"Jihadist Trojan horses are flowing through the porous border along with the tens of thousands ID-less refugees. But what makes me the most pessimistic about Sweden’s future is how the social fabric itself has been undermined."
If the "social fabric" of a country amounts to it's prior ethnic homogeneity, then decrying it's unraveling amounts to being scared of people coming from the outside. People which, in the case of Sweden, also tend to have a darker skin tone than the average citizen 50 years ago. This, in conjunction with the suggestion that Muslim immigrants tend to be "Jihadist Trojan horses" makes it a very thinly veiled Islamophobic piece.
"Statistik från årsredovisningen som släpps i dag visar att endast tio procent initialt har godkända id-handlingar som godkänds av verket."
Only 10% had ID which were approved on the first go around. It's not clear what portion of the 90% had "no ID" and what portion merely had insufficient ID on their first attempt. Your reading would make it seem like ALL of these immigrants are shady characters out of a cartoon, trying to fake their way into the country.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of them threw IDs away, so they can claim they are coming from war regions and seek asylum, instead of being just another part of economic migration (like many people from north Africa/middle east actively try).
I don't blame them, if I would be so desperate, this would be a logical step. The big moral question that opinions differ so much on is: should we in Europe try to help all of them at all costs, even if millions will come?
Personally, I wouldn't mind sharing my resources, if the person I share it with will respect rules I set and learn to speak the language I speak. If not, goodbye.
To be trite and cliche: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your claims make a superficially plausible story, but if you are going to base your moral decisions on something, basing them on these unsubstantiated claims is circular reasoning.
Why do you personally get to set the rules? Vote for people that support the rules that you believe in, but thinking that you can play cultural imperialist, dictating how people should act and what language they should speak, is frankly egotistical.
Assuming you're not trolling; the whole bit about immigrants is textbook xenophobia, couched in code words. The author uses the word "immigrants", but they don't use it mean all non-Swedish people from any other country. "Immigrants" in this context means the poor, dirty and lazy people of whatever country it's popular to hate at the moment. They're probably brown-skinned or at least non-Aryan.
Comments
Where is he "judging people by the color of their skin"? Exactly what is xenophobic in this post?
Did you miss these lines?
"Jihadist Trojan horses are flowing through the porous border along with the tens of thousands ID-less refugees. But what makes me the most pessimistic about Sweden’s future is how the social fabric itself has been undermined."
If the "social fabric" of a country amounts to it's prior ethnic homogeneity, then decrying it's unraveling amounts to being scared of people coming from the outside. People which, in the case of Sweden, also tend to have a darker skin tone than the average citizen 50 years ago. This, in conjunction with the suggestion that Muslim immigrants tend to be "Jihadist Trojan horses" makes it a very thinly veiled Islamophobic piece.
It is true that 9 out of 10 that applies for Asylum in Sweden have no ID.
Source: http://www.svd.se/nio-av-tio-saknar-id-handling
Nope, that's a willful misreading:
"Statistik från årsredovisningen som släpps i dag visar att endast tio procent initialt har godkända id-handlingar som godkänds av verket."
Only 10% had ID which were approved on the first go around. It's not clear what portion of the 90% had "no ID" and what portion merely had insufficient ID on their first attempt. Your reading would make it seem like ALL of these immigrants are shady characters out of a cartoon, trying to fake their way into the country.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of them threw IDs away, so they can claim they are coming from war regions and seek asylum, instead of being just another part of economic migration (like many people from north Africa/middle east actively try).
I don't blame them, if I would be so desperate, this would be a logical step. The big moral question that opinions differ so much on is: should we in Europe try to help all of them at all costs, even if millions will come?
Personally, I wouldn't mind sharing my resources, if the person I share it with will respect rules I set and learn to speak the language I speak. If not, goodbye.
To be trite and cliche: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your claims make a superficially plausible story, but if you are going to base your moral decisions on something, basing them on these unsubstantiated claims is circular reasoning.
Why do you personally get to set the rules? Vote for people that support the rules that you believe in, but thinking that you can play cultural imperialist, dictating how people should act and what language they should speak, is frankly egotistical.
Assuming you're not trolling; the whole bit about immigrants is textbook xenophobia, couched in code words. The author uses the word "immigrants", but they don't use it mean all non-Swedish people from any other country. "Immigrants" in this context means the poor, dirty and lazy people of whatever country it's popular to hate at the moment. They're probably brown-skinned or at least non-Aryan.