Math question for Morgan
If the U.S.A., China, U.K., Germany, or France were to receive the same amount of immigrants as Sweden is expecting in 2015, adjusted for their population size, how many immigrants would they be taking in?
- U.S.A. – 319,077,000 x 0.01 = 3,190,770
- China – 1,355,000,000 x 0.01 = 13,550,000
- U.K. – 63,182,000 x 0.01 = 631,820
- Germany – 80,219,695 x 0.01 = 802,196
- France – 66,394,000 x 0.01 = 663,940
Social science question for Morgan
If Obama said to the New York Times that the U.S.A. was to receive 3,190,770 immigrants in 2015 coming mainly from Syria, Eritrea, Not sure, Somalia, and Afghanistan how would his constituents react? If he then argued that that the American people need to see the immigrants as an asset instead of a liability despite the fact that Americans need to pay for the forementioneds accommodation, food, education and welfare over the next few years where would his political career be?
If you succeed in answering the previous questions the following should be easy. If Obama also threatened states that refuse to accept assets, in the form of immigrants, with economic sanctions how long would it take before mass protests are organized outside of the White House?
Hypothetical scenarios aside, lets take a look at Sweden, where the forementioned was done without a referendum.
Our population consists of 9 728 498 people as of September 2014
In 2013-2014 the main countries of origin for immigrants who applied for asylum in Sweden were:
- Syria – 38 060
- Eritrea – 14 489
- “Stateless” – 12 533 (Stateless = No ID / Kurdistan / Palestine)
- Somalia – 7267
- Afghanistan – 5024
The migration-industry is booming in Sweden and several people who work at the government institutions that handle the applications have been tried and convicted of corruption. Strangely enough none of these individuals seem to be “ethnic” Swedes, judging by their last names.
Clearly this industry demands migrant labour. Your average blonde and blue eyed Swede does not speak Somali or Arabic. Which does not mean that we should draw the conclusion that non-Swedes or immigrants are more corrupt for that is simply not true. Corruption occurs everywhere and is due to a human innate desire to make money, fast, not due to skin color or origin.
Critics will argue that an isolated incident doesn’t mean its widespread but I would argue that is more likely than not that corruption is more widespread in the migration sector due to the enormous strain it is under and the money involved.
This means that immigrants are incentivised to pay criminal smugglers large sums of money to transport them to the welfare-paradise in the North. When they arrive they are faced with former-immigrants and ethnic-Swedes who process their application.
Regardless of wether you are a refugee, immigrant or Martian it would be very strange if you weren’t willing to pay a lot of money to gain asylum in the most generous welfare-state in the world. Hence Swedish corruption becomes a relatively new (?) phenomenon further diminishing our trust in the government and wrecking our reputation as the “perfect” middle-ground between capitalism and socialism.
I sound highly critical of immigrants and/or refugees but that is not true. I believe that we ought to give people a dignified life. Ghetto life and inhumane asylum homes is, perhaps, not the way to go. The problem is that the Swedish media and government uses the term “paperless” as a synonym for illegal immigrants and only a small amount of the so-called “refugees” are considered refugees by U.N. standards. It sounds odd but to take an example: all Syrians are granted refugee status even if they have been living outside of Syria and aren’t affected by the violence there.
The reason that the politicians and media are doing this is a misguided perception that they are being benevolent and showing equality, openness, *insert liberal adjective*. Swedes are not innately better or more generous than anyone else, they have just been brainwashed for so long by the media that they are simply not wholly informed of the extent and costs.
Using the term refugee for those who aren’t is simply cruel and immoral to all the men and women fleeing the terror and horror being perpetrated by the Islamic State. Ironically if a mere 10% of immigrants coming to Sweden are “real” refugees, according to U.N. standards, and this is extrapolated to the 2015 prediction it entails that 10 000 “real” refugees will be indirectly punished by Swedens overly-generous migration policies. Why?
Because Swedes will perceive the majority of immigrants as not being refugees hence causing the “real” ones to be guilty by association in the primitive minds of human beings. To make things worse when voices are raised to seriously reform the migration industry the “real” refugees will be outraged and protest loudly in the media whilst the crooks pretending to be refugees are silent. This further increases the brooding tension between ethnic and non-ethnic Swedes.
We are in for a wild ride.
- Did a translators mistake influence Swedish society? – here
- Swedish-English dictionary for politically correct terminology – here
- Are Swedes becoming a minority in their own country? – here
- Is the Swedish government infiltrated by Islamists? – here
- Are Swedish politicians forcing taxpayers to rehabilitate Islamists? – here