There are no jobs in Sweden for non-swedish-speaking, skilless and/or educationless, and in many times analphabetic people. Those few such jobs there is would also be shared with the large population of Swedish speaking skilless and/or educationless people (of both eedieh and immigrant backgrounds) that are already in Sweden and unemployed.
Well obviously the two year assimilation process involves teaching them enough Swedish to get along in contemporary society.
As for jobs, I didn't know that the Swedish education system was so horrible that they have a huge glut of low skilled labor. I am disappointed Sweden.
Both. Mostly houses, I suspect, though.
There are 18.5 million empty homes in the United States right now. We could easily house 3.7 million refugees and all are homeless if we gave a shit. And we do have the ability to build more. We can't build more land in cities for people to compete for while wishing rent didn't follow the laws of supply and demand but physical structures are quite easy.
It's so sad. This isn't the country that went to the moon. You say something that is clearly achievable and people say it's impossible because it would take effort. Is taking effort impossible anymore?
I would suggest that you guys consider the Muriel boatlift. Over 100,000 refugees dumped in south Florida with very little preparation and no clue what's going on. Many of them lacked language skills. Low wage workers weren't hurt at all. If Miami can handle Muriel then Sweden can easily handle a few hundred thousand.
Man, I wish I lived I'm the same world as you where just dismissing problems make them not problems any more.
So here's my problem with that idea -- we have 11 million people in the US now spending half or more of their income on rent, and you're going to just give empty houses to immigrants? Yeah, that'll go over like a lead balloon.
Those houses, like it or not, belong to somebody (typically banks) who are owed a not-insubstantial amount of money on them. So there's a couple of ways this could go down, none of them bloody likely:
1. US gov't claims eminent domain, seizes all the houses and gives them for free to people. While I might actually be onboard with this if first claims went to Americans without houses, it's problematic in the extreme and would provoke a hue and a cry of Communism.
2. US gov't uses taxpayer dollars to buy the houses and give them for free to people. Less Communist, still controversial in the extreme and still not supportable unless Americans get first crack at the houses.
3. US gov't uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize rent/mortgage payments for these houses. This is more reasonable, though still quite expensive. And again, if Americans don't get first crack at the the houses, you have a significant nativist backlash. Hell, even I think that's unfair.
The problem isn't a shortage of housing, it's a shortage of
affordable housing. We're seeing this in the Triangle, where new condos and mixed-use development are springing up like weeds and all them start in the $200K range and up. Nobody builds cheap "starter homes" anymore in thriving cities, because that's not where the profit is. SO you wind up with cities where the rich can live downtown (unintentionally pushing out the poor who traditionally dwelled there through sheer force of gentrification and property value) and the middle-class get priced out to the hinterlands where they all have an hour+ commute back into the cities.
So what you're proposing is giving (or subsidizing or whatever) immigrants either:
1. A fancy condo in a posh, urban location. That'll go over well with folks still living in a trailer or a crappy rental.
2. Shitty housing which is three hours from anywhere and likely condemned. Which puts them far from refugee assistance services and NGOs.
More to the point, the US just doesn't do this kind of organized, structural integration. Our model for absorbing immigrants has always been let them in, let them find work, let them compete in the general market for housing, food, etc. We don't even force anyone to learn English, it's more of a natural pressure in that you're gonna have a hard time if you don't. Spanish has become the exception to this rule, because there are now a large enough critical mass of Spanish-speakers and businesses and services that are bilingual or Spanish-only.
So yeah....housing is a problem in the US, and in most of Europe as well. Saying that it shouldn't be doesn't remove that fact. It's like saying famine isn't a problem because there's enough global food production to feed everyone. The devil is in the details.
"There has to be reasonable immigration controls" != "Round everyone up and put them on a boat".
EDIT: Craigslist? Seriously? There's this little problem where you need food and a place to sleep, while you look for a place to sleep and a job. To pay for the place to sleep. Which most people won't rent to you. Without a job. Losing any one of those typically puts the other two at risk. Trying to find all three on your own, even if you KNOW the language and culture, is fucking nightmarish.
Poll
Author
Topic: Breeki British Brexit thread (Read 155379 times)