| > 1/3 of refugees never becomes economical self-sufficient I am not questioning this, or that math is racist. You are misrepresenting me, which is dishonest. My main point is why and what you make of it. And you yield statistics as a definite conclusion, while you kind of contradict yourself. > The plain fact is that taking in refugees has costed Sweden money > The math doesn't say if the cost isn't morally worth it [in the future] > All the math say is that [...cost...] _will_ not be repaid by those refugees I assume this is just a slight grammar slip but i can think i can call the broader argument dishonest again, because like i said way earlier, by narrowing down the time scope, you are constructing partial views as arguments. Its like saying "brushing your teeth costs money, but is it really worth it?" I repeat, services cost money and integration isnt frictionless. When you see immigrants as just people subject to socialization, that want a stable and fullfilling live, as much as you do, you woudnt make sweeping selective arguments and oppose immigration in total. The debate subject changes from immigration:yes/no to how/why. This perspective is missing today and i repeat/paraphrase yet again, the problems immigration are not soley caused them but can arise/effect natives as much. A broader discussion would address this too... |