[letrowekwel]

It's not a good idea to take in massive amounts of poor and uneducated refugees from distant cultures, give them free money and housing, and then just leave them be. That's not a real migration policy, it's just a recipe for creating a segregated society. The Swedish welfare state has certainly taken care of the basic needs of the migrants, but it hasn't really worked well at actual integration, and creating social mobility. Poorly integrated youths who see no future prospects through honest work are prime material for crime gangs to recruit.

I still haven't figured out whether Swedish politicians and voters didn't realize this, or simply didn't care. What's happening has seemed inevitable to me for well over a decade.

[defrost]

> It's not a good idea to take in massive amounts of poor and uneducated refugees from distant cultures, give them free money and housing, and then just leave them be.

Literally the founding story of European Australia .. the bulk of poor uneducated landed here had criminal records to boot.

Still, they were given work to pass the time and after a few decades 'free' land (well, other peoples land).

These days modern Australia population is ~ 25% born elsewhere with a fair number of refugees and poor migrants but these are matched with education, job opportunities and initial placement in communities they can establish themselves in.

That support is pretty crucial to minimising friction.

[WirelessGigabit]

Culturally they were all relatively equal. Same base religion. This is not the case with the refugee situation across Europe.

Not to mention that the Australia thing happened in a time when there was plenty more space & opportunity.

[red-iron-pine]

not everyone who went to the Oz was a criminal -- tho plenty were.

there was a gold rush and for a while Melbourne was the largest city in the British Empire. plenty of actual "try my luck in the new world" folks landed, both in the 1800s and later.

[defrost]

During the founding wave the bulk of the poor were convicts.

During the founding of non convict colonies (Adelaide, Perth, etc) there was the mega rich of the day - second sons shipping out with entire households to establish footholds and means of trade, and their servants (by the terms of the day these were people with a position and a wage albeit not great).

The trying their luck in a gold rush etc crowd came after the founding of the main colonies, some convict, a number not.

FWiW in my estimation "Had a criminal record" | "was a convict" is distinct from "was a criminal" - the first two are a matter of record, the third is more of a judgement call of character.

Many sent to Australia as convicts had character, ethics, a trade, and were victims of circumstance, poor economics, the wrong politics, the wrong class, etc. rather than being of some essential criminal character.