Sweden prepares to 'expel up to 80,000 asylum seekers'

Sweden is preparing to expel up to 80,000 asylum seekers who sought refuge in the country last year, according to its interior minister.
In an interview with Swedish newspaper Dagens Industri published today, Anders Ygeman said he estimated that about 60,000 to 80,000 of 2015’s record number of asylum seekers would be expelled and forcibly deported or would voluntarily leave after their applications were rejected.
It is feared by the government that many of those who will leave will go into hiding, according to the newspaper.
“We have a big challenge ahead of us. We will need to use more for this and we must have better cooperation between authorities,” Mr Ygemen was quoted as saying.

“I think that it could be about 60,000 people, but it could also be up to 80,000.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-prepares-to-expel-up-to-80000-asylum-seekers-a6838421.html

What was the point of the open-door policy in the first place then? They let in loads of people, and now they say it will take years to remove them. I don't know what these Governments are thinking of - do they want to be seen as being generous and assume that only a few people will take them up on their generosity? Now they'll look like the "baddies".

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the point of the open-door policy in the first place then? They let in loads of people, and now they say it will take years to remove them. I don't know what these Governments are thinking of - do they want to be seen as being generous and assume that only a few people will take them up on their generosity? Now they'll look like the "baddies".

I think they are beginning to realize thousands of migrants got in off the back of the Syrian crisis.
This is starting to dawn on many EU countries

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the point of the open-door policy in the first place then? They let in loads of people, and now they say it will take years to remove them. I don't know what these Governments are thinking of - do they want to be seen as being generous and assume that only a few people will take them up on their generosity? Now they'll look like the "baddies".

I think they are beginning to realize thousands of migrants got in off the back of the Syrian crisis.
This is starting to dawn on many EU countries

How could they not think of that in the first place? They must have done.

If they had a quota, why didn't they accept that number, see who's genuine, send back the ones who weren't, and then see how many more they could accept?

If they've changed their minds because of the ensuing trouble caused by some of these refugees/migrants, that's another thing they should have thought of.

Now it's going to cost Sweden a ton of money to deal with this, and it will take years. Isn't it better for governments to be honest in the first place?

The poor old taxpayer will still have to pay for them while they are here or in other EU countriz awaiting 10 asylum appeals each.
WHY the need for appeals????????????

Those responsible for this admittance, open door policy should be unceremoniously sacked.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the point of the open-door policy in the first place then? They let in loads of people, and now they say it will take years to remove them. I don't know what these Governments are thinking of - do they want to be seen as being generous and assume that only a few people will take them up on their generosity? Now they'll look like the "baddies".

I think they are beginning to realize thousands of ILLEGAL IMmigrants got in off the back of the Syrian crisis.
This is starting to dawn on many EU countries

WHICH IS WHAT I SAID WAS HAPPENING FROM THE START!!!


ONLY TO HAVE IDIOTS LIKE YOU TRYING TO DENY IT AND CALL ME 'RACIST'!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

I think they are beginning to realize thousands of ILLEGAL IMmigrants got in off the back of the Syrian crisis.
This is starting to dawn on many EU countries

WHICH IS WHAT I SAID WAS HAPPENING FROM THE START!!!


ONLY TO HAVE IDIOTS LIKE YOU TRYING TO DENY IT AND CALL ME 'RACIST'!!!

No you are a racist full stop Tommy and i think its hilarious you are so emotionally compromised you are now shouting.

You never said any such thing from the start, you said not to let in, including the asylum seekers

i said to check, so again you are telling porkie pies lol

It says they are going to expel asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants. Of course, illegal immigrants do often seek asylum as a way of prolonging their stay.

Raggamuffin wrote:It says they are going to expel asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants. Of course, illegal immigrants do often seek asylum as a way of prolonging their stay.

This is the point, if they have entered claiming asylum, they are officially asylum seekers Rags, so would have to define them that way

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It says they are going to expel asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants. Of course, illegal immigrants do often seek asylum as a way of prolonging their stay.

This is the point, if they have entered claiming asylum, they are officially asylum seekers Rags, so would have to define them that way

Right, so if Tommy said they should not let in asylum seekers, he would be including illegal immigrants in that, which is fair enough.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

This is the point, if they have entered claiming asylum, they are officially asylum seekers Rags, so would have to define them that way

Right, so if Tommy said they should not let in asylum seekers, he would be including illegal immigrants in that, which is fair enough.

Not really, as again you are classifying two different groups of people.
You cannot say "oh well his application failed, so now he is an illegal immigrant" 
On entry he would still be an asylum "seeker"

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Right, so if Tommy said they should not let in asylum seekers, he would be including illegal immigrants in that, which is fair enough.

Not really, as again you are classifying two different groups of people.
You cannot say "oh well his application failed, so now he is an illegal immigrant" 
On entry he would still be an asylum "seeker"

If the application failed, he would be an illegal immigrant if they did not leave the country. Surely Tommy's point is that some of the asylum seekers are not genuine, which would be the case if their application failed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Not really, as again you are classifying two different groups of people.
You cannot say "oh well his application failed, so now he is an illegal immigrant" 
On entry he would still be an asylum "seeker"

If the application failed, he would be an illegal immigrant if they did not leave the country. Surely Tommy's point is that some of the asylum seekers are not genuine, which would be the case if their application failed.

Big if

You are speaking in hindsight again, when you would not know on entry

Tommy's points is that none should get past Turkey or Greece, so lets have some honesty Rags

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If the application failed, he would be an illegal immigrant if they did not leave the country. Surely Tommy's point is that some of the asylum seekers are not genuine, which would be the case if their application failed.

Big if

You are speaking in hindsight again, when you would not know on entry

Tommy's points is that none should get past Turkey or Greece, so lets have some honesty Rags

He takes the view that if they were genuine, they would seek asylum in the first safe country, and he has a point.

The first question I would ask of an asylum seeker in Sweden would be - why did you travel through so many other safe countries to get here?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Big if

You are speaking in hindsight again, when you would not know on entry

Tommy's points is that none should get past Turkey or Greece, so lets have some honesty Rags

He takes the view that if they were genuine, they would seek asylum in the first safe country, and he has a point.

The first question I would ask of an asylum seeker in Sweden would be - why did you travel through so many other safe countries to get here?

Which is nonsense, because again you are stating how and where people feel safe, not where they feel safe themselves

Why would you ask that?

Again you do not decide what is safe for someone

Are you going to send back a Christian who has fled the Middle east, as Tommy has suggested each area look after refugees?

You tell me where a Christian in the Middle east feels safe?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He takes the view that if they were genuine, they would seek asylum in the first safe country, and he has a point.

The first question I would ask of an asylum seeker in Sweden would be - why did you travel through so many other safe countries to get here?

Which is nonsense, because again you are stating how and where people feel safe, not where they feel safe themselves

Why would you ask that?

Again you do not decide what is safe for someone

Are you going to send back a Christian who has fled the Middle east, as Tommy has suggested each area look after refugees?

You tell me where a Christian in the Middle east feels safe?

I'm talking about the European countries they travelled through.

They can explain why they didn't feel safe in the other countries, and they can explain why their aim all along was to get to Sweden - as in the story of a bloke I just read about who has a son called Osama FFS.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which is nonsense, because again you are stating how and where people feel safe, not where they feel safe themselves

Why would you ask that?

Again you do not decide what is safe for someone

Are you going to send back a Christian who has fled the Middle east, as Tommy has suggested each area look after refugees?

You tell me where a Christian in the Middle east feels safe?

I'm talking about the European countries they travelled through.

They can explain why they didn't feel safe in the other countries, and they can explain why their aim all along was to get to Sweden - as in the story of a bloke I just read about who has a son called Osama FFS.

So?

Again who are you to decide where they feel safe?
Of where they may have relatives, making the transition far easier?
So it may help if you understand why people head to certain countries is based on a connection, like speaking the language, family etc

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm talking about the European countries they travelled through.

They can explain why they didn't feel safe in the other countries, and they can explain why their aim all along was to get to Sweden - as in the story of a bloke I just read about who has a son called Osama FFS.

So?

Again who are you to decide where they feel safe?
Of where they may have relatives, making the transition far easier?
So it may help if you understand why people head to certain countries is based on a connection, like speaking the language, family etc

That's why I said I would ask them why they came to Sweden. The Government agencies will decide where they should feel safe.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So?

Again who are you to decide where they feel safe?
Of where they may have relatives, making the transition far easier?
So it may help if you understand why people head to certain countries is based on a connection, like speaking the language, family etc

That's why I said I would ask them why they came to Sweden. The Government agencies will decide where they should feel safe.

They are already asked lol

They decide which country they travel to and feel safe, which many countries take into consideration

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's why I said I would ask them why they came to Sweden. The Government agencies will decide where they should feel safe.

They are already asked lol

They decide which country they travel to and feel safe, which many countries take into consideration

And will then decide to reject their argument in many cases, according to the reports.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


They are already asked lol

They decide which country they travel to and feel safe, which many countries take into consideration

And will then decide to reject their argument in many cases, according to the reports.

But again its up to them where they feel safe, is it not?
Are you saying now where people should feel safe, or where they feel safe?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the point of the open-door policy in the first place then? They let in loads of people, and now they say it will take years to remove them. I don't know what these Governments are thinking of - do they want to be seen as being generous and assume that only a few people will take them up on their generosity? Now they'll look like the "baddies".

I think they are beginning to realize thousands of ILLEGAL IMmigrants got in off the back of the Syrian crisis.
This is starting to dawn on many EU countries

WHICH IS WHAT I SAID WAS HAPPENING FROM THE START!!!


ONLY TO HAVE IDIOTS LIKE YOU TRYING TO DENY IT AND CALL ME 'RACIST'!!!

Exactly Tommy. I have said this about you and your posts from the start.

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



WHICH IS WHAT I SAID WAS HAPPENING FROM THE START!!!


ONLY TO HAVE IDIOTS LIKE YOU TRYING TO DENY IT AND CALL ME 'RACIST'!!!

Exactly Tommy. I have said this about you and your posts from the start.

Yet ignore h has argued to stop all coming in

You can defend him Eddie. That is your choice, but he is as racist as they come and his reasoning is based off hate, the point you miss.

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the point of the open-door policy in the first place then? They let in loads of people, and now they say it will take years to remove them. I don't know what these Governments are thinking of - do they want to be seen as being generous and assume that only a few people will take them up on their generosity? Now they'll look like the "baddies".

And this is my whole, huge point about Donald Trump. He's honest about what he wants and how he feels - like it or not - he doesn't lie yet most people dislike him???

So most people like the politicians that say all the "right things", knowing, all the while, that most of it is big fat bouncing lies of bullshit.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the point of the open-door policy in the first place then? They let in loads of people, and now they say it will take years to remove them. I don't know what these Governments are thinking of - do they want to be seen as being generous and assume that only a few people will take them up on their generosity? Now they'll look like the "baddies".

And this is my whole, huge point about Donald Trump. He's honest about what he wants and how he feels - like it or not - he doesn't lie yet most people dislike him???

So most people like the politicians that say all the "right things", knowing, all the while, that most of it is big fat bouncing lies of bullshit.

Why do you think people dislike him?

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the point of the open-door policy in the first place then? They let in loads of people, and now they say it will take years to remove them. I don't know what these Governments are thinking of - do they want to be seen as being generous and assume that only a few people will take them up on their generosity? Now they'll look like the "baddies".

And this is my whole, huge point about Donald Trump. He's honest about what he wants and how he feels - like it or not - he doesn't lie yet most people dislike him???

So most people like the politicians that say all the "right things", knowing, all the while, that most of it is big fat bouncing lies of bullshit.

Why do you think people dislike him?

Hi didge

I'll rephrase that actually: I meant most people on here

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:

Why do you think people dislike him?

Hi didge

I'll rephrase that actually: I meant most people on here

Sorry Hi Eddie

But many people dislike him as he casts groups of people guilty by association

He plays off hope through hate
Hitler did that

He made Germans believe that there was hope for the future, a world without Jews
That is hope through hate.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the point of the open-door policy in the first place then? They let in loads of people, and now they say it will take years to remove them. I don't know what these Governments are thinking of - do they want to be seen as being generous and assume that only a few people will take them up on their generosity? Now they'll look like the "baddies".

And this is my whole, huge point about Donald Trump. He's honest about what he wants and how he feels - like it or not - he doesn't lie yet most people dislike him???

So most people like the politicians that say all the "right things", knowing, all the while, that most of it is big fat bouncing lies of bullshit.

Take Slovakia, for example. They were upfront about not wanting to take in Muslim refugees. They were berated for it, but they've stuck to it. If countries like Sweden or Germany were trying to get brownie points for being generous, they're now stuck with a huge new problem which could take years to sort out.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

And this is my whole, huge point about Donald Trump. He's honest about what he wants and how he feels - like it or not - he doesn't lie yet most people dislike him???

So most people like the politicians that say all the "right things", knowing, all the while, that most of it is big fat bouncing lies of bullshit.

Take Slovakia, for example. They were upfront about not wanting to take in Muslim refugees. They were berated for it, but they've stuck to it. If countries like Sweden or Germany were trying to get brownie points for being generous, they're now stuck with a huge new problem which could take years to sort out.

Which Slovakia is also doing
Hope through hate.
And Guilt by association

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:

Why do you think people dislike him?

Hi didge

I'll rephrase that actually: I meant most people on here

Sorry Hi Eddie

But many people dislike him as he casts groups of people guilty by association

He plays off hope through hate
Hitler did that

He made Germans believe that there was hope for the future, a world without Jews
That is hope through hate.

As I've said, at least his racism is out in the open - we can all see it for what it is. Many politicians are racist and hide it with lies and falsities.
Better an hinest racist than a closet racist...?

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:

Sorry Hi Eddie

But many people dislike him as he casts groups of people guilty by association

He plays off hope through hate
Hitler did that

He made Germans believe that there was hope for the future, a world without Jews
That is hope through hate.

As I've said, at least his racism is out in the open - we can all see it for what it is. Many politicians are racist and hide it with lies and falsities.
Better an hinest racist than a closet racist...?

I know his racism is out in the open.
That does not mean his racism should be supported

The fact that it is echoes how Hitler played off hope through hate

Well not many recent US Presidents have implemented closet racist policies Eddie

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Take Slovakia, for example. They were upfront about not wanting to take in Muslim refugees. They were berated for it, but they've stuck to it. If countries like Sweden or Germany were trying to get brownie points for being generous, they're now stuck with a huge new problem which could take years to sort out.

Which Slovakia is also doing
Hope through hate.
And Guilt by association

It's better than them bowing to the opinions of others and letting Muslims in, only to change their minds later and try to deport them all. It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the people of Slovakia think.

Of course his racism shouldn't be supported! Not in the least!
I keep saying, you can admire someone's honesty whilst still cringing or disagreeing with what's being said by them.

And we have no idea if any US presidents have been closet racists becasue they'd be in the closet?!
Also, I dont see America's racist police force getting any better, do you? So perhaps they, the politicians, haven't pushed this issue far enough....because they're a little bit racist...?

None of this is anything to do with Hitler. It seems to be the "trend" to compare everything to Nazi Germany on this forum at the moment.

I never admired Hitlers honesty, why should I admire honesty when that honesty is ugly?

Your next point would be better placed if based on some actual evidence Eddie, as its mere speculation

Raggamuffin wrote:None of this is anything to do with Hitler. It seems to be the "trend" to compare everything to Nazi Germany on this forum at the moment.

If you understand the methods used, yes it has comparisons

Have you ever studied the propaganda of the Third Reich, Hitler and Goebbels?

Hitler wouldn't have mattered if it hadn't been for the Enabling Act, which was passed by people who were clearly too spineless to stand up to him.

Raggamuffin wrote:Hitler wouldn't have mattered if it hadn't been for the Enabling Act, which was passed by people who were clearly too spineless to stand up to him.

Again not what is being said.

It is about comparisons

One of them is a method to offer hope through a hateful message

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Hitler wouldn't have mattered if it hadn't been for the Enabling Act, which was passed by people who were clearly too spineless to stand up to him.

Again not what is being said.

It is about comparisons

One of them is a method to offer hope through a hateful message

I don't care really. I prefer to discuss practicalities.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again not what is being said.

It is about comparisons

One of them is a method to offer hope through a hateful message

I don't care really. I prefer to discuss practicalities.

Then why jump in what I said if you do not care?

What is wrong with you today, you are being very touchy?

I shall back off as you are being over sensitive today

This constant comparison with Hitler is getting silly. It doesn't matter what he said, what mattered was how he managed to stay in power, even when many people realised what he was like. If the people still wanted him in power after that, well that was their fault. There's only so many excuses they can come up with to claim they were fooled by him.

Nobody attacked Germany to save the Jews anyway.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the point of the open-door policy in the first place then? They let in loads of people, and now they say it will take years to remove them. I don't know what these Governments are thinking of - do they want to be seen as being generous and assume that only a few people will take them up on their generosity? Now they'll look like the "baddies".

And this is my whole, huge point about Donald Trump. He's honest about what he wants and how he feels - like it or not - he doesn't lie yet most people dislike him???

So most people like the politicians that say all the "right things", knowing, all the while, that most of it is big fat bouncing lies of bullshit.

He's not honest Eddie. 

He's the ultimate democratic whore who will say anything to get your vote. 

If tree hugging hippy migrant love got him votes, he'd be all up for migrants.

Raggamuffin wrote:This constant comparison with Hitler is getting silly. It doesn't matter what he said, what mattered was how he managed to stay in power, even when many people realised what he was like. If the people still wanted him in power after that, well that was their fault. There's only so many excuses they can come up with to claim they were fooled by him.

Nobody attacked Germany to save the Jews anyway.

Its not silly and relevant

If you do not like, that really is not my problem rags

I find it interesting as i study history

Raggamuffin wrote:This constant comparison with Hitler is getting silly. It doesn't matter what he said, what mattered was how he managed to stay in power, even when many people realised what he was like. If the people still wanted him in power after that, well that was their fault. There's only so many excuses they can come up with to claim they were fooled by him.

Nobody attacked Germany to save the Jews anyway.

Exactly that.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the point of the open-door policy in the first place then? They let in loads of people, and now they say it will take years to remove them. I don't know what these Governments are thinking of - do they want to be seen as being generous and assume that only a few people will take them up on their generosity? Now they'll look like the "baddies".

And this is my whole, huge point about Donald Trump. He's honest about what he wants and how he feels - like it or not - he doesn't lie yet most people dislike him???

So most people like the politicians that say all the "right things", knowing, all the while, that most of it is big fat bouncing lies of bullshit.

He's not honest Eddie. 

He's the ultimate democratic whore who will say anything to get your vote. 

If tree hugging hippy migrant love got him votes, he'd be all up for migrants.

So he's chosen a MAJORITY VIEW then?
So alot of people are racist?

eddie wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
He's not honest Eddie. 

He's the ultimate democratic whore who will say anything to get your vote. 

If tree hugging hippy migrant love got him votes, he'd be all up for migrants.

So he's chosen a MAJORITY VIEW then?
So alot of people are racist?

How do you figure that?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This constant comparison with Hitler is getting silly. It doesn't matter what he said, what mattered was how he managed to stay in power, even when many people realised what he was like. If the people still wanted him in power after that, well that was their fault. There's only so many excuses they can come up with to claim they were fooled by him.

Nobody attacked Germany to save the Jews anyway.

Exactly that.

Exactlky is the right word showing that people would benefit from studying history to understand why and how people actually got into power




Election of May 4th 1924: the Nazis (standing as the National Socialist Freedom Movement) received 6.5% of the popular vote and 32 seats in the Reichstag out of a total of 472 seats.



Election of December 7th 1924: the Nazis (standing as the National Socialist Freedom Movement) received 3% of the popular vote and 14 seats in the Reichstag out of a total of 493 seats.



Election of May 20th 1928: the Nazis received 2.6% of the popular vote and 12 seats in the Reichstag out of a total of 491 seats.

Wall Street Crash (October 1929)

Election of September 14th 1930: the Nazis received 18.3% of the popular vote and 107 seats in the Reichstag out of a total of 577 seats.



Election of August 31st 1932: the Nazis received 37.3% of the popular vote and 230 seats in the Reichstag out of a total of 608 seats.



Election of November 6th 1932: the Nazis received 33.1% of the popular vote and 196 seats in the Reichstag out of a total of 584 seats.



Election of March 5th 1933: the Nazis received 43.9% of the popular vote and 288 seats in the Reichstag out of a total of 647 seats.

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
He's not honest Eddie. 

He's the ultimate democratic whore who will say anything to get your vote. 

If tree hugging hippy migrant love got him votes, he'd be all up for migrants.

So he's chosen a MAJORITY VIEW then?
So alot of people are racist?

How do you figure that?

Because Zack is claiming that he's campaigning for a certain cause to garner the most votes, ergo, he must be campaigning for a racist cause to garner the most votes, ergo, alot of people are racist because he has alot of followers?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This constant comparison with Hitler is getting silly. It doesn't matter what he said, what mattered was how he managed to stay in power, even when many people realised what he was like. If the people still wanted him in power after that, well that was their fault. There's only so many excuses they can come up with to claim they were fooled by him.

Nobody attacked Germany to save the Jews anyway.

Exactly that.

Yes, exactly that. As Didge has pointed out, Hitler's party did not have an absolute majority in parliament, but his party did have a simple majority, and he was the Chancellor. He knew that the only way to keep power was to get the Enabling Act passed. Whether the people who had voted him still wanted him in power after that is anyone's guess. I suspect that they did.

Thank you Raggs and Eddie!