The current refugee wave in Europe

[BruceVC]

I tell  you what I am  finding strange is why Hungary is being so resistant to the Syrians passing through?

 

Its clear the Hungarians don't want them and the Syrians don't want to stay in Hungary ...so why not just let them pass through as quickly as possible

 

I feel sympathy for Hungary because it must be very daunting having to manage thousands of people ...Croatia only lasted one day before they quickly closed there borders 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/18/croatia-closes-border-crossings-with-serbia-refugees-stranded

 

But rather then add more bardwire just let them go to countries in the EU that will accept them ?

[HoonDing]

Because they don't want to destroy Europe.

[BruceVC]

Because they don't want to destroy Europe.

 

I'm  not with you? These refugees will eventually end up somewhere in EU....so why go to all the effort of stopping them on the Hungarian border when there are countries like Austria and Germany that seem better equipped and more prepared to deal with them?

 

So in other why would the Hungarians make this a problem they have to deal with by restricting border access, this would only make logistical sense if the Syrians wanted to settle in Hungary?

[HoonDing]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/migration-crisis-hungary-pm-victor-orban-europe-response-madness

[Ineth]

Well I do believe that Islam as a whole needs to undergo a reformation.  The current divisions, both political and cultural, are simply unsustainable.  In a lot of ways, this whole refugee crisis is a very clear sign that the current incarnation of Islam is coming apart at the seams.  

 

It's not like we don't have a historical roadmap to look at for this.  The parallels to Christianity are pretty clear.

 

It's a popular theory, but I'm not so sure anymore.

 

What if the Taliban and Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic State are the Islamic equivalent to the Christian reformation?

 

Remember, the Christian reformation didn't happen because they said "Hey, let's erase some of our religion's beloved commandments as a compromise to make the world a better place for nonbelievers!"

 

It happened because they said "Why did we allow political leaders to invent so many rules and stuff for their own political gain in the name of our religion? That **** wasn't part of the teachings of the founder of our religion! Let's go back to what it was supposed to be originally!"

 

And that sounds very very similar to the explanations that ISIL & co give to defend what they're doing.

That may sound strange at first, but here's the thing:

• The founder of the Christian religion was^* a hippie who walked around barefeet and encouraged/hugged/healed people, and steered clear of wordly geopolitics.

   

• The founder of the Muslim religion was^* a warlord who conquered nations with military might, and engaged in murder, genocide, slavery, torture, rape.

That's a really tough pill to swallow for many on the left, who prefer the a-priori answers that postmodernist relativism gives, to those yielded by the evidence. But if we are to understand & deal with ISIL and the like, I don't think we can afford to not explore that context, no matter how politically incorrect.

 

And to preempt the obvious rebuttal: I know, I know, Christians throughout history found all kinds of rationalizations for murder, genocide, slavery, torture and rape, as well. But a call for "Let's go back to the origins, to the example of our religion's founder!" tends to push Christianity into a more benign direction - whereas it shouldn't be assumed to have the same effect on Islam.

 

----

 

^*)According to the respective religion's own 'authoritative' sources. Only partially (at best) confirmed by actual historians.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

The rise of anti-immigrant and similar far-right parties did not happen without a reason.

 

 

It happened for similar reasons as it has always has, because people have fears (justifiable or unjustified don't matter) and some politician have seen their opportunity to get power in exploiting those fears by promising to solve them.

 

But as we see currently in Finland such promises are much easier to give than keep when it comes to facing realities of world. I am currently quite curios to see if True Finns are capable to keep their support in next elections (of course current crises are well timed for them as they are beginning of current parliament election cycle), but four years is short time when it comes to crises that currently face us.

 

 

True Finns are just the same manifestiation of the problem as SD in Sweden, Front National in France and so on, which goes back to your original point about politicians prolificating from fears: Are they actually all cynical oppurtunists? That's quite the claim to make. With the same logic, occupy Wall Street was about exploiting the rage of indebted people.

 

 

 

Is it not cynical opportunism to endlessly parrot whatever the dogma of the day is: multiculturalism, female empowerment, gay rights or whatever? Where's the brave struggle there, to stand behind something more or less the entire media machinery and elite stand behind in the first place, where you'll get social strokes just for repeating ad nauseam the same things everyone else is saying, regardless of whether they believe it or not. More than a few people make their livelihoods this way.

 

For anyone in the current political establishment to accuse the rightist parties of opportunism is cheese of the highest order. If the "populist rhetoric" of the right is working, its because your system ****ing isn't, not because they're being crafty and exploiting the situation. That's just closet elitism, treating common people like fools who can't see the forest from the trees, and worst of all dare to be displeased with how the powers that be are "handling" the situation.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Its a sad state of affairs when the only reasonable man in Europe is the Hungarian PM.

[Rosbjerg]

 

Well I do believe that Islam as a whole needs to undergo a reformation.  The current divisions, both political and cultural, are simply unsustainable.  In a lot of ways, this whole refugee crisis is a very clear sign that the current incarnation of Islam is coming apart at the seams.  

 

It's not like we don't have a historical roadmap to look at for this.  The parallels to Christianity are pretty clear.

 

And that sounds very very similar to the explanations that ISIL & co give to defend what they're doing.

That may sound strange at first, but here's the thing:

• The founder of the Christian religion was^* a hippie who walked around barefeet and encouraged/hugged/healed people, and steered clear of wordly geopolitics.

   

• The founder of the Muslim religion was^* a warlord who conquered nations with military might, and engaged in murder, genocide, slavery, torture, rape.

That's a really tough pill to swallow for many on the left, who prefer the a-priori answers that postmodernist relativism gives, to those yielded by the evidence. But if we are to understand & deal with ISIL and the like, I don't think we can afford to not explore that context, no matter how politically incorrect.

 

And to preempt the obvious rebuttal: I know, I know, Christians throughout history found all kinds of rationalizations for murder, genocide, slavery, torture and rape, as well. But a call for "Let's go back to the origins, to the example of our religion's founder!" tends to push Christianity into a more benign direction - whereas it shouldn't be assumed to have the same effect on Islam.

 

----

 

^*)According to the respective religion's own 'authoritative' sources. Only partially (at best) confirmed by actual historians.

 

 

You haven't studied history I see - taking modern conceptual understandings and extrapolating those backwards is generally one the most common historical fallacies. And gives rise to countless misunderstandings.. like yours.

 

The earliest Christianity was a warrior sect of jews and extremely militant (see Alexandria ca 391 AD), however as the years progressed it became increasingly separated from state as secular rulers didn't want to give up power to the Church. The reformation was a political tool for contemporary rulers to take power, especially landed property, away from the church.. There have been countless Muslims calling for a similar reformation and ironically the Muslim Brotherhood even started as a very progressive movement back in 1928, founded by very secular minded people.

ISIS would be more similar to the Templars and other Christian sects around the time of the super militarization of Christianity in the beginning of the first millenia. If we were to extrapolate from that (which we shouldn't) your analogy is 500 years off.

 

For a great synopsis on the development of the Arab identity and use of religion read Eugene Rogan's "The Arabs, a History".. or for a more contemporary look you could see Rutherfords "Egypt after Mubarak" .

[BruceVC]

 

Well I do believe that Islam as a whole needs to undergo a reformation.  The current divisions, both political and cultural, are simply unsustainable.  In a lot of ways, this whole refugee crisis is a very clear sign that the current incarnation of Islam is coming apart at the seams.  

 

It's not like we don't have a historical roadmap to look at for this.  The parallels to Christianity are pretty clear.

 

It's a popular theory, but I'm not so sure anymore.

 

What if the Taliban and Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic State are the Islamic equivalent to the Christian reformation?

 

Remember, the Christian reformation didn't happen because they said "Hey, let's erase some of our religion's beloved commandments as a compromise to make the world a better place for nonbelievers!"

 

It happened because they said "Why did we allow political leaders to invent so many rules and stuff for their own political gain in the name of our religion? That **** wasn't part of the teachings of the founder of our religion! Let's go back to what it was supposed to be originally!"

 

And that sounds very very similar to the explanations that ISIL & co give to defend what they're doing.

That may sound strange at first, but here's the thing:

• The founder of the Christian religion was^* a hippie who walked around barefeet and encouraged/hugged/healed people, and steered clear of wordly geopolitics.

   

• The founder of the Muslim religion was^* a warlord who conquered nations with military might, and engaged in murder, genocide, slavery, torture, rape.

That's a really tough pill to swallow for many on the left, who prefer the a-priori answers that postmodernist relativism gives, to those yielded by the evidence. But if we are to understand & deal with ISIL and the like, I don't think we can afford to not explore that context, no matter how politically incorrect.

 

And to preempt the obvious rebuttal: I know, I know, Christians throughout history found all kinds of rationalizations for murder, genocide, slavery, torture and rape, as well. But a call for "Let's go back to the origins, to the example of our religion's founder!" tends to push Christianity into a more benign direction - whereas it shouldn't be assumed to have the same effect on Islam.

 

----

 

^*)According to the respective religion's own 'authoritative' sources. Only partially (at best) confirmed by actual historians.

 

The likes of the Taliban, ISIS and Al-Qaeda can never be considered similar to the Christian revolution because these movements don't believe in the transformation or progression of the Islamic world. They want to take the Islamic world backwards to a medieval and benighted state

 

For example they don't believe in equality, they don't believe in human rights, they don't believe in the advancements of science and  they don't believe in education for all and more importantly they believe in the indivisible right of state and religious doctrine as means of reasonable government

 

Why do we keep having to highlight that if you look at the ascendancy of the West over the last 500 years it should be quite clear that the West has been able to prudently separate the Church from the State around how its countries are managed . The Church is still relevant but its doesn't generally define government policy

 

All these Islamic extremist groups want more religious control of how governments are run. This has been proven to lead to a lack of advancement and economic transformation 

Edited September 21, 2015 by BruceVC

[Ineth]

You haven't studied history I see

 

Not at university level, no - but that's no reason for ad hominems.

 

taking modern conceptual understandings and extrapolating those backwards is generally one the most common historical fallacies. And gives rise to countless misunderstandings.. like yours.

 

I think you may be misunderstanding what I meant by "back to the beginnings".

 

Christians believe (based on the accounts in the Bible) that Jesus existed as a pacifist preacher who walked around Judea and Samaria (today known as the West Bank) around 30 AD to teach and heal people, and that the first Christian churches were established in line with his teachings shortly after his death.

 

So that's what a "Back to the original teachings!" reformation naturally moves towards in the case of Christianity.

 

Whether Christianity was actually formed in the 4th century and the now-canonical origin story inserted retroactively (a theory held by some historians, and apparently considered a fact by you), is totally irrelevant to that.

 

Similarly, Muslims believe Muhammad existed and did certain things (based on the accounts in the Quran and some Hadiths), so that's what a "Back to the original teachings!" reformation would lead Islam towards, regardless of what historians discover about Muhammad's actual life or about how Islam was actually formed.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Ineth

[Darkpriest]

 

 

We're 850 million and all of the middle east is 400.. If every single man, woman and child moved they would still be a minority. Besides their birthrates are comparable to ours now, so they can't even outproduce us if that's your worry (which it really shouldn't be).

 

In conclusion: Stop being so dramatic.

 

Comparable how? Or are you counting your native population birth rate as a collective or your genuine native population. Because last time I looked, the only reason most European countries have a positive birth:death ratio, is because the immigrants have several children and make the overall stats look better.

 

And where did you get 850 million, EU has about 500. 

 

 

I get my numbers from the World Bank and UN websites, as opposed to the time honored tradition of pulling the numbers out of your ass.

 

The UN sets a cautious estimate of the population of EU at 738 million. Source. While other projections are almost a billion when Russia, Turkey and other countries some times affiliated with Europe are counted in, so I went with a nice middle ground.

Do you also need help with finding sources on population growth?

 

 

The problem is, that this report does not divide between native European population and immigrant population from Africa, Middle East, Asia....

 

There was a survey or I believe it was even more detailed in the latest full census data in France's national census, where while you would see on average around 2,1 child per family, there was a division where the native EU would have less than 2 (so declining population) while immigrants would have between 4-6 (I am not proficient in french so I had trouble navigating the huge website with various statistics), meaning that the native population was in decline as anything below 2 means the population is declining. It has a lot to do with life style, culture and goals of the women. Native women have higher independence and emancipation, with goals being doing career and having fun. At the same time the women from migrant families often do not seek a job and live off social benefits, which give funding for each kid, and the same time they do not have the same drive for independence as it is culturally quenched, as most of migrants live in migrant ghettos or districts, where they do not really assimilate.

 

How can I trust politicians, who so far failed in assimilation programs and assimilating migrant population from the past into the EU societies and its core values? First make sure to work with the migrants that you already have, and do not transfer the same dysfunction onto new countries, which never had significant minorities that would be other than from neighboring countries, so technically fairly close culturally.

 

Countries like Bulgaria and Greece still have a fairly fresh memory how it was under the rule of Ottoman Empire, so they also have historical reasons no to really want muslim migrants from the middle east

[Elerond]

 

You haven't studied history I see

 

Not at university level, no - but that's no reason for ad hominems.

 

taking modern conceptual understandings and extrapolating those backwards is generally one the most common historical fallacies. And gives rise to countless misunderstandings.. like yours.

 

I think you may be misunderstanding what I meant by "back to the beginnings".

 

Christians believe that Jesus existed as a pacifist preacher who walked around Judea and Samaria (today known as the West Bank) around 30 AD to teach and heal people, and that the first Christian churches were established in line with his teachings shortly after his death.

 

So that's what a "Back to the original teachings!" reformation naturally moves towards in the case of Christianity.

 

Whether Christianity was actually formed in the 4th century and the now-canonical origin story inserted retroactively (a theory held by some historians, and apparently considered a fact by you), is totally irrelevant to that.

 

 

You would think that is what they would move towards, but if you look reformation movements of Christianity they took more from old testament that they took from teachings of Jesus. They also were quite heavy in punishment of sins where Jesus mostly taught about forgiveness. 

 

Also some Christian reformation movements were heavily influenced by states, like in Sweden, Gustav I decided to secede from Catholic Church after disagreement with pope and decided to convert Sweden to Lutheranism (influenced by Lutheran scholar) and used Luther's teaching that Church should not have large treasuries to seize gold, silver and other valuables from Sweden's churches during conversion to enrich his own treasury (which was quite empty after Swedish war of liberation). In England Henry VIII (of Tudors) decided to separate from Rome and Pope and declare himself to Supreme Head of the Church of England, he also seized quite lot of churches treasuries to England's treasury (which had also suffered from previous wars and conflict with Rome and civil unrests in England). These (and other) separations from influence of Rome lead latter on additional conflicts between Rome supporting states and separated states, some of these conflicts were so heavy that they still cause conflicts between people in Europe. 

 

Point begin that reformations in Christianity didn't always born or/and spread out because of religious revelations and that many of them didn't focus on teaching of peace, forgiveness and harmony, but repentance of sins, converting killing infidels including other Christians that didn't followed their interpretation of Bible. And they were more often than not used by some state leader as tool to achieve their political goals.  

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

The rise of anti-immigrant and similar far-right parties did not happen without a reason.

 

 

It happened for similar reasons as it has always has, because people have fears (justifiable or unjustified don't matter) and some politician have seen their opportunity to get power in exploiting those fears by promising to solve them.

 

But as we see currently in Finland such promises are much easier to give than keep when it comes to facing realities of world. I am currently quite curios to see if True Finns are capable to keep their support in next elections (of course current crises are well timed for them as they are beginning of current parliament election cycle), but four years is short time when it comes to crises that currently face us.

 

 

True Finns are just the same manifestiation of the problem as SD in Sweden, Front National in France and so on, which goes back to your original point about politicians prolificating from fears: Are they actually all cynical oppurtunists? That's quite the claim to make. With the same logic, occupy Wall Street was about exploiting the rage of indebted people.

 

 

When their main agendas surround those fears and how they will prevent those fears never becoming true or at least do their best to fight against them then they are in my opinion opportunist especially when we speak about parties that weren't previously in power. Of course there are always more nuances than any simple explanation can give, but if you look commonalities in those right wing parties you, see that how they speak how immigrants take jobs from original population and how they do more crimes (these are points that play with people's fears [which of course can be justified, but anyway they are aimed towards people's fears]), also with EU they speak how EU dictates things and forces to do things that people don't want (this also plays on people's fears [and again they can be justified, but anyways they are aimed towards something that people fear]), also with Greece they points are how Greece will take all our money (again playing with people's fears [justifiable or not] ). So to me all their main agendas use people's fears to get them motivated to vote them. Opportunist part comes from my opinion that all (at least most) politicians are opportunists that just look ways to motivate people to vote them (For example for governing parties usually motivate people by appeal their habit to dislike any big changes).

 

Occupy Wall Street used people's anger (justified or not, but anger anyways) towards things and it would not had existed without that anger. Of course there may have been some other things that drive them as I did read quite little about it (mostly only about the police brutality cases that got quite lot press time).

 

 

That's my point, the old parties have completely failed to adress the problem properly, and here we are.

[Rosbjerg]

I think you may be misunderstanding what I meant by "back to the beginnings".

 

Your point was that modern Muslims, as opposed to Christians, see their Prophet as a vehicle for war and change, no? I was pointing out that this was wrong and that your conceptualization of what the "origin" of Christianity was is also very much up to debate. Even among contemporary Christians.

 

In short, you're were making sweeping generalizations based on your own presumptions, in order to support your underlying hypothesis - which I'm guessing is that the current movements of Islam is incompatible with peace? I disagree with this basis and ask that you back it up with some actual sources.

 

 

 

You haven't studied history I see

 

Not at university level, no - but that's no reason for ad hominems.

 

Not an ad hominen (and sorry if it seemed harsh), it was meant to give you pause and not throw out personal beliefs and statements as facts.

[Malcador]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/migration-crisis-hungary-pm-victor-orban-europe-response-madness

“This is not a European problem, it’s a German problem,” said Orbán in Brussels. “They all want to go to Germany.”

Well, he's right in that way. Should push for Germany to foot the bill to move these people.

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/migration-crisis-hungary-pm-victor-orban-europe-response-madness

“This is not a European problem, it’s a German problem,” said Orbán in Brussels. “They all want to go to Germany.”

Well, he's right in that way. Should push for Germany to foot the bill to move these people.

 

Is he right? Its only really a " German " problem because they  are prepared to absorb more Syrians but wouldn't it become a "European " problem if all countries agreed to take in more Syrians

 

But I'm not justifying the fact Europe should take in any refugees. I'm just saying it doesn't seem reasonable to say  " this is a German problem" 

 

This is an EU problem and needs consensus and a unified response 

[Malcador]

Well, all these people have a destination in mind, and it's not Europe, and Europe didn't send out an invite.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/21/we-must-act-together-on-refugees-says-merkel-as-eu-prepares-for-crisis-summit

 

“Germany is willing to help. But it is not just a German challenge, but one for all of Europe,” Merkel told a gathering of trade unionists. “Europe must act together and take on responsibility. Germany can’t shoulder this task alone.“

Pretty funny now, I guess.

[Hurlshort]

It doesn't really matter what type of person Mohammad was, it matters how the vast majority of Muslims see him.  They do not see him as a violent warlord.

 

You could just watch "The Message" if you want an idea of how the more moderate Muslim sees his faith and the Prophet.  Despite its age, it is still a pretty relevant film.     

[Lychnidos]

 

 

We're 850 million and all of the middle east is 400.. If every single man, woman and child moved they would still be a minority. Besides their birthrates are comparable to ours now, so they can't even outproduce us if that's your worry (which it really shouldn't be).

 

In conclusion: Stop being so dramatic.

 

Comparable how? Or are you counting your native population birth rate as a collective or your genuine native population. Because last time I looked, the only reason most European countries have a positive birth:death ratio, is because the immigrants have several children and make the overall stats look better.

 

And where did you get 850 million, EU has about 500. 

 

 

I get my numbers from the World Bank and UN websites, as opposed to the time honored tradition of pulling the numbers out of your ass.

 

The UN sets a cautious estimate of the population of EU at 738 million. Source. While other projections are almost a billion when Russia, Turkey and other countries some times affiliated with Europe are counted in, so I went with a nice middle ground.

Do you also need help with finding sources on population growth?

 

 

Your source claims that's the population number for the continent of Europe, not the Union.

[Elerond]

Article behind link is in Finnish, as I don't have seen any articles about this in English, so I must use this

http://yle.fi/uutiset/irakilaiset_varoittavat_toisiaan_somessa_alkaa_tulko_suomeen_taalla_on_kauheaa/8320618?ref=leiki-uu

 

Iraqi refugees in Finland have started to advice other refugees that they should not come in Finland or even Europe because even though there is safe life will be much harder and very humiliating. Also it is mentioned that everything is expensive, toilets are unclean, refugee centers give very small portions of food, refugees can't work. Also it is mentioned that some refugees say in social media that they want to return in home.

 

So what do you think isn't our social paradise on Earth that nice (very likely) or do these people just try make their own situation better in future by dissuading their commorades from coming here (or other places in Europe)?

[Elerond]

 

 

 

We're 850 million and all of the middle east is 400.. If every single man, woman and child moved they would still be a minority. Besides their birthrates are comparable to ours now, so they can't even outproduce us if that's your worry (which it really shouldn't be).

 

In conclusion: Stop being so dramatic.

 

Comparable how? Or are you counting your native population birth rate as a collective or your genuine native population. Because last time I looked, the only reason most European countries have a positive birth:death ratio, is because the immigrants have several children and make the overall stats look better.

 

And where did you get 850 million, EU has about 500. 

 

 

I get my numbers from the World Bank and UN websites, as opposed to the time honored tradition of pulling the numbers out of your ass.

 

The UN sets a cautious estimate of the population of EU at 738 million. Source. While other projections are almost a billion when Russia, Turkey and other countries some times affiliated with Europe are counted in, so I went with a nice middle ground.

Do you also need help with finding sources on population growth?

 

 

Your source claims that's the population number for the continent of Europe, not the Union.

 

 

EU's population is about 500 million.

[Meshugger]

Article behind link is in Finnish, as I don't have seen any articles about this in English, so I must use this

http://yle.fi/uutiset/irakilaiset_varoittavat_toisiaan_somessa_alkaa_tulko_suomeen_taalla_on_kauheaa/8320618?ref=leiki-uu

 

Iraqi refugees in Finland have started to advice other refugees that they should not come in Finland or even Europe because even though there is safe life will be much harder and very humiliating. Also it is mentioned that everything is expensive, toilets are unclean, refugee centers give very small portions of food, refugees can't work. Also it is mentioned that some refugees say in social media that they want to return in home.

 

So what do you think isn't our social paradise on Earth that nice (very likely) or do these people just try make their own situation better in future by dissuading their commorades from coming here (or other places in Europe)?

 

Doesn't sound like them being much of refugees if an incoming cold winter and an economic downturn would make them think twice.

 

//edit: They were Iraqis, lol

Edited September 21, 2015 by Meshugger

[Meshugger]

Reality becomes more weird than fiction. Remember the guy that got tripped over by the Hungerian TV-woman? It turns out that the Kurdish group PYD is accusing him of being in front and fighting along Al-Nusra (Al-Queda in Syria) against the Kurds. 

 

http://rudaw.net/NewsDetails.aspx?pageid=159906

 

Also, Hungary has passed a law that allows them the use of military forces in this crisis. I wouldn't even be surprised if there will be a military intervention against the Magyars in the future. Alumni better emigrate while he has the chance.

 

http://www.rt.com/news/316096-hungary-army-refugee-crisis/

Edited September 21, 2015 by Meshugger

[BruceVC]

 

Article behind link is in Finnish, as I don't have seen any articles about this in English, so I must use this

http://yle.fi/uutiset/irakilaiset_varoittavat_toisiaan_somessa_alkaa_tulko_suomeen_taalla_on_kauheaa/8320618?ref=leiki-uu

 

Iraqi refugees in Finland have started to advice other refugees that they should not come in Finland or even Europe because even though there is safe life will be much harder and very humiliating. Also it is mentioned that everything is expensive, toilets are unclean, refugee centers give very small portions of food, refugees can't work. Also it is mentioned that some refugees say in social media that they want to return in home.

 

So what do you think isn't our social paradise on Earth that nice (very likely) or do these people just try make their own situation better in future by dissuading their commorades from coming here (or other places in Europe)?

 

Doesn't sound like them being much of refugees if an incoming cold winter and an economic downturn would make them think twice.

 

//edit: They were Iraqis, lol

 

I'm fine if less refugees come to Europe because they think life is hard in the EU...life is harder in the EU than people assume 

 

 

So Elerond and Meshugger if you guys are feeling guilty about Finland creating such a bad impression of the EU....don't feel guilty. People also need to see the negative of the EU that isn't even that severe 

[Elerond]

 

 

Article behind link is in Finnish, as I don't have seen any articles about this in English, so I must use this

http://yle.fi/uutiset/irakilaiset_varoittavat_toisiaan_somessa_alkaa_tulko_suomeen_taalla_on_kauheaa/8320618?ref=leiki-uu

 

Iraqi refugees in Finland have started to advice other refugees that they should not come in Finland or even Europe because even though there is safe life will be much harder and very humiliating. Also it is mentioned that everything is expensive, toilets are unclean, refugee centers give very small portions of food, refugees can't work. Also it is mentioned that some refugees say in social media that they want to return in home.

 

So what do you think isn't our social paradise on Earth that nice (very likely) or do these people just try make their own situation better in future by dissuading their commorades from coming here (or other places in Europe)?

 

Doesn't sound like them being much of refugees if an incoming cold winter and an economic downturn would make them think twice.

 

//edit: They were Iraqis, lol

 

I'm fine if less refugees come to Europe because they think life is hard in the EU...life is harder in the EU than people assume 

 

 

So Elerond and Meshugger if you guys are feeling guilty about Finland creating such a bad impression of the EU....don't feel guilty. People also need to see the negative of the EU that isn't even that severe 

 

 

Finland will create much worse impression in time period from December to February when temperature here is averagely between -10 - -30 degree of Celsius and you see sun only couple hours in day. Culture shock that it causes for people from ME is enormous even when one is prepared to it not to mention people that aren't.