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. 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

It is over 1000 years long tradition to import new people in Sweden, meaning that is their culture. They import people and ideas from other cultures and then say that they are theirs. They have done it from dawn of the time

By international agreements that Russia has signed, legality hacking that targets computers in USA is determined by USA laws. Which of course don't necessary mean much as Russia isn't in habit giving its citizens to USA to be tried. Nah, not if it's the Russian State doing it. Even for private citizens extradition itself requires the crime to be illegal in Russia as well, albeit that can be waived. The direct equivalent would be Russia saying that CIA hacking in Russia is illegal. Well yeah, it may be in Russia, but it isn't a crime in the US and there isn't merely no chance of an extradition whatever reciprocal treaties may say there's no chance of, well, anything except incredulous laughter if they complained about it. It's also particularly problematic when you have the NSA rather obviously hacking/ intercepting the Russian Ambassador's communications- completely against the Vienna Convention, of course, but you'd be naive if you thought it didn't happen. Well, if all the intelligence communities want is a compliant leader who does what they want I guess it's all good then? If one were to be facetious one might mention that all Putin wants is a compliant leader who does what he wants, as well... That kind of thinking is far more sinister than Trump being a blowhard, because Trump is both limited in power and is an actual elected official who will be gone in 4/8 years. These guys are neither elected nor are they limited in their power or in the time frame of their power. You don't get any less limited than trying to kneecap your country's leader as there isn't any higher target to go for. And if they get away with it once they'll do it every single time, it can hardly be claimed they'd stop at the President either since- and I know I'm repeating myself- there is no greater target to go for. (I don't give an asterisk if Putin tried interfering here, that's expected and the best defence to that is having a proper democracy where his potential influence never rises above margin of error level. If our spies tried interfering though? I'd have a hard time describing that as anything less than a clandestine coup and outright treason, and would be tempted to suggest actual hanging for anyone caught doing it, pour decourager les autres. Hi GCSB/ SIS, hope you enjoyed my post) Russian state don't do anything, it is people employed by Russian state and those people are committing crimes in USA if they are hacking computers that locate in USA. But of course them to face consequences of their actions is slim to none as there is quite minor change that Russia will ever hand over them to USA even if USA would be able to actually give Russia prove that those people committed such crime. It is like CIA agents that commit crimes in other countries in order to ensure that USA's interest will come true or USA's soldiers that commit war crimes who will not ever face international courts because USA protects its own people when they commit crimes in its name. But that don't make what these people do any less crime or any more legal in places where those acts have been committed. Like for example there is Finnish hacker that USA wants to try for crimes he committed, but we haven't yet decided if we actually want to give USA our citizen. And there are people in Europe that have committed such crimes like rape in USA but European courts refuse to give them for USA official for trialed there, because their crimes aren't serious enough to warrant such actions. Intelligence communities want compliant leaders that isn't new thing, neither is their power plays during administration changes. Trump just seem to be from weaker end of leaders when it comes to handle such actions. But like you said it is USA State actions there is nothing to worry about it is perfectly legal . But more seriously bad behavior from intelligence communities domestic or foreign don't excuse Trump's actions as leader of US executive branch and leader of US intelligence community. His actions give room for corruption in agencies in US executive branch and it is his job to keep those agencies work for people of USA. Meaning that if they leak information that they should not then that is Trump's fault, because he is the boss and he carries the responsibility for actions done by his agencies addition to those done by himself. What comes to Putin he is leader that puts Russian's interest first, although for him it usually means his interests first, because for him they are same thing even if all the Russians don't agree. Which is important to remember in any negotiations with Russia and speculations what Russia may do. Putin is mastered art to say one thing and do another thing and same time point finger to third thing. He also has somewhat similar attitude towards international agreements as Trump says he has, if they don't benefit Russia then following them is optional.

By international agreements that Russia has signed, legality hacking that targets computers in USA is determined by USA laws. Which of course don't necessary mean much as Russia isn't in habit giving its citizens to USA to be tried. Trump is special case, because he is the most visible politician in world currently and he is the leader of USA. Other politicians behaving idiotically is bad, but when such visible leader does it it is much more worse. Because his behavior and attitude is what everybody sees. Pelosi and Schumer and rest of democrats in House are just some within many that don't all share similar views. There isn't similar opposition for Trump as he is in position above all others. I don't believe that intelligence communities want Trump gone, they just play their own power play where they show that one don't want them as their enemy. As in past Trump has spoken quite lot against intelligence community and how its should be in better lead and otherwise spoken in undermining tone about them.

While I don't really want to get tied up in the minutiae of camel farms in Sweden and other such things Daily Sabah is an abysmally bad newspaper. It won't take a metaphorical crap without written in triplicate approval from Erdogan. Well yeah, and you have the people who were appalled!!! at the Hillary/ DNC leaks who are cheering the current leaks on. Plenty of hypocrisy to go around there, if the circumstances were equivalent, which they aren't. There's a big difference between Hillary/ DNC stuff being leaked by someone be it the mysteriously, unsolvedly, murdered Seth Rich or Vladimir Putin wearing a Groucho Marx moustache as it was information from a private institution to which the leaker either had legit access in Rich or was part of a hack by a 3rd party state which has no obligation to respect US laws. In the current case(s) it's both clear political meddling by, effectively, a state institution (individuals within, but you'd suspect that the leakers could be caught were it a priority for the leadership) against the political leadership of said state and is also illegal leaking of classified material in many cases. The overwhelming impression is that the 'intelligence community' doesn't want to share with Trump not because they think he's a security risk but because they want to monopolise the ability to leak and limit it to anti Trump stuff. They've been leaking like a sieve for the past couple of months, after all. Anyone and everyone should be concerned about the intelligence community influencing politics. Their power over the general population and politicians is an order of magnitude greater than any influence Russia could possibly have even in McCain and Graham's worst nightmare (or Raytheon et al think tanks' push marketing, at least). In both cases leaks were illegal no doubt of that and in both cases leaks were politically motivated and done in purpose to effect in US politics no doubt. But my point was about Trumps attitude towards media reporting said leaks, where first he is very pro when it is his benefit, but then when situation is opposite he is more than ready to blame media reporting about said leaks. Such inconsistency just works in benefit of said leakers because it moves blame from leakers to media reporting about leaks. It also make people attitude towards leaks become more jovial and accepting, which makes it easier for intelligence communities influence politics by leaking stuff.

Are you sure about that name Holmertzová Gun President of Caritas International is Cardinal Luis Antonio Gokim Tagle and Henrik Alberius is Chairman of Caritas Sweden Also Marie Lexhagenové seems to be off http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/stockholms-katolska-stift/news/gun-holmertz-fraan-caritas-upptagen-i-paavlig-riddarorden-146143 Do you seriously think I am making all this up or what? I asked are you sure about the name Holmertzová Gun which is somewhat different from Gun Holmertz It seems that Gun Holmertz isn't head of Caritas, but she is founder of Caritas Caritas Gothenburg and Angered (sub organization of Caritas Sweden, which is sub organisation of Caritas International). This quote seem to be against their general urban development project not the mentioned camel park. "It's absurd vision. The people who created it, Andgered want to change a kind of circus with exotic animals and immigrants, which would have outsiders come to see them, " http://www.gp.se/nyheter/göteborg/satsar-32-miljoner-på-svamp-getmjölk-och-hästgräsklippare-1.4148563 http://www.gp.se/nyheter/göteborg/gun-holmertz-ett-helt-absurt-projekt-1.4148588 Population: "Clean racism" The project may be harsh criticism from residents who call it fuzzy and offensive. - If I had wanted to work with animals or crops, I had gone back to Namibia. The money is needed for education, housing and real jobs. We do not want more animals here. We immigrants are already stigmatized group - this project is pure racism, says Florence Hansen, accommodation in Angered. - This feels frivolous, says Issmet Elsalihie. Even Gun Holmertz Caritas in Hjällbo directed similar criticisms. She calls the project a "circus" that has a "colonial mindset". Read more: Gun Holmertz: "Would make Angered a circus" Something Dan Melander not agree with. - This is definitely not a circus, and we do not claim that this is the solution for the entire northeast. This is just about to test new ways to build economies. http://www.mistraurbanfutures.org/en/urban-research-urban-rural-gothenburg-stadslandet So they think that their Green urban project in immigrant suburban is racist, that sounds more like swedish thing to do.