Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Sweden to Receive 1,900 Quota Refugees in 2012

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    celticviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, August 24th, 2012 @ 09:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    New Zealand European
    Ancestry
    English, Scottish, Icelandic, Scandinavian, Irish
    Subrace
    Hallstatt Keltic Nordid
    Country
    New Zealand New Zealand
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Elvish monarch
    Religion
    Norse Heathen
    Posts
    1,241
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    23
    Thanked in
    21 Posts

    Sad Sweden to Receive 1,900 Quota Refugees in 2012

    30 January 2012.

    "We are really happy, of course, that we can offer 1,900 places again this year, said Christina Werner, the CEO of the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) to TT news agency. Each year, the Riksdag allocates funding allowing the agency to bring between 1,700 and 1,900 refugees to Sweden under the UNs quota programme. [...] The majority are Somalis fleeing to Kenya and Djibouti, but also Eritrean and Ethiopian citizens who are now in Sudan.
    http://www.thelocal.se/38806/20120130/

  2. #2
    Account Inactive
    Halldorr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 29th, 2012 @ 03:18 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Germany
    Subrace
    Homo sapians-sapians
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Dark Energy
    Posts
    78
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Dilution of the gene pool

    That is bad news for the last refuge of the Nordic peoples. In 2009, immigration reached its highest lever ever, with over 102,000 people emigrating to Sweden.
    The following is from Sweden's official statistics:
    Largest immigrant groups, 2010:
    1. Finland: 172,000
    2. Yugoslavia: 152,000
    3. Iraq: 118,000
    4. Poland: 67,000
    5. Iran: 60,000
    6. Germany: 47,000
    7. Denmark: 46,000
    8. Norway: 43,000
    9. Turkey: 40,000
    10. Somalia: 32,000

    This in a population of only 9.4 million. Between 1820 and 1930 1.3 million Swedes emigrated to North America. One third of the entire country's population. In the early 20th century, there were more Swedes living in Chicago than in Gothenburg. Sweden's 2nd largest city. I wonder if the Swedish government realizes that this liberal immigration policy means that in 100 years there won't be a blond left anywhere.

  3. #3
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    Monday, August 13th, 2012 @ 11:07 PM
    Status
    Brief Absence
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    UK/NL/Bavaria
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Ohio Ohio
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    None/Unimportant
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    180
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Halldorr View Post
    This in a population of only 9.4 million. Between 1820 and 1930 1.3 million Swedes emigrated to North America. One third of the entire country's population. In the early 20th century, there were more Swedes living in Chicago than in Gothenburg. Sweden's 2nd largest city. I wonder if the Swedish government realizes that this liberal immigration policy means that in 100 years there won't be a blond left anywhere.
    Is there a source of information anywhere that pertains to politicians such as the ones in Sweden, who support these kinds of actions in Europe? After all these years I have yet to find a reliable argument from supporters.

    Except for this- Most of you have probably seen this video but if you have not it's worth watching.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiaMKUL-GSY
    I have no direct connection to Sweden or Swedes themselves but neither does this woman, who ethnically does not fit in and I find it rather odd that she is really permitted or as I would say "Enabled" by a government to support a system that as I see it, will undermine any native social/family/civil and then of course eventually governmental presence in Sweden...or any country for that matter.

    Or as the saying goes- Change you can believe in!

    I'm almost at the point where I refuse to yell at myself over these problems.
    just my two cents.

  4. #4
    New Member
    Tyrfingr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 5th, 2012 @ 06:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Ancestry
    Predominantly Swedish with some Norwegian ancestry.
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    State
    Vastergotland Vastergotland
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Network technician
    Politics
    None
    Religion
    None
    Posts
    11
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Halldorr View Post
    That is bad news for the last refuge of the Nordic peoples. In 2009, immigration reached its highest lever ever, with over 102,000 people emigrating to Sweden.
    The following is from Sweden's official statistics:
    Largest immigrant groups, 2010:
    1. Finland: 172,000
    2. Yugoslavia: 152,000
    3. Iraq: 118,000
    4. Poland: 67,000
    5. Iran: 60,000
    6. Germany: 47,000
    7. Denmark: 46,000
    8. Norway: 43,000
    9. Turkey: 40,000
    10. Somalia: 32,000

    This in a population of only 9.4 million. Between 1820 and 1930 1.3 million Swedes emigrated to North America. One third of the entire country's population. In the early 20th century, there were more Swedes living in Chicago than in Gothenburg. Sweden's 2nd largest city. I wonder if the Swedish government realizes that this liberal immigration policy means that in 100 years there won't be a blond left anywhere.
    What they realize is the benefits as they see them, people equals labour from the political/economical standpoint. It's all about shuffling people around and creating a pool from which you can pick the cheapest workers. If there were 200.000 jobs lets say, and you had 220.000 people you couldn't make their lives unsecure enough for them to accept any level of working conditions or pay that you would wish. But if you have 200.000 jobs and 400.000 people you could easily offer up the least possible pay, benefits and working conditions and someone would be bound to take it. That's how it's worked all over the world in the past 50-60 years before it started in the west as well as populations have grown expontentially in the world. Against global economies, heritages and cultures are worth nothing because it generates no wealth.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Patrioten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 27th, 2020 @ 10:02 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    1,920
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    20 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrfingr View Post
    What they realize is the benefits as they see them, people equals labour from the political/economical standpoint. It's all about shuffling people around and creating a pool from which you can pick the cheapest workers. If there were 200.000 jobs lets say, and you had 220.000 people you couldn't make their lives unsecure enough for them to accept any level of working conditions or pay that you would wish. But if you have 200.000 jobs and 400.000 people you could easily offer up the least possible pay, benefits and working conditions and someone would be bound to take it. That's how it's worked all over the world in the past 50-60 years before it started in the west as well as populations have grown expontentially in the world. Against global economies, heritages and cultures are worth nothing because it generates no wealth.
    The non-European immigration has been charity immigration, it has had little to do with economic rationality. After the initial work force immigration waves the unions demanded a halt and the social democrats heeded, but they switched to third world refugee immigration instead which has surpassed the work force immigration that we had in the 50s and 60s. It is telling that it was the liberals who reintroduced work force immigration (but this time the focus was on non-Europeans, in line with the last few decades of refugee immigration) since this is the immigration which at least in theory makes economic sense.

    The non-European refugee immigration is the legacy of social democratic policies of world wide solidarity, world wide equality and multiculturalism. Non-European work force immigration by the hundreds of thousands, with the implicit or explicit goal of lowering wages etc., might very well become the legacy of the liberals.

  6. #6
    New Member
    Tyrfingr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 5th, 2012 @ 06:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Ancestry
    Predominantly Swedish with some Norwegian ancestry.
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    State
    Vastergotland Vastergotland
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Network technician
    Politics
    None
    Religion
    None
    Posts
    11
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrioten View Post
    The non-European immigration has been charity immigration, it has had little to do with economic rationality. After the initial work force immigration waves the unions demanded a halt and the social democrats heeded, but they switched to third world refugee immigration instead which has surpassed the work force immigration that we had in the 50s and 60s. It is telling that it was the liberals who reintroduced work force immigration (but this time the focus was on non-Europeans, in line with the last few decades of refugee immigration) since this is the immigration which at least in theory makes economic sense.

    The non-European refugee immigration is the legacy of social democratic policies of world wide solidarity, world wide equality and multiculturalism. Non-European work force immigration by the hundreds of thousands, with the implicit or explicit goal of lowering wages etc., might very well become the legacy of the liberals.
    It has always had an economical rationality, but the rationality has always been a changing force over the ages. You just pointed it out yourself with the switch to the third world immigration. I wouldn't call any immigration a charity immigration, that's just the rubric under which it takes place and it's not conspiracies either. It's just how global economics works. Nothing is ever done out of charity there's always a catch. Immigration is efficent from the standpoint of corporations and states. It goes well back to late 1700's and early industrial revolution here in Sweden when it was reckognized that people were the engine of prosperity, with the following urbanisation that were designed more or less from the political sphere by moving people from their patches of land and into cities to toil in a more systematic fashion. Even then labour and availability of work was a constant problem where people were shuffled around from other parts of cities and communites, in a manner very much simillar to the modern day immigration. One might argue that peoples taxes is what pays for the whole circus, and seemingly in vain without gaining anything by it, and making one think it is charity; which it is from our standpoint. It does cost the ordinary working person tremendeously much to maintain. But what is curtailed is the monstreous affluence of wealth collected by the multinational corporations, to them it isn't charity since they pay nothing and gain all. At the same time their arguments are that this sort of immigration is a necessity to preserve jobs - which people buy unquestionably. They must know what they are doing ?...

  7. #7
    Aka Bazlekar
    Dvergr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 19th, 2020 @ 09:19 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    Germany
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    New England
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    Single adult
    Religion
    Nature
    Posts
    216
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrioten View Post
    The non-European immigration has been charity immigration, it has had little to do with economic rationality.
    Fortunately the US isn't accepting immigration as "charity" like in Europe and we are deporting illegals at the highest rate ever in American history. As well, we also pretty much have never given any of these people citizenship, many which are being deported now lived here for like 10 years are so. The bottom line is as bad as immigration still is and was in the US, we seem to have gotten ourselves together in a way.

    We got a lot of countryside here in the US to go to, because all the immigrants to go large cities anyhow. Montana is about the same size as Sweden with 8 million less people. We still have a lot of retreat land in America with a harsh immigration policy, what does Europe have ?
    Til rs ok friar

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Patrioten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 27th, 2020 @ 10:02 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    1,920
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    20 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrfingr View Post
    It has always had an economical rationality, but the rationality has always been a changing force over the ages. You just pointed it out yourself with the switch to the third world immigration. I wouldn't call any immigration a charity immigration, that's just the rubric under which it takes place and it's not conspiracies either. It's just how global economics works. Nothing is ever done out of charity there's always a catch. Immigration is efficent from the standpoint of corporations and states. It goes well back to late 1700's and early industrial revolution here in Sweden when it was reckognized that people were the engine of prosperity, with the following urbanisation that were designed more or less from the political sphere by moving people from their patches of land and into cities to toil in a more systematic fashion. Even then labour and availability of work was a constant problem where people were shuffled around from other parts of cities and communites, in a manner very much simillar to the modern day immigration. One might argue that peoples taxes is what pays for the whole circus, and seemingly in vain without gaining anything by it, and making one think it is charity; which it is from our standpoint. It does cost the ordinary working person tremendeously much to maintain. But what is curtailed is the monstreous affluence of wealth collected by the multinational corporations, to them it isn't charity since they pay nothing and gain all. At the same time their arguments are that this sort of immigration is a necessity to preserve jobs - which people buy unquestionably. They must know what they are doing ?...
    I'm sure that the businesses know what they are doing, up to a point, but the fact remains that the businesses back in the 60s wanted even more work force immigration, they weren't finished or satisfied. What they got instead were illiterate inbreds of no use to the economy, that could only function as wellfare recipients and voters for the social democrats and their high-tax society. To think that this was the path desired by the big companies is something I won't support.

    You should also not underestimate the power of political hubris, which has been very much present in the social democracy during its reign in Sweden. Was there anything in this world that the social democratic workers party couldn't fix for as long as they remained in power? Hardly. Even a disaster as profound as that of the third world immigration could be turned into a positive in the minds of the social democratic leadership. But this does not negate the fact that the logic changed from the economy to ideology between the work force immigration and the third world immigration. The economic logic is making a come back, and has been superimposed in retrospect on the miserable policy that is refugee immigration, but there was a clear break with it for quite some time, and not because the big industries wanted it.

  9. #9
    New Member
    Tyrfingr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 5th, 2012 @ 06:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Ancestry
    Predominantly Swedish with some Norwegian ancestry.
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    State
    Vastergotland Vastergotland
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Network technician
    Politics
    None
    Religion
    None
    Posts
    11
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrioten View Post
    I'm sure that the businesses know what they are doing, up to a point, but the fact remains that the businesses back in the 60s wanted even more work force immigration, they weren't finished or satisfied. What they got instead were illiterate inbreds of no use to the economy, that could only function as wellfare recipients and voters for the social democrats and their high-tax society. To think that this was the path desired by the big companies is something I won't support.

    You should also not underestimate the power of political hubris, which has been very much present in the social democracy during its reign in Sweden. Was there anything in this world that the social democratic workers party couldn't fix for as long as they remained in power? Hardly. Even a disaster as profound as that of the third world immigration could be turned into a positive in the minds of the social democratic leadership. But this does not negate the fact that the logic changed from the economy to ideology between the work force immigration and the third world immigration. The economic logic is making a come back, and has been superimposed in retrospect on the miserable policy that is refugee immigration, but there was a clear break with it for quite some time, and not because the big industries wanted it.
    I never said that i thought or considered that the companies wished for that lower standard that was a mark of the late-era of mass immigration, that's what they got from the hands of the politicians. Skilled workers are both expensive and far more difficult to bring in to a country when other nations have far more and better conditions and pay to offer like the US for instance.

    I can certainly agree on the failed immigration policy and the feeble, hindsighted attempts to patch it up. Having grown up myself under that very interesting phase that you speak of, between that economical and the imposed ideology. I noticed differences only in the kind of people that was brought in, but very little difference in the vision for the future by the ruling elites 'so called'. The pattern you just described was the same all over the European map, clearly showing that things took a turn hand in hand with the shift in the machinations of global economics. The third world immigration functioned in the way i described in my very first post. Not to be efficent, beneficial or good for the country and our people but by for the big industries. If you don't think so then take a look at how things actually have changed. Almost every other job today is offered through companies offering temporary workers like manpower, this way a company doesn't have to hire anyone permanently but can pick, choose and get rid of people at will. At the same time this serves a political gain as well, since the people who are moving around in these temp worker companies makes the jpb market seem strong on-paper.

    Another interesting thing to take note of in the last 10 years or so. Is that corporations have begun moving around in the world wherever they happen to make most profit. Namely in countries where the social contracts are so poor that benefit and wages are at the lowest possible rate. Alot of our former producers are now in places like China and India. Of course we are stuck with a huge immigration populace and a shortage of jobs as a consequence, but that's not an issue as long as corporations can simply move around. Sooner or later our wages and benefits will have to compete with cheapers countries just to get companies to move in. All this kind of shuffling of people and industries are just for the sake of economics, only not for the benefit of you and me. There is alot hidden behind ideologies that seem to be one thing but really serving another purpose.

  10. #10
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, February 14th, 2012 @ 09:53 AM
    Ethnicity
    Frisian
    Ancestry
    Predominately Frisian
    Country
    Frisia Frisia
    State
    Frisia Frisia
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Religion
    none
    Posts
    165
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dvergr View Post
    Fortunately the US isn't accepting immigration as "charity" like in Europe and we are deporting illegals at the highest rate ever in American history. As well, we also pretty much have never given any of these people citizenship, many which are being deported now lived here for like 10 years are so. The bottom line is as bad as immigration still is and was in the US, we seem to have gotten ourselves together in a way.

    We got a lot of countryside here in the US to go to, because all the immigrants to go large cities anyhow. Montana is about the same size as Sweden with 8 million less people. We still have a lot of retreat land in America with a harsh immigration policy, what does Europe have ?
    The USA also accepts asylum seekers, and refugees. The USA gets more immigrants than any other country every year, and thanks to the the 1965 immigration reform act, those immigrants are primarily non-European.

    The USA has elevated Blacks to a sacred level, and they have been exploding in numbers as well, due to welfare breeding programs. Dear President Reagan gave many illegal Mexicans amnesty and nearly every President since him has followed in his footsteps making illegals citizens to pander more votes.

    The USA is also the only country I know of that gives citizenship to anyone born on its soil regardless of the immigration status of the parents. The USA receives plenty of birth tourism, 3rd worlders that go to the USA specifically to have babies that they can inturn use as an anchor to move the whole family there.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 24th, 2018, 09:38 PM
  2. 1700 'Stateless Refugees' to Receive Citizenship
    By Sindig_og_stoisk in forum Denmark
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011, 02:55 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 29th, 2009, 04:45 PM
  4. Replies: 54
    Last Post: Thursday, August 14th, 2008, 12:20 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •