Kanojo, Okarishimasu - Vol. 9 Ch. 69

[EmiYusa]

He delivered it in a nice way, BUT DUDE!

 

[flamewingman]

what's with all the drama in scanlations and the comment.

this scanlations drama reminds me of Satanophani, where the reader rant or something and the scanlation group got triggered and stop the scanlation.

 

[Elbow]

@givemersspls Yeah, Japan should do like here in Sweden and fill the country with migrants from the third world that commit crime and like half of them live on welfare, that will save their economy!

Protip, the only way an immigrant will be beneficial to the host country is if they're a more productive member of society than the average inhabitant, and there's no immigration from any third world country where that is the case. You COULD still benefit from immigration from let's say Africa by only accepting those with professions like doctors and scientists, but that would in turn make the lives worse for those that remain since it would further lower their supply of skilled laborers.

There's literally no good reason for a first-world country to open its borders unless it's seeking self-destruction, and neither have any population who see it happening to their country today been allowed by their political establishment to vote on it.

 

[Batora]

Just swingin by the thread and the first comment I read is just cancer itself as a post.

 

[Shampooh]

>this group is shit for some reason
>we will now proceed not to typeset flashback bubbles nor translate perfectly legible handwritten aside text

Ok.

 

[Elbow]

@givemersspls ''stupid, dumb as shit, dumb as hell, stupid as hell, dumb as fucking shit, so stupid''. If you want to make a point to the other party and seem legit then spamming derogatory words every other second is a pretty poor way to do it, or maybe you got so upset by what I stated that you just couldn't help yourself?

It's entirely possible that you're only intending for the first world to be allowed entry towards Japan, but 99% of the case when someone asks for ''more immigration'' they're usually intending on inviting the third world there, under guises like ''saving our welfare'' when a large part/majority (depending on the country) doesn't work and actually makes things worse. While ethnonationalism certainly has some thing to do with Japanese attitude, if you look at their statistics immigrants like Koreans and Chinese (who aren't even third world countries) are over represented in crime and make out a large part of the Yakuza.

Here in Sweden we've been told since the 1980s that we need huge immigration to save our pensions and welfare, but after 40 years they're now lower than ever. We have 2.4 million foreign born inhabitants here, where less than a million of them have full-time employment with the rest living on the state.

As for your claim that ''you're stupid as hell for thinking that immigrants are the cause of more crime. That's dumb as fucking shit. If you read any actual facts, you'll see that's not true in almost any part of the world.'', that's a blatantly false statement. If you look up crime statistics of ANY first world country you'll see that immigrants are over-represented. For example, here in Sweden 85% of assault rapes are committed by first generation immigrants who are only 24% of the population, and in this group immigrants from places like Finland, Europe, the US and China have been counted in to make it look better, so if you were to only take the third world it'd be even worse. Count in second generation immigrants (who often commit more crime than their first generation parents) and literally 95% of assault rapes in Sweden are committed by people with migrant background. This coincides with a report from the Crime prevention council (BRÅ) which states that certain countries from the MENA-area have a 23 times higher likelihood of committing rape than the indigenous population. If there are any first world country where this isn't the case, that migrants from the third world aren't committing more crime do say and I'll find the statistics for it and further disproof you. Gotta head off to work now but I'll be happy to talk some more about pensions and the effect of importing low-skilled laborers have on the economy.

 

[elfalas]

Situation in sweden for example is a disaster atm, another example is the fact that more than 75% of the people involved in gang-crimes are first-gen immigrants.
Might add that Elbow either forgot to mention or missed that sweden changed their definition of "migrant background" and the 95% number he mentioned is with the new definition, number is actually higher if using the old definition, alot of definitions have been altered in sweden to try cover stuff up.
(Not surprising btw since sweden accept alot of those that wouldn't get accepted anywhere else really, hell there briefly was even talk about giving monetary aid and housing to returning isis fighters even if it didn't go through to become reality.)

Also, there's no cherry-picking of data if he's talking about sweden, only type of crime in sweden where immigrants aint in extreme majority is drunken driving.
Funny sidenote, japanese immigrants in sweden is the only group of immigrants with lower criminality than swedes themselves there, but like most cases of immigration, the gap closes over generations meaning later generations are more and more prone to commit crime until they reach swedish levels. =p
And seriously, wish swedes would doublecheck with the government documents more when hearing government officials say stuff because swedish officials are habitual liars, and the documents are public so it's rather easy to do that and notice most of the time they utter another lie, like for example that they put a stop to the crazy immigration or that immigrants are profitable for sweden..
(They're still accepting another 10k immigrants per month roughly since they said that, and recent numbers for the social aid and other monetary aids and such paid by the government, showed that roughly 70% of the total sum goes to immigrants.. So much for those statements of the officials when checking their own documents.)


Short version: Sweden is currently a hotpot of troubles.
(And I loved the swede that migrated to denmark with reason stated being "I can't stand all the crazy swedes".) =D



Aaaand, returning to the manga, it's kinda nice seeing the shy girl push herself to actually speak, and even go as far as asking something.
Getting used to actually speaking should be helpful in her future no matter what happens, so any step towards that is a good one regardless of what one thinks of this mc.
As for story in general, I find that pushy girl to be interesting and such people can be rather amusing as friends, but I'd prefer not to be their romantic interest.
About Female lead, what I've seen of her behavior have been too influenced by the crazy stuff the mc pulled, so what's been shown didn't really tell as much as I'd prefer, even if perfectly understandable..
Mc really behaved rather crazy towards her so far, making her somewhat unfriendly and cold attitude perfectly understandable aswell as complying to a certain degree like you would a madman in the hope they won't do anything too crazy then. (Even if she's gotten used to him enough to relax and be a bit more herself now.)
That ex, seen too many of such nasties to be honest, thinking too much about themselves and wanting others to suffer more than them or they won't be happy.
(Atleast so far she doesn't seem to be the violent kind, personally I got 30y old burns from one such with a violent streak.)

 

[Elbow]

@givemersspls Agree with some but not everything you've said here. Yes allowing even unskilled labor into the country can boost its economy IF the migrants come from a culture with values compatible to the host nation and depending on how large the welfare state is. For instance the US has a smaller welfare state than Sweden and there 50% of Somalians work, compared to 20% in Sweden where you can live a good life without working, especially if you have a lot of children. It isn't rare that a migrant family with lots of children get more welfare than what a middle-class family with both parents working receive post-tax.

However, this in and of itself isn't inherently desirable since what matters isn't the size of a country's economy but rather its size in comparison to its population. What is important is the quality of the lives of the population living in a country, not if there's 10, 20 or 50 million people with a bigger overall economy. For instance Sweden has a pretty good BNP growth right now, mostly from people being forced to loan more to buy a place to live in our housing bubble but let's for argument's sake assume that this is occurring naturally. But if we then look at the wealth growth per citizen we're actually experiencing the lowest growth in the entirety of the EU right now, thanks to our mass immigration. This isn't to say that the wealth get equally distributed among all inhabitants but this will either lead to a class society with a (real) upper class and a under class with all the segregation and violence that follows or it will even out in the long-run forcing almost everyone into the under class. Either scenario is not very appealing.

But as I said (and you've also said) is that you CAN have beneficial immigration, just that the first generation has to be more productive than your average citizen which isn't happening with third world countries, which is the point I've been trying to make. Unskilled labor can work as well when they come from a similarly developed nation in limited quantities like some of us Swedes moving to Norway where we create more value for the country by working than what we're taking out in the form of welfare, and neither commit more crime than the Norwegians. That's more of an exception than the standard though, and even then if you allow too much unskilled labor to immigrate you'll lower the wages for unskilled labor (since supply will outstrip demand) like what's been happening in the US for the last couple of generations, and you'll also stifle industrialization since companies wont need to modernize when they have cheap labor at their disposal. When it comes to skilled labor from the west though I think we both fully agree that it's beneficial for the nation to let them immigrate. I've always found it kinda ironic particularly in the US that the same people demanding open borders with Mexico are the same people complaining about the minimum wage being too low, you can either have one or the other.

And when it comes to crime and cherry-picking data Elfalas already did a good job answering, here immigrants are over-represented in crime pretty much all across the board with a few exceptions, and are roughly 5 times over-represented when it comes to serious crimes (like rape, murder, robbery). And as I said earlier these statistics have been diluted by mixing third world migrants and immigrants from the west together, so you can be entirely certain that the numbers are far worse than what they're letting on. We're now #1 in the world on car-fires and school-fires and Malmö (the place with the most migrants among our large cities) is the most dangerous city in Europe now.

I'm going to admit that I haven't read the crime statistics for every single country in the entirety of the world. Those I HAVE read though (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Unites States, Germany and to some degree Japan) all show a very red line to which nationalities are committing crimes in their nations to the point when it's becoming the norm rather than the exception. So once again I'll ask you to have your pick of any nation in the west and I will dig up the crime statistics for said nation, and we'll repeat this until you admit that third world migrants are heavily over-represented in crime across the west.

And going back to your earlier post (where I didn't have time to address everything since I had to leave for work) I wanted to agree that Japan is in a shitty situations in regards to their aging population. Thing I wanted to point out though is that it's an inherent flaw of the societies we live in and exponentially increasing immigration (the good kind) would treat the symptoms rather than cure the disease.

The core of the issue is that it is within the state's authority to steal retirement funds from the population. Add to that politicians ambitions only stretch into the near future, they want as many funds to play around with in the here and now as possible and they face zero accountability for any long-term decision they make and this is only going to turn out one way only. EVERY single country in the west has fallen into this trap where politicians are either stealing from taxes intended for their retirement or by increasing national debt, so today instead of us working up a lot of resources for ourselves in the future it's become a pyramid-scheme where we pay the previous generation and bet on there being enough taxes in the future to pay ours as well.

Not convinced I'm telling the truth? Take a look at this https://i.imgur.com/G6xLuWx.jpg

This graph illustrates the numbers of a Swedish middle-class worker having 16% of his income put into taxes to pay for his retirement, over a work-career of 40 years and put into a regular index fund. The end result would be him receiving a retirement of $14~15K a MONTH, but instead he's getting less than a tenth of that or roughly 30~40% of what his salary is. While Sweden have slightly higher taxes than most other western countries, today the difference isn't too large so it's a fact that you're receiving FAR less in retirement funds than what you paid into it.

Why? Because instead of taking your money and putting it into a fund for up to 40 years as they're supposed to, politicians instead immediately take it and put it into something more fun (for them) than letting you keep it for your retirement since as said, they don't have any responsibility for your future. I dislike socialism (and hate communism) but THIS would've been a way for us workers to own the economy, by us steadily purchasing more and more of it through our retirement funds. The problem isn't capitalism, too little immigration or greedy businessmen or anything like that, it's our politicians (socialists or otherwise) and the representative democratic system we live in.

@elfalas I didn't really forget about it but had to cut it short because I was getting late for work, but I believe the definition of ''immigrant'' used is for people born with another nationality, while ''immigrant background'' refers to people born in Sweden with at least one immigrant parent. But yeah as you say a lot of people don't get counted, third generation migrants from families who've lived entirely segregated aren't counted into the statistics and those too commit more crime than regular Swedes. As for returning Isis fighters receiving monetary aid and housing from the government I can confirm this, happened several terrorists in my district and a few of them even got rewarded by a governmental job after returning from raping, pillaging and murdering infidels. YEAH, REALLY.

It's not exactly a great feeling when one of your parents live some few miles away from a district where over 20 people went and joined Isis, where they have mosques and murders, robberies, arson, drug-dealing and setting cars on fires. The school was so terrible that (from what I've heard from a local hair-dresser that I visited) that 20+ teachers quit every year due to the kids being unmanageable, they had to eventually close the school down (might as well since it was only a matter of time until someone would set it on fire again) since despite it getting FAR more resources than any normal school the kids were crazy and lacked all common sense since their parents don't even bother raising them but rather create offspring to get generous handouts from the state, like when the school called all parents for a crisis meeting about what to do about their children only a few percent showed up. So in the end they had to close it down and then spread them all out over a larger region. And this is all from a district with 7k inhabitants...

So yeah, this is my reality. Although my subjective experiences are quite bad I don't think they can be used as an argument, what we should be looking at isn't personal points of view but rather statistics and cold facts.

Holy shit that turned out long! I could talk a little about Japanese being racist as well (which I sorta agree with but not for the same reasons) but my favorite twitch streamer is starting soon so maybe later!

 

[herrosenpai]

Wow, calling Japan as plain racist without taking into accord the motives behind anti-immigration is short-sighted. The use of the term 'racism' has also been blown out of context far too often nowadays. The definition itself describes 'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against someone else based on the belief that one's own race is superier'. Diving deeper into the definition ultimately refers to actions that are detrimental to the target. Keyword here is detrimental. So we have to ask ourselves are x, y, z policies/thoughts detrimental to x target?

Historically immigration has not worked for Japan before, during, and after the Edo period. By not worked, I mean the implications of immigration did not align with the nation's set of standards and moral code. Moral code is derived based on a society or group of people. Thereby, morals differ from group to group. Although there may have been benefits to be had, this view was not supported internally and at the time every nation around the "East China Sea" and "South China Sea" (terms known by today's modern Western society to describe those areas by long/lat) were at conflict/contest and still are today. Pirates at sea, infiltration into nations, price manipulation, currency manipulation, etc... in a time of sans digital, these countries (China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Phillipines, etc...) including European and Middle Eastern countries were all managing the risk of war and unfavorable economies. However, trade routes were beneficial to most participants. Generally speaking, trade is always desired and beneficial more so than harmful to a country, but the flow of people itself is and will always be up for debate for reasons that include crime control, resource distribution and utilization, growth management, anti-governing body movements, etc... Specifically trade can also be a negative in that it opens a country up to manipulation by external influence on an economic level.

The effectiveness of immigration intended for beneficial results is dependent on the "age" of a country. By age, I mean the length of time an established governing body of a group of people, land, sea, etc... has been in control. And by control I mean this in the context of responsibility rather than something malevolent.

The U.S. has historically so far benefited in all arenas from immigration because it is a young country relative to the UKs, Russias, and Japans of the world. However, today that may not still be true (I'm not saying it's bad or good now, just that I don't know). In contrast countries that include Sweden and China (historically speaking for China) have not benefited from immigration. Immigration policies have been implemented and redacted in these countries, so they obviously have tried it. Some things worked out and some things did not.

Anti-immigration policies are not racist as they aren't detrimental (cause harm) to the intending migrant. Everyone has a series of choices to choose from and that includes rebuilding/building what they want in their mother country or going to another country.

For those that may ask for facts and data, please just search and read into the history of Japan, Sweden, China, etc... You can refine your search by including 'trade routes', 'economic policies', 'definition', and so forth. There's a lot of reading and studying involved to make these statements and readers can choose to believe or not to believe. In fact, it might be better to not believe so that you can search and read for yourself.

That said, do I wish to immigrate and become a natural citizen of Japan? Of course lol. Will that happen? Probably not. Am I salty about that? No, because there's tourism.

Elbow, thanks for your input. It's sound, reasonable, and educated.

 

[valazor]

The next person to post anything that's not related to this chapter, I swear I will eat your dog.

 

[d]

Agreed. Calling Japan as plain racist without taking into accord the motives behind anti-immigration is short-sighted. The use of the term 'racism' has also been blown out of context far too often nowadays. The definition itself describes 'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against someone else based on the belief that one's own race is superier'. Diving deeper into the definition ultimately refers to actions that are detrimental to the target. Keyword here is detrimental. So we have to ask ourselves are x, y, z policies/thoughts detrimental to x target? ?

 

[Elbow]

@givemersspls Thanks for reading through it. Maybe it wasn't concise enough so my point didn't get properly across but I do agree with you that not all immigration is bad. As I mentioned earlier immigration of workers with educated professions you can just let straight in no matter what country they come from, only thing you need to look at is if their profession is desirable in the economy (mostly STEM) since far from all educations these days have real value, and there's either very few jobs for or needs governmental employment/handouts to stay afloat. Immigration from similarly developed countries even if it's unskilled labor is fine too, as long as there's a shortage of it and it's in modest amounts so it doesn't dump the wages and cause societal classes to form (like what's happened in the US). With that said, immigration of unskilled labor from the third world to a first world country isn't really viable since it's extremely difficult for them to assimilate to our societies, for instance after 15 years in Sweden only 34% of refugees are self-reliant with a full-time employment.

I looked a little more into Australia that you keep mentioning, and even there migrants (and indigenous Australians) are over-represented in crime and live on welfare to a higher degree. I'm not really updated on it but I remember Australia erecting camps in the third world and sending all illegal migrants there so their immigration is quite different from the one we see in Sweden or the US. They also seem very willing to deport anyone overstaying their travel visa unlike in Sweden when that stuff isn't even regulated, not sure what it's like in the US. There might be a country out there that has success stories with immigration from the third world where they're more productive than the indigenous population, but from what I've read it doesn't seem to exist other than Saudi Arabia basically importing slaves from poor countries.

As for ethnicity hindering someone's ability to be useful in a modern society, other than some rare exceptions (like the warrior gene) I haven't read anything that indicates that is the case other than IQ which is largely genetically inherited and not something you can ''train'' up. Without getting too technical about it there's a pretty good, nuanced documentary on it by Norwegian state media NRK (which isn't as sensitive as the Swedish one who would never air something controversial) which you can watch if you want https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve6uK00AvNo

@herrosenpai Thanks for the educational post! Agree with pretty much everything you've said but while I also think that immigration working for ''new'' countries is true it's more of a parallel to a young nation having a small state with low taxes, regulations and welfare systems, since that's when a country experiences the most growth which increases the demand for an influx of immigration as well as the incentive to work is the highest since there's nothing to fall back on. Though it might also have something to do with the country not having a strong culture yet and it being fairly easy to assimilate.

Also In modern time Japan I do think there can be an element of racism to it (judging from stuff like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n70AgNDh6qg) but as long as there are logical reasons to not want large immigration I don't think it really matters. I'm not too up to date on Japan's stance on legal immigration intended for workers, but seeing how many stories I see of people moving there to work as English teachers I don't believe it's TOO harsh. And while on the subject on racism it's not like you HAVE to be racist to dislike citizens of another country, like a lot of Japanese disliking Chinese can just be them disliking their culture or that they commit more crime than them in Japan rather than them being less than 1% genetically different from them. I dislike generalizing and prefer to separate migrants into those that work and assimilate (that I like) and those that live on welfare or commit crime (that I dislike). But if I were to generalize an entire country with the majority of them being bad migrants that I dislike (like Somalia), I can say I dislike Somalians without it having anything to do with race but rather how people from there act in Sweden. But as said I prefer to break it down into good immigrants and bad immigrants, with me happily accepting the first group and believing the second group should just be sent home.

 

[Elbow]

@d Yeah there are lots of terms who have been going through rapid changes in modern time, a recent narrative to racism is that ''you can only be racism from a privileged position'' meaning that minorities who bash whites all day don't count as racist but only the other way around, since all whites are apparently privileged no matter where they're from. Same thing with sexism really, in parts of Sweden we have ''feminist snowplowing'' where they plow the sidewalks before the roads because women use it more than men as well as journalists claiming that people wanting to lower taxes are sexists because men (who work more) benefit more from it than women.

The best thing to do in current year would be to just shut down your brain and ignore all the lunacy going on, but it's kinda too late for people like me since once we've caught interest in it we can't stick our heads back in the sand again. Like that meme that was popular 10 years ago which kept getting posted as motivational images, ''WHAT HAS BEEN SEEN CANNOT BE UNSEEN''.

 

[Elbow]

@givemersspls I'm not sure at exactly which part I have made a ''strawman'' against you, a lot of what I have (and d) has talked about was in your first post about you saying ''They refuse it SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR RACE PURE. That's literally what they say'' with us saying there are more reasons for it than race, and you (seemingly) changing your stance by moving the goalposts later on in the conversation once you've gotten half a dozen people bitch at you. Anyway glad to see you understand that you were wrong in the sweeping claims you did in your first post. And seeing as you mischaracterized me one post earlier by saying I ''think all immigration systems fail'' because I dislike importing unskilled workers from the third world, I think you shouldn't be throwing any rocks now.

As for Australia, naturally I looked it up before I made my claim and for instance Muslim migrants (which are almost entirely from undeveloped countries) are 3% of the population, 9% of the prison population and 43% of them are not in the workforce since with Australia's system you only need to live there for 10 years (working or not) to be guaranteed your pensions. Not to mention other groups who are even worse assimilated like the Aboriginals who is something crazy like twelve times over represented in the prison population, not really migrants but a good indication that for certain groups they can live many hundreds of years in a western society without assimilating.

And Australia's immigration policies being condemned I already know well, but seeing as Sweden's have been condemned as well for its treatment of migrants (when the state literally purchase newly constructed apartments for them and as said people returning from IS are rewarded with governmental jobs to ''assimilate them'') I would take it with a grain of salt. I'm sure it fucking sucks to live in one of those third world refugee camps sure, but they have a roof over their head and food on the table and since they're supposedly not economic migrants and only wanted to move to Australia to ''escape'' the dangers in their home countries then mission accomplished.

As for Nauru and most other nations in southeast Asia not being part of the third world is blatantly wrong. The term ''first world, second world, third world'' came into being during the cold war which had set the industrialized west as the first world, the communist countries (Russia, eastern Europe, China, Cuba etc) as the second world and the countries which were part of neither the third world. After the communist regimes around the world either transformed into something else or evaporated the usage of ''second world'' has more or less disappeared, so now it's used as first world which stands for industrialized nations and third world for non-industrialized nations.

 

[Elbow]

@givemersspls

It became a strawman in your first post when you started talking about immigration from third-world countries even though that was never mentioned ANYWHERE

That's your own fault for not differentiating between different kinds of migration as to what you were advocating for, but for Japan ''literally every single problem could be addressed through more immigration''. My first post in entirety was clarifying that yes, Japan can benefit from more immigration but not from the third world.

When the hell did I change my stance? That was never me changing my stance; that was literally you inserting your own words about what I said with no basis. Then, when I show that you're prejudging, assuming a lot of stuff with no backing, you suddenly say I'm shifting goalposts? How about you actually read what I said

My bad, let me read what you said again then.

Literally every complaint Japan/Japanese people make about the effects of the declining birthrate is straight up racist. Literally every single problem could be addressed through more immigration, but they refuse it SPECIFICALLY because they want to maintain their "racial purity". That's the actual reason they use. People who talk about the declining birthrate are so racist that they would rather that the people basically go extinct before allowing more immigration.

People in Japan don't want immigration specifically because they're racist?

Why don't you move to Japan and suck some Japanese dick, then? Oh, wait, you can't because they're fucking racist, just like your dumbass

Westerners can't move to Japan because Japanese are racist?

Japan literally would rather go extinct than allow their race to be "impure".

Another generalization against Japanese people that they're all racist.

The specific and explicit reason they stated was in order to preserve racial homogeneity. If you make a decision based on race, that is the definition of racism. Japan is literally being racist.

And now the entire Japanese population has become a hivemind and stated that they want to preserve racial homogeneity and are thus ''literally being racist''.

Somehow I feel like I read through your posts well-enough the first time around. Seeing what you wrote in your earlier posts and now suddenly agreeing that there are other reasons for Japan to decline immigration other than racial homogeneity like that's what you've been saying all along, how is that not changing your stance? There are 200,000 words in the English language a near limitless amount of ways to express oneself, why the hell shouldn't I take the way you chose to articulate yourself at face value?

Then on the issue of economic migrants. So what is your position on the clearly non-economic migrants who come into Sweden from, for example, Syria, where there are civil wars?

That is easy, a refugee is someone who flees from a war area to a peaceful area. Thus someone who flees to the nearest safest country is a refugee, while someone who continues traveling through a dozen countries to seek asylum in the country with the highest welfare isn't a refugee anymore, it's an economic migrant looking for a better place to live. Not that there's anything wrong with that and I sympathize with their situation, but having a low standard of living isn't a valid reason for receiving asylum in another country.

We also have issues that a lot of people claim to be Syrian refugees since the war began because they'd have a higher chance to get permission to stay, and while we can't be sure where everyone is from (since they all throw away their passports before entering the country so they can't be identified) we know that a large part of them is from the surrounding area. While I didn't find the statistics for Syrian refugees I found an investigation of Afghan ones where only 1/100 refugees showed their passport back in 2016 when the migrant crisis got rolling.

A lot of them also lie about their age and that they're 17 so they can get ''refugee child'' status, but when the government sample tested the refugee children with dental and wrist scans for their age 86% of them turned out to be over 18. There are even cases where refugee children upon being granted residence permit applies to have his wife and children brought here, absolutely ridiculous. Here's an entertaining video on the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sass4jgyEUY

And now when 90% of Syria is safe and the government says it's safe for them to return hardly anyone wants to, there's a reason they traveled all the way to Sweden instead of staying temporarily in Turkey until the war died down. This is a common theme among all refugees, a study with 1700 refugees showed that only 7% wanted to return to their home country even if the situation there improved.

So to say that refugees from Syria are ''clearly non-economic migrants'' is blatantly false, at least when it comes to the ones staying in Sweden.

There have also been tries from Swedish media to try to make it like they're here to save our economy (like what you see from media in most of the world) with Swedish state media SVT claiming that there are lots of engineers, doctors and scientists coming with the migrants from Syria. One journalists actually looked it up by contacting the Swedish engineer's union and asked them how many engineers they got from the 40,000 migrants from Syria and the answer was ''3''. There were also claims about them having a comparable education to Swedes but then it turned out they counted Koran-school at mosques as higher education and with only 3% having higher education, and one third of them being illiterate and entirely useless for a western job market.

To summarize my stance on them is that we should go to the problem areas and pick up some (in limited numbers) living in the worst conditions there while not letting any economic migrant cross into our country illegally, give them a temporary residence of let's say 3~5 years and those that either haven't found employment in that time or have committed crime to be sent back.

As for

You really should read more. Some of them were kept in basically prison facilities (as in, designed specifically for prisoners) and treated as such. Even when some of them wanted to leave for completely unrelated countries (as in, neither the Pacific island country they were on nor Australia), they were still detained without literally any review. No, I'm not saying all of them were treated this way, but at least a decent amount were literally treated as criminals even though they were not.

I'm not sure what being treated as a prisoner exactly mean, does it contradict with my statement that they have food and housing? I'm not making myself out to be an expert on Australian refugee camps (because I'm not) but for Australia to not send them off to a country of their choice after being detained makes sense since they don't have the authority to do so. Same with Sweden wanting to send back migrants to Syria, the Syrian government often refuses if their identities aren't clear since a lot of them aren't actually Syrians but from Afghanistan.

The Aboriginal Australians actually disprove your earlier point because they are not migrants

I agree that they used to be discriminated against but that hasn't been the case since 1967 when they got the same rights as mandated by law, and after two generations they're still highly crime-ridden and over represented in welfare. We see the same thing in Sweden with second generation migrants ( and even third generation) from those who've arrived since the 1970s are also highly over represented in crime and welfare abuse, despite having access to the same social security and education as the Swedes do.

As for Australia again I want to ask, what nationality is it that perform better than the Australians do and are Aboriginals counted into the statistics on the Australian side? What I read is that Aboriginals are 26% of the prison population, so if you add them to Australians you will lessen the over-representation of other groups. As stated Muslim-majority countries perform far worse in Australia both in crime and in welfare dependence, but are there any immigrants from a non first-world country that does perform well there that I can look up?

 

[Sternberg]

niggas out here really writing essays in the comments

 

[passepartout39]

Oh gods, the comments, it's epic.

 

[Sokers]

воооу

 

[cidmosquito]

Holy shit wtf with the bibles people are writing in here

 

[AnimeAintReal]

Remember when MangaDex comment threads had substantive discussions about manga and civilized debates about who best girl is? Me neither