in such a short time and there being a huge amount of construction work to do. That's why the armed forces were offered citizenships to stay in the countries they'd been stationed in (my great uncles stayed in New Zealand, Canada and Australia rather than come home).

            • Boethius
              @Qukatt -

              It's fortunate, then, that I used that as an example of a different scenario obeying the same principles but to a larger degree. What you've written here is not an argument. You're whinging. Since you've apparently given up being reasonable, I quit the conversation.

            • Qukatt
              @Boethius -

              Sorry I can't see what your issue is with my last reply. There was no dissolution of trade unions in the UK during or after WW2. Indeed it's estimated that over 80% of the workforce at the time were covered by trade union agreements. During WW1 trade union membership rose dramatically.

              Unless you mean Thatcher's reign (hah) in the 80s where 10 new acts were introduced to severely weaken the unions and caused major rioting.

Here are some other snaps you may like...