Burmese asylum seekers die after 25 days stranded at sea

[cosmicalstorm]

Please, could a mod split the Swedish/Nordic tangent?

...So in conclusion, what people who quote the 10x figure is worried about is not that Sweden is accepting a lot of immigrants. Because we are not relatively per capita nor per ppp. Instead its that Sweden accepts a lot of asylum seekers from the middle east and africa...

Those numbers seems more accurate and more in line with what I found when I went looking for this yesterday. I retract the "ten times the amount" claim.

So since you felt that you ordinarily are not allowed to talk about this, lets continue from there then.
My first question back to you would be; why do you think it is that your gut told you that the number was an order of magnitude larger than it really is? (Genuinly curious).

I wonder what policy ought to be adapted with regard to immigrants?

First to make any such dialog productive you need to make a distinction in regards to different immigrants. Otherwise you will just confuse the issue. Are you talking about natural immigration in the form of marriages and offspring of swedish nationals with non-swedish nationals? Are you talking about adoptions of non-swedish nationals? Are you talking about relatives migrating to family members? Are you talking about foreigners studying in Sweden and then staying once they graduate? (brain-gain) Are you talking about (the new law) specialists getting work permits and then extended to citizenship? Are you talking about work migration? Are you talking about temporary asylum seekers where the situation back home never got better? Are you talking about permanent asylum seekers?

To me it seems there is a powerful feedback-loop between generous entry rules and number of immigrants per year. I.e. the more generous, the more immigrants you get. Or maybe I'm wrong?

No you are quite right, but you have to adjust it with the caveat of applications versus approvals. Just because you have an increase in applications doesn't mean you have an increase in immigration. Some countries have a fixed rate on immigration that doesn't take into account the rate of applications.
The only reason why countries really far away from emigration sources gets a lot of immigration anyway is due to such feedback loops. Canada would be one of the prime examples. Another would be that before 911 the USA had a huge brain gain that was giving them the best people from around the globe due to the reputation and politics of their Universitites and in continuation its science research. That they managed to squander in less than a decade due to such a negative feedback loop.
Its also a case of specific regions emigrating to specific countries when in need. In such feedback loops where they will go where they have heard that people are accepted in. The emigration from Iran/Iraq being one of those examples.

This subject is often taboo it seems.

Immigration discussions isn't taboo, never has been. Not even when we had the rasbiologiska institutet, even then the dialog was out in the open. The only time that it was truly taboo was in the prelude to and during WWII, then it was censured for good reason. What you are confusing it with is when those discussing immigration mix in racism, that is when you enter taboo territory. Then the productive dialog dies and everyone has to concentrate on shooting down the false claims of the racists. This gives the impression of a difficult topic to talk about when it really isn't.
Sweden has relied heavily on immigration throughout its history to keep economic growth and/or competiveness. This since the days of the vikings onwards, only back then it was a bit more forceful... The only time we didn't was when it was the other way around and we had a huge emigration to the americas. Which was so devestating for Sweden that they did the big emigration study (emigrationsutredningen), at the turn of the last century which gave the start for the modern well fare state, in that it was seen as essentially necessary to match and surpass the social liberties and well fare provisions given by the USA to its people.
Since it has been so important this means that legislation or royal decrees to get those immigrants have been important as well. Look at the foundation of Gothenburg as a good example. Or the whole history of mining in Falun and Bergslagen. The economic boom post WWII was very much reliant on work immigration. etc
So it has never been a question of if, the only questions are how much and how should the assimilation process be handled to give the best effect possible. And those aren't taboo at all.

I was wondering what is an appropriate attitude from the host country towards migrants from poorer countries. I've spent time on boards where the sentiment is mostly negative "They are parasites - lets wall the borders". This is where the "ten times figure" originate. I find many of those to be selfish and racist.

And I've also spent a lot of time among those who believe that no borders ought to exist and anybody should be free to move to anywhere they want. I find this a unrealistic attitude in todays poor globe.

I'm trying to find an appropriate balance between these opinions.

Should wealthy nations make it more difficult for poor people to migrate to richer areas or should they make it easier?

[Eleas]

I'm trying to find an appropriate balance between these opinions.

I think this is the main problem I have. Why would it be necessary to treat both positions as equally valid? I can't see that they are: indeed, it may very well be that either position is wrong, relatively speaking.

[Spoonist]

I was wondering what is an appropriate attitude from the host country towards migrants from poorer countries. I've spent time on boards where the sentiment is mostly negative "They are parasites - lets wall the borders". This is where the "ten times figure" originate. I find many of those to be selfish and racist.

And I've also spent a lot of time among those who believe that no borders ought to exist and anybody should be free to move to anywhere they want. I find this a unrealistic attitude in todays poor globe.

I'm trying to find an appropriate balance between these opinions.

Should wealthy nations make it more difficult for poor people to migrate to richer areas or should they make it easier?

This is the wrong approach. Its a false dilemma and doesn't matter at all. When discussing practical reality instead of unrealistic theories it is always better to have the starting point being what exists today.
So the question then becomes do you think that from the point where Sweden is today, in which direction do you wish to go? Then take all the details I pointed to above and then try to motivate that reasoning and make some predictions.

What you have so far come with is loose thoughts based on fearmongering. I'm interested in you could formulate something more substantial.

[madd0ct0r]

Should wealthy nations make it more difficult for poor people to migrate to richer areas or should they make it easier?

Doesn't matter. If labour is stationary then capital will move.

[AniThyng]

WTF are you two on about? Are you really this stupid and/or callous?
Please try to motivate the reasoning behind these posts.

To give my post a bit more context, I'm Malaysian, a Muslim country and the destination of the refugees (stated in article), and I was responding to Fingolfin's crack about Muslim Brotherhood.

Despite being Muslim refugees making it to a Muslim country, in general they are not treated particularly well, e.g. they are arrested and interned on arrival, IF they make it, and afaik the Malaysian government's efforts to resolve the situation with Burma within ASEAN are lukewarm at best.

Contrast that with the rhetoric Malaysia expends on supporting the Palestinian cause internationally. And I stand by what I said - it is a lot "easier" to do that then to actual fix the Rohinya/Burma issue in our own backyard. Like wearing a "Save the Whales" T-Shirt while ignoring the chemical factory killing fish in the local pond.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

WTF are you two on about? Are you really this stupid and/or callous?
Please try to motivate the reasoning behind these posts.

To give my post a bit more context, I'm Malaysian, a Muslim country and the destination of the refugees (stated in article), and I was responding to Fingolfin's crack about Muslim Brotherhood.

Despite being Muslim refugees making it to a Muslim country, in general they are not treated particularly well, e.g. they are arrested and interned on arrival, IF they make it, and afaik the Malaysian government's efforts to resolve the situation with Burma within ASEAN are lukewarm at best.

Contrast that with the rhetoric Malaysia expends on supporting the Palestinian cause internationally. And I stand by what I said - it is a lot "easier" to do that then to actual fix the Rohinya/Burma issue in our own backyard. Like wearing a "Save the Whales" T-Shirt while ignoring the chemical factory killing fish in the local pond.

Well, the closer you are to God, the more negotiating power you have with Him about your behaviour. It is even worse in Greece; the local far right (whose Nazi ideology is an open secret) is full of solidarity to Palestinians... just on the condition that they keep getting bombed by the bad, bad Jews instead of coming here. If they come, they are just as likely to get their arms broken or livers shanked as any other immigrant.

@Cosmical
There is no reason to hold both opinions equally valid, just to examine correlation between talking points and reality. And sorry for implying you support genocide, I didn't mean to, it was an outpour of the flaming that happened recently.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

WTF are you two on about? Are you really this stupid and/or callous?
Please try to motivate the reasoning behind these posts.

That is the reality. Westerners simply do not comprehend that Asians as a whole are pretty apathetic about such causes. This is why it took so long for even some people here to avoid eating Shark's fin, or care about whaling. And a goodly number still don't really care either, and we are talking about the tens of millions, to the hundreds. For the poor folk, Shark's fin is a delicacy is a luxury most will probably never afford, and they probably wouldn't care about the fate of the shark if they were given the dish for free.

I suppose the difference is environment. Europeans as a whole do not live in such a highly competitive environment, whereas here in Asia we do. People are conditioned to be practical about things and we don't generally give swat even if one ethnic race disappears off the face of the earth. Better us than them. I know you aren't going to like it, but hey, I am don't expect you empathise. Then again I don't care either. Over here in my country the standard of living costs is that of the First World while I am living off wages less than that of First World.

Heck, during the Vietnam war, the Vietnamese boat people were largely turned away and even if any South East Asian country took them in, they interned them in camps with the aim of eventual returning them. So go figure.

To give my post a bit more context, I'm Malaysian, a Muslim country and the destination of the refugees (stated in article), and I was responding to Fingolfin's crack about Muslim Brotherhood.

Despite being Muslim refugees making it to a Muslim country, in general they are not treated particularly well, e.g. they are arrested and interned on arrival, IF they make it, and afaik the Malaysian government's efforts to resolve the situation with Burma within ASEAN are lukewarm at best.

Contrast that with the rhetoric Malaysia expends on supporting the Palestinian cause internationally. And I stand by what I said - it is a lot "easier" to do that then to actual fix the Rohinya/Burma issue in our own backyard. Like wearing a "Save the Whales" T-Shirt while ignoring the chemical factory killing fish in the local pond.

ASEAN has always been all talk and no action. All the talk about human rights has always been "mind you own business and I won't mind yours". I don't expect them to do anything for the Rohinya and the general stance has been "out of sight, out of mind". Even if the whole lot of them die I doubt any ASEAN member will lift even a millimeter of a finger. In fact, I think many would prefer they never existed.