Europe submits voluntarily

[Jokodo]

No, we haven't. This isn't motivated by necessity. This is just racism. Sweden is one of the richest countries in Europe. A little refugees won't do a dent in that. This made me so angry that I'm volunteering at a homeless shelter where we specifically help those who have gone underground. Shit like this makes me furious and not give a shit about the law.

Why not let them stay in your house if you love them that much, hell even let them have sex with you or GF, share and share alike as they say...

You have some very messed up morals if you believe the only people who should get a chance in life are the people you want to have sex with.

 

[Bomb#20]

Are those projections based on the assumption that henteekteskap ("retrieve marriage") will continue to be a common practice, or on the assumption that it won't be?

The quoted type of arrangements are obviously included in the immigration part of the projection calculations.

"Obviously", says the guy who didn't provide a link to his "Projections show that..." projections.

I really shouldn't have to provide something that has been linked in these types of threads many times before and which is indeed so obvious that it's literally the first result you'd get on google when searching for muslim population projections of Europe.

But for those who need to have someone hold their hands: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/europe/

If you'd take a look at their methodology, you'd find that under immigration estimates they make projections based on the migrant stock levels of European countries; meaning the foreign-born population of those countries, which necessarily includes spouses brought in from abroad under relaxed immigration rules.

But please, by all means, continue panicking.

I took a look at their methodology.

Estimating and Projecting the Size and Religious Composition of Migrant Flows

... Data on the size and religious breakdown of migrant flows were pieced together in two steps. The first step was to estimate how many people move to and from every country in the world. Second, the religious composition of migrants moving between countries was estimated.

Generally speaking, there is much better information on migrant “stocks” (how many foreign-born people reside in each country, and where they were born) than there is on migrant “flows” (how many people move between countries each year). ... Since data on migration flows are incomplete, data on migrant stocks from the World Bank (for the year 2000) and the Pew Research Center’s Global Religion and Migration Database (for the year 2010) were used to estimate migration flows for both males and females between 2000 and 2010. ...

Flows were estimated by first approximating 2005 stocks using interpolated trends based on differences between the 2000 and 2010 migrant stock information. Second, using an innovative technique developed by researchers at the Vienna Institute of Demography, differences in foreign-born populations between 2005 and 2010 were used to estimate migration flows for 155 countries.87 Using empirical data and observed regularities in the age patterns of migration flows, researchers were able to disaggregate each estimated total flow into subtotals by five-year age groups.

Resulting estimates of migration flows were reviewed by Pew Research Center staff to be sure all estimates represented recent migration patterns, and some adjustments were made. ... Migration patterns to some countries changed between 2000 and 2010. Most notably, the economic crisis in the latter part of the decade slowed migration in many parts of the world. Consequently, future migration flows were reduced by 25% for most countries and up to 50% for a handful of countries. ...​

So the way they "make projections based on the migrant stock levels of European countries" is they subtract the migrant stock level in 2000 from the migrant stock level in 2010 to get an estimate of the average number of migrants per year between 2000 and 2010. Then they calculate the number who migrated specifically in 2010, by subtracting 25% from the 10-year average number, on account of the U.S. subprime mortgage meltdown causing a world-wide recession that made all migration more difficult and less attractive. Then they use their estimated 2010 number of migrants as their annual migration projection for the next forty years.

It is clear that the Muslim population of Europe is going to increase -- according to your figures it's going to increase by a factor of 2.5. If the level of henteekteskap in the Muslim population remains the same then the number of people migrating from the home country into arranged marriages will rise roughly in proportion. (It will be a little different from that due to changes in age profile.) But the Pew calculations assume the number of migrants will stay the same; they do not allow for one of the major subcategories of migration growing two and a half times larger.

So Pew has de facto based its projection on the assumption that the practice of henteekteskap is going to drop to only 40% of its current prevalence. Q.E.D. Forgive me if I don't take you saying "obviously" as settling a question.

Contrary to popular delusion, muslims and other descended-from-immigrant populations in Europe do *not* have much higher birthrates than do white Europeans.

But they do have a much higher rate of producing grandchildren in Europe; and a population's growth rate is determined by number of grandchildren, not by birthrate. A birthrate of 2 children per couple equals 2,2,2... when locals marry locals, but it equals 2,4,8... when locals marry foreigners and the foreign spouse immigrates.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, we haven't. This isn't motivated by necessity. This is just racism. Sweden is one of the richest countries in Europe. A little refugees won't do a dent in that. This made me so angry that I'm volunteering at a homeless shelter where we specifically help those who have gone underground. Shit like this makes me furious and not give a shit about the law.

Why not let them stay in your house if you love them that much, hell even let them have sex with you or GF, share and share alike as they say...

I don't have to. Sweden has plenty of free space and plenty of money to build houses. This is a rich country. I have an open relationship with my girlfriend, so if she's into it, I wouldn't stop her.

 

[TSwizzle]

Oh I think the Swedish government are starting to awaken to the nightmare. Besides, they are mostly not refugees and they are arriving in huge numbers, not a few.

Such utter nonsense. There is no trouble. Not yet anyway.

Storm clouds are gathering.

It'll be fine.

It will all end in tears.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Such utter nonsense. There is no trouble. Not yet anyway.

Storm clouds are gathering.

It'll be fine.

It will all end in tears.

What are you basing this on? There is zero evidence it'll end in any trouble. This is all just hunches.

 

[Bomb#20]

European migration to the new world brought with them the means of building nations. They worked their butts off taming and building on the land. They didn't claim any benefits from the indigenous people, unlike African and Middle Eastern freeloaders are today.

If you don't count stealing the indigenous people's land as claiming a benefit.

 

[Bomb#20]

This isn't about race. It's about culture.

Same thing, just liberal semantics. Fail

Not the same thing. I've got an electronics patent with a Ghanaian co-inventor and several with a guy from a Texas Indian reservation. Reality has a liberal bias.

 

[Bomb#20]

"get them to work". This is free country. We don't force people to do anything here. I'd like it to stay that way.

Except when push comes to shove you're okay with forcing your fellow inhabitants to live with increased crime and you're okay with forcing them to pay to support refugees. "I welcome the refugees with open arms. I'd do it even if it would be a huge cost to Sweden."

Your ancestors built your country. You didn't, other than in the most peripheral sense. I don't see it as I've inherited the right to Sweden. That makes it hard for me to turn away immigrants.

That's exactly right. Your feeling of having no right to turn immigrants away, and your preference not to force people in your free country to do anything against their will, such as pay for your conscience, are therefore at odds with each other. That creates cognitive dissonance. The simplest way for you to resolve that dissonance, and maintain the feeling that you are being principled and righteous, is simple reality avoidance. All you need to do is stay in denial about what's right in front of your face: the fact that your conscience comes with a huge cost to Sweden. Your government just diverted 8 billion krona from its foreign aid budget to partially defray costs of resettling refugees in Sweden and you're still telling yourself the policy you support doesn't cost your common people anything. Your perception of good and bad is obstructing your perception of true and false.

You have every right to sacrifice your own best interests on the altar of your feeling of not having inherited the right to Sweden. But what right do you have to sacrifice the best interests of your fellow Swedes, and the best interests of the immigrants Sweden has already taken in?

 

[untermensche]

It will all end in tears.

The psychotic paranoia is amusing.

 

[angelo]

Why not let them stay in your house if you love them that much, hell even let them have sex with you or GF, share and share alike as they say...

I don't have to. Sweden has plenty of free space and plenty of money to build houses. This is a rich country. I have an open relationship with my girlfriend, so if she's into it, I wouldn't stop her.

Won't be a rich country for long with all those welfare payments it has to make to thousands of freeloaders!

 

[Bomb#20]

The point is that Syrians are used to living in a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society. They're used to living in a place where they don't shove their religion down other people's throat. Officially, Syria under the Assad's was secular. They'll fit in just fine in secular Europe.

Maybe they theoretically could; but with the numbers you're taking in a large fraction are bound to wind up joining the unemployed and impoverished underclass, living in ghettos where there's little secular civil society for them to fit into. Their kids' life-experience is unlikely to teach them to fit in just fine in secular Europe.

2. They're just refugees. It sucks being a refugee and I want to help.

Send a donation to a relief agency. You can help more refugees per krona by helping Jordan put them up than by putting them up in Sweden.

I refuted this point in the very post you're replying to. But thanks for trying.

Are you referring to "Historically almost all immigration is only a net benefit to the recipient country. This is true for all migration. So I don't think we'll lose any money on it. I have argued for it in this thread."? That's not refuting the point; that's just asserting that I'm wrong. Your earlier argument for it was that the U.S. didn't lose money on Cubans and "The only difference is that one group is Christian, and the other Muslim." It's mind-boggling that you're able to talk yourself into believing something so absurd.

4. Historically almost all immigration is only a net benefit to the recipient country. This is true for all migration. So I don't think we'll lose any money on it. I have argued for it in this thread.

It appears your government knows you're wrong about that. ...

Sweden slams shut its open-door policy towards refugees
‘We simply can’t do any more,’ prime minister says in announcing Sweden’s asylum regime will revert to EU minimum...
“We are adapting Swedish legislation temporarily so that more people choose to seek asylum in other countries ... We need respite,” Löfven said, criticising the EU for failing to agree to spread refugees more evenly around the bloc.​

(Source)

Note that this is hardly the first time the Swedish government has criticized the other EU countries for not taking their fair share of migrants. It's been doing that for years. Your government regarding asylum seekers as a burden goes back at least to 1997, when it signed onto the Dublin Convention.

The question is, why? If all migration is only a net benefit to the recipient country, why on earth has your government been trying to talk the rest of the EU into redirecting that net benefit away from Sweden?

They're doing it for racist reasons. It's got nothing to do with actual reality. In Sweden we have a racist political party called Sweden Democrats. ... This new policy is a desperate attempt to halt the Sweden Democrats from getting higher ratings.

1994: Sweden Democrats' vote = 0.3%
1997: Sweden signs Dublin Convention.
1998: Sweden Democrats' vote = 0.4%
2002: Sweden Democrats' vote = 1.4%
2006: Sweden Democrats' vote = 2.9%
2010: Sweden Democrats' vote = 5.7%
2014: Sweden Democrats' vote = 12.9%

(Source)

The whole point of the Dublin Convention is to disincentivize the flow by having EU countries put up a united front against host-nation shoppers. So your government decided asylum seekers are a burden, not a net benefit to the recipient country, no later than 1997. They did not do that out of intimidation by the Sweden Democrats' electoral successes.

I think it is wrong and I think it is misguided. All the numbers and research shows that this policy is a mistake.

I.e., Cubans are good for America.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/vi...e-young-supporters-of-swedens-far-right-video

That's an ad hominem argument. Do you think ad hominem arguments are logical?

The SD wouldn't be getting 12.9 of the vote if your mainstream parties had shown any willingness to compromise on their insanity, or even any willingness to discuss the matter civilly and refrain from using ad hominem arguments against the "unwashed masses" whenever your mainstream parties tell them to believe something that sounds ridiculous to them and they "no longer blindly obey and respect figures of authority".

Incidentally, if you'd abolish your anti-democratic party-list election method and adopt the Finnish version of proportional representation, your people wouldn't be put in the position of having to vote SD in order to be listened to just because the rest of the parties' bosses agree among themselves to leave your immigration skeptics nowhere else to turn. Party discipline would be shot; dissident politicians within the main parties could take their case to the voters instead of being answerable only to their bosses. Your political elites have no one to blame but themselves for the SD's rise in the standings.

No, the refugees in Sweden aren't working. The reason is that it is illegal for them to work in Sweden. We have cops who's job it is to try to catch refugees getting jobs and stop them. It's a bizarre law and a counter-productive law. It's a law that everybody loses from. This law needs to change. I hope it will soon. because the current situation is quite literally like burning money for no reason. As well as cruel against the refugees. As well as cruel to Swede's who have now gotten lots of people who can work, but aren't allowed to. Stupid.

God yes!

So what's your theory? That taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees and supporting them on welfare and stopping them from getting jobs isn't going to result in an exception to your rule that "all migration" is only a net benefit to the recipient country? That you still won't lose any money on it? That limiting the inflow is still a misguided mistake, even though they aren't producing anything for your country, provided the fact that they aren't producing anything is your fault?

Whose fault it is does not change the consequences of a massive largely unemployed immigrant underclass with nothing better to do all day than listen to radical preachers. First fix your stupid cruel policies that stop refugees from working. Then enact some serious programs to create jobs for them. Then wait for all those policy changes to have their effect and actually bring refugees' unemployment rate down to normal levels for a prosperous country. Then, only then, reopen the spigot.

There seems to be this insane dynamic in this debate, this crazy assumption that Europe's choices are either

(1) Be nice to the migrants you have, and bring in many more,​

or else

(2) Be mean to the migrants you have, and stop bringing more in,​

which is a very odd assumption to make when your actual practice is

(3) Be mean to the migrants you have, and bring in many more.​

Your government appears to be full of people who think giving a refugee a welfare check instead of a job counts as being nice to him. It's not nice. Wring out your ideology-soaked brains and switch to

(4) Be nice to the migrants you have, and stop bringing more in.​

It's a bizarre law and a counter-productive law. It's a law that everybody loses from. This law needs to change. I hope it will soon.

Yes. So stop telling the "unwashed masses" they're racists and start telling them what your plan is for getting your imbecilic government to change the laws that are filling your country with ghettos.

 

[Jokodo]

But they do have a much higher rate of producing grandchildren in Europe; and a population's growth rate is determined by number of grandchildren, not by birthrate. A birthrate of 2 children per couple equals 2,2,2... when locals marry locals, but it equals 2,4,8... when locals marry foreigners and the foreign spouse immigrates.

And when locals marry foreigners and the local spouse emigrates, the rate equals 2, 0, 0. That's not just a hypothetical, that's actually happening: There's been consistently every year more migration from Germany to Turkey than vice versa for almost a decade now. http://mediendienst-integration.de/migration/wer-kommt-wer-geht.html (graph under the rider "Anzahl der Türken in Deutschland").

 

[Jokodo]

There seems to be this insane dynamic in this debate, this crazy assumption that Europe's choices are either

(1) Be nice to the migrants you have, and bring in many more,​

or else

(2) Be mean to the migrants you have, and stop bringing more in,​

which is a very odd assumption to make when your actual practice is

(3) Be mean to the migrants you have, and bring in many more.​

Your government appears to be full of people who think giving a refugee a welfare check instead of a job counts as being nice to him. It's not nice. Wring out your ideology-soaked brains and switch to

(4) Be nice to the migrants you have, and stop bringing more in.​

Exactly how does being nice to the migrants we have now work if the rationalisation for stopping to bring in more is explicitly "they're Muslims, we don't need no Muslims"?

 

[dystopian]

But the Pew calculations assume the number of migrants will stay the same; they do not allow for one of the major subcategories of migration growing two and a half times larger.

And it hasn't. You're looking at a snapshotted frame of a whole taken during a major humanitarian crisis, and then as if you were completely and utterly incapable of reasoning beyond the level of average redneck/chav/tokkie/insert-national-equivalent-term, blindly assume that the long-term trend average has massively shifted upward when there is no bloody reason to think that's going to be the case and when it might even end up lower than the previous average.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Except when push comes to shove you're okay with forcing your fellow inhabitants to live with increased crime and you're okay with forcing them to pay to support refugees. "I welcome the refugees with open arms. I'd do it even if it would be a huge cost to Sweden."

1. Why would it lead to increased crime? Do you have any actual arguments other than you just feel it in your bones?

2. I think this immigration will pay for itself pretty quickly.

Every wave of refugees Sweden has ever taken in has ended in a success for all involved. If the Syrian refugees are an exception, I want to see some hard evidence. I'd say it's on you to back it up.

Your ancestors built your country. You didn't, other than in the most peripheral sense. I don't see it as I've inherited the right to Sweden. That makes it hard for me to turn away immigrants.

That's exactly right. Your feeling of having no right to turn immigrants away, and your preference not to force people in your free country to do anything against their will, such as pay for your conscience, are therefore at odds with each other. That creates cognitive dissonance. The simplest way for you to resolve that dissonance, and maintain the feeling that you are being principled and righteous, is simple reality avoidance. All you need to do is stay in denial about what's right in front of your face: the fact that your conscience comes with a huge cost to Sweden.

Yes, it is expensive for Sweden. But in the big picture it's not particularly expensive. And there is a war in Syria. To me it's just the right thing to do and I'm prepared to pay the price.

Also... if they chose to stay in Sweden we'll get the money back with interest. This is something that pays for itself in the long run.

Your government just diverted 8 billion krona from its foreign aid budget to partially defray costs of resettling refugees in Sweden and you're still telling yourself the policy you support doesn't cost your common people anything. Your perception of good and bad is obstructing your perception of true and false.

I don't have a problem with this. My opinion is that this money is ear-market for helping people in need where ever they may be. Who ever needs it the most gets it. Right now the Syrian refugees are the in the greatest need. So they get it. I think that's fine. I understand that other people who are used to getting that money are miffed. Such is life. It's our money. We get to spend it any way we want.

You have every right to sacrifice your own best interests on the altar of your feeling of not having inherited the right to Sweden. But what right do you have to sacrifice the best interests of your fellow Swedes, and the best interests of the immigrants Sweden has already taken in?

But where is the sacrifice? Could you please explain what it is I am sacrifice? What is Sweden losing, except some money in the short term, which we most likely will earn back.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't have to. Sweden has plenty of free space and plenty of money to build houses. This is a rich country. I have an open relationship with my girlfriend, so if she's into it, I wouldn't stop her.

Won't be a rich country for long with all those welfare payments it has to make to thousands of freeloaders!

Please explain yourself? Why wouldn't they get jobs here (once the initial paper-work is done)? If they do they won't be freeloaders. Then they'll add to Sweden's economy making it richer. Which every preceding immigrant group has done since forever.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Maybe they theoretically could; but with the numbers you're taking in a large fraction are bound to wind up joining the unemployed and impoverished underclass, living in ghettos where there's little secular civil society for them to fit into. Their kids' life-experience is unlikely to teach them to fit in just fine in secular Europe.

Ok, that's quite a colourful image you paint. The next step is arguing for why you think this is bound to happen. The studies I've seen tell a different story.

2. They're just refugees. It sucks being a refugee and I want to help.

Send a donation to a relief agency. You can help more refugees per krona by helping Jordan put them up than by putting them up in Sweden.

It depends what the goal is. If the goal is human storage until the war is over, then yes. But I think we can do better than that. Jordan and Lebanon are pushed to their limit. They're overwhelmed by the number of refugees. It's much harder to integrate the refugees into society allowing them to work. It's better to spread them out over the world. Like Sweden for instance. Here they can live in peace and find jobs and such.

Note that this is hardly the first time the Swedish government has criticized the other EU countries for not taking their fair share of migrants. It's been doing that for years. Your government regarding asylum seekers as a burden goes back at least to 1997, when it signed onto the Dublin Convention.

The question is, why? If all migration is only a net benefit to the recipient country, why on earth has your government been trying to talk the rest of the EU into redirecting that net benefit away from Sweden?

It's an easy answer. Xenophobia. There's a general unease about losing some sort of ineffable Swedishness or Swedish culture by taking in refugees. The fact that it is nonsense doesn't stop people from acting on it.

They're doing it for racist reasons. It's got nothing to do with actual reality. In Sweden we have a racist political party called Sweden Democrats. ... This new policy is a desperate attempt to halt the Sweden Democrats from getting higher ratings.

1994: Sweden Democrats' vote = 0.3%
1997: Sweden signs Dublin Convention.
1998: Sweden Democrats' vote = 0.4%
2002: Sweden Democrats' vote = 1.4%
2006: Sweden Democrats' vote = 2.9%
2010: Sweden Democrats' vote = 5.7%
2014: Sweden Democrats' vote = 12.9%

(Source)

And this somehow proves they are not racists? The Sweden Democrats sprung from the Swedish neo-nazi movement. With all the bells and whistles. It's leadership are all people connected to that sub-culture. This is not controversial in the least. This is public knowledge. It's local leaders get caught all the time on camera saying the most vile incriminating things imaginable. When that happens the party feigns mock shock and kicks them out. But it just keeps happening over and over again.

Just like Nazism or fascist parties everywhere they flaunt laws, manipulate press and behave appallingly. These are no different. Their political platform is completely and utterly devoid of content. All they want is to stop immigration. They blame all of Sweden's social problems exclusively on immigration. It's just so obviously transparent. And of course they lie all the time. Whenever they get studio time on TV they just make shit up. They get called on it every time. But nobody cares.

What has happened is that the Swedish Democrats got an excellent leader. He's very smart and charismatic.

This coincided with the Social democrats (Swedens largest party) having a leadership crisis. Many years of trying to decide what to do next and weak leaders. The current prime-minister Stefan Löfvén isn't particularly impressive.

The Moderates (Swedens second largest party) had a charismatic leader (ex-prime minister) who simply just jumped ship following his loss in the elections. He's been succeeded by a leader who has yet to prove herself. So far it hasn't been to impressive.

This is the political landscape Sweden is in right now. It's not hard to see how an effective leader of a populistic party can grab votes, It's all low hanging fruit now.

Like one political commentator pointed out "it's like the other parties have completely forgotten how to do politics".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/vi...e-young-supporters-of-swedens-far-right-video

That's an ad hominem argument. Do you think ad hominem arguments are logical?

Are you somehow trying to argue that the film doesn't prove that these people are racist?

The SD wouldn't be getting 12.9 of the vote if your mainstream parties had shown any willingness to compromise on their insanity, or even any willingness to discuss the matter civilly and refrain from using ad hominem arguments against the "unwashed masses" whenever your mainstream parties tell them to believe something that sounds ridiculous to them and they "no longer blindly obey and respect figures of authority".

Too bad the research doesn't show it's "insanity". All the research shows that it is very wise policy. Both humanitarian as well as fiscally.

Incidentally, if you'd abolish your anti-democratic party-list election method and adopt the Finnish version of proportional representation, your people wouldn't be put in the position of having to vote SD in order to be listened to just because the rest of the parties' bosses agree among themselves to leave your immigration skeptics nowhere else to turn. Party discipline would be shot; dissident politicians within the main parties could take their case to the voters instead of being answerable only to their bosses. Your political elites have no one to blame but themselves for the SD's rise in the standings.

Sweden and Finland have the same electoral system.

So what's your theory? That taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees and supporting them on welfare and stopping them from getting jobs isn't going to result in an exception to your rule that "all migration" is only a net benefit to the recipient country? That you still won't lose any money on it? That limiting the inflow is still a misguided mistake, even though they aren't producing anything for your country, provided the fact that they aren't producing anything is your fault?

If we take any winnings from something and just burn it. That isn't evidence that the system isn't working. We could instead... just not burn the money. In USA they didn't put up artificial barrier to the Cubans to find work. They just let the Cubans get on with it. No regulations. My suggestion is that we do the same here.

I don't get the facepalm.

Whose fault it is does not change the consequences of a massive largely unemployed immigrant underclass with nothing better to do all day than listen to radical preachers. First fix your stupid cruel policies that stop refugees from working. Then enact some serious programs to create jobs for them. Then wait for all those policy changes to have their effect and actually bring refugees' unemployment rate down to normal levels for a prosperous country. Then, only then, reopen the spigot.

That's not how political change is made. People are irrationally afraid of change. Unless the fault in the system is demonstrated people won't get it. I think the only way is to let people in until the system breaks and then they remove all these retarded and useless limitations on refugee labour.

Yes, there's a correlation between all manner of social problems and unemployment. We don't want these people just lying around. We want to get them working. So these laws need to change. The refugees aren't the problem. Only the law is.

Your government appears to be full of people who think giving a refugee a welfare check instead of a job counts as being nice to him. It's not nice. Wring out your ideology-soaked brains and switch to

Niceness has got nothing to do with it. It's labour protection. This is about Sweden's working class worried that the immigrants competing for jobs. In order to ease their anxiety we just forbid the refugees from working.

Well.. labour (or market) protection has never worked for any country ever. It always ends in impoverishing everybody. But politics is rarely about wisdom and science. It's usually about pandering. This is pandering.

Yes. So stop telling the "unwashed masses" they're racists and start telling them what your plan is for getting your imbecilic government to change the laws that are filling your country with ghettos.

My plan is the bill. When we see the bill for giving all the refugees an all inclusive all expense paid vacation to Sweden we might start looking for an alternative solution. My hope is that we won't think it's worth it and just let the refugees go out and get jobs... just like anybody else in Sweden.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

There are some very attractive Arab women from Syria and surrounding areas. Maybe you wouldn't say no to a couple staying in your place.

Sure, if they were prepared to have sex with me on a regular basis, but think that's unlikely, and of course most of these refugees are young men, so only good if you are homosexual

 

[Bar-Jesus]

You have some very messed up morals if you believe the only people who should get a chance in life are the people you want to have sex with.

These people have a chance in their own county - they can either join one of the factions or work in the background - running away is just being a traitor to one's nation!

 

[Bar-Jesus]

I don't have to. Sweden has plenty of free space and plenty of money to build houses. This is a rich country. I have an open relationship with my girlfriend, so if she's into it, I wouldn't stop her.

yeah right, like that's really gonna work out - you know, Dr Zoid in the spare room whilst the GF has a nightly romp with her two arabic studs! Sound like some kind of cuck fest to me