WW3 inbounddd

[shubla]

That's the idea! Taking them not to ruin our "cool countries", but to integrate them, eventually turning them into useful citizens just like anyone else.

They have no intentions whatsoever to even attempt integration. So far all the results have been bad. They cause a lot more problems than ordinary citizens. They wont get employed. They cost a shit-ton of money every year. Chances are that they are unable to integrate as well even if they tried. If they come from areas they have lots of traumas they need lots of support which costs money which we cannot afford to offer into millions of refugees. They have physical and mental health issues. They cost a lot of money to treat. Government of Finland is already in big debts gaining more each year. We cannot afford to pretend to be some kind of Jesus giving bread and healing to some random sand-people in africa. noo

In Finland, majority of refugees that came here 15 years ago are still not employed. And even those few who do get some job, its not doctors or engineers which they are. Its shitty job which gives small revenue to the government. Sometimes in newspapers they say that well-educated people are coming and they are ready to do work. Some of them might be doctors for sure, but those are just few, few individuals.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

In Finland, majority of refugees that came here 15 years ago are still not employed.

Care to share that source?

[shubla]

In Finland, majority of refugees that came here 15 years ago are still not employed.

Care to share that source?

http://www.hs.fi/talous/art-2000005139833.html
Obviously its in Finnish.
It actually does not only include refugees but immigrants in general. Rates for refugees are vastly different. (They are even less employed, no need for sources to prove that)

[Robben_DuMarsch]

In Finland, majority of refugees that came here 15 years ago are still not employed.

Care to share that source?

http://www.hs.fi/talous/art-2000005139833.html
Obviously its in Finnish.
It actually does not only include refugees but immigrants in general. Rates for refugees are vastly different. (They are even less employed, no need for sources to prove that)

Here's the underlying source that the article is discussing:
http://vatt.fi/documents/2956369/420757 ... 5b536d6ae2

Clearly, there is force to your argument that granting Asylum to individuals has a drain on your social resources, and unemployment has historically been low for people that have been granted asylum from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia.
I lulz that OECD immigrants use roughly half of public benefits that natives use

I agree that the United States should shoulder the burden of accepting more of these migrants. We don't really have very much of a social service system to be burdened by them. They would get a a few hundred dollars of food stamps a month, a few months of free housing, and some medical treatment now and again.

I don't think we can reach the point where we throw any society building out of the window, however, and hold our flags up and start yelling about "survival of the fittest" - To do so would be to ignore the clear societal benefit that we *all* reap with things like free public education, etc. I understand there can be healthy debate about where to draw the line, but I personally believe that a world where we all agree to accept people in need of political asylum is a better one than where we refuse to do so in order to eliminate the small cost of providing that benefit.

[bluebooksky]

I think the bombings where a political stunt. I way to tell the public "look they gassed civilians again! Trump was strong! he did something! Obama weak! did Nothing!"
If Trump really cared about Syria gassing people why did he leave the runway alone? planes cant fly without a runway.

[viznew]

i think its been planned by military leaders long before the gasing was just the right opportunity and trump is kinda weak minded easy to push him to limit, its kinda a test imo to see how syrias allies whould react seemed like a successful test to me and still more information coming in daily, the old poke and watch for reaction is a classic

[shubla]

Clearly, there is force to your argument that granting Asylum to individuals has a drain on your social resources

One of the many reasons why they should just be sent back to their country, or even better. Not even let in the first place.


If you really want to integrate to society, you are not unemployed after 15 years.
Maybe you change your mind when refugees invade your backyard.

I lulz that OECD immigrants use roughly half of public benefits that natives use

What are you talking about.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

I lulz that OECD immigrants use roughly half of public benefits that natives use

What are you talking about.

Source: http://vatt.fi/documents/2956369/420757 ... 5b536d6ae2
Pages 11,18-19

"That is, native households collected more benefits, on average, than immigrants from the OECD countries
and immigrants from “other” countries despite their higher average earnings. The
most likely reason is that the natives are older and more often entitled to benefits
determined by earlier earnings. "



More information is necessary to draw a definitive conclusion, but it appears that there is preliminary evidence that OECD immigrants are probably propping up Finland's native earners in the economy by filling in bottom rung/less desirable jobs but still earning enough to not consume much in the way of social resources. Most of these people are probably receiving their education and the majority (or full) expense of being developed into contributing members of society by other nations, before heading over to Finland where they enter the work force, where they qualify for (and require) less benefits for a variety of reasons.

Of course, that seems to not be true of other nations. I would speculate that is because migrants from other nations have language issues and likely received substandard (or virtually no) education from their respective governments. For example, Somalia has a literacy rate of only 37.8% (not including anyone 14 or younger), and I'd imagine that would be somewhat lower for the class of people forced to flee the country as asylum seekers.

Amazingly, Unesco reports that Afghanistan has an even lower literacy rate of 31%. As Somalia has literally no defacto central government (it's getting there after internationa intervention), it's actually amazing that Afghanistan manages to be even lower (I'd imagine that the serious taboo against the education of women is largely responsible).

For reference, OECD countries have a 98.27% literacy rate on average (it's estimated that the bottom 5% of the IQ bell curve can be considered mentally retarded, so our education systems are so good we render literate almost half of our mentally retarded, who in turn are "more educated" than almost 70% of Afghanistan's residents.)

Food for thought I hope.

[shubla]

Source: http://vatt.fi/documents/2956369/420757 ... 5b536d6ae2
Pages 11,18-19

"That is, native households collected more benefits, on average, than immigrants from the OECD countries
and immigrants from “other” countries despite their higher average earnings. The
most likely reason is that the natives are older and more often entitled to benefits
determined by earlier earnings. "



More information is necessary to draw a definitive conclusion, but it appears that there is preliminary evidence that OECD immigrants are probably propping up Finland's native earners in the economy by filling in bottom rung/less desirable jobs but still earning enough to not consume much in the way of social resources. Most of these people are probably receiving their education and the majority (or full) expense of being developed into contributing members of society by other nations, before heading over to Finland where they enter the work force, where they qualify for (and require) less benefits for a variety of reasons.

Of course, that seems to not be true of other nations. I would speculate that is because migrants from other nations have language issues and likely received substandard (or virtually no) education from their respective governments. For example, Somalia has a literacy rate of only 37.8% (not including anyone 14 or younger), and I'd imagine that would be somewhat lower for the class of people forced to flee the country as asylum seekers.

Amazingly, Unesco reports that Afghanistan has an even lower literacy rate of 31%. As Somalia has literally no defacto central government (it's getting there after internationa intervention), it's actually amazing that Afghanistan manages to be even lower (I'd imagine that the serious taboo against the education of women is largely responsible).

For reference, OECD countries have a 98.27% literacy rate on average (it's estimated that the bottom 5% of the IQ bell curve can be considered mentally retarded, so our education systems are so good we render literate almost half of our mentally retarded, who in turn are "more educated" than almost 70% of Afghanistan's residents.)

Food for thought I hope.[/quote]

Maybe because immigrant from country that is not shit usually is not here to leech, but actually wants to study/work?
If you move from some not-so-bad country, such as Austria. You already have a job or such. This is not the case with these who have issues.
We should only take good ones that have 1. Education and 2. Willingness to work, already a job before they even get in the country.
Of course rich people need less benefits from the government.

These people moving from sand deserts. They are not rich, they are not educated, they are not willing to work or integrate to our society.
They should be just shot if they show up in our border tbh. Would be cheaper.

If you are people with issues, like you are alcoholic. And live in a country like Germany. You simply dont just randomly move to Finland.

[jtpitner]

US would win....