Vastaus Nicolai Sennelsille: haastattelun kritiikki *English Only!*

[I Work in Asylum System]

Sorry for disappearing; I do actually have to work every now and then. I try to keep posting here as long as people wish to continue!

Ah, but my definition of "legitimate" is UNCHR mandated refugees.

Your definition. Well good for you for creating your own definitions (and it's spelled UNHCR). Fruitful indeed. And hey, no asylum seeker is illegally in the country!

Illegal = residing in the country without legal documents or permits
Asylum seeker = person who (may but may not without legal documents) has arrived to country and uses his/her legal right to apply for asylum, and through applying is legally - even if temporarily - in the country.


From MIGRI's website:

"REFUGEE STATUS

Refugee status is granted to the following people:
An alien who has been granted asylum in Finland
An alien who has been issued a residence permit on the basis of refugee status and admitted to Finland within the refugee quota
A family member of the above -mentioned alien who has been granted a residence permit on the basis of family ties and who is to be regarded as a refugee."


"Asylum will be granted if the applicant resides outside his or her home country or country of permanent residence owing to well-founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.It is also required that, owing to such fear, the applicant be unwilling to seek the protection of the country.
Examples of persecution due to membership of a particular social group include possible persecution because of sexual orientation or membership of a trade union.
Also, gender-based persecution directed at women can be taken into consideration as grounds for asylum. In such cases, the reason for persecution is membership of a particular social group.
Asylum is not granted if the applicant has committed, or if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he or she has committed, a very serious political crime or another serious crime prior to arriving in Finland as a refugee.
The grounds for granting asylum specified in the Aliens Act are the same as in the Geneva Refugee Convention, which Finland has signed."

Subsidiary protection = Reason for granting a residence permit. A permit is granted when the requirements for granting asylum are not met but the applicant is threatened in his or her home country or country of permanent residence by capital punishment, execution, torture or other inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. A permit may also be granted where applicant is unable to return to his or her home country or country of permanent residence without being exposed to considerable personal danger owing to armed conflict. (see also sur place situation)
---

"Refugee = An alien, who has well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a social group or political opinion. Refugee status is granted to a person who is granted asylum by a state or who is declared to be a refugee by UNHCR.
http://www.migri.fi/netcomm/content.asp?path=2761

UNHCR's definition is:

"a refugee is a person who (according to the formal definition in article 1A of this Convention), owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country."
www.unhcr.org

Here are the statuses granted for asylum seekers by MIGRI in Finland and numbers for Somalis (as an example, data from 2009):


Total number of applicants: 321 > Breakdown:
Annulment: 5
Rp. need of protection = 148
Other grounds = 0 (e.g. compassionate ground, rp. family member, or temporary permit)

-> Total positive: 148

Rejected: 4
Dublin: 156 *
Manifestly unfounded: 8

Total negative: 168

* = Dublin means that a person who has, according to the Schengen Treaty, applied previously asylum in another country, regardless of whether the application has been processed or is still pending (usually still pending, as rejected are not allowed to leave the country and would have to be smuggled), are not eligible for asylum in Finland, their application will be rejected without even looking at the application and sent immediately back to the first receiving country. This means that a Somali who arrived to, e.g. Italy, has waited for months, even years for their application to be processed, get tired of waiting and leave to another country to apply for asylum there, won't have his application processed elsewhere and the applications will be categorically rejected.

The breakdown of the previous numbers therefore indicate that the acceptance rate of Somali asylum seekers is 89,69%. The rest are manifestly unfounded (e.g. Djiboutians or Kenyans saying they are ) or rejected (e.g. identified as former persecutors). The rest, 89,69% in 2008, were after a thorough screening process granted protection based on the UN Convention of Refugees.

To compare:

Iraqi acceptance rate: 85,9% (268 accepted)
Afghanistani: 91,1% (72 accepted)
Ghana: 14,3% (1 accepted)
Iran: 54,4% (37 accepted)
Serbia: 27,5% (22 accepted - 22 manifestly unfounded)
Nigeria: 16,7% (8 accepted)

And to everyone: are we really talking about gigantic numbers here? => between 2000-2008 6025 asylum seekers received favourable decisions, while 17270 got negative, and 3707 got annulled. This means less than 753 a year is taken in on average.  Is a country of over 5 million people going to be invaded by this (not to mention how many e.g. Eritreans are Christians, and there are Asians, etc. included in these numbers) Come on.

http://www.migri.fi/netcomm/content.asp?article=2113

I remember the incident in question. The rapist was *NOT* a white Finnish-born man but a South American immigrant. I remember this because the statue you mentioned is the statue of Aleksis Kivi and this was mentioned in the newspaper article on the incident. Too bad that the one example of a rape committed by a Finnish man that you mentioned was in reality a rape committed by a dark-skinned immigrant from a third world country.

Anyway, I'm not interested in individual cases, I'm interested in statistical probabilities. You should check out crime statistics by nationality. Immigrants are heavily overrepresented in crime statistics, particularly in cases of rape and robbery. And among the immigrants, Muslims and other third world people are obviously more likely to commit crimes than other immigrants.

Thanks for clarifying! But you sure he was black (you met him?), or white South American (ever been there)?

I have never denied the high crime rates among asylum seekers, and if youhave followed the thread from the beginning you would understand that one of the goals of this discussion has been to clarify this phenomenon. But don't generalize to 3rd world people; crime rates are, if I remember correctly, highest among East Europeans and Russians, even though, admittedly, refugees come close behind. And as you know, many immigrant groups have low crime rates.

Crime rate is one of the best measures of integration - and this thread has been all about integration.

Apparently some Somalis do. Why? What is the logic?
I fail to understand the concept of part-time asylum.

Ok, here's the logic:

The situation in Somalia has been ever-changing. There has been three waves of Somali refugees since 90's: 1991, 1993 and 2002-2003. There have been periods - relative ones - of peace; for example when the UN left Mogadishu in the last wave, the amount of refugees hiked up again. So naturally; if you're a Somali, let's say you've been in Finland for a few years and have established yourself, have a job, can save, etc., and then comes a moment of peace in your homeland (e.g. because of peacekeeping efforts), what would you do? If your mom, possibly your kids, or your sisters are still there, wouldn't you pack your bag asap to go back for a 'holiday'? I sure would, like a bolt of lightning. Would I stay or return to Finland? I'd probably return; I know by experience that the peace will not last, I will be in danger soon. By going back I protect my family, and can still, if lucky, get the rest of my family to Finland when violence eruts again.

Think outside the box and things are not at all as illogical as they might seem.

Can't you really face a person who disagrees with you without giving him/her some politically motivated label that is a negative profanity in your worldview?

I'm happy to continue this conversation, but one thing; I wasn't labeling you, you labeled yourself. There are established definitions to terminology, e.g. with regards to 'capitalism' and 'communism'. If you say you want free the market and capital trade, etc. you can be labeled capitalist. If you say you are a 'multiculturalist who  thinks that cultures should be spared from replacing and melting so that the world would be rich in cultural diversity that I love.', you are clearly implying that a) cultures shouldn't 'be replaced' (by another culture in future or actually elsewhere in planet), b) they shouldn't mix, c) culture has inherent value, d) and freer migration destroys all previous principles. Please enlighten me how my reasoning is not correct. I would be so happy to 'label' you as something other than 'cultural conservatist'.

Go enkuksi kisha ikiwa / wakati Semmels inaonekana. Vinginevyo inafanya hakuna maana ileile grind mambo tena katika Kiingereza, ambayo ni puhkikaluttuja nyingine Kifini minyororo.

Poa safi, nakubali! Unasema swahili (au sheng)? Salamu kutoka Dar es Salaam!

[Karri]

Ei se ole mun mielipiteestäni kiinni vaan faktoista. Pakolainen on pakolaisstatuksen saanut.

No ne faktat on vaan ja ainoastaan sun sanojas ennekuin todistat ne jollain.

Go play with yourself. "Refugee" means a person fulfilling the criteria laid out in the in article 1A of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The burden of proof is on those claiming to fulfill that criteria. 

See, this is why your argumentation is not convincing, you act like an idiot the minute someone asks for proof or explanation to back up/explain your statements. Your word is not the word of God. I asked for a simple explanation and what do I get? An insult and an explanation. Maybe next time you'll just give me the explanation and I'll be convinced by the facts. Now I just think you're an idiot.

[Lemmy]

If you need an explanation of a self-evident fact that should be "common knowledge" before you enter a discussion that makes you somehow intelligent? You deserve all the insults for questioning your betters.

[I Work in Asylum System]

Kappas, from page 1 I had apparently not seen this post, which I definitely want to comment. Thanks Zngr.

You yourself note Sennels operates wholly within the immigrant and Muslim community in Denmark, and thus I'm surprised I have to point this out to you. That is, he would not give counsel or engage in consultation with Malay or Nigerian Muslims, but instead is engaged with Turkish, Pakistani, Moroccan, former Yugoslavian and possibly Somali Muslims. Who live in Denmark, and who have in some way or other required social or psychiatric services.

It is quite obvious his findings and field of work, then, only includes Muslims from these ethnic groups in a certain geographic area who have been involved in certain circumstances which could probably be described for example as anti-social behaviour. When Sennels says "Muslims" he means the Muslims in Denmark, and the problem individuals at that, not all the Muslims in the world.

For a 'professional' who gives a public interview to another country with a different concentration of nationalities, I find it not only weird but also irresponsible to not mention 'this little detail' in his interview. In fact, good point; it is a major fault in his interview.

Also I have not anywhere seen him narrowing down his 'sample' by words, as far as I know, he has always talked about Muslims as a homogeneous group - not feeling the need to clarify any further? If you have, quote please. (although this critique was essentially against his interview, regardless of what he has said elsewhere)

Besides his mistake doesn't only involve generalizing from 'Turkish, Pakistani, Moroccan, former Yugoslavian and possibly Somali Muslims' to all Muslims; he also generalizes from Muslim youth in juvenile prisons to all those Muslims.

Omission to define the terms most commonly used in his 'theory' is not only irresponsible, it also happens to serve many anti-immigrants purpose, who now can quote him with freedom without taking into account 'these little details'.

I'm quite confident most readers of this forum understand this, and would not go around making sweeping generalizations regarding every single ethnic Muslim group on earth based on the findings of Danish psychologist working with criminal Muslims who live in Denmark.

By now you should have noticed how some people make mindblowingly simple sweeping generalizations here.

This is mistake those enamored by political correctness or multiculturalism often make: if you attempt to discuss perceived faults of the Muslim community in Denmark, or Britain, or France you somehow magically attack the whole global and very diverse Muslim community. Not so. The so called conservatives (or what currently would be the progressives) understand this. It's the liberals (or what are actually now the conservatives) who make this claim.

Your terminology is not quite correct, unless you want to do the 'Lemmies' yourself and make your own definitions. Of course you must realize, what the so called 'progressivity' of my opponents leads to, in terms of our liberal values; human rights, equality, freedom. If you can somehow argue to me, how exactly is closing borders from Muslim refugees (in Denmark if you prefer to localize) going to protect liberal values, I would like to hear it. You'd be the first to do so. How do you protect human rights, equality and freedom in the world by rejecting the entry of asylum seekers (or others) with Muslim background (or specifically; Turkish, Albanian, Somali..) for fear that they will a) destroy our culture and society, b) destroy our economy, c) insert here? To answer that you are protecting 'the West' from the 'rest' is not a satisfying answer, unless you are a non-universalist (e.g. cultural relativist) who doesn't accept human rights as rights that pertain to all people just for the sake of being human (traditional definition). But I'm sure that you are not and would not answer like that, or at least haven't actually claimed anything like that yet.

[Karri]

If you need an explanation of a self-evident fact that should be "common knowledge" before you enter a discussion that makes you somehow intelligent? You deserve all the insults for questioning your betters.

And this is why you still continue to be a blithering idiot, and why your arguments lack any kind of strenght.

Mind your manners, gentlemen. This is not some Iltalehti.

[Lemmy]

Your definition. Well good for you for creating your own definitions (and it's spelled UNHCR). Fruitful indeed. And hey, no asylum seeker is illegally in the country!

You are the one making your own definitions. I just stated the thing you then elaborated on yourself. Refugees are ones given refugee status. Are you just being obtuse or can you not comprehend any language?

"Refugee = An alien, who has well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a social group or political opinion. Refugee status is granted to a person who is granted asylum by a state or who is declared to be a refugee by UNHCR.

This is what I am saying, but you claim everyone stempping into the country and yelling "asylum" is a "refugee".

And to everyone: are we really talking about gigantic numbers here? => between 2000-2008 6025 asylum seekers received favourable decisions, while 17270 got negative, and 3707 got annulled. This means less than 753 a year is taken in on average. 

So why are then all these others doing in the country living on welfare if the real number is 753 on average a year? Huh? Explain that to me if you can.

I have never denied the high crime rates among asylum seekers, and if youhave followed the thread from the beginning you would understand that one of the goals of this discussion has been to clarify this phenomenon.

Yes, because you are defending their criminality. There would not be such a phenomenon if the system would process the asylum seekers promptly, and immediately deport those who are committing crimes. As it now "works" as dysfunctionally as it can a person can spend years on end fabricating a lie after a lie and in the end have wife and children and get to stay. When he was an illegal immigrant from the start. Your system is flawed - and you are one of the flaws.

Think outside the box and things are not at all as illogical as they might seem.

Of course it is not illogical from the point of view of the illiegal immigrant. It is from the point of view of the taxpayer to fund welfare to people. They should be able to support their family themselves. The fact remains there are no jobs in Finland, and no grey economy even.

I would be so happy to 'label' you as something other than 'cultural conservatist'.

I'm rather a cultural conservatist than a Finland-destroyer - but thats just my opinion.

[I Work in Asylum System]

If you need an explanation of a self-evident fact that should be "common knowledge" before you enter a discussion that makes you somehow intelligent? You deserve all the insults for questioning your betters.

Hahaha, you know what often differentiates between a religious or ideological believer or fanatic, from others? Things are 'self-evident' and need not clarifying, because they are 'common knowledge' - even when they aren't. Regardless of your childish arrogance, you are giving just ad infinitum- and ad hoc-reasonings, ad hominems, straw men, etc. etc. I believe at least Karri and myself will leave you in peace now, as you have little to contribute to this conversation.

Meanwhile, maybe you would like to study what the above terminologies meant;

http://keskustelu.skepsis.fi/html/virhelista.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

[Lemmy]

believer or fanatic, from others? Things are 'self-evident' and need not clarifying, because they are 'common knowledge' - even when they aren't.

So you come here claiming to be some sort of an expert and then you don't even know what a "refugee" is? Give me a break already.

[I Work in Asylum System]

This is what I am saying, but you claim everyone stempping into the country and yelling "asylum" is a "refugee".

Please read this carefully before you comment anymore, 10 times at least;
asylum = turvapaikka
asylum seeker = turvapaikanhakija, joka hakee turvapaikkaa
refugee = turvapaikanhakija joka on saanut turvapaikan

I.e. asylum seekers are not refugees, they are asylum SEEKERS (=applicants, hakijoita). Refugees are those asylum seekers granted ASYLUM.

You quote me if you believe I have at any point said that asylum seekers are all refugees. This would be a grave mistake on my part.

So why are then all these others doing in the country living on welfare if the real number is 753 on average a year? Huh? Explain that to me if you can.

What all others? We were only talking about asylum seekers here. Not immigrants in general. Or were we?

Explain.

Yes, because you are defending their criminality. There would not be such a phenomenon if the system would process the asylum seekers promptly, and immediately deport those who are committing crimes.

Those granted asylum cannot be deported, it is against law. Same applies to those with permanent resident status. If the criminal is not a permanent resident, and not a refugee, they are often deported. Often not, because a) it is expensive - often more than letting the migrant work (not common in Finland, but common in Southern countries), b) lack of diplomatic relations prevent forced returns.

As it now "works" as dysfunctionally as it can a person can spend years on end fabricating a lie after a lie and in the end have wife and children and get to stay. When he was an illegal immigrant from the start. Your system is flawed - and you are one of the flaws.

Have I said I promote status quo? Quote me if I have. I have said the very contrary. Yet the actual asylum decision is given relatively quickly - we are not talking about years here. You tell me how those who have managed, through being granted asylum, to get their families to Finland are LIARS. You have any evidence on this?

No one is an illegal immigrant if they exercise their legal right to apply for asylum upon arrival to the host country.


Ok, here are Kiko Kennels' opinions of what, for example, are flaws in the system:

- Dublin II
- lack of burden-sharing mechanisms
- lack of efficient integration mechanisms and policies
- slow processing of rejected asylum seekers
- e.g. the international community not recognizing Puntland and Somaliland from the rest of Somalia
- lack of diplomatic relations with countries of origin
- lack of efficient counter-trafficking and counter-smuggling mechanisms and policies
- lack of efficient informing of economic migrants from e.g. West Africa in their countries of origin about the European asylum system, and the fact that their asylum application almost always gets rejected
- lack of a free and reciprocal civic and political dialogue on the issue (self censorship & hostile extremism instead of moderate and open discussion)

etc. etc. etc.

[I Work in Asylum System]

believer or fanatic, from others? Things are 'self-evident' and need not clarifying, because they are 'common knowledge' - even when they aren't.

So you come here claiming to be some sort of an expert and then you don't even know what a "refugee" is? Give me a break already.

OMG. Have I not explained you above already what it is?  So not even quoting UNHCR or MIGRI helped you to understand. You are worse than UFO freaks. Perhaps you would like to define 'refugee' to ME then, as you know so well.

PLEASE READ ABOVE AND TELL ME WHAT IN THE ABOVE DEFINITIONS POSTED FROM MIGRI AND UNHCR WERE NOT CORRECT OR LEAVE THIS CONVERSATION, PLEASE.

LEMMY: WHAT IS A REFUGEE???

[Lemmy]

I posted above you illiterate moron: "Refugee" means a person fulfilling the criteria laid out in the in article 1A of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Capiche?

Lemmy, this is mah warface >:{
Enough with the name calling and whatnot, certain degree of civility ought to be retained.
-Taavitsainen

[I Work in Asylum System]

I posted above you illiterate moron: "Refugee" means a person fulfilling the criteria laid out in the in article 1A of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Capiche?

..nice ad hominem.

...so when I laid the same definitions in front of your face in my above commentary, you keep claiming I don't know what a refugee is. Hahaha! It really seems you don't read people's comments very carefully, you just quickly press reply and type something incoherent in, regardless of what the other one has said. I guess you would be so kind as to quote this article of the Convention, and compare it with my quote of the SAME CONVENTION and tell me how they are different. I even provided a source. You didn't.

"a refugee is a person who (according to the formal definition in article 1A of this Convention), owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country."
www.unhcr.org

I posted above you illiterate moron: "Refugee" means a person fulfilling the criteria laid out in the in article 1A of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Capiche?

Whatever... sigh. Baadaye!

[Lemmy]

So why are then all these others doing in the country living on welfare if the real number is 753 on average a year? Huh? Explain that to me if you can.

What all others? We were only talking about asylum seekers here. Not immigrants in general. Or were we?

You yourself said

between 2000-2008 6025 asylum seekers received favourable decisions, while 17270 got negative, and 3707 got annulled. This means less than 753 a year is taken in on average.

So what are these 17270 + 3707? And why do we waste the money on them? You explain.
I don't mind "refugees" - I mind the rest abusing the system and wasting money we could use elsewhere - like actually integrating refugees.

Those granted asylum cannot be deported, it is against law.

The law if you would actually care to read it actually says in 149 § yes they can be. And refugee status can be revoked 107 § Also fraud as basis for revoking the asylum status in 108 §. How about you stop pretending you actually know something as you evidently do not. The fact that the deportation is rarely used isn't a problem with the law, just its implementation or rather the lack of it.

Same applies to those with permanent resident status.

There you are again wrong as expected - only citizens cannot be deported. It might not be anything simple - but anyone can be deported who is not a citizen. 143 § and 149 § if you care to actually read the law, nevermind comprehend it.

Often not, because a) it is expensive

It wouldn't need to be. But the EU needs to make a common effort in all this. Actually the EU should make one uniform policy regarding all aspects of asylum seeking, so as to eradicate the asylum-shopper phenomenon. As a matter of fact if we are talking of refugees, applying at the embassy should be the way to process refugee applications. The asylum seeker process will succumb to its own unfeasability in a few years - as it already has in Greece.

Have I said I promote status quo? Quote me if I have. I have said the very contrary.

Yes, open borders and make Finland into another multicultural cesspit. I know it benefits you directly, as if there wouldn't be such a development you would be out of a job.

Yet the actual asylum decision is given relatively quickly - we are not talking about years here.

Relatively? Yeah... I can understand this in the Mediterranean area where theres the sheer numbers. But their grey economy also depends on abusing the asylum seekers and other illegals. Here there are also people benefitting - those running the asylum seeker business.

You tell me how those who have managed, through being granted asylum, to get their families to Finland are LIARS. You have any evidence on this?

Theres a tip of the iceberg http://www.kko.fi/45905.htm

No one is an illegal immigrant if they exercise their legal right to apply for asylum upon arrival to the host country.

Yes they are, if their asylum seeking is to circumvent immigration controls. The law 107 § should be applied if the system has clearly been abused.

The flaws:

- Dublin II

It is not implemented effectively enough.

- lack of burden-sharing mechanisms
- lack of efficient integration mechanisms and policies

In other words: lack of money. Which money would be better used than paying disco money here. But the problem is there is no money. So we continue to go towards Greece - at some point the system collapses.

- slow processing of rejected asylum seekers

Blind grain finding the mornings wormy chicken. But why is that? Of course human rights lawyers make big bucks while stalling the process.

- e.g. the international community not recognizing Puntland and Somaliland from the rest of Somalia

They would need to be able to defend their territory as well. The UN, USA and I guess OAU have all tried and given up to have any kind of stability in Somalia.

- lack of diplomatic relations with countries of origin

How can you have relations with a country that doesn't exist? On the other hand how can a person not be deported while they can get there for holiday later on? Or what do you do in cases of civil war?

- lack of efficient counter-trafficking and counter-smuggling mechanisms and policies

You cannot do that because of human rights. These great "human rights" work only for criminals - not for decent working people.

- lack of efficient informing of economic migrants from e.g. West Africa in their countries of origin about the European asylum system, and the fact that their asylum application almost always gets rejected

Rather - you people encourage them. Magic words, "asylum" and then "racism". thats all they need to know. Linger in the process long enough and you get "rewarded". And why is it West Africans all of a sudden are "economic migrants" are they not muslim enough? Theres civil wars and political unrest in West Africa - even in Nigeria.  

- lack of a free and reciprocal civic and political dialogue on the issue (self censorship & hostile extremism instead of moderate and open discussion)

All this propaganda we've been force-fed since the 1990's - all the lies about "international agreements" that nowere state anything that we *have* to do more than other nations. All these sob stories while brushing the problems under the carpet. This has made me vehemently hostile, so you now reap what others have sown.

[Lemmy]

...so when I laid the same definitions in front of your face in my above commentary, you keep claiming I don't know what a refugee is.

Aparently as you ask me what a refugee is and cannot comprehend what you read nor what you yourself have written nor what I have written this somehow is my problem? I can read - I can also comprehend what I read - is that too much to ask from someone coming here and telling me multiculturalist lies into my face expecting me to believe it at face value? Thats pretty ripe expecting an old dog like me try learn how to roll and give paw at this age. Old dogs bite when they get annoyed.

[Zngr]

For a 'professional' who gives a public interview to another country with a different concentration of nationalities, I find it not only weird but also irresponsible to not mention 'this little detail' in his interview. In fact, good point; it is a major fault in his interview.

Sennels can't very well start classifying ethnic groups, or he'd be called even more of a racist (although I am not sure if it matters to him). If he said, slightly in exaggeration as this is merely an example, "not all Muslims are as horrible, but especially Somali and Moroccan are..." he's in a spot for racial or ethnic profiling.

Take for example Rebwar Karimi in yesterdays Ajankohtainen Kakkonen. He said "today most asylum seekers" come from honour cultures and that we have thousands of young immigrant men in refugee centers, who are a "ticking timebomb" in regards of honour violence that will probably follow in the future. Why is not Rebwar Karimi not answering questions about painting all immigrants as violent, honour driven potential murderers? Because even though PC-politics dictates it is not polite to say where these asylum seekers are from, most people already know, and do not assume he expands his views to every single asylum seeker.

This is a very efficient tool for the politically correct: if you talk about a religious (or other victim) group in "general" you are making sweeping generalizations, if you clarify which ethnic groups your commentary includes would be met with racial profiling and racism accusations that would surpass in vehemence those that were articulated before. In effect this means shut up, or only talk about the issue in the way we want to (i.e. do not discuss immigrant crime or problems at all, because you are always wrong no matter what you say).

Of course I can't know why Mr. Sennels does not use a lot of time in determining which Muslims he means in this case, I can only guess. My guess is he knows most people understand he is talking of the criminal Muslims and youth in Copenhagen.

Also I have not anywhere seen him narrowing down his 'sample' by words, as far as I know, he has always talked about Muslims as a homogeneous group

I have always thought of exactly the opposite, that he is talking about the criminal Muslims youth that he has worked with. Nowhere does he claim that all Muslims are like Copenhagen's criminal gangbangers of immigrant origin. You need to have politically correct -glasses on to make this assumption, or then on purpose confuse what Sennels says.

As I attempted to show by example, if an official talks about the problems that the white underclass in Birmingham suffers, he does not need to clarify he does not mean the white underclass in Italy or Poland. However, if an official talks about a localized problem with Muslims, he should go out of his way to ensure everyone he is not talking about every single Muslim everywhere.

I find this double standard disturbing and problematic in debate: it drags the discussion away from the issue, that is, the problems Muslim immigrants have in Denmark and how the psychology of those criminally inclined operates, and since the groups are partly similar to Finland, what might we learn and what's in store for us.

Instead you (and no doubt many others) would rather question Sennel's motives and dismiss his findings altogether, because he fails to individually single out ethnic groups, or other such bogus reasons.

Besides his mistake doesn't only involve generalizing from 'Turkish, Pakistani, Moroccan, former Yugoslavian and possibly Somali Muslims' to all Muslims; he also generalizes from Muslim youth in juvenile prisons to all those Muslims.

I doubt, apart from you, that many would draw these assumptions. I find this peculiar. Only a very prejudiced person, or one with an agenda, would believe that problems apparent amongst juvenile Muslim criminals in Denmark also apply to every Muslims globally. For the politically correct, who make believe (that is, on purpose misunderstand) the agenda would be to quiet people like Sennels. For racists the agenda would be to curb all immigration and fortify the borders. Both are as a group, to me, equally disgusting.

Neither of these stances justifies hiding or not talking about serious issues. I find it awesome political correctness is more worried about perceptions generated from voicing out problems, much more so than correcting said problems. That can't be tackled before they are spoken out loud and identified.

By now you should have noticed how some people make mindblowingly simple sweeping generalizations here.

Yes, I find it almost mind blowing someone would apply what Sennels says on the interview to every Muslim globally. So far, only you have made such generalizations in this discussion. Of course some people will read Sennels, or other people who have thrown PC-politics into the trashcan, and make exactly the kind of assumptions you are so worried about, but believe me, those people don't need Sennels, me, or Evil Doctor Jussi Halla-aho to tell them what to hate, they already are xenophobic or racist.

Your terminology is not quite correct... If you can somehow argue to me, how exactly is closing borders from Muslim refugees (in Denmark if you prefer to localize) going to protect liberal values... How do you protect human rights, equality and freedom in the world by rejecting the entry of asylum seekers... for fear that they will a) destroy our culture and society, b) destroy our economy, c) insert here?

I don't find semantics about terminology interesting because that is hardly necessary to understand each other in the framework of this discussion, and I'm also quite sure you understand what I meant with "progressives" and "conservatives" nevertheless. As for the question "how exactly is closing borders from Muslim refugees going to protect liberal values" I'm not the right person to answer as you correctly assumed I don't advocate closing borders.

My problem is political and ideological frameworks built around immigration and multiculturalism that, in my opinion, work exactly to the opposite effect as publicly is their purpose: multiculturalism in the way it has been practiced in Western Europe only serves to create mistrust and fragment a society by pitting ethnic or religious groups against each other. We already have Muslim groups who demand Sharia law in European countries or cities, which obviously will create great tension. You can count BNP votes, and make conclusions as the party grows about how happy the British natives are about these issues.

My Dutch friend can never move home, because in his own words, the street where he was born is now home to Moroccans who do not speak a common language with him and are furthermore very hostile to his presence. Race riots were common in UK by the early 90s as Pakistani and white underclass collided in bloody riots. Immigrant gangs grouped by ethnicity wage war against each other in London. Turks and Arabs in Germany seem to hate their host country, and are at the moment a heavy economic burden and fail terribly in education compared to their German peers. The German natives hate them back.

Some Swedish suburbs have been periodically closed from police, ambulance crews and firemen by hostile immigrant gangs. It is often claimed in some of these suburbs exist religious police, who dictate what women can wear or how to behave. In Sweden?!

The impoverished immigrants in French banlieus feel left out and even though ethnically diverse, can rally at least under one cause: most of them are Muslims (although France never practiced multiculturalism as such, they only claimed Algerians and Moroccans already were French but never accepted them as such...) and so on and on.

So obviously whatever we've been doing in the EU when it comes to immigration outside of Western countries roughly since the 70s has served to create a mess instead of a multicultural paradise where all live happily together while sharing mutual respect.

I'm not very happy about the prospect of all this finally crashing down on Finland. I feel we are as ill-equipped to handle the emerging issues as have other countries before us. Especially when we're still mostly engaged in discussing HOW to talk about problems with immigration, instead of talking about what to do with the problems. For example to you as is obvious above it is far more important to make distinctions of what Muslim groups exactly is Mr. Sennels talking about, instead of worrying about the problems he presents.

(One theory about practicing multiculturalism as a political agenda is from the late 60s Netherlands, when it was decided immigrants from North-Africa and Turkey, guest workers back then, should be encouraged to hold on to their own culture, customs and values so they would not feel alienated when they return home when the factories close down and the jobs vanish. However they never left, but the policy was not removed. No wonder it failed, if this was the premise.)

At the same time what positive experiences and lessons we have from immigration over the past century or two have been utterly forgotten even though pro-immigration commentators often invoke the 20th century success of USA or Finnish war children to justify their reasoning.

Ok, here are Kiko Kennels' opinions of what, for example, are flaws in the system:

- Dublin II
- lack of burden-sharing mechanisms
- lack of efficient integration mechanisms and policies
- slow processing of rejected asylum seekers
- e.g. the international community not recognizing Puntland and Somaliland from the rest of Somalia
- lack of diplomatic relations with countries of origin
- lack of efficient counter-trafficking and counter-smuggling mechanisms and policies
- lack of efficient informing of economic migrants from e.g. West Africa in their countries of origin about the European asylum system, and the fact that their asylum application almost always gets rejected
- lack of a free and reciprocal civic and political dialogue on the issue (self censorship & hostile extremism instead of moderate and open discussion)

etc. etc. etc.

Hooray we are in agreement.

As for the bolded parts, efficient integration begins in my opinion, unfortunately, by forgetting multiculturalism and being politically supercorrect, how do you personally feel about this?

Looking through past television programmes from YLE, Nelonen and MTV3 over the years one thing those employed by the asylum and refugee industry, often immigrants themselves, bring about is the utter lack of any coherent integration policy in Finland. One particularly touching interview from -06 had a middle aged women of Middle-Eastern origin despairing over the fact nobody is telling the immigrants what is acceptable in Finland, what isn't, and what might have legal repercussions.

I also support a policy where their real prospects would be more efficiently communicated to economic migrants. But as long as EU lacks any coherent, mutual practices this is impossible.

For example Spain only had some 5000 Asylum applicants during -07 IIRC, while the amount of applicants was four of five more times higher in Norway. Yet it is clear many more applicants go through Spain and end up requesting asylum in Norway, because they know their chances for success and benefits are infinitely better in Norway. Also Spanish law determines that a person who appears in Spanish soil must be released from custody after 45 days, with orders to leave the country, if it is not possible to determine where he comes from. I.e. West African migrants land in Spain, refuse to divulge their country of origin for 45 days and are then sent free inside EU to find their way to where ever they think they will garner the best gains. Not to even mention Italy or Greece.

The system is not working.

[Karri]

Since you work in the asylum system(?) can you actually provide us(or me at least) what happens when an asylum seeker comes to Finland? Up to the point that he is refused and what happens if he is a refugee and granted asylum? And since money is an issue to all, apparently, some figures on that would be nice. Especially the much spoken 'discomoney'.

[Lemmy]

I am so tired of trying to tell people that the Somali in the street really deserved his refugee, and is not here to take advantage of you. Why is it so difficult for so many to understand this. You just stubborn or what?

I just realised this is a chance for us stubborn ones to ask an expert able to explain a difficult question. Why here in this dictionary there is words for "lasku, maksaja, kansaneläkelaitos" but not for "työ, työpaikka, palkka"? It is very hard to understand.

[Karri]

I just realised this is a chance for us stubborn ones to ask an expert able to explain a difficult question. Why here in this dictionary there is words for "lasku, maksaja, kansaneläkelaitos" but not for "työ, työpaikka, palkka"? It is very hard to understand.

Well, unless our friend here is the administrator of said webpage and it's "dictionary(as real dictionaries usually have more than a few hundred words)", your realisation is quite useless, although no doubt very stubborn.

[Lemmy]

(One theory about practicing multiculturalism as a political agenda is from the late 60s Netherlands, when it was decided immigrants from North-Africa and Turkey, guest workers back then, should be encouraged to hold on to their own culture, customs and values so they would not feel alienated when they return home when the factories close down and the jobs vanish. However they never left, but the policy was not removed. No wonder it failed, if this was the premise.)

Well the Germans are a bit more blatant example, but there the gastarbeiters weren't even given a possibility for citizenship and just more or less left to fend on their own. UK had a headstart already in 1948 with their legislation - and need for labourers - but they weren't expecting everyone to return as with the colonial empire breaking down there were people who weren't able to go back even they'd wanted.

What I see is a problem with the interests of the political elite and business (who exploit the immigrants) versus the average citizen (who has to live the reality) - oh and one shouldn't forget the immigrants either. When the interests of all three parties are towards the same general direction - the society works. Otherwise there is conflict, just like in the multicultural paradise of Canada www.notcanada.com

We already have Muslim groups who demand Sharia law in European countries or cities, which obviously will create great tension. You can count BNP votes, and make conclusions as the party grows about how happy the British natives are about these issues.

But multiculturalists want this in Finland too , after all it enriches the culture

[mikkoellila]

Sorry for disappearing; I do actually have to work every now and then. I try to keep posting here as long as people wish to continue!

Who are you and where are you from and why are you writing in English?

BTW, maybe we should advertise this thread to a) some nationalists in other European countries and in America, b) foreigners living in Finland who don't speak Finnish.

[Zngr]

Well the Germans are a bit more blatant example, but there the gastarbeiters weren't even given a possibility for citizenship and just more or less left to fend on their own. UK had a headstart already in 1948 with their legislation - and need for labourers - but they weren't expecting everyone to return as with the colonial empire breaking down there were people who weren't able to go back even they'd wanted.

Very astute observations and a quality post, including the unquoted part. I was surprised when I found out the Germans closed down their gastarbeiter programs during the early 70s oil crisis when they figured they could not employ any more cheap immigrant labour in an attempt to curb the flow of incoming immigrants who they could not provide jobs for.

However by -73 the immigrant community was already so large ending the gastarbeiter program actually had absolutely no effect on reducing immigration from Turkey and the Arab countries. Some of the guest workers returned home, but even more chose to stay. The immigrants in question simply turned to family re-unification, i.e. marrying into their home countries and then "re-unifying" the family in Germany, including bonus relatives of new husband or wife. What is more, a significant part of the new immigrants came from the most impoverished (and conservative) areas of Anatolia, so the newcomers not only lacked any competence in German language but also even basic education taken for granted in European countries, including a high rate of illiteracy. In retrospect it is difficult to understand why nobody reacted to this obvious recipe for disaster, especially considering the Germans stubbornly continued believing the Turkish and Arab immigrants were only "guests" who would at some point just up and leave, all the while maintaining their second class citizen status by legislation.   

Only Denmark (as far as I know) has changed their foreigner law to respond to the challenge of family re-unification when they found out it was the primary method for non-Western immigrants to gain entry into the country by setting certain limits to family size and an interesting system that counts the total years the family has spent in Denmark.

[Lemmy]

In retrospect it is difficult to understand why nobody reacted to this obvious recipe for disaster, especially considering the Germans stubbornly continued believing the Turkish and Arab immigrants were only "guests" who would at some point just up and leave, all the while maintaining their second class citizen status by legislation.  

Well, if we wear the tinfoil hat and look at the situation from the industrialists point of view; there is a labour pool of 2nd class people who will take any job the be able to keep their residence permit - if they get wilful - they can be kicked out. And as there was the tendency of people sticking to certain neighbourhoods your middleclass didn't necessarily notice all that development in the 70's.

But - what I found interesting - it wasn't the Capitalist swine exploiting the gastarbeiters only. Meanwhile in DDR it wasn't exploitation but a favor:

Instead of viewing their guest-worker program as exploitation of the worker, the East German governement saw themselves as shoring up support for their brothers in communism as well as providing a service to these countries by allowing their workers to come work for higher wages.

Doesn't this sound vaguely familiar? Then again the DDR had a strict regime regarding "family unifications" at least:

The guest workers in East Germany came mainly from the East Bloc, Vietnam, North Korea, Angola, Mozambique and Cuba. But their stay in Germany was much restricted by the East German government as well as the Stasi (Staatssicherheit). Only those workers who passed strenuous qualification exams were allowed to train in professional fields or attend universities in East Germany. Residency was typically limited to only 3 years. In addition, contact between guest-workers and East German citizens was extremely limited; guest-workers were usually restricted to their own housing or area of the city, and open contanct with German citizens could bring extreme consequences. For example, female guest-workers were not allowed to become pregnant during the course of their work contract or they faced deportation, and the same was true of male guest-workers who were found guilty of impregnating East German women. The Stasi kept close watch on guest-worker populations, and it was through this organization that guest-workers were deported back to their countries of origin.

So I think I need to re-evaluate my stand of multiculturalism being a communist ideology per se... atleast not the enriching the genetically inbred population kind as some of the arguments are.  

[Zngr]

I'll wrap another roll of tinfoil around my head, since "well, we thought they'd just go away" isn't really an acceptable answer. Cheap labour, sure, especially when those who reap the rewards are more or less immune to whatever side-effects their cheap labour produces.

"There are places in the UK, France, America and other countries where the existing inhabitants feel they have become strangers in a strange land. The dress is foreign and often scary, the native tongue is unheard of on the streets, the odours from the cooking of strange foods are off-putting, children are held back in school by immigrants who do not speak the nation's language, and the religions practiced vary from the merely exotic to the positively threatening"

"Perhaps worst of all, this is of little concern to the ruling elites, who rarely live in the affected neighbourhoods, or venture into them. They are free to favour multiculturalism without enduring its consequences, and to ignore the fact that new immigrants, unlike previous waves, have no desire to integrate into a culture they often find abhorrent."

- Irwin Steltzer, on the Irish Independent, June -09

Makes you think if the old neocon has started feeling pangs of remorse during his later years.

So I think I need to re-evaluate my stand of multiculturalism being a communist ideology per se...

You see, if you wrap another roll of tinfoil, you can always assume multiculturalism is a communist plot to undermine the evil capitalist societies of the West - when the pressure finally reaches a point where they collapse it paves the way for a new socialist regime, where everyone is finally equal and exactly as multicultural as the next person - except for the ruling elite who are slightly more equal. During communism the solidarity of the working class was merely a sham, why couldn't this be true with multiculturalism, a sort of solidarity between the repressed masses (of non-Western people and immigrants) and the political left who must unite together against the evil white bourgeoise middle class. Get rid of the middle class and everyone becomes cheap labour, gently guided by the multicultural comrades of EUSSR.

(No, I am not entirely serious for those in doubt.)

[Lemmy]

I wonder whom will in this day and age dare to come forth and say things like this:

Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

But then again he was a pretty good in foretelling the future

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen.

[Pöllämystynyt]

Im sorry Im very slow to talk, Im still replying on your earlier message that I didnt completely reply last time.

(...) I'm not sure whether you can really escape the fact that anti-Muslim attitude is largely represented by the right, especially the extreme.

There is two different problems in what you say. Both are labels. First is "anti-muslim" and the second is "extreme right". "Anti-muslim" is a degoratory term that is not plausible with mainstream criticism of Islam and Islamisation. It seems to carry a strong connotation of "racism". Most criticism of Islamising has nothing to do with racism (ie. hierarchy of human value based on race (or ethnicity)).

This term "anti-Muslim" tries to relate the wide range of criticism of Islamization with things like "anti-semitism", while the truth is quite the opposite. Most of the critics are defending the human rights and tolerance.

Also you speak of "moderates" and "extremes" in a way that it seems you might think that "moderate" means someone closer to your values or opinions (in migration politics or about islam) and "extreme" if further from your points of views. In other words, do you mean supporting multiculturalism and immigration means moderateness and resisting them means "extreme". Do you mean the more you resist them the more extremist you are? If this is what you mean, I disagree. It could even be the opposite! The support for aggressive mass immigration that causes a wave of antisemitism and oppression of democracy could be called "extremism" and preservation of cultural diversity and human rights could be called "moderate". As long as these words are used as labels to categorise people as (political) enemies and friends they are totally relativistic and fully depending of ones world view.  

It isn't extreme for you to say that Quran bids to do criminal acts?? :0

Generally, no. This is a question of knownledge. If that information is wrong, then a person believing it has a wrong information but not necessarily extremism. Wrong information does not make anything "extreme". I would call wrong information as "failure". Its far from "extreme".  

About Sennels, it depends on what he might have meant by that, and on the larger context.

Besides, care to enlighten me of what exactly do you think about accepting even some Muslim immigrants? Or is it zero tolerance for their presence for you?

Some muslims who came in Finland at 19th century integrated well, so that size and type of immigration was acceptable. The sort of (muslim) immigration that has directed to Sweden in the last many decades however is partially a catastrofic failure, and making similar to happen in Finland would be not acceptable.

I have no firm opinion on the exact numbers and types of immigrants I prefer. Still I know there must be some firm limit (to avoid the mistakes of many other Western countries). Its like limiting alcohol to only those older than a certain age. What most of the people agrees that there must be a limit, because alcohol is bad for children for many reasons. People may disagree about the exact limit and different countries have different limits, but this disagreement doesn't mean there should not be a limit at all. So the artificial limit given by the local society (18 years) is a far better than no limit at all. Similarly the local societies and indigenous peoples should find some limits for immigration, even if they might be artificial, because its a way better than no (such) limits.

The societies and peoples should decide these things openly, democratically and consciously, to decide for example how big and what sort of immigrant population they will accept. Even if our semi-democratic system would set firm yearly limits for the types and numbers of immigrants (and follow those limits too!), that would not be what I mean, because that would propably not come from the people, and it would not be counscious enough in a longer time scale.

When you imply that Islam is going to take over our values, that is not only exaggerated, but I find it xenophobic to the least.

This is an example of how you throw another label. We talked about it already but I have to answer this too. Remember that after your wrote this I was asked by admin not to talk about "definitions of my politic stance" here, so I really cant talk about it any more. But lets talk generally. It really doesnt matter whether or not the Native Americans were "xenophobic" or not, what matters is that their unique cultures are almost completely destroyed by immigration. I dont think that a Native American was more "xenophobic" or "extreme" than the European settler. These labels are fully depending on the point of view.

Supporter of European immigration to Americas could have argued that "immigrants are peace loving and hard working people", "their religion is a religion of peace", "immigrants just wants freedom and flee tyranny and poorness" or that "natives and their defenders are xenophobic extremists". There were opposing opinions and labels but finally they did not matter much. What matters is what really happened. The indigenous peoples were destroyed, no matter what was argumented, no matter how the different sides were labeled.

This is what I find the most essential also today: What is really happening in spite of all the rethorics and labels. (This doesn't mean however that I would accept the negative or non-fitting labels that are thrown on me, because the labels are making the discussion not working or irrelevant. Actually this is one of the main functions of labels in such discussions, to "win" the other person without really discussing, for example by putting him/her into a category that seems to easily explain his/her thoughts, motivations and emotions, or by bundling all who disagree under a stereotypic label so that you don't have to consider their varying opinions individually but you can instead defy them all as a group. Aslo the other person can be demonised and inhumanised with such labels so that you may think you don't have to take his/her opinions seriously. Sometimes labels are even used to deliberately kill the discussion, like the "nazi card".)

So its really frustrating for me to resist the labels because I consider them mostly unessential or irrelevant. Also it consumes my time that I could use to talk of something more essential.

Phobia means a certain kind of a mental illness. Its quite ironic that you call other person pseudopsychologist as your main argument and use pseudopsychologist concept by yourself. By the way this pseudopsychologic term in its politicised sense is just a profanity too.

'Islamophobia' is a commonly used neologism, that refers to prejudice and discrimination against Muslims. Don't confuse neologisms with pop. psychology. Neologisms are also the terms 'genocide','Californication', 'homophobia', 'pro-choice' and 'political correctedness'.

Also new profanities are neologisms. "Islamophobia" is clearly a profanity and a negative label to demonize people. Being "neologism" is not a justification to use negative labels. BTW I dont have a "prejudice against muslims" in any relevant sense of this discussion. I know muslims personally and I have learnt quite much of Islam and other religions and cultures. But this (me) is not the subject here.

My definitions of "liberal" and "human rights" are mainstream. However, as far as I know most of the muslims and the muslim cultures are strongly against the human rights, liberalism and leftist values. Most of the muslims are "right wing" in the way you define them, also every academic muslim I know of. My resistance of islamising the west is a matter of both my green leftist values and what I know of Islam. Some other green leftist are pro islamisation. Their values are quite a same but in my view they don't know enough and what they know is distorted.

I think we have established that they're not 'that' mainstream, but anyway...

I dont think we have, but its really non-essential in this discussion.

Also its now forbidden for me to disturb this thread by talking more of these things about me not related with the more general subjects. I dont fully understand the reasons behind this order but I must follow it because don't want to be seen as disturbing and banned.

'they don't know enough and what they know is distorted'.... and you said you're not ethno-centrist? That is the most ethno-centrist, arrogant comment of this discussion.

I was talking about those leftists who are not critical to islamization. I was  not talking about the muslims.

I argued that those leftists who support islamization have wrong or too little information. So there is no problem with their values but with their knownledge.

Edit: grammatics, typos

[M.K.Korpela]

(You will probably find this page interesting, as many Pew surveys many Muslim attitudes and acts and other things, e.g. Muslims' opinions on terrorism, suicide bombing and women's rights: http://pewglobal.org/ )

While I'm busy with an another translation , I just pick on this your alleged good news on muslim attitudes with an analogy which will unveil your level of naivism for the most of the readers. Possibly not yourself , but anyway ...

However. Here's one survey from the UK: Sharia UK.  So : poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK

Now , let's apply that 40 % to a less glamorous issue ... a parody will unveil how naive you and your lot are.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Poll reveals 40 % of Britons want arson to be legalized in UK
- 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to fire security regulations


- Professor Smith , from Liverpool University is here with us to comment the survey. Nice to have you with us.
- Thank you.

- Now , I understand that you are working closely with the UK Fire Security Commission ?
- That's right. At Liverpool University , I lead the studies of fire security at the Department of Construction Technology.

- How do you comment the results ?
- So far as I can see , the attitudes towards fire security in general and arson in particular are not that bad as some want us to believe. As you can read yourself , after all 91 % still feel they are loyal to regulations.

- Right. However , in intrepreting the results , there still is a small opposition ...
- A very small indeed.

- Yes. However , the viewpoint of this small firephobic community is that the survey's findings reflect a total disaster in loyalty to fire regulations and is a direct smoking gun in expaining continuous fires at UK metropolitan areas. The reasoning goes that the result 40 % is a total disaster , because the result should be zero. Can you follow this reasoning ?

- First . let me give you credit for putting this firephobic community into perspective , it is not a very big community we talk of here ... I take it M.K.Korpela is again in this lot ?

- You've got that right. M.K.Korpela is indeed in this lot.
- That's what I figured. However , the reasoning indeed is very odd. The whopping 91 % is after all loyal to regulations and this is clearly a fear-mongering campaign we talk of. Is it burning in this studio while we talk ? Can you see arsonists around with  petrol canisters around ?

- No.

- We can , of course all agree that the number of fires has been continuosly increasing but to address these fires to additudes is just plain ridiculous and unscientific. Yes , the number of fires has grown - there is no doubt about that. But before we jump into these totally unscientific firephobic claims , we first must take a look of the areas in fire. It is to me the real science to point out that the fires start at low-income class areas , and therefore I can see no other solution based on science to the problem than allocating fund fighting societal alienation on those areas. This is what I call a scientific approach to the problem. Don't you agree ?

- Yes. And needless to say , class warfare needs to be intensified.
- Which I almoust forgot. It is definetely a delight to hear that our media and politicians keep their heads cool.

- Professor Smith , thank you your time.

[HP^2]

Said that, few fiscal realities to consider:
Development aid, which you consider somewhat useless (as do I), was around 950 million euros last year, give or take.
Cost of immigration centers alone was around 120 million, again give or take.
Cost of unemployed foreign dudes, around 560 million euros, yet again give or take.
These figures can be found from various statistics, courtesy of the Finnish Government.
Can these rough estimates be considered moderate expenses? In my opinion it's common sense to criticise whether or not tax payers should burden themselves with this extra cost.
How much humanitarian immigration should cost then? What would be the proper comparison? Total costs this year could exceed the amount that has been budgeted for, let's say, basic road maintenance.

Annual budget for the reception of refugees and asylum seekers in Finland (incl. health care, welfare, reception centres) equals (2008):

0,11% of the annual fiscal budget
0,38% of the social welfare and health care budget
1,8% of the pension fund
7,9% of the budget for materials for the national defence

http://budjetti.vm.fi/indox/tae/2008/he_2008.html

Are these not moderate expenses? Or could it be that some propagandists have exaggerated the sum a little bit, forgetting to mention that these millions only represent a tiny portion of the other budgets?

http://budjetti.vm.fi/indox/tae/2009/he_2009.html

Actually that site says that

Tuloarvioiden kokonaismäärä:

45 908 348 000

Development aid, immigration centres and unemployed foreign dudes together cost 3.6% of all income and

PUOLUSTUSMINISTERIÖN HALLINNONALA 2 778 442 000

58.7% of our defense budjet...

[Sivulause]

Said that, few fiscal realities to consider:
Development aid, which you consider somewhat useless (as do I), was around 950 million euros last year, give or take.
Cost of immigration centers alone was around 120 million, again give or take.
Cost of unemployed foreign dudes, around 560 million euros, yet again give or take.
These figures can be found from various statistics, courtesy of the Finnish Government.
Can these rough estimates be considered moderate expenses? In my opinion it's common sense to criticise whether or not tax payers should burden themselves with this extra cost.
How much humanitarian immigration should cost then? What would be the proper comparison? Total costs this year could exceed the amount that has been budgeted for, let's say, basic road maintenance.

Annual budget for the reception of refugees and asylum seekers in Finland (incl. health care, welfare, reception centres) equals (2008):

0,11% of the annual fiscal budget
0,38% of the social welfare and health care budget
1,8% of the pension fund
7,9% of the budget for materials for the national defence

http://budjetti.vm.fi/indox/tae/2008/he_2008.html

Are these not moderate expenses? Or could it be that some propagandists have exaggerated the sum a little bit, forgetting to mention that these millions only represent a tiny portion of the other budgets?

http://budjetti.vm.fi/indox/tae/2009/he_2009.html

Actually that site says that

Tuloarvioiden kokonaismäärä:

45 908 348 000

Development aid, immigration centres and unemployed foreign dudes together cost 3.6% of all income and

PUOLUSTUSMINISTERIÖN HALLINNONALA 2 778 442 000

58.7% of our defense budjet...

Good point, HP^2. Beat me to it.

Kiko, I've been all over the budget. I don't think I'm exaggerating, but then again I don't think I'm fat, either.

It's just how you look at it. The numbers can be worked to support any view. For me, the numbers seem huge. Huge as in what's in store for us. The point I'm stressing, is that these numbers will go up. Significantly.

Net immigration has nearly doubled in ten years, and a lot of people are coming here with poor or non-existent job prospects, thanks to our infamous immigration policy combined with still high social security benefits. In my opinion the Finnish asylum system does work as a catalyst for the ongoing global economic immigration. At least to a degree. Economically this type of immigration doesn't really make sense. Added, that a portion of the people coming here share some characteristics equivalent to our indigenous long-term unemployed, a risk of social exclusion and other nasty stuff, we could be in for something more we  bargained for.

Again, my point is, that we could take it down a notch, just to have a clear picture where this sort of development is taking us. For me, the fact that the budget for immigration centers had to be doubled during the last fiscal year, tells that The Powers That Be are ill-equipped to handle the situation. Another reason to slow things down.

It seems, Kiko, that although we don't seem to be on the same page, we at least are holding the same book. That's a good thing. Like Pöllämystynyt elaborated, use of certain terminology when discussing immigration and what not can be somewhat counterproductive, since people throw them around like candy. I don't like to use big words because it can end up in a debate over the meaning of the words. Hence, I try to establish my point through layman terms.

I'll end this post with a reference to a pop culture phenomenon, one of my favorites.

A government accountant approaches Matti Vanhanen with his ledger, pointing to the numbers in disbelief and with watery eyes.
"This is blasphemy! This is madness!"

"Madness? THIS IS FIN-LAAAAND!" Matti replies, kicking the accountant to the bottomless pit, pages of his ledgers left lingering like leaves, floating through the air at the whim of the wind.

I apologize for the poor attempt at humor.

[I Work in Asylum System]

Sorry for disappearing, I'll try to comment as soon as possible to the rest. Now the first one:

You yourself said
Lainaus
between 2000-2008 6025 asylum seekers received favourable decisions, while 17270 got negative, and 3707 got annulled. This means less than 753 a year is taken in on average.

So what are these 17270 + 3707? And why do we waste the money on them? You explain.
I don't mind "refugees" - I mind the rest abusing the system and wasting money we could use elsewhere - like actually integrating refugees.

Happy to hear this, because then we agree on something. I also do not encourage the abusing of the asylum system when someone is not really a refugee. Majority, unfortunately, of the negative decisions in Finland are based on Dublin convention, that is, people have traveled to Finland from other European countries (asylum shopping) to apply for asylum – whether or not they are genuine refugees – and have been categorically rejected and sent back to first country of application. This is the most common rejections, as you can see from the statistics I posted above: 90% of all rejected asylum seekers are Dublin-cases, and were categorically rejected without screening or processing of the applicant. You could have read this from above statistics.

This means 10% had been rejected based on manifestly unfounded asylum requests or annulment.

This is a problem, not because of abuse of the system, but because the system sucks. We come back to the question of harmonization and burden-sharing, not to mention the inefficiency of the processing mechanisms. Currently some member states grant asylum easier than others. Some states offer better detention facilities, job opportunities and language classes. Some offer better welfare for the applicants – e.g. in Greece and Italy the asylum seekers can literally end up living on the streets (one 17 year old Afghani told in tears how he had to eat rats a few times because he was given no shelter or food in Greece – so he came to Finland), while some offer warm housing and monthly allowances. Some detention centres have such poor conditions that human rights groups criticize them constantly – many are worse than local prisons. People are herded into a room, up to 100-200 in 50m2 with no privacy, lack of hygiene and no recreation. Would you choose those detention centres, or try Finland?

Also some states reject applications but cannot send the AS back to their home country, leaving the AS in a legal limbo with no right to travel, have housing, work or even study. When the processing takes ages, and/or they are left in a limbo like this, it is completely understandable that they try to apply in another European country, often applying several at a time.

Is this abuse? Of course not. These people have the same basic rights to shelter, food, water, and security than you. Why should they be treated like dirty criminals (in some states), when they are not, not legally and most often not even in practice. The reason why 90% of the cases are Dublin cases is because of these reasons. It is the system that creates asylum shopping. It costs us money, and it costs the AS time and mental health (this limbo is known to create the sense of resignation, depression, marginalization and hopelessness among AS).

A woman in tears told me a story of why she left her first country of application (not the country she wanted to come in the first place, but she was rescued in a boat) to apply to Sweden and Norway: she said she just wanted some peace, warmth and security for a change, being tired to sleep in hangar containers (one container has up to 12-15 people living on mattresses, no heating, no running water). She said she hated the cold more than anything. By going North she took a chance of having her application processed quicker, and could enjoy some comfort (warmth, decent food, privacy) for a few months.

Is it not the time for Europe to harmonize asylum standards and guarantee humane, dignified treatment of the asylum seekers? Are we not creating more problems by refusing to accept that this is not a temporary 'problem' but a part of the globalized, war-ridden world, and we have a responsibility to oil the machine and protect human rights?

And read this:

"Samasta maasta ja samasta tilanteesta tulleen turvapaikanhakijan mahdollisuus saada turvapaikka vaihtelee suuresti jäsenmaasta toiseen. Ihmisoikeusjärjestöt ovat kuvanneet tilannetta turvapaikanhakijan näkökulmasta turvapaikka-arpapeliksi...Monet Eurooppaan saapuvista turvapaikanhakijoista ovat jättäneet taakseen kaiken ja pelkäävät palauttamista kotimaahansa. Kun ensimmäinen EU-maa hylkää turvapaikkahakemuksen, on monen hakijan ainoa vaihtoehto pyrkiä toiseen maahan ja toivoa, että hakemus hyväksytään.

Turvapaikanhakijoiden siirtyminen maasta toiseen on yleiseurooppalainen ilmiö. Ihmisille itselleen se on inhimillinen tragedia. Osa maasta toiseen kiertävistä turvapaikanhakijoista ei ole päässyt asianmukaiseen turvapaikkatutkintaan missään maassa. Heillä ei ole pääsyä työmarkkinoille, opintoihin tai kotouttamistoimien piiriin. Kaikkein haavoittuvimmassa asemassa oleville, kuten lapsille tai vakavasti traumatisoituneille hakijoille, tilanne on vaikein.

Monissa EU-maissa turvapaikanhakijoille tehdään kielteisiä päätöksiä, vaikka tiedetään ettei heitä pystytä palauttamaan lähtömaiden sisäisen tilanteen takia. Ihmiset jätetään oman onnensa nojaan kielteisen turvapaikkapäätöksen jälkeen ilman minkäänlaista statusta. "
http://www.muuttoliikkeessa.fi/index_html?lid=5?=suo


"Sisäasiainministeriö ottaa osaa julkisuudessa käytyyn keskusteluun siitä, houkutteleeko korkea toimeentulotuki Suomeen turvapaikanhakijoita. Ministeriön lähettämän tiedotteen mukaan toimeentulotuen määrällä ei ole selvää yhteyttä turvapaikanhakijoiden määrään...Ministeriö ottaa esille Hollannin, jossa turvapaikanhakijat saavat alhaista tukea verrattuna muihin Euroopan maihin, mutta maahan hakeutui silti viime vuonna 13 400 turvapaikanhakijaa. Myös Norjaan ja Ruotsiin hakeutuu Suomea enemmän turvapaikanhakijoita, vaikka maat maksavat toimeentulotukea Suomea vähemmän. Ministeriö muistuttaa myös, että eri maiden maksamien toimeentulotukien vertailu on vaikeaa, koska osassa maista annetaan enemmän muita hyödykkeitä rahan sijasta...Esimerkiksi Ruotsissa perheenpäälle maksettiin 198 euroa kuukaudessa ja Norjassa 145,50 euroa kuukaudessa."

http://yle.fi/uutiset/teksti/talous_ja_politiikka/2009/12/ministerio_raha_ei_houkuttele_turvapaikanhakijoita_1250836.html

The law if you would actually care to read it actually says in 149 § yes they can be. And refugee status can be revoked 107 § Also fraud as basis for revoking the asylum status in 108 §. How about you stop pretending you actually know something as you evidently do not. The fact that the deportation is rarely used isn't a problem with the law, just its implementation or rather the lack of it. There you are again wrong as expected - only citizens cannot be deported. It might not be anything simple - but anyone can be deported who is not a citizen. 143 § and 149 § if you care to actually read the law, nevermind comprehend it.

First of all; protection status, as you probably read from 108 §, can't be revoked based on crime, which I understand was the point of your comment. It is very well known that it can be revoked if the situation in the country of origin (CoO) changes, but this is very different from the refugee being a criminal offender and deporting because of that.

149 § - Ulkomaalainen, jolle on Suomessa myönnetty pitkään oleskelleen kolmannen maan kansalaisen EY-oleskelulupa, voidaan karkottaa maasta vain, jos hän muodostaa yleiselle järjestykselle tai yleiselle turvallisuudelle välittömän ja riittävän vakavan uhan.
Pakolaisen saa karkottaa 1 momentin 2–4 kohdassa tarkoitetussa tapauksessa. Pakolaista ei saa karkottaa kotimaahansa tai pysyvään asuinmaahansa, johon nähden hän on edelleen kansainvälisen suojelun tarpeessa. Pakolaisen saa karkottaa vain valtioon, joka suostuu ottamaan hänet vastaan.

In other words, a refugee cannot be deported back to his home country, whether he has, or has not, achieved a permanent residential status on Finland, against his will.

What they CAN do, as the law says, is to deport to another state that accepts him, and promises to give him protection.

This also correlates with my previous statements about burden-sharing; I am an advocate of relocating asylum seekers proportionately around the Schengen countries (and even outside), and am a critique of too soft-handed intra-EU family reunification. In other words, I believe an asylum seeker who applies to e.g. Finland can in certain circumstances be transferred - by force if necessary - to another country to process his application. (although we are not even near the limit of how many we could take annually). In the case of criminals, whether or not they have been granted asylum, the same applies; deportation can be done, but not to his home country.

BUT it is a questionable practice; a deportation of a criminal offender who has been granted protection in Finland to e.g. another EU country shows a weird signal to other member states, who might think Finland pushing their criminal offenders to their laps - and in fact the country can say no. A much more mature signal would be sent if Finland actually managed to rehabilitate and reintegrate the criminals to the society, minimizing the crime repetition rate.

It wouldn't need to be. But the EU needs to make a common effort in all this. Actually the EU should make one uniform policy regarding all aspects of asylum seeking, so as to eradicate the asylum-shopper phenomenon. As a matter of fact if we are talking of refugees, applying at the embassy should be the way to process refugee applications. The asylum seeker process will succumb to its own unfeasability in a few years - as it already has in Greece.

Whoa, we agree on something! I also agree harmonization of asylum policies and increasing efforts to reduce asylum shopping (whether 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate'). And do you mean that asylum seekers should apply in the embassy of the CoO in the host country, or in the embassy of the host country in the CoO? Both would be quite unfeasible ideas. E.g. in both instances the under-representation of embassies in receiving region, or the region of origin, makes it unfair (for all partners involved, and belittles the efforts of harmonization you are also advocating, especially in terms of burden-sharing).

Theres a tip of the iceberg http://www.kko.fi/45905.htm

Faiza's fraud is well-known, also because it is so far the first of the kind to be identified in Finland. I do agree that frauds based on family reunification happen (and I mentioned previously that I am not happy with some parts of the actual FR system). Yet in many cases (if not the most) family reunification can happen even without common children, just based on marriage - so children are not necessary, even if useful in some individual cases, to get FR. - And yes, some marry for only this reason; e.g. a case in point; a refugee (i.e. with subsidiary protection, which doesn't allow free movement between Schengen countries) in Malta applied for FR in Germany, having married another refugee during her trip in Germany based on 2 day encounter. She told me she had no future in Malta in terms of marriage (her husband had been killed in Eritrea, btw she was Christian) or employment, so she married another Eritrean during her trip to Germany to get out of Malta. (this would be a good moment to criticize the subsidiary protection and the lack of harmonized EU-wide asylum system again – read above).

Faiza's case has some relevant points though; first, she most likely would have gotten the FR just based on her marriage with the guy in Finland. Secondly, in terms of the welfare she was receiving, I remember it was calculated that they would have received the same money regardless of the fraud, making their fraud actually useless. (Both points I remember reading from the after-math commentary by the gov officials involved.)

Anyway, I just love how anti-Muslim immigrants got so excited when this got into news! When they have little grounds for deep theoretical argumentation, they resort to scandalizing individual events. I believe Finnish welfare-abusers end up costing much more a year than refugees.

Yes they are, if their asylum seeking is to circumvent immigration controls. The law 107 § should be applied if the system has clearly been abused.

No they aren't; not necessarily even rejected asylum seekers, who have been rejected based on fraud, unless they get a removal order or are deported and have lost their right to stay in the country. An illegal immigrant is the person who arrives in the country but does NOT apply for asylum (mostly visa overstayers from all over the world, rarely refugees or AS). All those who DO, become legally in the country. This is also the reason why so many (around 70%) apply for asylum in the first place - it regularizes their status, so that they are not illegally in the country anymore. (another good moment for criticism). Also, those who for some reason get a removal order or are deported from the country have lost their legal right to stay in country, and become illegal immigrants.

The law 107 §  does not apply to asylum seekers, as the law refers to the 'termination of refugee or subsidiary protection', i.e. it refers to those who have protection, based on criteria mentioned in http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2004/20040301. Whereas 108 § deals with 'cancellation' of protection based on false information, after the protection has been granted, and therefore also doesn't refer to AS.

It is not implemented effectively enough.

No, especially because based on Dublin some countries get a disproportiante amount of asylum applications while some get very little. And also because having to all the time forcedly return AS to the first country of application (Dublin return) is expensive. Dublin is unfair to many Southern nations, while it benefits the rest.

How can you have relations with a country that doesn't exist? On the other hand how can a person not be deported while they can get there for holiday later on? Or what do you do in cases of civil war?

You have misunderstood me. We were talking about forced returns, so obviously we are not talking about Somalia as we can't send anyone there by force. I was talking about returning rejected AS, e.g. grom West Africa, Europe, India or wherever. But in the case of Africa, the lack of diplomatic relations makes it difficult to authorize or arrange travel documents to the CoO.

About 'holidays' in Somalia you can read my comments to Pollamystynyt (or was it Malla, sorry) above.

Aparently as you ask me what a refugee is and cannot comprehend what you read nor what you yourself have written nor what I have written this somehow is my problem?

Just repeating how 'Kiko doesn't understand what a refugee is" like a mantra, but not providing clear reasons why you think this, not providing your own definition and a comparison of how it is different from my understanding, and repeating how 'I can read but you can't' doesn't make you a very good conversant. You think you're too good to justify your arguments?

[I Work in Asylum System]

This is a very efficient tool for the politically correct: if you talk about a religious (or other victim) group in "general" you are making sweeping generalizations, if you clarify which ethnic groups your commentary includes would be met with racial profiling and racism accusations that would surpass in vehemence those that were articulated before.

I agree with you - I find both 'extreme'. In effect, I would like people to not say 'Somalis are lazy' or 'Muslims are violent' at all, not even 'that Mogadishuans are violent'. I would like people to realize that just because, let's say of the top of my head, 5% of an ethnic group A are criminals compared to, say, 1% of the population of the receiving country B, doesn't justify the rhetoric that 'A are criminals'. Also to link it simplistically to an ethnic group, rather than to a certain political & socio-economical background, is erroneous.

I find this double standard disturbing and problematic in debate: it drags the discussion away from the issue, that is, the problems Muslim immigrants have in Denmark and how the psychology of those criminally inclined operates, and since the groups are partly similar to Finland, what might we learn and what's in store for us.

In my opinion I have discussed in length on these issues here, the problems the Muslim immigrants have (granted I've talked more about Finland as the readers are mostly Finnish).

Only a very prejudiced person, or one with an agenda, would believe that problems apparent amongst juvenile Muslim criminals in Denmark also apply to every Muslims globally.

Indeed, and this is what I keep seeing here and elsewhere: people opposing the immigration of Muslim asylum seekers using Sennels' words as another justification of why, rather than dealing the kids as the marginalized sample they represent.

Neither of these stances justifies hiding or not talking about serious issues.

Indeed, which is why I believe we are discussing this. I could have just left you here you know, to blabber to yourself, instead of trying to answer every single one (in case you were partly referring to me).

I don't find semantics about terminology interesting

I do, I find them very interesting, in fact I believe many terminological misunderstandings are used to justify anti-Muslim immigrants' opinions, e.g. the generally mistaken notion that the boat people in Mediterranean who apply for asylum in Europe are 'illegal immigrants', when they are not, but the term has been misunderstood and misrepresented.

An understanding of common terminology is important.

My Dutch friend can never move home, because in his own words, the street where he was born is now home to Moroccans who do not speak a common language with him and are furthermore very hostile to his presence. Race riots were common in UK by the early 90s as Pakistani and white underclass collided in bloody riots. Immigrant gangs grouped by ethnicity wage war against each other in London. Turks and Arabs in Germany seem to hate their host country, and are at the moment a heavy economic burden and fail terribly in education compared to their German peers. The German natives hate them back.

I don't find Moroccans hostile in the areas where I have been, nor any other ethnic group. In effect, I find them always very welcoming and eager to tell me about their experiences, eager to practice languages (theirs or mine or English) with me.

Regardless, as I have mentioned previously, I feel that I am more than aware of the problems, and in fact it is why I do what I do, including writing here.

Pakistanis in London:

...Today 0,6% businesses are owned by Pakistanis. 20% of the Pakistani pop. Are self-employed, compared to 10% of white Britons. Around 1/5 are unemployed and on social benefits.
"The percentage of London Pakistanis in managerial, senior officials or professional occupations is at 33%, slightly higher than the London average of 32%. It is also higher than the percentage of London Bangladeshis (22%) and similar to the percentage of Indians (34%) and Other Asians (31%)...The unemployment rates for Pakistani males and females in London are also lower than for Pakistanis from other regions of Britain. Pakistanis are also the only ethnic group (including White Britons) who have lower worklessness rates in London than in other areas of Britain. As of 2001, nearly equal amounts of Pakistanis in Inner (45%) and Outer London (46%) were Middle Class....Pakistani applicants to universities are over-represented by 7.5% from Greater London....Pakistani men are better qualified than the average Londoner,[8]with 37% possessing a degree level or higher qualification, although Pakistani women have fewer educational qualifications, with 27% having the same qualifications.." Wikipedia.

Ethnic clashes in London:

"There was an altercation between a teenage boy and dairy staff during prayers. It escalated and the windows of several vehicles were smashed.
Amid claims that the boy, his mother and teenage sister were assaulted, up to 50 young people clashed on Tuesday night.
Windows of the makeshift mosque and dairy vehicles were smashed. Residents said gangs of Asian youths travelled from Slough to fight the white gang. One youth was reportedly arrested for carrying a 12-inch knife.
Dairy manager Sikander Khan, 50, said the 50 predominantly Asian workers at the dairy were now worried about their safety...The firebomb attack took place on Wednesday night. Mr Khan said: "The youths threw a petrol bomb at us. ...The unrest came the day after David Cameron waded into the debate over multiculturalism, saying there could be no place for communities living "parallel lives" in Britain. "
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369687-race-clashes-hit-windsor.do

Excuse me for my 'apologetism' as I'm sure you'll judge me of, but I have to think about this in writing:

As far as I know, clear majority are clashes between Muslims and white Westerners. In fact, at least many African diaspora, are known to have a strong sense of brotherhood among themselves, as any immigrant groups around the world; they feel they are the unwanted, new, strange – little they have a reason to fight among themselves.

In many (actually most) cases that I have read, the clashes have started when a native Brit has provoked a Muslim, e.g. the above case where it is suggested that while Muslims were praying in a dairy shop, a teenage boy started provoking. In 'general' Muslim immigrants tend to be meek, why, apologetic of their existence, and have a mix of pride and shame with regards to their religion (in a poll done in London hardly no one dared to answer Muslim, while around 60% of white or black Christians proudly declared to be one). They feel the need and duty to uphold their routines such as praying, but they have no reason to do this to provoke violence. Yet Westerners are proud of being 'free' to say whatever they want, they are arrogant in their freedom, knowing that they can say anything and are exercising their 'right' to do so – this sense of freedom and immunity provokes many to disregard Muslim customs and openly attack them. My Muslim friends hear all too often direct jokes about their behavior during praying time in case they have to do it public, and Muslim women feel conscious of the judgmental attitude towards their veil (whether they like the veil or not). How often do they target us with similar behavior? To disregard the importance of this, and to evade the accusations of our responsibility to participate in the integration by brushing these issues from one's shoulders, is naïve and immature.

Some of the clashes are intra-immigrant, such as the 2003 one between Cypriots and Kurds. that became well-known.
"Shortly after 4pm on November 9 2002, something like a war broke out on this stretch of road. After an altercation in a social club, more than 40 Turkish and Kurdish men fought a running battle with sticks, knives and guns. Alisan Dogan, an innocent 43-year-old cleaner, was killed. It was not the first horror to be perpetrated by Harringay's heroin gangs - part of a vast international business reputedly connected to Kurdish separatists in southeastern Turkey - but it shook the community. A friendly and thriving neighbourhood became infamous in an afternoon.
Canver is Turkish - neither Cypriot nor Kurdish. She arrived as a student in the 1970s, and has the unmistakable bustle of a woman who gets things done. Her first response, two years ago, was to keep Turks and Kurds talking to each other, "so they could understand they were not all criminals". The effect, ironically, seems to have been positive. "Two years on, we are at a different point, definitely. Two years ago, we were more isolated." This morning, Canver hosted the first combined event for Haringey's three Turkish-speaking groups. It seemed to go well."


"The study carried out by the Berlin-based Institute for Population and Development found that 30 percent of Turks and those of Turkish origin did not finish school and only 14 percent took the Abitur, or the final secondary school exam that is the required qualification for university. But more than 50 percent of those in other migrant groups manage to do the same, the report said... Immigrants of Turkish origin were also found to be the least successful in the labour market: they are often jobless, the percentage of housewives is high and many are dependent on welfare, the study said. The state of Saarland was found to have the worst record – 45 percent of its Turks had no educational qualification of any kind...Reiner Klingholz, director of the institute, said language remained the key to education and successes."For too long we've been used to the fact that we have primary school classes in which 80 percent of the children don't understand German," he said." http://www.thelocal.de/society/20090125-16987.html (on the other hand, In comparison, in Britain: "In 2003, 30% of Turkish/Turkish Cypriots pupils achieved 5 or more GCSEs at Grades A*-C. This rose to 40% in 2005. However it was still below the national average of 55% for 2005.")


"Turkish areas of Germany are often said to be parallel societies. "They feel German in some sense, but they are not fully accepted citizens," says Dr Dirk Halm, a sociologist at the Centre for Turkish Studies at the University of Duisburg-Essen. He speaks about a "double identity" among second- and third-generation Turkish immigrants...This is not surprising, he says, as Germany has not gone out of its way to include Turks. He refers to the "anachronistic citizenship rule" whereby children born in Germany to Turkish immigrants - like Nuri Sahin - were not automatically made German citizens. The law has only recently been changed. He says Turkish communities also have a strong sense of identity. "Turkey has a form of nationalism much higher than in post-war Germany." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5118244.stm

"But Turkish discontent extends beyond views of the U.S. and Europe. For example, according to the same 2006 Pew poll, Turks also express lukewarm attitudes toward Arabs. While Muslims among other non-Arab publics overwhelmingly say they have a positive view of Arabs, only 46% of Turks express a positive opinion, among the lowest of the 10 Muslim publics surveyed; only German Muslims (who, as noted above, are predominately of Turkish origin) were less positive toward Arabs. And when asked whether they sympathize more with Israel or the Palestinians, fewer Turks expressed sympathies with Palestinians (64%) than did other countries in the Middle East." http://pewresearch.org/pubs/623/turkey (2007)

"Frustration with stagnated negotiations to admit Turkey into the European Union is also reflected in the survey data -- 22% said they had a positive opinion of the EU in the 2009 poll, down 36 percentage points from five years ago. " http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1429/negative-views-of-america-unchanged-in-turkey (2009)

In Germany the right to dual nationality was abolished in 2000, together with the 1999 law that changed the German citizenship criteria from jus sanguinis to jus soli. This only ten years ago, when Turks have lived in Germany since the early 60's. Turkish didn't have a right to vote in the 40 years they have been in Germany - today of a Turkish population of about 2,5 million, 600 000 have been naturalized and have a right to vote, in a country with 61.5 million this is not a lot (Surveys show that Turks support, up to 90% (during 2005 Federal Elections) the SPD or the Greens. The Greens are now run by a 2nd generation Turk.). Today a controversial citizenship test that even Germans might not pass is taken before granting citizenship (together with language tests, which I support). Asylum seekers live in a limbo, and now have a deadline of one year in which to find a full-time job if they want to avoid deportation.

In London similar finds have been made on the declining of integration of Turkish, Kurdish or Cypriot-Turkish' youth with regards to low educational performance, criminal and gang behavior and extremism. A research on this stated various reasons for this trend; cuts in the asylum system and integration policies correlate with these trends, including the closure of many youth centres, and the issue of the officials not recognizing Kurds as a separate group (identity policies), not giving secure and permanent residence status to some asylum seekers, and other policy nodes...etc.
Research on Turks in London:
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/migration/documents/mwp51.pdf

Interesting reads:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/britain/london/0,,1394802,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/21/britishidentity5
http://www.turkishweekly.net/
Somalis in Wembley: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/21/britishidentity8

Heard about the recent riot in Rosarno, Italy?

Case: Rosarno

When you walk the street in Rosarno during the citrus harvest of the year, you see more blacks than whites, practically all of them young men there to do seasonal work - MSF writes: "In the areas of Rosarno, San Ferdinando and Rizziconi, MSF has found at least 1,500 migrant workers in extremely hazardous conditions: in the first two areas, the workers are living in abandoned factories. In San Ferdinando, in particular, around 700 people have built makeshift housing inside a disused paper mill...The complete lack of basic hygienic facilities is appalling." This seasonal movement is annual and happens in many regions around the world. MSF also says: "According to the United Nations, in a displacement camp there must be at least one toilet for every 20 people. Not even this basic standard is being met in the places we've seen in Calabria for a population that is fundamental for the local agricultural economies. "

Most of these migrants are undocumented, earning around 15e for their day job - if they manage to find a job with all the competition. The agriculturalists depend heavily on their labour.

Calabrians have a reputation of being hostile to outsiders (including Sicilians and Northern Italians), and rosarnoans understandably detest the current situation. Threats and violence on their behalf against the immigrants have been common, while theft and violence from the immigrants rare (as they are mostly employed...

In December 2008 an Italian entered one of the factories where they were sleeping, and shot three of them with a rifle, one survived - a 21-year old boy from Ivory Coast (with both Muslims and Christians around 30-40% pop, so I don't know which one this guy was). The migrants demonstrated peacefully on the streets asking for humane treatment.

The riot of January 2010 started when some Italian youths shot with an air rifle at the passers-by, hurting several. Again the migrants took to the streets, now facing police force - a riot broke out. A couple of thousand, mostly from Ghana and Burkina Faso, demonstrated in front of the city hall carrying banners 'we are not animals' and 'Italians here are racist'. After two days of violence the number of injured stood at 53, comprising 18 police, 14 local people and 21 immigrants

Attacks against the migrant workers included setting up a roadblock and hunting down stray Africans in the streets of Rosarno. Some of the crop-pickers were shot; others beaten with metal bars or wooden clubs. Among the residents arrested was one who tried to run over a migrant with a bulldozer and another who was taken into custody after driving at a migrant with a car.

Later the police gathered all black people and for their own protection moved them away from the city, inspiring some people to call it ethnic cleansing (technically correct, even if for their own protection),  while local inhabitants cheered and applauded their departure. Some were sent to detention centres for asylum seekers, others were destined for internment at a so-called centre for identification and expulsion.

According to the CGIL public sector union, about 26,400 migrants were employed in Calabrian farms in 2007; only 7,000 of them had permits to be in Italy. The city of Bari who handled some of the cases stated that more than half of the cases were legal immigrants with temporary work permits.

"I have never hurt anyone. I don't know why they attacked us; we are here to work," Ajra Saibu from Togo, one of two men wounded in the shooting, told Italian daily Corriere della Sera.

Father Carmelo Ascone, the parish priest of Rosarno, said the situation of the immigrants reminded him of the circles of hell in Dante's Divine Comedy: "These people live in inhuman and desperate conditions." A spokesman for the International Organization for Migration called the unrest "among the worst of its kind in recent Italian history."

It's this slum that could have triggered the first pellet-gun shooting. In an interview with daily L'Avvenire, senior public prosecutor Alberto Cisterna of the National Anti-Mafia Squad, said he suspected locals had complained about the temporary camp to the Calabrian mafia, the 'Ndrangheta. "When the local people felt threatened, they turned to the Mafiosi, who then had to step in so as not to lose face," Cisterna said. "[The 'Ndrangheta] sent out a little 'platoon' of young killers ... just to frighten the Africans."

Reuters writes: "Even workers with regular residence permits left the town to escape a climate that one political commentator compared to the 1960s Ku Klux Klan racial violence in the United States."

Time writes: "The migrants also received uncharacteristically sympathetic media coverage. "This Time ... The Negroes Are Right," read the headline on Jan. 9 in the conservative newspaper Il Giornale." http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1953064,00.html

At the same time Italy breaches international law and human rights declaration by intercepting and sending back boats coming fron Northern Africa, mostly through Libya. In August one boat of around 75 migrants was left in the sea, 70 died - and Italy and Malta watched.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDNpx1Ta-iY&feature=youtube_gdata
http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=pressrelease&objectid=49692559-15C5-F00A-25FE0A15B62EBC93&method=full_html
http://www.repubblica.it/2008/10/sezioni/cronaca/ndrangheta-arresto/rosarno-immigrati-3/rosarno-immigrati-3.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8447990.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/11/italy-rosarno-violence-immigrants
http://www.sphere.com/world/article/exploitation-of-illegal-immigrants-fuels-italian-riots/19312704
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLDE60906D
---

Most people here know about all this, and about the exploitation of illegal or legal African migrants. This is no news. But Rosarno case, as some of the others I have mentioned above, hints – without having to resort to too much popular psychology – how an asylum seeker might feel in Europe. When things like kicking a praying man or burning a mosque happen in London, these news spread quickly among the immigrant population, and makes the closest ones to the victims wary of being targeted. I believe it is not only the lack of education of the immigrants which is the problem – even though a big one. I believe educating the natives, whether in schools, family or media, are extremely important. This means responsible education; not the hush-hush-policy, nor the provocative 'ThisIsLondon'-type news that concentrate only on one side of the issue.

Now the current trend in popular dialogue has been to accuse immigrants for not 'trying enough'. But how are they suppose to 'try' without any tools to do so? Lack of equality in citizenship and residence status is one of the main reasons for many things from illegal work to extremism. And Germany's schools with different classrooms for different ethnicities is counter-productive to say the least.

Ethnic segregation – whether intentional or a result of 'natural' preferences in schools, workplace, in the sphere of civil and social rights, and physically into ethnic ghettoes – is historically the worst possible way of dealing with a plurality of ethnicities.

Ethnic segregation in German schools: http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jcn015v1
Ethnically divided neighbourhoods in Germany: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a738552586&db=all

Some Swedish suburbs have been periodically closed from police, ambulance crews and firemen by hostile immigrant gangs. It is often claimed in some of these suburbs exist religious police, who dictate what women can wear or how to behave. In Sweden?!

I've heard of this as well, but then again I also know many freely behaving and dressing Muslim women who tell me how they enjoy the freedom here, comparing their previous lives under mutawas (they were Afghans and a Saudi).

I do advocate harsher measures on this. But unless there is physical violence or clear breaching of human rights involved, these cases are hard to handle, as in our culture we still consider home and family members as 'private' and separate from the public sphere. (Like a Dad who prevents his 17 year old daughter from doing this and this). In this kind of atmosphere, it is hard to take measures to protect the freedom of some Muslim women in fundamentalist families.

Strong penalties and incentives are the key, together with education and discussion. But how exactly to deal with this? I have no idea, and am open to suggestions.

So obviously whatever we've been doing in the EU when it comes to immigration outside of Western countries roughly since the 70s has served to create a mess instead of a multicultural paradise where all live happily together while sharing mutual respect.

True. But we haven't done all that bad. Still clear majority of non-Westerners abide law, live a peaceful, normal life in work and school, and speak the local language. Even if the e.g. unemployment rates range from 20-55% among some ethnic groups, in general majority have fared well. We should learn from the successes and not just lament the failures.

Especially when we're still mostly engaged in discussing HOW to talk about problems with immigration, instead of talking about what to do with the problems.

Well said, I agree completely. But there's another point of this issue; integration doesn't happen if the existing minority is a very small minority – the smaller the minorities especially in the case of colored people who stand out – the more difficult for them to integrate; to be accepted by us, or to feel at home themselves. This is why I don't think we should take any less immigrants than what we are doing now, and I believe we could even take some more as well – up to a certain limit of course.

(One theory about practicing multiculturalism as a political agenda is from the late 60s Netherlands, when it was decided immigrants from North-Africa and Turkey, guest workers back then, should be encouraged to hold on to their own culture, customs and values so they would not feel alienated when they return home when the factories close down and the jobs vanish. However they never left, but the policy was not removed. No wonder it failed, if this was the premise.)

I agree 100%!!! But hey, this is ONE theory of MC, and not all of us think this. I know that this failed in Netherlands, and also in Germany – I believe one of the biggest reasons for the Turkish 'problem' is this – they were never treated as they were meant to stay, so why invest on their integration?

This is a perfect example of why it is so important not to accept strong cultural relativism, and also why to invest on integration measures.

This is also a perfect example of why those arguments against MC, that say 'show me have MC has succeeded in history as it has always failed' is not a valid argument. It is a non sequitur to say that because something has happened until now, it will always be so in future.

At the same time what positive experiences and lessons we have from immigration over the past century or two have been utterly forgotten even though pro-immigration commentators often invoke the 20th century success of USA or Finnish war children to justify their reasoning.

Yes, they have been forgotten, unfortunately.

As I have stated before; problems exist, and integration is a huuuge question. But what do we learn from watching at the positive figures and info? And is there no way we could accept some of the responsibility in the integration – being a two-way street it is?

*In 2001/2 people from Chinese, Black African, Indian, and other Asian groups were more likely to have degrees than White people in the UK.
*The risk of racially motivated incident was up to 4,2% for minority ethnic groups, compared to only 0,3% for White people.
*Highest drinkers in 1999 were Irish. Minority ethnic groups had a less likely tendency than the general population to drink alcohol.
Minority Ethnic groups in London: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/meg1202.pdf

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:39mPnzUnpzQJ:www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/factsandfigures/DMAG_briefing2005-4.pdf+pakistani+unemployment+london&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk