cosmicalstorm wrote:
Source? Do these people declare themselves then "persons with no citizenship"?
That's preciesly how it works. And it's exactly that weird of a situation.
It's called Papperslös. Paperless.
Here is the 2014 statistics from Migrationsverket for people who arrive with no passports.
Almost everyone does that, the only real exception being Syrians
Syrians are guaranteed asylum so they obviously do not throw away their passports before arrival.
Everyone else does.
I can think of a lot of reasons to suspect that you are totally wrong.
1) What percentage of Syrians have passports? By your own admission, Syrians have every reason to keep their passports. But if there's a line for "Syrien" in that table you posted, I'm having trouble finding it. If it turns out 70% of Syrian refugees don't have passports, and the percentage from another country is 80% or 90%, that doesn't prove nearly as much as you imply about other people throwing away their passports.
2) What percentage of
people in these countries have passports? Eritrea is an oppressive dictatorship- I can't imagine they make it easy to get a passport. Somalia is in a state of anarchy and has been for over twenty years- I doubt it's easy to get a passport there either. Victims of oppression, cruelty, or threats in many countries, if they ever did have a passport, will have this passport taken away from them as a means of stopping them from leaving the country. And refugees in a war zone are often forced to abandon their homes with or without their passports on short notice, and may be further robbed or attacked after leaving their homes. It is far from certain that these people
ever had passports.
You can't claim "oh, they're throwing away their passports to get our welfare" until you've adjusted for the number of them who never had a passport to begin with, or had it stolen from them by hostile parties.
I just read Page 15 twice and I can't find where it says that. I could be wrong... but I strongly suspect you are either lying or delusional about what your document says.
Correction, if you are suspected of having committed war crimes. That said, it's
pathetically easy to solve this problem: set up a proper extradition procedure. Or work with the International Criminal Court or other international bodies. This is
not a problem, especially since the article you link to explicitly says that Swedish law enforcement has identified these twenty individuals (out of thousands) and is trying to work out a legal way to deal with them.
Moreover, none of these people are (based on the article you cite) accused of committing crimes in Sweden or being a threat to anyone in Sweden. The problem is simply how to hold them accountable for crimes they committed
in Syria.
Yes and there's a good reason for that. It can take YEARS to resolve issues of refugee and immigration status. Would you prefer it if the children of a paperless person were not allowed to attend school for, oh, four or five years? How far behind would they be? Suppose these people are eventually formally admitted to Sweden as refugees- is it to the advantage of the Swedish school system to now have students in their teens who were literally NOT ALLOWED to attend school after the age of seven or eight because they came to Sweden and were now 'paperless?'
If these children do not attend school, how will they learn Swedish? How will they learn even the least idea about how to fit into Swedish culture? How will they learn basic things like mathematics and reading and writing?
If you propose to keep these children out of the schools, you are only making your own country's refugee/immigrant problem
worse. Because I assure you, no one is fleeing Eritrea or Syria just because they want their children to attend a school in Sweden.
It may be the automatic translation (I don't speak Swedish) but this particular piece sounds like an opinion piece, not a news article. I'd appreciate comment on this by someone who hasn't proven to be rather flagrantly racist in the past. And I can't translate the PDF at all, at least not in a timely manner.
People using false identities to seek refugee status is an example of fraud. It does not invalidate the nature of the refugee system.
By analogy: in the early 1980s, the Republicans used the
alleged existence of people committing massive welfare fraud (they named no names) as a means to attack and undermine the American welfare system. And unless I've forgotten something that's still around from that era... the American welfare system for the poor now consists of, essentially, a few hundred dollars of food aid a month, plus some programs for children that do NOT last long enough for the children to grow up, plus whatever programs your local area happens to offer. We are considerably worse off for it.
So please, don't use "but someone commits fraud" as a reason to abolish a system that is doing good for large numbers of desperate people. It does NOT end well.
