It’s not fair to flat-out ban refugees (or ban types of refugees such as men): these are, by definition, people escaping unstable authoritarian governments where they aren’t safe and don’t have fundamental human rights.<p>But that’s it. And refugees take up land and social services, so they should be required to give back (if only because refugee programs simply won’t work otherwise, and countries will try to block or pass on refugees. Exactly what the US/Europe are doing and have been doing the last few years).<p>I see no issue in:<p>- Relocating refugees to another developed country (not Libya, not Turkey, maybe Greece)<p>- Requiring able-bodied refugees to work (in decent conditions, not back-breaking labor, but still in manufacturing or service or IT if they’re capable. Again, because there’s literally no other alternative to pay for these refugees)<p>- Swiftly deporting refugees when they commit crimes (with a fair trial and evidence beyond considerable doubt, but given these people are being videotaped that should be pretty easy)<p>- Cracking down on protests like these and making it very clear that refugees <i>can</i> keep their own religion and culture, but <i>can’t</i> enforce it on others, who also can burn books and say whatever they want.<p>- Tracking and monitoring refugees, at least for a couple years, for the sake of security and to assure people they aren’t terrorists.<p>Sweden’s approach of just letting in refugees is too liberal. Nationalism and flat-out anti-refugee rhetoric like Trump and Marine Le Pen is too conservative. The bottom line is: give refugees space, essentials, freedom, and <i>refuge</i>, but require them to behave and give back.