You write: Prime Minister Stefan Löfven (S) visited Svenljunga, where he was attended by # vistårinteut, advocating an amnesty for unaccompanied young people. On the question of how he looked at the organization's requirements, the head of government was clear: "I do not share that view. Now we have another regulatory framework in place. You can apply for asylum in Sweden, but if you get a no, then it's no. If we do not have that scheme, then we have no more orderly migration policy anymore " (AB 10/11).
(I presume he is here referring to post November 2015 regulations)
You then write: “Those who follow the rules are expelled, those who refuse and enlisted by loud activists are rewarded”.
So, if following the rules is your main criteria, then what of the following:
1. Where Migrationsverket have not followed the rules, shall you expel those persons guilty of it?
2. Where a ‘court’ (so called) has not followed the normal rules of juris prudence, shall you expel the judge and the officers of that court.
3. To where will you expel the people of Sweden (for the government is the people) when they have not followed the rules they helped create since 1951, and many many times since then have confirmed?
4. Shall you also expel the Migration and Taxation authorities who have denied personummer registration to EU citizens for as long as 10 years – in clear breach of the rules within the EU?
Before the pot calls the kettle black, it should look in a mirror!
(NB. I am not here defending those who seek to cheat the system in any way, however, there are many clear cut cases where the child was under 18 upon arrival in this country and was entitled, according to the promises given by this society, to protection and asylum leading to residency. Politically favourable ‘assessment’ of risk areas in the world,that are not confirmed by reality,are not excusable in this scenario).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment