Elerond

People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. Well people in Africa die on daily basis, are you going to move whole Africa to Finland? Or only the lucky one which have enough cash to actually reach Finland? People die daily basis, but most Africans aren't in danger to die daily basis, so they don't qualify for refugee status and will be sent back to their country of origin. Only Somalia is country in Africa where Finland don't sent people back currently. Oh yeah they do, that was my point. Are you sure you are going to send back central africans? http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/ Difficult to say because there isn't any to sent back, so there is no analyse what it means for people that are sent back there. Because all the analyzes are done case by case there isn't general rules. Although war zones and countries like Somalia that don't have stable government are nearly in every case seen too dangerous. Although we return people to Iraq as only parts of the country are considered dangerous, even though it is in state of war. What are you talking about? There is tons of countries in Africa which are in war state. South Sudan for example is in war for years, now there is Famine crisis. Every second country in Africa is in constant turmoil... https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/world/famine-officially-declared-in-south-sudan/2017/02/20/e9700f60-f76a-11e6-aa1e-5f735ee31334_video.html https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2017/Feb-20/394372-south-sudan-suffering-man-made-famine.ashx But there is no asylum seekers from South Sudan in Finland, so I can't say what is the situation there really for people. Especially not when it comes to things like which parts of South Sudan are considered dangerous, what demographics are systemically persecuted on so on. But usually big parts of African countries are safe for majority of their people to live and majority of their people don't even suffer from famine. Also we give billions of Euros to African countries that are suffering from famine so that they would be able to solve their crisis by themselves, meaning that we don't count famine in many case as reason for giving asylum for people, because we count that they can survive with aid that we and other countries give to their country, too bad for them if their government is corrupt and don't give that aid to them.

not sure if I follow It is unconstitutional in Finland to sent anybody back in situation where they most likely end up dead. Still don't follow, how are you going to break it? (BTW you are in military?) You know that Finland has universal male conscription, and everybody that does their constitutional service in our Defense Force vows to uphold Finland's constitution.

People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. Well people in Africa die on daily basis, are you going to move whole Africa to Finland? Or only the lucky one which have enough cash to actually reach Finland? People die daily basis, but most Africans aren't in danger to die daily basis, so they don't qualify for refugee status and will be sent back to their country of origin. Only Somalia is country in Africa where Finland don't sent people back currently. Oh yeah they do, that was my point. Are you sure you are going to send back central africans? http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/ Difficult to say because there isn't any to sent back, so there is no analyse what it means for people that are sent back there. Because all the analyzes are done case by case there isn't general rules. Although war zones and countries like Somalia that don't have stable government are nearly in every case seen too dangerous. Although we return people to Iraq as only parts of the country are considered dangerous, even though it is in state of war.

People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. Well people in Africa die on daily basis, are you going to move whole Africa to Finland? Or only the lucky one which have enough cash to actually reach Finland? People die daily basis, but most Africans aren't in danger to die daily basis, so they don't qualify for refugee status and will be sent back to their country of origin. Only Somalia is country in Africa where Finland don't sent people back currently.

not sure if I follow It is unconstitutional in Finland to sent anybody back in situation where they most likely end up dead.

People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. It is decided by several governmental institutes that interview every asylum seeker and check situation in their home countries.

Sorry but tell it to the rape victims. Honestly I understand that statistics can be interpreted differently but if you go to individuals your view will change rapidly Do you think it is different for rape victims if they are raped by Finnish or Swedish person? Because absolutely majority of rapes in Finland have committed by people belonging in those groups. Meaning is it more important to prevent rapes done by foreign people or rapes in general? No, but its different if you have 100 or 200 rapes. And if you can easily avoid these another 100. That is the point. If it would be that easy to avoid first 100 I would be definetely for it So sending 40k people most likely to die, to prevent 15 rapes in year is easy way to lower number of rapes? Instead of using schooling and other methods to try achieve same thing. Though luck that our constitution forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead. Well its your view. I for one would vouch for 40K people from Africa to go back with posibility to die than let anyone from my circle get raped. And I am not ashamed of it. Are you sure about your view on it? I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow.

Sorry but tell it to the rape victims. Honestly I understand that statistics can be interpreted differently but if you go to individuals your view will change rapidly Do you think it is different for rape victims if they are raped by Finnish or Swedish person? Because absolutely majority of rapes in Finland have committed by people belonging in those groups. Meaning is it more important to prevent rapes done by foreign people or rapes in general? No, but its different if you have 100 or 200 rapes. And if you can easily avoid these another 100. That is the point. If it would be that easy to avoid first 100 I would be definetely for it So sending 40k people most likely to die, to prevent 15 rapes in year is easy way to lower number of rapes? Instead of using schooling and other methods to try achieve same thing. Though luck that our constitution forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead.

Sorry but tell it to the rape victims. Honestly I understand that statistics can be interpreted differently but if you go to individuals your view will change rapidly Do you think it is different for rape victims if they are raped by Finnish or Swedish person? Because absolutely majority of rapes in Finland have committed by people belonging in those groups. Meaning is it more important to prevent rapes done by foreign people or rapes in general? I mean there was 931 cases of rape in 2015 from which 15 was committed by refugees (according to police).

Question is how big danger those minority groups are for peace in society and truth is that small groups aren't that big deal even with high criminal activity. Also small groups have higher change to show high in relative statistics. Especially if they are some special groups that have high number of people from other demographics that have high exposure to criminal activity, like refugees, poor, etc. Refugees in theory cost quite lot money for state, but in reality amount of money that they get month to month gives them just ability to by food and pay their housing, which means that all the money that for example Finland gives to refuges comes back to state via taxes and other payments (like rents in government owned housing). Way they stress our economy don't come from how much they cost but how much money they tie in that tax loop from general economy, money that at least in theory could be tied to something else that produces more new money to our economy. Like that housing thing that you mentioned. In Finland some municipalities also house refugees in hotels but that isn't because there isn't available housing, but because those municipalities have suffered from loss of tourism and they (because of bad winters and Russian sanctions etc.) and they use together with hotel owners refugees as way to support those suffering business that would actual go out of business if they didn't have this change to house refugees. (I can't say if situation is same in Sweden, but I would not be surprised if that was the case). And then there are some municipalities that have suffered from vacation and they want those refugees centers just so that they get more people so that government needs to give them more services. In sort refugees are used as political and economical pawns by some our politician to achieve some of their goals without thinking what it would mean to bring 1000 people in town of 3000 people which then creates set of its own problems that need to be solved and what some other politicians then use to further their own political goals. But at the end refugees have turn out to be just same as everybody else, pawns on politicians gameboards.

"More relevant are the statistics on who's committing the crimes." Those don't tell who are committing the crimes but how probable it is from person from said demographic to be a criminal. You should also put sizes of those demographics and number of crimes they have committed as whole to show what is size of their slice in the crime pie and to see what kind statistical effects one person causes. Is this seriously the argument that you want to put forth? You have several groups of people One has 8 million people from which 5% commit crimes = 400 000 criminals Then you have second group of people that consist of 200 000 people from which 8% commit crimes = 16 000 criminals Then you have third group of people that consist of 3 000 people from which 22% commit crimes = 660 criminals Who are the people that are actually committing crimes in this equation? Like for example how much of total crimes you are able to prevent by focusing on those 3000 people that have very high probably to be criminals.

"More relevant are the statistics on who's committing the crimes." Those don't tell who are committing the crimes but how probable it is from person from said demographic to be a criminal. You should also put sizes of those demographics and number of crimes they have committed as whole to show what is size of their slice in the crime pie and to see what kind statistical effects one person causes.

Trump seems to on mission to prove that Sweden is bad country, I guess that it will be in his next ban, sorry I mean immigration restriction list https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/833681539997253636?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Sweden's crime statistics from last year don't tell about alarming rise of crime rates they seem to be quite stagnant http://www.thelocal.se/20170112/swedens-2016-crime-stats-analyzed Although with sexual crimes, researchers aren't sure why their rates have gone somewhat back and forth in past couple years. The Local also published article by couple Swedish journalists that say that some of the claims that Horowitz made don't check out. http://www.thelocal.se/20170220/sweden-facts-a-closer-look-at-filmmaker-ami-horowitz-claims

Which is why he decided to use phrase, "You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible," EDIT: It is easy mistake to make to think that he may have referred something else than report what has been happening in Sweden in past 4 years. Also Trump defense is something that people in media and social media suggested after his speech, so he may have just picked it as his defense when he didn't find anything better http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39020962

This is useless study. First it only shows the distribution in crime. Where is the "per capita" data? In any country you will have more natives committing crimes just by sheer numbers. So let's put this numbers in perspective: According to this chart around 40% of crimes are committed by immigrants (first and second generation), but in US this group is only 12-15% of the population. So it seems this group is HIGHLY criminal, because 12-15% of the population is responsible for 40% of the crimes! Second prevalence of each group involved in at least 1 crime? Another WTF? So it doesn't matter if 10 natives each commit 1 crime each and 1 second generation commits 10 crimes it wouldn't affect the results of this study? In the previous 12 months. Seriously? That's not great time frame to have a thorough study on the case. Chart don't have information that you think it has, because it is chart about behavioral pattern it doesn't have any information how many crimes each groups have committed, but how probably it is that person from that group has committed at least one crime. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/15/crime-rises-among-second-generation-immigrants-as-they-assimilate/

Interesting but that's US migration profile. If anyone has numbers on say French Algerian migrants that would be more relevant. Here is one study, but you need to pay to read it http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199859016.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199859016-e-013

Trump has been in office for a month, Obama for 8 years. So we know exactly what Obama's policies have led to. Yeah they lead to Trump taking office and I agree that is very bad.

By telling lies and exploiting such incidents as Zimmerman and Ferguson, and supporting BLM. I don't ever remember such anti-police riots here before (there were in the sixties, but that was a different situation). "”Man riskerar att bli skjuten om man går dit, eller rånad, av kriminella element. Det är områden dit polisen knappt själva vågar gå och folk som är där är annorlunda.”" "You risk getting shot if you go there, or robbed, by criminals. It's areas where the police themselves hardly dare venture, and people there are different." What the middle and upper class said about some areas in Stockholm and Gothenburg in the 30's. Filled with "jews, gypsies, russians and such suspicious filth" I suppose if you go back far enough, again talking about an immigrant enclave. I don't know if they were factual, or motivated by racism. Romani families like to live in same neighborhoods and other Finns don't like live in same neighborhoods were there are Romani people, because we are nice like that. And situation is similar or even worse in other parts of Europe. Actually said motorcycle gangs own whole neighborhoods, which is why it is difficult to get rid of them. And why they still exists, with their drug selling, extortion etc. business. Those groups have their neighborhoods in much tighter control than any immigrant population that we have. Also ethnic-cultural enclave what this had to do with that "Europe didn't have them (hostile neighborhoods towards police) though until mass migration". Also minor one, there are at least couple million Romani people in Europe. EDIT: I also wonder what you think is happening in immigrant heavy neighborhoods if you think that they are more scary place for police than neighborhoods where gangs fight with each other and with police using military grade weapons?

Northern Ireland is quite famous from having neighborhoods that aren't that police friendly. Here in Finland we have our Romani neighbors and our motorcycle gangs don't like police that much, especially in mid 90s when they were in war with each other and were able to access weapons like M72 LAWs their neighborhoods weren't places were police went gladly. EDIT: If we go little more back in Finland's history. In there was in 1800s group called Puukkojunkarit (knife-fighters) that terrorize big part of Western Finland.

Don't think they're exactly no-go, but they're hostile to the police, and have become a lot more hostile thanks to Obama's demagoguery and lies. Europe didn't have them though until mass migration. So the causes are different but the result is the same, ethnic-cultural enclaves hostile to the society at large. There has been areas that are hostile towards police in Europe as long as there has been police forces in Europe.

Currently that is the projection model that has happened everywhere. Richer state becomes lower its birthrates become. Some states have achieved situation where their birth rates are lower than their population decreasing rate, Japan is one example of such state. There are some states that have achieved this status via artificial means, like for example China, where their one child policy has lead in population decrease. Also inside of local populations poorer families usually have more kids than rich families, but that isn't as universal rule as birthrates dropping when general wealth of state increases. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255510/ https://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Birth_Rate_Decline_e.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility total fertility rate (TFR) versus human development index (HDI), Source: Human Development Report 2009

Police is public service agency that is empowered by state to enforce laws and limit civil disorder. So police is part of system that controls the state aka government, but not the government aka ministry, a collective group of people that exercises executive authority in a state.

At least Russia's foreign minister Lavrov tells how we are starting time after West and people should to prepare to new world order.

"The news is fake because so much of the news is fake" - D. J. Trump Also "Leaks real, the news is fake" - D. J. Trump