Denmark has become the first European country to revoke the residency permits of Syrian refugees

[Former President tack50]

I'm kind of a bit bemused by the fact of accusing pro-immigration sentiment being followed in the very next paragraph by judgement on Syrian refugees made on the basis of what they may "contribute" or not.

It may surprise you, but most support for refugees during the crisis was motivated by a sense of empathy with the rather horrific plight that they were facing; not some desire to flood Europe with the cheap labour that the refugees are apparently not even doing anyway.

I mean one thing does not cancel the other. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" as they say. I don't doubt that most in the pro immigrant side of the isssue genuinely do so because of a sense of empathy and what not; I would not doubt the good intentions and good faith there.

I think ingemann's concern is with what some call the "caviar left" and what not (ie the pro-immigrant people who happen to live in wealthy areas with very little to no immigrants).

However, it is worth noting (especially given the accusations of "neoliberalism") that Middle Eastern immigrants in European countries are very clearly a net burden for the state and the society. Higher crime rates, higher unemployment rates, higher welfare usage, etc. What is it to like about these immigrants as a group?

The ironic thing about the accusations of "neoliberalism" is that the economic and criminality calculus dictates that immigrants should be not accepted/ kicked out* (whether an economic calculus like that is a left wing or right wing calculus I'll leave it to the imagination of the reader. It is probably a "nationalist" calculus for what is worth.)

<sup>*: Does not apply in your case obviously but it is worth noting this same calculus in the US dictates they should stay as immigrants to the US do have better indicators on these issues than the native populations.

Whether it is because of American society being more open and doing things better; the immigrants themselves being culturally closer (Central America, while very different culturally is still much closer to the US than Syria is to Denmark) or most likely a mix of both; is an open questi0on.</sup>

[CumbrianLefty]

Populists: "I don't hate immigrants and refugees; I just have ~concerns~ about integration. They can stay as long as they integrate, learn the language, get jobs, and learn and respect the local customs"

Refugees/Immigrants: *integrate despite the constant roadblocks being put in their path by politicians performatively being TOUGH ON IMMIGRANTS to win votes and scapegoat others for domestic issues they are unable or unwilling to solve*

Populists: "Haha just kidding! Send them back anyways"

Just because you and your ilk want to make all of Europe into a neoliberal hellscape doesn't mean the population will accept it lying down.

Why do you think I'm a neoliberal? Immigrants getting jobs and becoming part of a new country is "neoliberalism" now?

"Neoliberalism" is whatever the person saying it doesn't like, and the more they don't like it the more neoliberaler it is.

It does actually have a real - and highly pertinent to our times - meaning.

Which makes its reduction to a virtually meaningless reverse virtue signaller all the more regrettable.

[parochial boy]

I mean one thing does not cancel the other. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" as they say. I don't doubt that most in the pro immigrant side of the isssue genuinely do so because of a sense of empathy and what not; I would not doubt the good intentions and good faith there.

I think ingemann's concern is with what some call the "caviar left" and what not (ie the pro-immigrant people who happen to live in wealthy areas with very little to no immigrants).

However, it is worth noting (especially given the accusations of "neoliberalism") that Middle Eastern immigrants in European countries are very clearly a net burden for the state and the society. Higher crime rates, higher unemployment rates, higher welfare usage, etc. What is it to like about these immigrants as a group?

The ironic thing about the accusations of "neoliberalism" is that the economic and criminality calculus dictates that immigrants should be not accepted/ kicked out* (whether an economic calculus like that is a left wing or right wing calculus I'll leave it to the imagination of the reader. It is probably a "nationalist" calculus for what is worth.)

Yeah, I mean, I don't doubt that there very definitely are people whose attitude to immigration is entirely formed on some sort of "will it help the national economy basis". What rankled with Clarko and me was ingemann's apparent accusation that any pro-immigration attitude could only possibly be premised on that motivation rather than anything else.

Bu, as clarko said, it is particularly rankling to be treated as some sort of out of touch caviar leftist who has no idea what you are talking about when immigration is actually part of your own story. I mean, just as an example, being a child and needing to be given "permission" just to even stay in the only country that has ever been your home is actually quite a humiliating experience and is very obviously going to form how you feel about this sort of issue. I have had it easy, because I am white, and completely integrated so that nobody would ever know I had a foreign background unless I tell them - but I still have enough experience of what it is like to be a foreigner, grew up playing with my Cameroonian, Algerian, Moroccan neighbours, to be able to imagine how it would be for someone without the advantages that I have. So to be accused of being some ivory tower out of touch leftist who thinks diversity is a nice thing but never lives it, is infuriating because it is someone who had no idea what it is like projecting a load of their prejudices on to me, when I do actually know what it is like.

As for the rest, remember that the North Africans in Belgium and France; the Turks in Germany etc were originally explicitely invited in to cover a labour shortage in the post-war years and participated massively in the (re-)construction of those countries. So they have been a massive positive overall. The situation of how well integrated they may or may not be these days is actually a lot more complicated than people ever really want to make out.

For refugees, well that is a different question as the issue is never about the cost v benefit. I dare say that most people would agree that people living in conflict situations have a right to seek asylum and be accepted as refugees. Even if you personally don't, bare in mind that people who are pro-refugees do. In that respect, we have an ongoing major civil war in Syria that has displaced millions of people - and the principle way we have dealt with this is by forcing them into abominable living conditions in camps in Lebanon or Turkey.

That is, because we don't want to have to deal with the minor inconvenience of taking in refugees, we have forced already unstable countries with far less available resources than us to be the ones dealing with the millions of people fleeing violence.

That's the basic problem, in so far as we think that our wealth and power means we can just wash our hands of what is going on in the rest of the world, and let other countries deal with it just because they don't have the resources that we do. So yes, refugees will be a "net burden" (although in the long term clearly not, even European countries have a long history of very succesfully integrating waves of refugees), but as long as there are going to be the conditions that create refugees, then they are going to be a burden somewhere - and it seems pretty wrong that the societies with the broadest shoulders are actually the ones that don't have to share any of that burden.

[Alcibiades]

Something that often occurs to me when these debates arise (and I hate to go all ‘Greatest Generation’, but maybe speaking to anti-refugee types in their own language will cut through more), but Germany mostly successfully absorbed around 12 million ethnic German refugees who had been expelled from or had fled Eastern Europe after the end of World War II. And this was a country which was facing almost total ruin. Yes, these refugees spoke the same language, but they initially by and large occupied a low socioeconomic status and certainly took some integrating. So I think it’s rather pathetic when modern day, wealthy European countries complain about having to take in a few tens of thousands of Syrian refugees.

[Omega21]

Something that often occurs to me when these debates arise (and I hate to go all ‘Greatest Generation’, but maybe speaking to anti-refugee types in their own language will cut through more), but Germany mostly successfully absorbed around 12 million ethnic German refugees who had been expelled from or had fled Eastern Europe after the end of World War II. And this was a country which was facing almost total ruin. Yes, these refugees spoke the same language, but they initially by and large occupied a low socioeconomic status and certainly took some integrating. So I think it’s rather pathetic when modern day, wealthy European countries complain about having to take in a few tens of thousands of Syrian refugees.

Yes, people moving from Mississippi to New York need to be "integrated".

Lol

[Alcibiades]

Something that often occurs to me when these debates arise (and I hate to go all ‘Greatest Generation’, but maybe speaking to anti-refugee types in their own language will cut through more), but Germany mostly successfully absorbed around 12 million ethnic German refugees who had been expelled from or had fled Eastern Europe after the end of World War II. And this was a country which was facing almost total ruin. Yes, these refugees spoke the same language, but they initially by and large occupied a low socioeconomic status and certainly took some integrating. So I think it’s rather pathetic when modern day, wealthy European countries complain about having to take in a few tens of thousands of Syrian refugees.

Yes, people moving from Mississippi to New York need to be "integrated".

Lol

That is a ridiculous comparison. It was a massive upheaval; these refugees were extremely distressed and often had been cut off from the reality of life within Germany for centuries. As I said, the sheer number and economic situation means that, despite greater cultural similarities, the challenge of absorbing them was far greater than doing so for the kinds of numbers of Syrians most European nations have taken in.

[Omega21]

Something that often occurs to me when these debates arise (and I hate to go all ‘Greatest Generation’, but maybe speaking to anti-refugee types in their own language will cut through more), but Germany mostly successfully absorbed around 12 million ethnic German refugees who had been expelled from or had fled Eastern Europe after the end of World War II. And this was a country which was facing almost total ruin. Yes, these refugees spoke the same language, but they initially by and large occupied a low socioeconomic status and certainly took some integrating. So I think it’s rather pathetic when modern day, wealthy European countries complain about having to take in a few tens of thousands of Syrian refugees.

Yes, people moving from Mississippi to New York need to be "integrated".

Lol

That is a ridiculous comparison. It was a massive upheaval; these refugees were extremely distressed and often had been cut off from the reality of life within Germany for centuries. As I said, the sheer number and economic situation means that, despite greater cultural similarities, the challenge of absorbing them was far greater than doing so for the kinds of numbers of Syrians most European nations have taken in.

You seem to have a very weird concept that people from, say, Königsberg or Danzig were uneducated and poor.
 
They were not. They were as educated, as wealthy, and as German as anyone from Berlin.

Plus, they came at a time when the workforce was desperately needed, due to the millions of dead young men.

Also, they did not live off of benefits but were able to work from day 1, i.e. from the day they got a position offered.

Someone who cannot even speak the language, cannot get a job in any circumstance, even if he is legally able to.

[Alcibiades]

Something that often occurs to me when these debates arise (and I hate to go all ‘Greatest Generation’, but maybe speaking to anti-refugee types in their own language will cut through more), but Germany mostly successfully absorbed around 12 million ethnic German refugees who had been expelled from or had fled Eastern Europe after the end of World War II. And this was a country which was facing almost total ruin. Yes, these refugees spoke the same language, but they initially by and large occupied a low socioeconomic status and certainly took some integrating. So I think it’s rather pathetic when modern day, wealthy European countries complain about having to take in a few tens of thousands of Syrian refugees.

Yes, people moving from Mississippi to New York need to be "integrated".

Lol

That is a ridiculous comparison. It was a massive upheaval; these refugees were extremely distressed and often had been cut off from the reality of life within Germany for centuries. As I said, the sheer number and economic situation means that, despite greater cultural similarities, the challenge of absorbing them was far greater than doing so for the kinds of numbers of Syrians most European nations have taken in.

You seem to have a very weird concept that people from, say, Königsberg or Danzig were uneducated and poor.
 
They were not. They were as educated, as wealthy, and as German as anyone from Berlin.

Plus, they came at a time when the workforce was desperately needed, due to the millions of dead young men.

Also, they did not live off of benefits but were able to work from day 1, i.e. from the day they got a position offered.

Someone who cannot even speak the language, cannot get a job in any circumstance, even if he is legally able to.

Regardless of their background, they encountered difficulties when they came (just like, say, a Syrian doctor might) (as they were ‘back of the queue’ behind native-born Germans), e.g. in finding housing, and were the focus of resentment from many Germans with whom they were competing. Their situation did not fully resolve itself until the economic miracle.

Anyway, my intention is not to get into a debate over the historical details of German expellees; rather, my point was that taking in 33,000 Syrian refugees is certainly something that Denmark is more than capable of doing. Where there’s a will, there’s a way, and quite frankly a number as small as that does not require a very big will.

[Omega21]

Regardless of their background, they encountered difficulties when they came (just like, say, a Syrian doctor might) (as they were ‘back of the queue’ behind native-born Germans), e.g. in finding housing, and were the focus of resentment from many Germans with whom they were competing. Their situation did not fully resolve itself until the economic miracle.

Anyway, my intention is not to get into a debate over the historical details of German expellees; rather, my point was that taking in 33,000 Syrian refugees is certainly something that Denmark is more than capable of doing. Where there’s a will, there’s a way, and quite frankly a number as small as that does not require a very big will.

That is the whole point.

People knew what they were voting for. So, the "will" is probably not there.

[It’s so Joever]

Honestly, it’s so ironic to listen to a guy from a damn country that leeches off of NATO funding complain about Syrian refugees “leeching” off the system.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

[Santander]

In a legitimate refugee crisis scenario (e.g. ethnic cleansing, genocide), I think European countries should all embrace burden sharing, as it's unfair to place such a large burden on frontier states for something they had little to nothing to do with and cannot possibly handle alone. But the vast majority of refugees are not refugees at all, and are migrants who have no intention of returning home permanently when conditions improve. They have no intention of assimilating into Western society, either.

Assad's government is the legitimate government of Syria, and people do not become refugees just because the economy or government sucks.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Assad's government is the legitimate government of Syria, and people do not become refugees just because the economy or government sucks.

Well, there's been a war on, you see.

I, like Clarko95, have worked with refugees pretty extensively, and I think this idea that any TRUE and HONEST refugee will be jumping at the chance to go back to their country of origin once conditions have improved enough* is honestly just as naive as is the idea that mass population movements are an unalloyed good thing because muh taco trucks.

The idea mooted on the previous page that supporting relatively-laxer immigration policies automatically makes someone "a neoliberal", irrespective of the person's other views or political orientation taken as a whole, is, of course, deranged.

*according to the host government

[ingemann]

Something that often occurs to me when these debates arise (and I hate to go all ‘Greatest Generation’, but maybe speaking to anti-refugee types in their own language will cut through more), but Germany mostly successfully absorbed around 12 million ethnic German refugees who had been expelled from or had fled Eastern Europe after the end of World War II. And this was a country which was facing almost total ruin. Yes, these refugees spoke the same language, but they initially by and large occupied a low socioeconomic status and certainly took some integrating. So I think it’s rather pathetic when modern day, wealthy European countries complain about having to take in a few tens of thousands of Syrian refugees.

If someone invade Jutland and ethnic cleansed everything south of Fredericia, we would take all those refugees and if a million Swedish refugees arrived we would also take them (through we wouldn't be happy about it). Syrians aren't part of our nation or nearby neighbors. They're a alien people we share no history or culture with.

[ingemann]

Honestly, it’s so ironic to listen to a guy from a damn country that leeches off of NATO funding complain about Syrian refugees “leeching” off the system.

We also fish herrings, we're such a bunch of fiends, maybe we could learn something from USA and start putting Syrian children in cages.

[ingemann]

In a legitimate refugee crisis scenario (e.g. ethnic cleansing, genocide), I think European countries should all embrace burden sharing, as it's unfair to place such a large burden on frontier states for something they had little to nothing to do with and cannot possibly handle alone. But the vast majority of refugees are not refugees at all, and are migrants who have no intention of returning home permanently when conditions improve. They have no intention of assimilating into Western society, either.

Assad's government is the legitimate government of Syria, and people do not become refugees just because the economy or government sucks.

I must admit the fact that MENA refugees including Syrians tend to travel on vacations in their homelands which are so unsafe that they can't return there, have done little to convince me that it's a bad idea to return them.

I would also say if these refugees tended to be Yezidi, Assyrian, Druze or Syriac instead of a bunch of Sunni Muslim I would also be much more convinced of their refugee status and be far more hostile to send them home, because while Yezidi may be as cultural different as Sunni Muslims, they're clearly persecuted and while they would likely not be especially well functioning in our society, at least we wouldn't need to worry about terrorism toward us from their side.

[ingemann]

Assad's government is the legitimate government of Syria, and people do not become refugees just because the economy or government sucks.

Well, there's been a war on, you see.

I, like Clarko95, have worked with refugees pretty extensively, and I think this idea that any TRUE and HONEST refugee will be jumping at the chance to go back to their country of origin once conditions have improved enough* is honestly just as naive as is the idea that mass population movements are an unalloyed good thing because muh taco trucks.

I'm fully aware that refugees don't return on their own, but that was one of the many lies told about Syrian refugees in 2015.

The idea mooted on the previous page that supporting relatively-laxer immigration policies automatically makes someone "a neoliberal", irrespective of the person's other views or political orientation taken as a whole, is, of course, deranged.

*according to the host government

I don't think people who support a relative-laxer immigration policy are neoliberals(relative being the key term), I think people who always want a exceptions are de facto open borders and are just political savvy enough to know that it's a losing argument to make, so they keep finding some tearjerking story to use.

I myself think that Denmark should take more UN quota refugees in, and Denmark have in fact increased the number under this government. Of course those refugees have this years been Congonese and Burundians from refugee camps in Rwanda. We don't expect these refugees to ever return.

[Lord Halifax]

Assad's government is the legitimate government of Syria, and people do not become refugees just because the economy or government sucks.

Well, there's been a war on, you see.

I, like Clarko95, have worked with refugees pretty extensively, and I think this idea that any TRUE and HONEST refugee will be jumping at the chance to go back to their country of origin once conditions have improved enough* is honestly just as naive as is the idea that mass population movements are an unalloyed good thing because muh taco trucks.

The problem is that if refugees don't go back to their country of origin they become immigrants, and if they have asylum in countries that either don't want immigration or don't want immigration from e.g. Muslim countries (and let's face it Muslim immigration is considered undesirable in nearly all non-Muslim countries with Arab Muslims being viewed as a particularly problematic group due to perceived security risks) that's a form of forced immigration which ultimately could lead to countries dropping out of the international asylum system.

Ideally refugees that can't or won't go back should be redistributed to countries that are either culturally close to their country of origin (or at least have the same core religion since changing that particular balance generally causes the most backlash) or large multiethnic countries like the US or Brazil that can better absorb them, but that would require the political will to do so (I mean the US should probably take at least 3 mio. international refugees a year for the system to work..). I don't have a solution to this, but the current system doesn't work and you have to recognize that a lot of countries view permanent integration of refugees from "undesirable groups" just because they ended up in the country as fundamentally unacceptable and if the international community insists on saying they have to the logical next step will be to stop giving asylum in the first place.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Syrians aren't part of our nation or nearby neighbors. They're a alien people we share no history or culture with.

This is some Jimmie Åkesson sh**t. Culture is something that is taught, it's not innate.

[ingemann]

Syrians aren't part of our nation or nearby neighbors. They're a alien people we share no history or culture with.

This is some Jimmie Åkesson sh**t. Culture is something that is taught, it's not innate.

Which you have clearly been so successful at, which is why I know who Åkesson is and why he's relevant in Swedish politics. I don't believe in importing problems, and the failure of Europe at assimilate or integrate Sunni Muslim MENAPs is a good reason not to import more of them.

[CumbrianLefty]

What are the actual stats on how many refugees ultimately return to their countries of origin should the conditions apply to do so?

[It’s so Joever]

Honestly, it’s so ironic to listen to a guy from a damn country that leeches off of NATO funding complain about Syrian refugees “leeching” off the system.

We also fish herrings, we're such a bunch of fiends, maybe we could learn something from USA and start putting Syrian children in cages.

Dude, y’all are sending back children to a practical war zone because you can’t handle a few thousand people who look slightly different from you and speak funny.
Don’t even talk. Just accept your country is full of a bunch of hypocrites.

[Omega21]

Honestly, it’s so ironic to listen to a guy from a damn country that leeches off of NATO funding complain about Syrian refugees “leeching” off the system.

We also fish herrings, we're such a bunch of fiends, maybe we could learn something from USA and start putting Syrian children in cages.

Dude, y’all are sending back children to a practical war zone because you can’t handle a few thousand people who look slightly different from you and speak funny.
Don’t even talk. Just accept your country is full of a bunch of hypocrites.

'

At least they don't let their people die from insulin rationing.

Just accept it, you can't even pay for your own citizens' well-being.

And this is nothing aimed at you. I'm just pointing out the kind of issues the US has providing basics to Americans, so, when commenting about other countries' goodwill to help  someone, it should be kept in mind.

[It’s so Joever]

Honestly, it’s so ironic to listen to a guy from a damn country that leeches off of NATO funding complain about Syrian refugees “leeching” off the system.

We also fish herrings, we're such a bunch of fiends, maybe we could learn something from USA and start putting Syrian children in cages.

Dude, y’all are sending back children to a practical war zone because you can’t handle a few thousand people who look slightly different from you and speak funny.
Don’t even talk. Just accept your country is full of a bunch of hypocrites.

'

At least they don't let their people die from insulin rationing.

Just accept it, you can't even pay for your own citizens' well-being.

Yeah, we suck.
I don’t claim America to be a place of good people.

Now go back to sucking up to Putin.

[Omega21]

Honestly, it’s so ironic to listen to a guy from a damn country that leeches off of NATO funding complain about Syrian refugees “leeching” off the system.

We also fish herrings, we're such a bunch of fiends, maybe we could learn something from USA and start putting Syrian children in cages.

Dude, y’all are sending back children to a practical war zone because you can’t handle a few thousand people who look slightly different from you and speak funny.
Don’t even talk. Just accept your country is full of a bunch of hypocrites.

'

At least they don't let their people die from insulin rationing.

Just accept it, you can't even pay for your own citizens' well-being.

Yeah, we suck.
I don’t claim America to be a place of good people.

Now go back to sucking up to Putin.

Why do you think I support an almost literal dictator?

And that's why I said what I said.

Denmark provided, free of charge: housing, education, money, and healthcare to these people for years. America cannot provide these for even its own citizens, so it's kind of hypocritical for it to take any sort of moral high ground. The statement that there is no war in most of Syria is factually true. I too do not think the time is right yet (see post above), and I would have preferred an option to stay for well-integrated individuals, but that's a decision for the Danish people to make.