Open letter to Jenny Sonesson–Göteborgs Posten

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).

how to lose respect…

actually, it is neither party who have won out. Both have agreed to another ‘window dressing operation’ that is effectively meaningless to most indisputably under-18’s who came here prior to November 2015, believing the promises of the Swedish government and people. This proposal is essentially the July 2017 law V.2, except that the 2017 law did not seem to apply to Afghans because ‘’Afghanistan has safe areas’ so the Migration Agency held.

Great that better border controls are now in place and other European countries will be accepting a fair share quota system for these asylum seekers in the future. Fantastic that Sweden has spent billions in Afghanistan since 2001 to try and build a viable nation there (with very little result).  Great that the Swedish taxpayer has invested in these young people (though most of that investment actually went back into Swedish pockets) *, not so great that deportations, arrests and ‘imprisonments in holding centres’ will still continue. Yes, deportations to the violently sick land of Afghanistan that the Migration Agency still considers to be a safe place!

And this proposed new law  will not come into effect until the summer of 2018. This is effectively a continued ‘prison sentence’ for those who have had any semblance of freedom taken away whilst in Sweden and risk arrest and deportation. But hey, this might be good training for when they get back to Afghanistan, for it’s pretty similar there thanks to the Taliban, huh?

* We were approached a number of times in 2016 to use our studio building to house asylum seekers. The amount offered was in excess of SeK. 1600,- per day per person. So just guess how much Kommunes, private businesses, have been receiving.

deer–vestre silen

feed us please in the cold weather

click the pic for the short video

a little warming goes a long way

Cold Sweden?

An interesting development in the scenario concerning under 18 asylum seekers, where the minority parties, Environment Party, Centre Party, Left Party that form the alliance allowing the Social Democrat party to rule – have pushed the government into a crisis. Essentially, the crisis deals with the situation, emphasized by the European Council, of the delays and inconsistencies in dealing with asylum applications where these have extended beyond 15 months.

The proposed solution yesterday is a new law to take effect in summer 2018 if it passes through the Parliament.

The interesting question is why the delay tactic when a law was introduced in June/July 2017 that adequately meets the requirements if properly applied?

This 2017 law, however, did not seem to apply to under age Afghan asylum seekers because, despite all the continuing international evidence to the contrary, Sweden’s Migration ministry maintained that there were safe areas in Afghanistan. So safe that the Taliban now control more of the country than they have since 2001, so safe that the International Red Cross report no place is safe in Afghanistan, so safe that the USA has tripled it’s bombing so far in 2017 compared with 2014 (which is when most of the Afghan asylum seeker surge began).

Little wonder that Nietzsche said as follows:

accountability standards are better at home

The Swedish taxpayer has spent billions in the last decade, ‘investing’ in Afghanistan. As you will see below, it’s not always going where it should go. Spending here in Sweden on Asylum seekers, where 70-80% of the money is paid to Swedish Kommunes, employees, backup services, is probably a better ‘investment’