The UN convention on refugees is that a person MUST seek refugee status in the first non-war location they set foot on.
Whether or not this convention/policy makes sense is a different matter (it was not conceived of for the mass migrations we are seeing now), but technically speaking, these people stop being refugees when they leave the first peaceful state they are in. And practically, they are shopping for benefits -- why settle for Denmark which forces you to integrate, when you can get to Sweden and only integrate if you want to? Why settle for Greece or Turkey, where you get safety in a refugee camp, when you can go to Germany and get safety and help among the local's preferred residence?
I do not fault these people for trying to get the best for themselves - I'm not sure I'd have acted differently in their place - but the word "refugees" has very specific legal meaning, both locally and internationally, and therefore "so called refugees" is technically correct, because these people are not refugees by international conventions and definitions.
That just moves the goalpost though. Denmark could say the same to Germany, and they to southern countries. Should the beach-cities of Italy carry all the responsibility? Should we in Norway not help humanity, because there are some other borders between us and the problems?
No, it doesn't just move the goal posts - international law does make the first peaceful ground different by being the place a refugee needs to settle their status first.
The refugee infrastructure in Italy (and Turkey, and Greece, and Jordan) is stretched thin and breaking, as this law was not written for the current situation. And as a result, Italy asked for help, did not receive it, and is now threatening to use a loophole to grant every refugee seeker some EU status that would make them effectively pan-european refugees -- but that has not happened yet.
Assuming you are norweigan -- didn't Norway recently threaten closing the Swedish border if Sweden doesn't reign on their refugee situation and stop them from crossing to norway?[0] Not sure if this speisa is reliable, remember reading it in a reputible source but can't find one right now on Google.
> Assuming you are norweigan -- didn't Norway recently threaten closing the Swedish border if Sweden doesn't reign on their refugee situation and stop them from crossing to norway?
Yes, as has happened elsewhere in the world, we have elected a government based on fear, FUD, protectionism and anti-immigration.
I don't support us sitting on a throne of riches, leaving the rest of the world to deal with the problems, though. This is of course my personal belief, but I also think not doing it this way is shortsighted and will leave everyone, including us, worse of in the long run.
Overstretching infrastructure won't make it any better for anyone. Imagine the lifeboat which accepts everyone and sinks because it cannot support the weight.
I think we should help, but compared to capita Sweden has been carrying most of the burden for a war we have no stake in and for us it is a huge economical loss to host all these people here. Many will probably never have a job in Sweden.
Then it's the security issue, there is no background checks in Sweden. They could be literally mass murderers and IS-fighters and we would have no idea. Then there is this age issue. In Sweden they throw away their papers and say that they are underage when they are clearly sometimes around 30. Then they go to school with real boys and girls and shit like this happens:
http://www5.idrottonline.se/globalassets/gefle-if-fif---frii...
It is time for Sweden to stop accepting refugees. I think very few people in Sweden are against immigration, just irresposible immigration.
Huh? You stop fleeing from war when you get to a nation that is in peace. Then, you head for Sweden to get free money from the government for the rest of your life.
Whether or not this convention/policy makes sense is a different matter (it was not conceived of for the mass migrations we are seeing now), but technically speaking, these people stop being refugees when they leave the first peaceful state they are in. And practically, they are shopping for benefits -- why settle for Denmark which forces you to integrate, when you can get to Sweden and only integrate if you want to? Why settle for Greece or Turkey, where you get safety in a refugee camp, when you can go to Germany and get safety and help among the local's preferred residence?
I do not fault these people for trying to get the best for themselves - I'm not sure I'd have acted differently in their place - but the word "refugees" has very specific legal meaning, both locally and internationally, and therefore "so called refugees" is technically correct, because these people are not refugees by international conventions and definitions.