IMMIGRATION thread

[Husar]

I don't have much time, but here are some sources for now:
http://www.thelocal.se/20140520/swed...e-exports-soar
http://www.politico.eu/article/neutr...xtraordinaire/
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/2...sweden_a_major
http://www.sipri.org/research/armame...r%20Sweden.pdf
(page 15)

https://krautreporter.de/1161--warum...zeuge-lieferte

The last one is in German and explains how the Swedish government managed to circumvent the restrictions (partly because the office responsible to enforce them is not very powerful) in order to sell airplanes to the military dictatorship in Thailand. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Pakistan are probably not the safest spots to send weapons to in order to end war and refugee streams from their region. Or just look at the list of users of the 40mm Bofors guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun#Users
Maybe they didn't all buy them directly from Sweden, but it's an impressive list.

[Fragony]

I don't have much time, but here are some sources for now:
http://www.thelocal.se/20140520/swed...e-exports-soar
http://www.politico.eu/article/neutr...xtraordinaire/
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/2...sweden_a_major
http://www.sipri.org/research/armame...r%20Sweden.pdf
(page 15)

https://krautreporter.de/1161--warum...zeuge-lieferte

The last one is in German and explains how the Swedish government managed to circumvent the restrictions (partly because the office responsible to enforce them is not very powerful) in order to sell airplanes to the military dictatorship in Thailand. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Pakistan are probably not the safest spots to send weapons to in order to end war and refugee streams from their region. Or just look at the list of users of the 40mm Bofors guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun#Users
Maybe they didn't all buy them directly from Sweden, but it's an impressive list.

Sweden makes quality stuff. But tell me, even if they have a good reason to want to move to Sweden, what reason do they have to not behave themselves in Sweden? Only South-Africa has worse rape-statistics. Guess whos doing it.

[Sarmatian]

Sweden makes quality stuff. But tell me, even if they have a good reason to want to move to Sweden, what reason do they have to not behave themselves in Sweden? Only South-Africa has worse rape-statistics. Guess whos doing it.

Who?

Are you aware of the concept of taxes? It is this fun notion where we collectively decide to give the government money in order for services to be rendered. Not to be squandered to the tune that we spend more on newly arrived immigrants this year than the entire Afghan state budget including aid.

Decide? That's a nice word for it.

[AE Bravo]

The last one is in German and explains how the Swedish government managed to circumvent the restrictions (partly because the office responsible to enforce them is not very powerful) in order to sell airplanes to the military dictatorship in Thailand. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Pakistan are probably not the safest spots to send weapons to in order to end war and refugee streams from their region

I don't see how sending weapons to these countries has anything to do with high refugee streams. They are in fact the only safe spots close to Syria and are part of a pending regional framework to stabilize Syria in the future as an anti-Islamist front. Egypt, Turkey, Saudi, UAE, and even Sudan are going to play an important role in Syria and managing the refugee crisis.

Even though two of those countries support opposition they are the only hope in a long-term solution in Syria. Or is it just that they're circumventing the restrictions that doesn't sit well with you?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I don't see how sending weapons to these countries has anything to do with high refugee streams. They are in fact the only safe spots close to Syria and are part of a pending regional framework to stabilize Syria in the future as an anti-Islamist front. Egypt, Turkey, Saudi, UAE, and even Sudan are going to play an important role in Syria and managing the refugee crisis.

Even though two of those countries support opposition they are the only hope in a long-term solution in Syria. Or is it just that they're circumventing the restrictions that doesn't sit well with you?

Oh my.... Saudi Arabia as part of anti-Islamist front? Truly?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alasta...b_5717157.html

In case you didn't know

https://medium.com/insurge-intellige...092#.p729u4q01

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...sis-syria-iraq

...there was no civil war (note the term "insurgents" used to describe those fighting Assad), this is a war brought down upon Assad by his enemies, for various geo-political, economic and ethnic/religious reasons. Selling arms to the likes of Saudi-Arabia (or any of the so-called "moderate" rebels) is pretty much the only reason there is war in Syria.

[rajpoot]

As always I'm rather late to the party (hey hey!) but I'll leave my two cents here.
IMO EU isn't responsible. And they shouldn't be allowing the hundreds of thousands inside their borders.
More than a hundred years ago there was this thing about the 'White Man's Burden' which made a lot of European nations do stuff that today would be considered really really bad. What they're doing today is perhaps equally bad.
You lot don't have any burden or moral obligation. Whatever has happened has happened. Doing stupider stuff to fix that isn't going to help anyone. Two wrongs don't make a right and two stupid actions don't make an intelligent action.

[Greyblades]

More than a hundred years ago there was this thing about the 'White Man's Burden' which made a lot of European nations do stuff that today would be considered really really bad. What they're doing today is perhaps equally bad.

I'm bored and history allways interests me, could you explain what the idea of "white man's burden" caused that was bad?

I ask because of all the ideas of the 19th and early 20th century I was under the impression that one was one of the more harmless ideas. Condescending as hell, of course, but not harmful to my knowledge.

[Pannonian]

I'm bored and history allways interests me, could you explain what the idea of "white man's burden" caused that was bad?

I ask because of all the ideas of the 19th and early 20th century I was under the impression that one was one of the more harmless ideas. Condescending as hell, of course, but not harmful to my knowledge.

By lengthening our involvement in these countries, and thus making us responsible for everything bad that's been happening since, even decades after they've gained independence (with everything good being the hitherto restrained potential of the natives, of course). I raised the example of Hong Kong some time ago as an example of where Britain has governed a colony responsibly, and the appreciation of the native Chinese was dismissed, whilst everything that wasn't ideal was pinned as the fault of the British, even where the native Hong Kongers point to Beijing as the source. Trying to do good is pointless. We might as well embrace the universally agreed fact that we're evil, and look to our interests only.

[Fragony]

You know who

[Sarmatian]

You know who

Voldemort?

[Fragony]

Voldemort?

Did someone ever tell you you are boring, must have

[Snowhobbit]

Who?



Decide? That's a nice word for it.

Our feminists have decided that the common denominator is as always men, so the answer is men are doing it! Horrible men...

Yes, we have decided that it is better than not doing so, we have additionally voted for representatives to decide how much we should pay in tax and where it should be spent.

[Snowhobbit]

I don't have much time, but here are some sources for now:
http://www.thelocal.se/20140520/swed...e-exports-soar
http://www.politico.eu/article/neutr...xtraordinaire/
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/2...sweden_a_major
http://www.sipri.org/research/armame...r%20Sweden.pdf
(page 15)

https://krautreporter.de/1161--warum...zeuge-lieferte

The last one is in German and explains how the Swedish government managed to circumvent the restrictions (partly because the office responsible to enforce them is not very powerful) in order to sell airplanes to the military dictatorship in Thailand. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Pakistan are probably not the safest spots to send weapons to in order to end war and refugee streams from their region. Or just look at the list of users of the 40mm Bofors guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun#Users
Maybe they didn't all buy them directly from Sweden, but it's an impressive list.

Thanks for the links.
The plans to build an arms factory in Saudi Arabia is of course far from acceptable. But I cannot see any trace in your sources (good that they are for the matter they discuss), for Sweden supplying offensive military equipment to states which are party to the conflict in Syria. There is no flood of refugees from Pakistan, Egypt or Thailand, though I will agree that we should not sell them weapons either. One of your articles writes about technology transfers and sales to India, which I would consider a good thing if anything. As for the Bofors guns, it is simply so that once a weapon has been sold there is very little that the Swedish state can do to control where they go next.

As a fun tidbit, are you aware that Bofors was founded as a way to circumvent restrictions on Nazi German weapons production and export?

[Beskar]

tl;dr answer to the thread title: Altruism.

(Someone has to say it.)

[Snowhobbit]

tl;dr answer to the thread title: Altruism.

(Someone has to say it.)

Altruism is a voluntary action, not one forced upon a person by strangers. In fact when strangers force you to give them your things we have a entirely different word for that...

[Beskar]

Altruism is a voluntary action, not one forced upon a person by strangers. In fact when strangers force you to give them your things we have a entirely different word for that...

Are there currently strangers on your doorstep forcing you to give them your property? If so, I would recommend contacting the police, not posting about it.

Otherwise, no one is forcing you to give them anything. If you are discussing your nation state volunteering resources to help people who have migrated, then this is an action done voluntary by it to bring about an outcome.

[Snowhobbit]

Are there currently strangers on your doorstep forcing you to give them your property? If so, I would recommend contacting the police, not posting about it.

Otherwise, no one is forcing you to give them anything.

Are you aware of the concept of taxes? It is this fun notion where we collectively decide to give the government money in order for services to be rendered. Not to be squandered to the tune that we spend more on newly arrived immigrants this year than the entire Afghan state budget including aid.

[Snowhobbit]

In related news, apparently since Austria takes near 3 million tourists per year, their refusal to take more than 80 refugees per day is somehow obscene and outrageous. Personally I'm not sure how they are at all related, perhaps someone could explain?

[Johanes Alvane vonTremirenes]

As your discussion is quite amusing with all those morality issues and ad-personam arguments, i will just leave here this: playing Antigones and thinking what is right and what isn't in terms of politics is quite pointless. The politics is seldom about morality, it is always about profit.

[Pannonian]

tl;dr answer to the thread title: Altruism.

(Someone has to say it.)

I've had all altrusim towards the inhabitants of that region beaten out of me from a years of being told that we're to blame for all that we do and don't do. Starting with the conclusion that we're to blame, then working backwards to define what it was that we did or didn't do that resulted in the mess that we're to blame for. If we're to blame for sticking our heads where it's not wanted, the logical response is to stop sticking our heads anywhere, and let the people of that region take care of themselves, free from our interference.

[Husar]

Sweden makes quality stuff. But tell me, even if they have a good reason to want to move to Sweden, what reason do they have to not behave themselves in Sweden? Only South-Africa has worse rape-statistics. Guess whos doing it.

None, did I ever say otherwise? The only issue I have with what you say is that when you talk about the people who move there and the ones who do not behave, you say "they" in both cases, which can easily look like you mean exactly the same group of people (i.e. all of them). It's not so hard to say "some of them" in the second instances to make it clear that you mean a sub-group, is it? Or are you actually saying that none of the immigrants in Sweden can behave themselves?
And please don't talk about common sense or whatever, you do this all the time and it confuses people all the time.

Thanks for the links.
The plans to build an arms factory in Saudi Arabia is of course far from acceptable. But I cannot see any trace in your sources (good that they are for the matter they discuss), for Sweden supplying offensive military equipment to states which are party to the conflict in Syria. There is no flood of refugees from Pakistan, Egypt or Thailand, though I will agree that we should not sell them weapons either. One of your articles writes about technology transfers and sales to India, which I would consider a good thing if anything. As for the Bofors guns, it is simply so that once a weapon has been sold there is very little that the Swedish state can do to control where they go next.

I'm not against arms deals in general, but some governments just can't be trusted with them. Including the US government apparently. While I like Colombia in general, it is currently not a country to which german arms exports are legal. The rules state that arms cannot be sold to any country if that country wants to resell them. Heckler & Koch sold guns to the US Army and they then sold or gave them on to Colombia. The german police raided the Heckler & Koch offices as a result due to the suspicion that Heckler & Koch was aware the guns would not stay in the USA. So yes, it is not always completely controllable, but I'd say it's pretty clear like you say, that countries like Saudi Arabia are not reliable customers for our weapons. We can't even exclude that they don't hand some of them to their allies in Syria or elsewhere. In addition Saudi Arabia and the UAE are currently involved in a war in the region to support their own interests and are definitely using European weapons such as the Leclerc tanks of the UAE. I'm not entirely up-to-date on who the bad guys are down there but it certainly produces a lot of refugees and Saudi Arabia is not exactly known to have our best interests in mind anyway. If even the US ignore our weapon sales restrictions in the most blatant way, how can we trust SA or other unreliable countries to abide by them?

As a fun tidbit, are you aware that Bofors was founded as a way to circumvent restrictions on Nazi German weapons production and export?

Nope, that's pretty interesting though. I only knew that a whole lot of nations used the 40mm design though, apparently some were derivatives or modified ones, but overall quite a widespread gun.

Are you aware of the concept of taxes? It is this fun notion where we collectively decide to give the government money in order for services to be rendered. Not to be squandered to the tune that we spend more on newly arrived immigrants this year than the entire Afghan state budget including aid.

There are so many things to say about that:
1) I wouldn't say it is squandered on all of the immigrants.
2) I like the idea that I pay taxes to help those who are more in need, both Germans and foreigners.
3) If you do not like what the government spends taxes on, you can elect a different government. In some cases it may have other consequences though or require a new party. Democracy isn't always easy.
4) If your other countrymen do not agree with you and do not vote for the government you want, what are you going to do? Flee to somewhere else to save your precious taxes from being squandered?

[Snowhobbit]

None, did I ever say otherwise? The only issue I have with what you say is that when you talk about the people who move there and the ones who do not behave, you say "they" in both cases, which can easily look like you mean exactly the same group of people (i.e. all of them). It's not so hard to say "some of them" in the second instances to make it clear that you mean a sub-group, is it? Or are you actually saying that none of the immigrants in Sweden can behave themselves?
And please don't talk about common sense or whatever, you do this all the time and it confuses people all the time.



I'm not against arms deals in general, but some governments just can't be trusted with them. Including the US government apparently. While I like Colombia in general, it is currently not a country to which german arms exports are legal. The rules state that arms cannot be sold to any country if that country wants to resell them. Heckler & Koch sold guns to the US Army and they then sold or gave them on to Colombia. The german police raided the Heckler & Koch offices as a result due to the suspicion that Heckler & Koch was aware the guns would not stay in the USA. So yes, it is not always completely controllable, but I'd say it's pretty clear like you say, that countries like Saudi Arabia are not reliable customers for our weapons. We can't even exclude that they don't hand some of them to their allies in Syria or elsewhere. In addition Saudi Arabia and the UAE are currently involved in a war in the region to support their own interests and are definitely using European weapons such as the Leclerc tanks of the UAE. I'm not entirely up-to-date on who the bad guys are down there but it certainly produces a lot of refugees and Saudi Arabia is not exactly known to have our best interests in mind anyway. If even the US ignore our weapon sales restrictions in the most blatant way, how can we trust SA or other unreliable countries to abide by them?



Nope, that's pretty interesting though. I only knew that a whole lot of nations used the 40mm design though, apparently some were derivatives or modified ones, but overall quite a widespread gun.



There are so many things to say about that:
1) I wouldn't say it is squandered on all of the immigrants.
2) I like the idea that I pay taxes to help those who are more in need, both Germans and foreigners.
3) If you do not like what the government spends taxes on, you can elect a different government. In some cases it may have other consequences though or require a new party. Democracy isn't always easy.
4) If your other countrymen do not agree with you and do not vote for the government you want, what are you going to do? Flee to somewhere else to save your precious taxes from being squandered?

Well, obviously if we are selling it to someone with that someone having the intention to sell it to a third party then we are to some extent responsible for doing our due diligence and preventing that within reasonable measures. However if someone 5-10 years later decides to sell it, there is little we can do. Equally if say the Iraqi army decides to flee head over heels when they outnumber their foe 20 to 1, we cannot be held responsible for the fact that ISIS seized all of their nice big guns. We can't trust SA, though the biggest reason to not sell to them is how they treat their own population. Which is why the attempt to do so was in violation of Swedish law and a fake company had been set up to assist in the deal.

1) It is not squandered on all immigrants per definition. But we spend more than the entire Afghan budget+aid on unaccompanied "minors", at a minimum we spend 350 euroes per day per "child". I put these words in quotations because we have had "children" who are 20, 25, 30 and in one case 40+ years old. Or take for example the fact that we have housed people in tents at about 200x the cost of housing people in tents in Lebanon/Turkey. That is a waste of money that could be better spent anywhere pretty much, especially in the refugee camps where we would get a lot of bang for our bucks. Did you know that this has caused us to cut foreign aid to the tune that one of the programs estimate a further 20,000 will die from AIDS/Malaria/TB and a further 800,000 will get infected? This is waste.
2) Yes, helping other people is good, but then we should help people who are in need. Like the people who live in the camps who are too poor to pay a smuggler several thousand Euros to be smuggled into Europe.
3) The sad fact of the matter is that we are ruled by a minority government in which the opposition has forced the government to make their budget with the communists. So until 2018 I can't affect much change, in the meanwhile I will have to bear it, but I will reserve the right to bitch and moan about it!
4) If we continue down this dark path (all signs point to us heading off that path finally) then the least of my concern is tax money. But so long as the EU remain, I may well exercise my right to move to another country if that looks like a better option. I should add that I am not getting taxed up the wazoo currently, but I don't see why that should make me support blatant waste of tax money? I'm not saying it should be given back directly to the tax payer, I'm saying we should spend it where it gets more impact. Are you aware that we spend more on this than the entire UNHCR budget for refugees? Imagine how much the situation in those camps could be improved with twice the money! The UNHCR is quite efficient at managing the camps.

As always I'm rather late to the party (hey hey!) but I'll leave my two cents here.
IMO EU isn't responsible. And they shouldn't be allowing the hundreds of thousands inside their borders.
More than a hundred years ago there was this thing about the 'White Man's Burden' which made a lot of European nations do stuff that today would be considered really really bad. What they're doing today is perhaps equally bad.
You lot don't have any burden or moral obligation. Whatever has happened has happened. Doing stupider stuff to fix that isn't going to help anyone. Two wrongs don't make a right and two stupid actions don't make an intelligent action.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, if you don't mind could you clarify what you mean by "Doing stupider stuff"? Are you referring to bombing campaigns/interference in the Middle East? The current refugee situation?

[rajpoot]

I'm bored and history allways interests me, could you explain what the idea of "white man's burden" caused that was bad?

I ask because of all the ideas of the 19th and early 20th century I was under the impression that one was one of the more harmless ideas. Condescending as hell, of course, but not harmful to my knowledge.

On the surface it's fairly harmless but ideas never get implemented like they're planned do they?
As far as my knowledge goes, the perceived responsibility caused the nations to deny peoples whom they considered savages the freedom to rule themselves. Regardless of how messy the alternative histories might have been had Europeans not embarked on their empire building trips, what did happen wasn't very pleasant either, at least not for those who were subjugated.

By lengthening our involvement in these countries, and thus making us responsible for everything bad that's been happening since, even decades after they've gained independence (with everything good being the hitherto restrained potential of the natives, of course). I raised the example of Hong Kong some time ago as an example of where Britain has governed a colony responsibly, and the appreciation of the native Chinese was dismissed, whilst everything that wasn't ideal was pinned as the fault of the British, even where the native Hong Kongers point to Beijing as the source. Trying to do good is pointless. We might as well embrace the universally agreed fact that we're evil, and look to our interests only.

People who say the colonial rulers gave nothing good to their colonies are either blind or have deliberately closed their eyes. People who say that everything they did was for the betterment of their colonies are no better. The truth lies somewhere in between but nothing changes the fact that a group of people should be given the right to govern themselves unless they're doing something catastrophically self destructive (or harmful to others).

Thanks for sharing your opinion, if you don't mind could you clarify what you mean by "Doing stupider stuff"? Are you referring to bombing campaigns/interference in the Middle East? The current refugee situation?

I might be completely wrong here but IMO inviting hundreds of thousands of outsiders to stay in Europe all at once, people who come from a vastly different culture and upbringing and many of whom perhaps don't even like Europe and might even consider the actions of the Western nations the root of their misfortunes (and might harbour dangerous extremists amongst them), is stupid.

[Sarmatian]

Insinuations are really getting annoying. I could say that I am not like that but you wouldn't believe me anyway. People who know me thankfully do.I should know better then taking offence but it's hard not to.

Then stop saying people are literally insane if they believe immigrants (or at least a part of them) should be given refugee. Did it ever occur to you that she just might have thought this through and arrived at a different conclusion?

Syrians aren't the equal of Europeans. At least not within the EU. EU citizens have a right to be in the EU because they are EU citizens. Syrians who aren't EU citizens don't have a right to be in the EU because they're not EU citizens. Other treaties and agreements may modify this, especially in individual cases, but that is generally the case. Under existing laws, AFAIK Syrians have a right to be in Turkey as refugees as Turkey is a neighbouring country. Once they go beyond the immediate neighbours, they're no longer refugees but migrants, and it's up to the country they enter whether or not they're welcome. The onus is not on the other country to host them.

Cue your argument that it's a human right to go wherever one wishes. In disregard of existing international laws.

That is so not my argument.

In legal terms, you're perfectly right. EU doesn't have to do anything. My argument is for the most part moral, with the some practical aspects.

[Fragony]

Then stop saying people are literally insane if they believe immigrants (or at least a part of them) should be given refugee. Did it ever occur to you that she just might have thought this through and arrived at a different conclusion?

No, and I am in the good company of just about everybody in Europe. Thinking is not the same thing as feeling. She should have gotten a pet to pet. Even religiously insane narcists like petting pets, could have saved a lot of trouble if she could have channeled her condition on petting a pet. It's comforting to pet a pet.

[Pannonian]

On the surface it's fairly harmless but ideas never get implemented like they're planned do they?
As far as my knowledge goes, the perceived responsibility caused the nations to deny peoples whom they considered savages the freedom to rule themselves. Regardless of how messy the alternative histories might have been had Europeans not embarked on their empire building trips, what did happen wasn't very pleasant either, at least not for those who were subjugated.

People who say the colonial rulers gave nothing good to their colonies are either blind or have deliberately closed their eyes. People who say that everything they did was for the betterment of their colonies are no better. The truth lies somewhere in between but nothing changes the fact that a group of people should be given the right to govern themselves unless they're doing something catastrophically self destructive (or harmful to others).

See Brenus pointing to overthrowing the Shah as one of the root causes of the current mess in Syria. Apparently a native people having had their own choice of government for 40 years, developing their strength to the point that they're now asserting their power in their region, is still the helpless victim of our actions 40 years ago, and their current actions in conducting a proxy war with another regional power is chiefly our fault. Apparently the natives are incapable of independent thought or responsibility, as everything is down to us.

That is so not my argument.

In legal terms, you're perfectly right. EU doesn't have to do anything. My argument is for the most part moral, with the some practical aspects.

It's already been decided that the west, and especially the Anglo-Americans, are already morally wrong in any given situation, so why should we bother to change our minds? As nothing we do will ever change that inescapable fact, as shown by your dismissal of any credit that the locals ever give the British (it doesn't change the bigger picture etc). Not doing anything on our part doesn't make us wronger, as we're already morally wrong, but on the good side, it's cheaper for us.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

See Brenus pointing to overthrowing the Shah as one of the root causes of the current mess in Syria. Apparently a native people having had their own choice of government for 40 years, developing their strength to the point that they're now asserting their power in their region, is still the helpless victim of our actions 40 years ago, and their current actions in conducting a proxy war with another regional power is chiefly our fault. Apparently the natives are incapable of independent thought or responsibility, as everything is down to us.

Wow! Way to go on misrepresenting an argument. The point was made that a far more important regional interference was
the destruction of Iraq as a viable state...and then the overt support for an overthrow of the Syrian regime. But, by all means pretend that the last action by Western powers was forty years ago...

It's already been decided that the west, and especially the Anglo-Americans, are already morally wrong in any given situation, so why should we bother to change our minds? As nothing we do will ever change that inescapable fact, as shown by your dismissal of any credit that the locals ever give the British (it doesn't change the bigger picture etc). Not doing anything on our part doesn't make us wronger, as we're already morally wrong, but on the good side, it's cheaper for us.

It's so much easier to blame those displaced (and powerless) than to look to your own regimes who are busy screwing you over, screwing them over and laughing all the way to the bank. Us 'native Europeans' are such a gullible bunch aren't we?

[Snowhobbit]

I might be completely wrong here but IMO inviting hundreds of thousands of outsiders to stay in Europe all at once, people who come from a vastly different culture and upbringing and many of whom perhaps don't even like Europe and might even consider the actions of the Western nations the root of their misfortunes (and might harbour dangerous extremists amongst them), is stupid.

Well, the issue is two-fold. On the one hand we have a lot of people living more or less miserable lives, aka push factors. On the other we have statements from politicians as well as just general a generous system for refugees (aka pull factors). It is not reasonable to blame the result on only one of the two factors, and I am not sure if there are more dangerous extremists among the influx than is present domestically in those groups (see French suburbs or Malmö for instance). Of course if the people who have come are not integrated, they will further feed the issue and cause more problems.