The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Should europe take in non euorpean refugees

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 802 times Debate No: 120784
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)




Refugees from mostly syria, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan are not all really refugees since the laws of the EU (for eu countries) say that asylum refugees have to apply citizenship in the country they are in, But most of them go through 5-6 countries to get to northern europe which makes them economic refugees and not asylum refugees. The people that come in to our countries are our guests and if they repay our kindness and hospitality with crime and extreme islamisation they can leave the country AND GO BACK. In sweden where i am from rape has rissen with OVER 300% and it is not because we have increased in population, Something has happened. 2010 politicians said that retired people would still get their benefits in sweden and immigration was good but today. . . You see old people collect cans on the street to turn in for Money while refugees get dental care for 50 sek retired people have to borrow from friends and family over 3000 sek. Our schools are slowly adapting to islam as i saw when i worked that ALL Children i kindergarten eat Halal meat. In V"sxj" ( a small Town in sweden) a pray woke up thousands of people, It was at 110 decibels which is at consert level. People were outraged over that the politicians had not let the townspeople vote on it, Not even let them know. Our cultural heritage is being set on fire. I will end with a quote "You can't sing we shall overcome when the Capitals of europe is on fire.


Your argument is nothing more than an appeal to fear. I find that your position promotes extreme nationalism, Which is just another form of bigotry and there is no reason to close the gates to Europe. There should be a standardized vetting process for immigrants and that standard should not be nationalistic. Lose the hate and the fear.
Debate Round No. 1


I fail to see any facts in your post, It is allot of I feel and I Think. I find your post also quite rude saying that I hate some people, Nationalism is good. It is what makes you, Me, They, We and I into us.

In the comments there is also someone who says that there is no link betwen increase in crime and immigration but 95, 6% of rapes were conducted by people not from sweden, In another study it was proven that 42 of 43 cases were foreigners who had raped someone. In Finland were a nationalist party came in to the parliament there are ALMOST no rapes. This is not because Finland have less men, They have less refugees.

In the Swedish election there was a woman who candidated for parliament saying Allah is great, The somalies are great. In sweden they recently made a law where people who have no reason to stay in the country can stay anyway. Terrorists and murderers and rapists have used this law to walk out free from jail and of course. . . . . . All immigrants.
there are people who are meant to be deported who get to stay because they cried on the plane. What if a bank robber started criyng in court. . . Would he be let free? Billions are spent on deporting people who never actully get deported and the media glorifies this. I am using sweden as an exampel because it might be the most liberal country in europe. Some I know compare sweden with North korea but at least they keep track of their borders.

I am not saying everybody should be deported, Only the illegal and criminal immigrants. Most immigrants come to sweden and then don't work and why should swedes pay for it. In muslim schools boys and grls are seperated which is illegal. So the primeminister says all religous schools should be banned because he does not dare to say what we all know, It is only in muslim schools that this happens.

I would like to thank this website for not censuring wiews like mine which sites like facebook and youtube does so people like you can live in your little bouble that Everything is fine. I was going to ask you a question but i don't think you would answer with facts anyway so it does not matter.


"I fail to see any facts in your post"

I gave logical critiques of your argument. They are factual by virtue of tautology and pragmatism. I don't rely on appeals to authority like you do to have somebody give me their opinion that "immigrants raise the crime rate" Your "facts" are just the opinion of an authority. So how is your authorities' opinion any more valid than mine. Your authority gave no logical arguments. Maybe you should stop neigh saying and actually justify your position. You can't just boldly claim that immigrants are causing problems and then show now entailment.

"Nationalism is good. "

No it's not and believing this makes you prejudice. That's not a personal attack, It's a fact.

"6% of rapes were conducted by people not from sweden, In another study it was proven that 42 of 43 cases were foreigners who had raped someone. ""

You have provided no source to prove that these numbers are accurate. Where's the study? If there's no study, Then you're just speculating. Period. It's pretty well known that rapes are one of the most underreported crimes. There's probably locals raping people too and they're just getting away with it because the people are married or dating. Most rapes and people being violently assaulted on the street. Most rapes are girlfriends or hook ups who get coerced into seemingly consensual sex. When you say rape, You're talking about someone going out on the street and forcing themselves on someone. Those types of rapes don't really happen that much.

"What if a bank robber started criyng in court. . . Would he be let free? "

This sentence shows your prejudice. Immigrants are not criminals, Comparing them to bank robbers is false.

"I was going to ask you a question but i don't think you would answer with facts anyway so it does not matter. "

Are you here to debate or not? Ask the question. Don't assume I'm obtuse. This is slightly childish of you.

Your floor. I'm out of characters.
Debate Round No. 2


This is the 3rd time i try to write this argument but the website does not submit of some reason so I hope it is ok that I just do a list and a short explination.

yes mayby not all rapes are reported but I doubt that with such a high representation of immigrats raping I think only 0, 5% or 1% would change not to make a difference. I don't think I have to explain my sources, Just type into google -Immigrants rape sweden-
I think all studies will agree. (I know because I checked myself. )Nationalism is good because the independant nations means that if another Hitler comes other nations can intervene but if there is only one country it will be like germany in ww2 was the World.
Ans while we talk about Hitler, He was not a nationalist but a globalist because he wanted one country. I am the opposite because I want each country to be independant.

1. Most of immigrants live on Welfare
In Scandinavia almost 1 of 20 people live on Welfare (source/AFS, Political party in sweden), Almost all are immigrants and why should we pay for them, We accept them into our countries and they repay us by robbing us of our earned Money. While retired people have to live with 500 sek a month after rent and tax, And if you ont know how much that is, For 2 weeks I spend about 2400 sek on food only so imagine how it is to live with 500. It is the same in all of europe. The Money should not go the "desserters which I will go into in the next part.

2. They are not refugees
Most are men about 20, 30, 40 years old who are fleeing. They should be fighting in their country not fleeing. What are they doing here. The women but mostly the Children should come here but the husbands leave their families in the countries they come from.
If somebody inavded sweden I(who am only 17) would do Everything to get the foreign occupiers out. But these men who are older then me even leave their Children behind are just pathetic, Not all but they who leave their Children. Some of the refugees have lived in other countries that do not have war, For example. Somebody flees from syria to greece and according to EU laws they are supposed to seek asylum in the first country they get to but they continiue to another country like Croatia, Then they think of upgrading themselfs and go to sweden which makes them economic refugees because they are then fleeing from Croatia not syria. But still they are called asylum refugees although they can have lived in Croatia for 10 years.

3. They are overrepresented in almost all crime
100% of illegal immigrants are immigrants.

4. Countries with most immigrants also have the most terrorists
sweden and belgium are the two countries contributing with the most terrorists and norway and denmark and Finland have actully started to make border controlls not just to the South but also to sweden to protect their inhabitants. Sweden and belgium also have the most accepting refugee politics.

5. It forces multiculturalism on a country which breeds racism, REAL racism.
can you name one country in history where multiculturalism was good? Austria-hungary collapsed, Ottoman empire collapsed both were divided into smaller countries, Roman empire, Mongol empire. Every empire eventually collapses because there are to many ethnic groups who start to battle eachother and this will happen to our countries. It is hard to be a racist if we separate the good immigrants from the bad won't you agree.

How far will people like you go before you admit yourself to be wrong. In sweden, Rape capital of the World, Our primeminister said we should take in less immigrants the voters became so angry the primeminister took back his statement but when he said we might have to put in military against our own civilians because crime in our large cities was out of Control and that was OK, Humantarian superpwoer of the World takes in military against civilians.


So your source is a youtuber? That seems a bit dubious. That's not a great source. I need studies with objective data. Not the opinion of someone who shares you views.

You said "I think all studies will agree. "

You don't know that. That's why I need a study showing that your claim is true. We're talking about closing the gates to possibly millions of refugees. You're going to need better evidence than "I think"

You said "I know because I checked myself. "

I can't just take your word for it. You're biased in the matter. This is why I need a study showing correlation between immigration and crime, Otherwise, Your claims are unfounded.

"In Scandinavia almost 1 of 20 people live on Welfare"

ehem. I need data please. If You're not going to post data, Then you don't get to spout off numbers. Either explain it logically without using made up stats, Or give me data.

you said "They should be fighting in their country not fleeing"

That's inhumane of you to say and you're not any kind of authority to say that people should have to die just because you're xenophobic. Honestly that's a bit selfish of you. If you were in their position, I don't think you'd fight the way you're expecting them to. You'd flee for refuge. I'm simply positing that you show some empathy and allow them the same freedom.

you said "If somebody inavded sweden I(who am only 17) would do Everything to get the foreign occupiers out. "

That's because you're 17. You lack the life experience to understand the depth of human suffering. Furthermore, You lack the foresight to know that violence is not the answer to most questions.

bottom line. You haven't met you burden of proof. Human rights cannot be taken away without a good reason. That means in the absence of evidence, The only solution is to grant their human rights.

your floor.
Debate Round No. 3


Seriusly the dude posts his sources in the disription, Did you even look at it. Yes it is a youtuber becuase the high nobility are not the people who are affected but the most poor people like those who have retired or people like him who are lower class are the affected. The resistance against migration can be compared to the french revolution, A nobility politician class has appeared and the or the spartans holding of europe against the persians. A final stand for europe to defend european values.

If someone came in your house by the backdoor, Hiding and then trashing the Place would you let them stay just because they are homeless? The house is europe and of course you would not let them stay.

I also Think that european countries should focus on where the most refugees are, Still in the arab countries. The camps there are crowded and needs much more fundings then they are getting. It actully takes less Money to help someone in the Close areas to conflict. The Worlds best econmomist said that Jimmie "kesson was right, Jimmie "kesson is party leader of SD which is a nationalistic party in sweden and EU parliament. That the best Economist and political scientist says less migration and more help in the area around the conflict where it helps the most. You can help less people in europe or more in the arab countries.

I would like to say that your method of handling the migration crisis is immoral since at the moment the medeteranian sea is used as a buffer zone, The people who get to europe get to stay and the ones who do not dies. A couple of years ago, I don't know if you remember this, There was a photo of a 3 year old boy dead on a beach in the medeteranian sea only made at least the people that i know want fewer people to go over the medeteranien. That is my stance on this issue. You say that everybody should be allowed to risk their lives on those boats, With more help in the Closer area to the conflict people will not have to riks their lives, They can stay in countries similar to theirs and we get our for ourselfs, But no the leftists want people to risk their lives because then their countries will be so much better with other Cultures.

https://secure. I. Telegraph. Co. Uk/multimedia/archive/03426/refugee_01_3426825b. Jpg

Yes I might only be 17, But I know how to use a gun. I whent on a military summercamp so do not doubt that I will defend my country. And it is law that everybody above 16 need to contribute with something in a war. But if I would flee I would only go to countries nearby and not upgrade myself and then force other people on my Culture and religion, I would never commit a crime in the country that showed me their hospitality, I would show my gratitude instead.
These people are our guests and they need to adapt to us not we adapt to them, They should work and adapt or get out of our continent.


You said "Seriously the dude posts his sources in the description"

Did you read the sources? If so, Then why wouldn't you give me the data of the sources instead of citing a random authority. I'm already hearing your opinions. Why would I want to hear your opinions about other people's opinions who aren't even involved in this debate?

You said "A final stand for europe to defend european values"

This seems to be one of the two main points of your argument. This is just extreme nationalism. Nationalism is just another form of prejudice. You're arguing for bigotry if you make this one of your points.

You said "If someone came in your house by the backdoor, Hiding and then trashing the Place would you let them stay just because they are homeless? The house is europe and of course you would not let them stay. "

This is not a proper analogy. You own your house, You do not own your country. They're not coming into your country and stealing your "possessions", They're coming in and getting jobs and supporting themselves the same as you. I reject this entire line of thinking.

You said "You can help less people in europe or more in the arab countries. "

This is what's known as a false dichotomy. You're saying it has to be one or the other, But, In fact, You could do both. This is because you've taken two things that are not direct opposites and pose them as being direct opposites. A true dichotomy would look like this:

1) You can help less people in Europe or you can not help less people in Europe.

2) You can help more arabs or you can help less arabs.

Once we make this a proper dichotomy, It becomes very clear that your argument here holds no weight. This is why I tell you that making appeals to authorities doesn't help your case. Your authority is just another person's opinion, Which can be wrong, And I've proven as much right here.

I'll address the rest in my closing, I'm out of characters to type.
Debate Round No. 4


Wow, You managed to say Extreme nationalist and call my statement bigotry. You suprised me by not alling me a racist or nazi.

Yes i do own my country, My ancestros came to sweden from Finland 800 years ago and started working on sweden through hard labour. Their reward is that their family all the way to me get to live and own our country. I am sorry that syrians don't have a very pleasant country, That their ancestors did not work on their country as much as my ancestors, But they should then start building on their country instead of coming to ours and acting like they have a right to it. The only people who have a right to the country is the poeple already living there, Syrians have a right to their country and europeans have a right to theirs. My Children owns this country, Their Children owns this country and my ancestors own this country. So yes, I own this country.

How I wrote it does not matter how i wrote it, I try to help the most refugees. Let me explain economy to you, Lets say we have 100 coins and this could help 3 refugees in denmark or we could help mayby 12 refugees in israel. You could do both or take the Money from the refugees in the country so they can get a job ang give it to people who need fresh water. If we do both we can mayby help some refugees but if we help the people in the Close area only we could still help more.

Scenario 1:
100 000- To refugee camps in the area close to conflict= helps 1 500 000 refugees
100 000-To refugees in europe= helps 150 000 refugees

scenario 2
200 000-To refugee camps in the area close to conflict= helps 3 000 000 refugees
0-To refugees in europe= helps 0 refugees so they instead get a job.

obviusly scenario 2 which is my scenario is the best.

Lets summarise what you have accomplished here. First you decided to call me names and say I spread fear, Then in round 2 you misunderstood my Point on the bank robber, I did not mean every immigrant is robbing banks. In round 3 you said that I don't know that all studies will agree but later I wrote that it was because I checked myself and if you still don't Believe me check yourself, Is that so hard. You also questioned if I would fight for my country and my age does not matter, I know how to use a gun and controll an s122 tank. In round 4 you said that I did not own my country but I do, It is called a citizenship but the biggest problem of all is: This is a debate but you have not given a single argument to why we should keep europe open to those who commit crime and destroy our countries. I have said my arguments and you have just said that is wrong and that I spread fear which is wrong, There is not a single person who I know that fears me and I know you don't so stop saying that, I find it very rude and childish of a grown man. It is very cowardly to just face my arguments and say that they are wrong but I can't talk about your so you would seem like the one winnig.

I am also going to say something that I know you are going to react on, The european ethnicity excists. In germany the germans are priority and in italy the italians are the priority, A country is not richer than its poorest citiens. In sweden the multicultural city of malmo is the 3rd largest city in sweden and the one with the most immigrants, Short said it is a failiure since everytime there is a shooting or bomb exploding everybody I know in sweden guesses on Malmo. The city looses 5 billion SEK a year and the rest of sweden have to give Money to the liberal-leftist politicians in malmo to make their Welfare work.

I would like to finish saying this was my first debate I have ended and thanks for posting arguments faster than most people on this website, Good debate also.


"Yes i do own my country"

This tells me everything I need to know. You're a bigot. All of your talk about crime rates and such are just a red herring to distract from the point that you just don't like foreigners. By the way. Since you think you own the country, Why don't you just go order the EU to follow your policy. We both know why you haven't. You don't own your country.

The mathematical example you gave was dismal. You simply assigned variables to people without any justification for them and you excluded factors in the economy that are necessary to make these kinds of calculations. We have historical examples to show that stopping immigration is much more expensive than allowing it. So if your argument is money, Then you should be for immigration.

"First you decided to call me names and say I spread fear"

There is nothing wrong with me pointing out that your position is bigoted. Attacking ideas is fair game in a debate. I didn't insult you personally, Only your ideas. If you want people to not call you a bigot and fear monger, Then you should stop acting the part.

"but you have not given a single argument to why we should keep europe open"

Sure I did. You just didn't accept the arguments. There's a difference. My points don't evaporate simply because you neigh say. You haven't proven that my critiques of your position are invalid. Furthermore. I'm arguing for the societal norm, So the burden of proof is on you to change the mind of society. I'm already on the winning team.

"ethnicity excists. In germany the germans are priority and in italy the italians are the priority, "

This is just bigotry. Not an impressive argument. This is the problem. Your entire argument hinges on extreme nationalism/racism depend on how you present it. That makes it immoral. With your bigotry, Your argument falls apart because you're just arguing for causing harm to people.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
Well that's a bold claim from someone who is xenophobic.
Posted by Ohrnell 3 years ago
You forgot to talk about how I want to reinstate the plague, Seriusly you Think that I want to cause harm to the World when i help more refugees then you do.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
lol, Pro sets a 2, 000 word limit on a complex political argument. I guess you thought this was a simple issue, Lol. Wrong.
Posted by Ohrnell 3 years ago
Ottoman empire had too many kinds of people living in the empire which made the country split up, The same for:
-Roman empire
-mongolian empire
-Austria hungary
even ww1 was started when serbs did not like the austrians so they shot the austrian prince. Multicultural countries collapse. I am not saying closing our borders completely that is a lie, I am saying responsible immigration politics
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
@Dr. Franklin. That's a vacuous statement. You would have to apply that to all people. So what you meant to say was:

More People = More people crime.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
wait hold hold on, More immigrants= more immigrant crime, AM I CRAZY! ? ! ? ! ? !
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
@Ohrnell. All of them. Historically, Any country that has closed it's borders for long period of times ended up with massive inbreeding and famine.
Posted by Ohrnell 3 years ago
What Society have actully worked better with multiculturalism?
Posted by Ohrnell 3 years ago
I am so pissed at this website.
00:16 on saturday and I press submit, Again all that happens is that my entire text which I worked on for 2h just dissapears.
Posted by Ohrnell 3 years ago
AFS= Alternativ f"r Sverige
partiledare-Gustav Kasselstrand
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I found Cons argument more compelling as I believe people 'do own their countries, and I can understand the sentiment of wanting your own country not to be taken by others. If one Googles some of Cons claims like the rape stuff, one kind find some websites agreeing with him, but one also finds websites that note Sweden has recently changed their laws to be more encompassing (I think). I find studies and surveys confusing at times becomes to me it sometimes feels like a he said and she said argument. Pro has a point that it's not so easy to stay in your own country and fight to make it the way you want. Though I have had such thoughts as Con and belief people should be loyal to their homeland, easier said than done. Besides, I'm from the USA, land of people who abandoned their homelands. I think that Pro does make some good points, but to someone with some similar values to Con, many of Cons arguments are going to hold weight and cannot be dismissed as bigoted, even if true by some som-

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.