Vastaus Nicolai Sennelsille: haastattelun kritiikki *English Only!*

[I Work in Asylum System]

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'.

I apologize for being too lazy to write it all here, but the same information is easily available, and although I can copy paste it all here and make this thread even longer, I suggest those interested go and check it out. Here are a few links to start that explain the system (some of them are .PDF);

http://www.migri.fi/netcomm/content.asp?path=8,2476
http://www.pakolaisneuvonta.fi/index_html?lid=35?=suo

Fiscal figures you can find here (also see my reply to HP2 below):
http://budjetti.vm.fi/indox/tae/2009/he_2009.html

In 2009 there were:
1348 positive decisions =>
2532 negative decisions ? 58% Dublin-tapauksia (34,6% of all applications)

? of all decisions, 9% were rejected, 10% had a safe country of origin, 5,8% were manifestly unfounded, totaling 1057 persons. --> These are the people we are talking about when talking about deportation. Some of the nationalities with most rejections per applications (excluding Dublin):
Russia 24% (55 persons)
Bulgaria 88,4% (459 persons)
Turkey 51%
Iran 33,3%
Belarus 31%
Nigeria 64,5% (51 persons)
Ghana 55,5% (15 persons)
Pakistan 100% (3 persons)

Some of the smallest rejection rates were:
Somalia 3,4%
Iraq 5,9%
Afghanistan 13,3%

What happens to these 1057 persons? Possibilities include; deportation; removal order; regularization; re-consideration; family reunification.

Interesting figures:
*majority of residence permits given in the period of 1-9/2009 were given to Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Americans, Indians, Ukrainians, Vietnamese and Bangladeshi (52%). The rest were given to Turks (675) and Somalis (702).
* 85% have been given the permit they applied
* the largest numbers to apply for reunification were Somalia, Russia, India, Iraq, Turkey, China, Afghanistan, Thailand, Kosovo and Vietnam, respectively.
* 82% applications for family reunifications were positive
*4,8% of residence permits were given to Somalis on the basis of family reunification or other such cases. (702 of 14531)
http://www.migri.fi/netcomm/content.asp?path=8,2754,2762,2776

There is a correlation here between the nationalities with most rejection, and most reunification applicants: Russia, Turkey, East Europeans and East Asians. – This shouldn't always be taken as obvious scams; indeed, some spend months, even years in Finland or other countries and they have plenty of time to fall in love and found a family. Yet undoubtedly some marry for less amorous reasons.

Regularization is also common; some of these migrants are skilled, and have been able to arrange a work visa and find employment.

In total over 1/3 are Dublin cases. The current system therefore means that we get an extra burden of asylum applications because of the lack of humane, equal and efficient harmonized EU-wide asylum policy and burden sharing. Dublin is one of the main mechanisms that hinder integration... And the victims are first and foremost the asylum seekers themselves stuck in the limbo.

"Sharing responsibility for refugee protection in Europe: Dublin Reconsidered" (ECRE 2008): http://www.ecre.org/resources/Policy_papers/1058



One other issue with regards to rejected asylum seekers in Finland is that an AS can reapply after rejection and can wait in Finland for the processing. This in itself is ok – it should be their legal right. But the absolutely ridiculously slow processing means an AS can wait for the decision for years, whether or not he deserves asylum or not. Same applies to family reunification in cases where a refugee has protection, but his family members' are denied entry and he takes the case to court. It can take months, even years before he can be reunited with his/her spouse or even children.

On the other hand, to make it a bit more complicated, in the fast-lane system the AS lacks basic legal security; he can be deported within 8 days even before he can refer it to the court or meet his lawyer. The fast-lane system is for those who have been rejected once, who come from 'safe' CoO or who are seen as unfounded. (this happened e.g. to a  Chinese asylum seeker whose case was rejected even up to the supreme court, although she had reasonable evidence to show she was persecuted for political reasons).

Neither of the current options is desirable. Both problems imho are the result at least of Dublin and the lack of harmonization and burden-sharing mechanisms.

Let's hope that the current efforts to create a Common European Asylum System will be a step towards improvement, and that we will also introduce some regularization mechanisms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7667169.stm
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007-05-09/uk/strangers-into-citizens-regularisation-rally.htm

10 faktaa ja vaitetta: http://www.pakolaisneuvonta.fi/index_html?lid=35?=suo

EU:n palautuspolitiikka – Kenen ehdoilla? (pdf)
http://www.pakolaisneuvonta.fi/index_html?lid=35?=suo

Euroopan turvapaikkajarjestelmaa tehostetaan: http://ec.europa.eu/news/justice/091021_fi.htm

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

While I wouldn't take everything granted from the website you provided, I agree with the rest that you say. Couldn't agree more in fact.

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. 

Nothing to do with Communism, mate. In fact Communists were anti-multiculturalists.

And for me, personally, not even something I see having 'inherent value', as e.g. Pollamystynyt. I just see it as a fact we have to deal with.

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.

How many times do people ask this question and not read the answers? Ja kylla ma ihan suomea puhun ja olen suomen kansalainen. ?

There is two different problems in what you say. Both are labels.

Indeed. In fact language is assigning labels to things. Whoppa.

Pollamystynyt, your label-phobia (you'll love this one) makes YOU avoid the point of my comments. You claimed me of avoiding the topic with labels and profanities (a label you so love), but you do the same. ?

"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)).

As you have seen, I haven't used anti-Muslims as an isolated 'label', I have simplified the current opposition I am facing here as 'anti-Muslim immigration'. Which often does entitle the term racism, although not necessarily so. More than that, it resonates with xenophobia (ooh, a label! I hope you don't study social sciences which are infested with these )

Racism is not necessarily hierarchy of human value. Racism can be merely prejudice, and treating another one based on prejudice.

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.

Indeed. Extreme means nothing more than two opposing ends of a continuum on a simplistical bi-polar diagram. The one who says OPEN! And the one who says CLOSE! on the opposing sides represent the extreme sides of this continuum. Moderates are somewhere close to the centre, leaning towards either side. Is this any news for you?

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?

Your words, not mine. Certainly the more you resist, or the more you advocate, the more you lean towards the extreme ends of the continuum. A person who supports this too much towards the other end, can also be 'labelled' extreme. By now you should know where I stand on this.

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.

Hurray, we are on agreement here. ?

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.

I do agree. But the risk is the people taking the decision to wipe out an ethnic population from the region.

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"

Not only is the claim some people present that Islam is going to take over Europe and its values a profanity in itself, also if a person is unable to reasonably justify her claim that 'Islam is going to take over Europe and our values', and cannot prove this in anyway, it goes to the sphere of beliefs. A belief of this kind implies not understanding the Other, not being able to relate with it, but fighting against it with all his might for fear of him taking control over you. If a person who claims this proves me otherwise, I promise to rip the label 'xenophobic' out of him/her.

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.

Not taking this too personally, I do find it a profanity or at least a straw man to say that leftists support islamization. Who's labeling now? At least if you put labels, please assign them some real meaning; as you should know, NO leftist (nor me who am not a leftist per se) supports 'islamization' of anything. Those who CLAIM that we do so, have wrong, or too little information, and should check THEIR values.

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

Development aid wasn't part of this discussion. We are talking about how much does the receiving and processing asylum seekers cost to Finland annually, or did I misunderstand?

Let's split some hairs then. This is from the 2009 website you provided, in the section for the Finnish Ministry of the Interior (Somebody can make the rest of the research in terms of border or immigration controls, additional expenses, etc. if they feel like it).

Summary in English: the above estimates of the budget for the Ministry of the Interior in Finland for the year 2009 includes; reception and detention centres, legal help to asylum seekers, anti-racism work, health checks of the CoO for the annual refugee quota (750 pakolaiskiintio), travel expenses, victims of trafficking, accident insurance, rehabilitation expenses for the municipalities, welfare allowances and income support (toimeentulotuki), interpretor services, supplementary benefits, etc. all basic expenses of the reception, processing and supporting asylum seekers and refugees.

"Momentille 02. Pakolaisten ja turvapaikanhakijoiden vastaanottotoiminta valtion osalta (arviomääräraha) myönnetään 7 670 000 euroa. (sis. Oikeusapupalvelut, vastaanottokeskukset, ihmiskaupan uhrit, lahtomaan terveystarkastukset, koulutus, matkat, neuvottelukunta, rasismin ehkaisy, jne.):
2009 talousarvio => 7 670 000

63. Pakolaisten ja turvapaikanhakijoiden vastaanotto (arviomääräraha):
Momentille myönnetään 61 352 000 euroa. (sis. Toimeentulotuet,tulkkipalvalut, kuntien kotouttamiskustannukset, vastaanottokeskukset, oikeusapupalvelut, tapaturmakorvaukset, ihmiskaupan uhrit, kulutusmenot.):
2009 talousarvio: 61 352 000 euroa
(toimeentulotuki 9 613 000 euroa)

Sisäasiainministeriön maararahat, esitys vuodelle 2009: yhteensa 1 168 899 000 euroa.

This equals 69 022 000 euros for these to Moments for the 2009 estimate, of the total of 1 168 899 000 euros for the whole Ministry of the Interior, that is, 5,9%, compared to 5,4% in 2008 and 6,92% in 2007 (hurray, it has come down a bit!).

As a comparison, in 2009 2 778 442 000 euros were estimated for the Defense. That is, 2,48% of the Defense were used for the above Moments, or around 9% of the material acquisition of the Defense. (how did you get 50%??)

This also equals to 0,44% of the total income & property tax in the whole country. Or 5,4% of the tax drawn from alcohol tax or 10,6% of the tobacco tax.
-> meaning that the cigarettes Finnish buy each year, finance all of the expenses on asylum seekers!!

This also equals 9,4% of all development aid estimated for 2009 (siirtomääräraha 3v), or 26,5% of all regional aid for the year of 2009, or 43,86% of the African aid. Some of this being useless, I believe we could easily allocate some funds from here, if you don't want to fund this with your cigarettes and alcohol consumption.

I'm no economist, and perhaps somebody can do a more comprehensive research than me, and perhaps I have even calculated wrong (please check for me), but if these above figures are correct, am I wrong to say that the costs of the AS to the society is exaggerated? Of course, as you say, you think different – but to me, being a liberal egalitarian and an advocate of global moral responsibility, I find these figures quite small.

If I made any mistakes I apologize, please check and correct. If you can prove to me that asylum seekers cost 50% of the Defense budget annually, I might change my thinking.

Here is another idea that has been used in the resettlement programme for the United States from some European countries: the refugee, within 1-2 years after his/her arrival to the USA, is obliged to pay back the flight from Europe. The flights are bought for them with a 0% interest rate, as free credit, which has to be paid back. This creates a sense of responsibility, motivation and a goal for the refugee to save money and work harder after arrival. It was found that no refugee felt offended by this strategy, in fact they felt deeply grateful for the help of the USA.

Difference in the case of the USA is, that in general refugees can find work faster and easier than in Europe. Many start work within a few months after arrival, even weeks. Part of this reason seems to be the general multicultural atmosphere in the states, but also the exploitation of cheap labour. Yet, the results have been good; payback rate is close to 100%, and the government saves money.

A similar idea could be implemented in Europe. This could even be combinated with a sort of an 'affirmative action' type of quota for vocational education and low paying jobs, especially in sectors where Finnish are known to be reluctant to work. Together with a 'goal' (and a language training plan part of the condition for residence), the refugee could start work quicker, gain a sense of self-respect and pride for his work, and get 'into the routine'. This, combined with other integration mechanisms and policies, could accelerate integration, and lessen the economic burden from the state.

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.

Some figures seem to go down, while others go up. IF they go up, it is mostly because of the above inefficiencies of the Schengen system; we NEED to harmonize it in a way that guarantees equal, humane and efficient treatment of all asylum seekers to avoid asylum shopping, the limbo effect and slow integration.

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.

I don't know if I can agree with you on the part of 'sharing characteristics', but I do agree with the rest. Above you have read some of my criticism of the status quo. Please do refer though to the above figures when it comes to the amount of cases rejected and the reasons for rejection, as this might influence the way you see most asylum seekers here as purely economic migrants (I agree that large part of them are, but a large of them aren't). But you tell me Sivulause – and the rest – how would you treat the problem? How do you prevent people from coming to Europe – for economic reasons (whether from Russia, Vietnam or Africa)? I mean, let's not talk about treating the root causes here – as all of us surely agree on the fact that the best way to reduce migration is to improve the living conditions of their country of origin. But what else?

Whoppa, this was the longest forum post of my life. Enjoy reading/skimming/leafing/ignoring/commenting/researching.

[n.n.]

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.

Because I haven't got the time to read this thread through just a quick question (which you might have answered).
You say the problem is that the system sucks and 90% rate of Dublins marks that. But that 90% has already been in a safe country and have chosen to move forward because of - denial-of-asylum, bad benefits etc. - take your pick. I read this as being a mark of one of two things: either person's plight has not been too evident and asylum request has been denied or the person wants more than just to be in a safe country. Either way, the 90% has 'unfounded asylum request' written between the lines.

(sorry for poor, poor english)

[I Work in Asylum System]

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.

Because I haven't got the time to read this thread through just a quick question (which you might have answered).
You say the problem is that the system sucks and 90% rate of Dublins marks that. But that 90% has already been in a safe country and have chosen to move forward because of - denial-of-asylum, bad benefits etc. - take your pick. I read this as being a mark of one of two things: either person's plight has not been too evident and asylum request has been denied or the person wants more than just to be in a safe country. Either way, the 90% has 'unfounded asylum request' written between the lines.

(sorry for poor, poor english)

Thanks for commenting on this, perhaps you read that my criticism of Dublin is only one of the things I criticize with the System. And yes - it's the system. You can't only blame the migrants for not being satisfied with poverty, destitution, lack of opportunities and violent crime in their countries of origin. The problem starts from the root, extends to the issues of human smuggling and trafficking and other irregular migration, and arrives here to our lap, where we create a superficial system that tries to tackle this.

As you hopefully read from above, it is not at all the cases that all the Dublin cases are rejected or economic migrants. Not at all. If you familiarize yourself with the different asylum policies between EU states (read the above links for example) you will realize that the differences are great and unfair. A Somali who would be, after a thorough screening be granted asylum in country A will not necessarily get it in country B, not because he doesn't deserve it, but because the country doesn't want him. This is why harmonization is important. It is a superficial solution to create a Dublin and a Schengen system on such unstable ground without common policies and minimum standards.

Denial-of-asylum or bad-benefits are less common reason; more common reasons are the a) granting of a status that prevents e.g. studying, working or travelling to other countries, b) being in a country where it is very unlikely to make a living, c) racial discrimination, d) poor living conditions.

By d) I mean the real thing. Many live on the streets, many in shacks with no running water or heating, unhygienic conditions, no furniture. This is very common in South.
By c) I again refer more to the South, as especially the smaller countries (like Malta) simply are suffocating under the pressure, and obviously this results in very tough treatment of immigrants by locals.
By b) I mean the same thing - whether refugees or economic migrants, everyone wants to come here to work, make money to be able to send remittances, live a decent Western middle class life. No one come here to leech the system. They want work. Nothing else.
By a)I mean those countries with their own statuses which prevent these things. There are cases that haven't been granted protection, but can't be sent back to their home country either - they can't go back, they can't stay, and they can't go forward. This limbo is a common reason for people to smuggle themselves out.

Most Dublin returnees are returned to Southern Europe.

-> harmonization! Hopefully when it happens we'll get some sense of this whole thing.

When I have time I will try to look up some stats on the percentage of asylum decisions made in the South, to see how many of the Dublin cases could indeed be 'unfounded' cases.

[Shawast]

First i want to thank you for participating in discussion, it is refreshing to have someone arguing against "us". 

Having read some of your answers, it seems to me that you basic argument is that we should not make generalizations. You write a lot of text basicly to show that no incident or cultural strait should be generalized. This is very fine and i also agree that every person should be evaluated by his deeds, not by his, lets say for example, ethnicity.

But... we are talking politics here. Political decisions concern masses and generalizations must be made. Our laws are based on generalizations, so therefore when we see a correlation, we infer something from it. For example, we believe that it is good to have speed limits because there seems to be correlation between high speeds and accidents. Of course you can argue that not all drivers are so bad that they will have an accident if they drive high speed, but we must make a generalization for the public safety.

Now we see a correlation between crime statistics and massive immigration, that is why we believe that immigration should be limited. We DON'T see a correlation between Africa or Middle-East getting any better because of massive immigration to Europe, therefore we infer that immigration does not solve problems in those countries.

We see African people living in Africa and African societies being war torn and poor. We, at least I, see a correlation between African people and unsuccesfull societies. This can be inferred to be caused by mystical radiation from ground, evil western powers limiting Africa or whatever, but those are just assumptions. What we know however is, that where African people live, there are unsuccesfull societies. Same appliess for Mid-East societies.

So even though we don't know for sure what is causing African or Middle-Eastern problems, should we risk our societies by moving masses of people from these areas to Europe? Why should we do it, when it is not the answer to anything in the long run. By moving masses I also mean the asylum system which gives a stimulation to this massmovement. I believe we should try to help African as well as all the poor and distressed people in the world, it is our responsibility. But I don't see money spent on asylum system correlating with better conditions in Africa or Middle-East.

[I Work in Asylum System]

First i want to thank you for participating in discussion, it is refreshing to have someone arguing against "us".  

Thanks for commenting.

Having read some of your answers, it seems to me that you basic argument is that we should not make generalizations.

Here you are a bit mistaken; my basic argument has been that multiculturalism is a necessary consequence of globalization, and we need to create humane and efficient policies and mechanisms to minimize the harms and maximise the benefits from these societies - and my approach is to _not_ lessen the current amount of immigration, but rather lead it to the right direction, as I see the opposite (´generalized´as 'anti-Muslim immigration' approach) a breach of human rights and international order - and counter-productive to us all in the long term. I am therefore not one of those who see something inherently valuable about a multicultural society (nor a monocultural - I see no inherent value in culture), but I consider myself a moderate pragmatist, a realist and an ethicist. I am neither a 'take-them-all-in-to-enrich-our-culture-advocate' (which I don't believe most 'pro-mc' even are), nor a 'we-must-not-take-more-Muslim-immigrants-because-they-will-destroy-our-values-and-culture-advocate' (the stand presented here by many). My criticism of generalization was especially directed to Sennels and some others, but it doesn't form the basis of my arguments.

We DON'T see a correlation between Africa or Middle-East getting any better because of massive immigration to Europe, therefore we infer that immigration does not solve problems in those countries.

Here you seem to have greatly misunderstood 'our' stand: by no means have I, or as far as I know, most of 'my side' claimed that immigration solves problems in the countries of origin. This would be a bit naive, don't you think, and an underestimation of 'our' arguments. My stand is that we need to accept those asylum seekers that need projection by sharing the responsibility of receiving and processing them, because a) they have come to our borders to seek help, b) turning them back to their warring countries would be against the international law, and c) against human rights, d) and we have a moral responsibility to protect them. These are my opinions. Whether immigration can solve problems in CoO is another issue, but e.g. Somalia is heavily reliant on remittances and not receiving them would undoubtedly throw the people into much greater poverty. Besides, currently the world´s annual remittances total up to 6 times more (6x!) than the development aid from developed countries in total! Remittances can, and indeed have, improved the lives of the people in their countries of origin, and are one of the most important and effective tools to alleviate poverty and lift a country out of it.

We see African people living in Africa and African societies being war torn and poor. We, at least I, see a correlation between African people and unsuccesfull societies. This can be inferred to be caused by mystical radiation from ground, evil western powers limiting Africa or whatever, but those are just assumptions. What we know however is, that where African people live, there are unsuccessful societies. Same appliess for Mid-East societies.

..and applies to many Asian and Latino and Pacific societies. Indeed it applies to the 3rd world: as a curiosity note, there are currently more conflicts in Asia and Oceania than in Sub-Saharan Africa! And there are as many high intensity conflicts in Asia&Oceania, and Sub-Saharan Africa (9 each), but the former has almost 30% more conflicts in total than the latter! This of course is not the only indicator of 'successful societies', but many people seem to think that most conflicts in the world are concentrated in Africa, while there are other war-ridden regions in the world as well.

Obviously to state that African societies are unsuccessful because of African people would be a dangerous simplification - and a non sequitur. Understanding the complex colonial past, corruption, resource competition and illegal arms trade (80% of arms provided to warring parties come from Western nations, either legally or illegally), etc. make it clear that this is no simple 'Where African people live, there are unsuccessful societies'-thing.

http://hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/
http://hiik.de/de/downloads/data/maps/graph_RegDistribution.jpg
http://hiik.de/de/downloads/data/maps/worldmap_2009_allIntLeg.jpg

Alex de Waal, Mahmood Mamdani, Stephen Lewis, Amartya Sen and many other have published on the societies in Africa, and if you want to test your perception of 'African people', I suggest you turn to these guys.

"So even though we don't know for sure what is causing African or Middle-Eastern problems, should we risk our societies by moving masses of people from these areas to Europe?"

Firstly, WE are not moving them, THEY themselves are. Our refugee quota (those we take directly from refugee camps) is tiny compared to the influx of irregular migrants, either economic migrants or refugees. Secondly, I disagree with the 'risking' part. Info on irregular migration:
www.iom.int
www.unhcr.org

[Shawast]

1. a) they have come to our borders to seek help, b) turning them back to their warring countries would be against the international law, and c) against human rights, d) and we have a moral responsibility to protect them.

Yes, but this is the same as saying that wouldn't it be nice if all the people in the world were rich: So why don't we just print money and deliver it to all the people in the world? It is not the money itself that makes it valuable, but its possibility to liquidize in to something valuable. Human rights are the same, we believe in them because they in our opinion bring about something valuable and best and peacefull conditions for the largest amount of people. It is exactly the human rights that I am considering when I am saying that we should limit migration.

I quote:

"The United Nations defines "major wars" as military conflicts inflicting 1,000 battlefield deaths per year.--
--Most of these are civil or "intrastate" wars, fueled as much by racial, ethnic, or religious animosities as by ideological fervor. Most victims are civilians, a feature that distinguishes modern conflicts. During World War I, civilians made up fewer than 5 percent of all casualties. Today, 75 percent or more of those killed or wounded in wars are non-combatants."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/index.html

I believe that by letting in large amounts of different ethnicities in a nation state will lead to a civil war and human rights violations. That is not the Europe i want to leave for my children.

2. Whether immigration can solve problems in CoO is another issue, but e.g. Somalia is heavily reliant on remittances and not receiving them would undoubtedly throw the people into much greater poverty. Besides, currently the world´s annual remittances total up to 6 times more (6x!) than the development aid from developed countries in total!

Remittances can be double edged sword: they can help some people, but they could also give disincentive to make things work in a society. This is the reason why socialism did not and does not work, it destroys the incentive to work. People are selfish and greed by their basic nature, capitalism is the best way to utilize our basic nature. Also the development aid to Africa has not made a big difference, mostly it has led to population growth that is not sustainable by their own means, but is relying on help from west and led to a culture of dependency.

http://www.ecipe.org/people/fredrik-erixon/speeches-and-presentations/Presentation,%20Templeton%20Foundation,%20June%2030,%202008.pdf
[/quote]

3. there are currently more conflicts in Asia and Oceania than in Sub-Saharan Africa! And there are as many high intensity conflicts in Asia&Oceania, and Sub-Saharan Africa (9 each)

Yes, but there are not influx of refugees from these parts of world to Finland, so i did not feel they are so relevant to our debate. I box them also to the lot of unsuccesfull cultures, or unfertile cultures for capitalism and modern society, to put it more precise.

4. Obviously to state that African societies are unsuccessful because of African people would be a dangerous simplification - and a non sequitur. Understanding the complex colonial past, corruption, resource competition and illegal arms trade (80% of arms provided to warring parties come from Western nations, either legally or illegally), etc. make it clear that this is no simple 'Where African people live, there are unsuccessful societies'-thing.

Yes, the causes are complex, like you said. But in politics generalizations must be made. Biggest common nominator for Africa are African people and African cultures. The arms are sold there because they seem to be willing to fight forever instead of building their societies. However, the basic reason for those wars and poverty in Africa in my opinion is that African people are unable to feel common cause to build nations because of multiculturality of Africa. Multiculturality does not work when all the cultures have at least one common nominator, inability to solve problems by negotiation and inability to make concessions.

5. Firstly, WE are not moving them, THEY themselves are. Our refugee quota (those we take directly from refugee camps) is tiny compared to the influx of irregular migrants, either economic migrants or refugees. Secondly, I disagree with the 'risking' part.

Again, our benefits-for-nothing system gives them stimulus. The whole refugee system is useless when everyday there are more people born on refugee camps than the people that receive asylum. We should figure out ways to give sustainable help and development. In the end when enough people are moved from the third world to Europe, Europe itself will turn silmilar to a third world.

In sum, I think that we disagree on a very basic premises of our arguments, that is why our horizons of undertanding can't really meet. I believe that reasons for unsuccess of third world is "inside", meaning the cultures of third world people.

You see the reasons for third world unsuccess are "outside", legacy of colonialism, arms trade, multinational companies etc.

I believe that cultures can change, but need to have stimuluss to change. If there is always possibility for third world people to escape their plight to Europe or get help from west there is no stimulus for them to change their cultures.

[I Work in Asylum System]

Yes, but this is the same as saying that wouldn't it be nice if all the people in the world were rich: So why don't we just print money and deliver it to all the people in the world? It is not the money itself that makes it valuable, but its possibility to liquidize in to something valuable. Human rights are the same, we believe in them because they in our opinion bring about something valuable and best and peacefull conditions for the largest amount of people. It is exactly the human rights that I am considering when I am saying that we should limit migration.

No it's not saying the same thing - there is a big difference in saying that money is valuable because with it we can buy a BMW, than saying that human rights are 'valuable' because it gives us security from arbitrary exercise of power. Human rights are not 'money' - they are rights granted to a person simply for being human and can't be trumped by other demands; money may be able to buy cars, but it shouldn't be able to buy liberty or a right to life - nor should human rights be trumped by something that would bring 'more' of something to the humans; in other words, to treat HR as 'goods' that bring something, is to imply that other goods that bring the same thing could be justified to trump them - if a people's security could be guaranteed by isolating them to an island by force, this could be justified as it brings 'peaceful conditions' to the people. Obviously this is not the case. Treating HR as isolated goods something purely utilitarian is a bit questionable - you may give 'security' by imprisoning people on an island, but then you take away 'liberty' - which one trumps the other? HR regime might be said to protect a person's right to liberty, but it doesn't change the fact that 'liberty' is a basic right - something that can't be 'liquidized' to something else.

Besides, saying that giving protection to those refugees that come into our border is not saying that we should start transporting people from warring regions to our country - the accusation of a slippery slope is mistaken here. It is, on the other hand, also saying that if we do accept a refugee into our country, then s/he should be entitled to the same minimal standards of living that are enjoyed by the rest of the people - meaning shelter, food, etc.

When you say 'limit' migration, you are not justifying this in anyway. Also, are you talking about immigration or migration? If the former, I am also not for 'unlimited' immigration. But limiting immigration by not giving protection to the refugees at our border would be a violation of their human rights. How do you answer to that?

--Most of these are civil or "intrastate" wars, fueled as much by racial, ethnic, or religious animosities as by ideological fervor. Most victims are civilians, a feature that distinguishes modern conflicts. During World War I, civilians made up fewer than 5 percent of all casualties. Today, 75 percent or more of those killed or wounded in wars are non-combatants."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/index.html

I believe that by letting in large amounts of different ethnicities in a nation state will lead to a civil war and human rights violations. That is not the Europe i want to leave for my children.

I know these stats and they in no way support your implication that wars are necessarily caused by ethnic/tribal hatred and that this is somehow inherent in the interaction between ethnic groups. If you look at the history of conflicts with ethnic dimensions, you find that in most, if not the majority of the cases the underlying problems were resources and resource competition. The ethnic dimension is something often used as a political tool. I have lived in countries with a plurality of ethnicities (from warrior tribes to indigenous indians, from Muslims to Catholics, from whites to black) - both in 1st and 3rd world, and people live together and no one is warring - why? Because they have equal access to resources, goods and opportunities. This is the idea of liberal egalitarianism, and our model of welfare state as well. This is the reason why there's nobody warring in Quebec or Belgium, despite the presence of secessionists (justified as the inequality between territories or groups, and the will to gain autonomy to fight these inequalities). This is also the reason why there are not more conflicts in 3rd world.

In the end you have to remember that Europe is already a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic region. Finnish people themselves are not homogenous. It would be truly naive to suggest that the presence of many ethnic groups leads to conflict and HR violations, and it would be denial of the majority of the people in the world who currently share their space with many other ethnicities.

Remittances can be double edged sword: they can help some people, but they could also give disincentive to make things work in a society. This is the reason why socialism did not and does not work, it destroys the incentive to work. People are selfish and greed by their basic nature, capitalism is the best way to utilize our basic nature. Also the development aid to Africa has not made a big difference, mostly it has led to population growth that is not sustainable by their own means, but is relying on help from west and led to a culture of dependency.

It is true that remittances often lead people to become too depended on them - but so far the clear majority receive only just enough remittances to live a decent life, and they still have to work to maintain themselves. I have personally witnesses some people who don't work regularly because the remittances they receive are so high, but in these instances they seem to already come from upper middle-class or higher background with powerful relatives abroad, who can provide them with a lot of money. While so far, when talking about a lower middle class or middle class backgrounded migrants, they can rarely make enough money to send such high remittances to their home that the family could become completely reliant on them and stop work. Usually remittances are what makes the difference of poor and lower middle class in the CoO.

About socialism and capitalism we could disagree and converse for ages, but in short, your economic-political stand seems a bit black and white. Finland is not a capitalist country in terms of classical capitalism or neoliberalism. There is plenty of room to move between these two extremes.

I agree what you said on development aid, except the part that you said it has lead to population growth. I have heard of no such evidence on this. Families have children because of the high mortality and the need to have more hands to work, and to have them care for the elderly. This is a phenomenon inside and outside the development aid.

Yes, but there are not influx of refugees from these parts of world to Finland, so i did not feel they are so relevant to our debate. I box them also to the lot of unsuccesfull cultures, or unfertile cultures for capitalism and modern society, to put it more precise.

"Unfertile cultures for capitalism" - not only do you have an oddly ethno-centric and supremacist undertone, you also can't prove or justify this claim in anyway.

But in politics generalizations must be made.

Not to an extent that you blame 'black people' for being naturally 'incompetent' to develop successful societies.

Biggest common nominator for Africa are African people and African cultures.

'African people'. What are they? Did you know that some African 'people' have more genes in common with you than with each other?

The arms are sold there because they seem to be willing to fight forever instead of building their societies.

You are implying that African people like to fight?? And did you just miss the point of there being more conflicts in Asia and Oceania than in Africa???

And did you know that in many cases the soldiers are forced to fight, and work as slaves, or did you know that the reason most young male refugees leave Eritrea, Ethiopia or other such countries is that they don't WANT to go to the army???

Or are you just referring to the dictators, war lords and tyrants who'd rather fight  war for resources than build their societies - then I agree. But this is very far from accusing a whole 'people'.

In some countries in Africa, some of them post-socialist countries, there is better access to university (with student loans, monthly allowances, free accommodation etc.) than in the USA. In Africa you have economic blocs, free trade agreements, and a booming stock market. You have engineers, doctors and university professors, sometimes more qualified than the European equivalent. You have freedom of religion, and many countries Muslims and Christians live in peace. What exactly do you mean by a 'successful society' and how do you exactly justify your view that Finland can't have a plurality of ethnicities in its territory or we risk war and violence? Sounds quite ridiculous to me. Success is relative - I am by no means belittling the amount of problems Africa is having, but I find it sad that so many Europeans seem to have no idea that there are relatively successful and stable societies and states in Africa as much as in any other part of the world. It's so easy to generalize Africa and just read about the tragedies in there, and see the pictures of malnutritioned kids and mudhuts, or soldiers with machetes, when no media shows the normal, daily life of the people - it's not interesting enough!

Multiculturality does not work when all the cultures have at least one common nominator, inability to solve problems by negotiation and inability to make concessions.

So you are saying 'African people have a natural inability to solve problems...'. I know you have no ability to justify this claim in any way, and fighting you over this would be like fighting a religious fundamentalist, or one of those people who claim that blacks are naturally less intelligent than whites. If you'd study this issue a bit, you'd find out that even before Western democracy, tribes in Africa used democratic methods to solve problems, and concession making was common among clan disputes. You would also know, that a humanist philosophy of 'ubuntu' that is widely-spread to most African societies is about brotherhood, peace, sharing and supporting every member of the society. The classic ethics in 'Africa' states that a persons' 'humanity' and 'dignity' are undermined when unjust violence is inflicted upon them, and while doing this, the offender himself is reduced in his dignity and humanity. Thus unjustly harming others comes back to you - you become less worthy of a man. Ubuntu also carries within it a code for shared responsibility - a person doesn't have only rights, but also responsibilities and duties.

Again, our benefits-for-nothing system gives them stimulus. The whole refugee system is useless when everyday there are more people born on refugee camps than the people that receive asylum. We should figure out ways to give sustainable help and development. In the end when enough people are moved from the third world to Europe, Europe itself will turn silmilar to a third world.

You seem to have a brutally utilitarian notion of asylum - you should benefit from helping those in need? In fact, nobody is denying that there are more refugees than we can take. I repeat; those that manage to come to our borders, and need protection, should not be sent back to their countries. Have you no way to answer this? About 'benefits-for-nothing' stimulus you are mistaken - migrants who come to Europe come here to work, the 'benefits' they hope to get here are safety, security, stability, stable income, work, health and opportunities for their kids. Shame on them! Is it their fault that we refuse them the work and status they came here for?

In sum, I think that we disagree on a very basic premises of our arguments, that is why our horizons of undertanding can't really meet. I believe that reasons for unsuccess of third world is "inside", meaning the cultures of third world people.

And luckily I believe you represent the minority of the today's world, as cultural/ethnic/social supremacism is not very popular in the West anymore - as it has been debunked by both biology and social sciences. 3rd world includes the great majority of the world - 1st world includes the West and some Asian economic centres. To say 3rd world countries cultures inhibit progress, you are saying that the Western/Asian culture is the best of all. This is supremacist, but whatever. (what is Western anyway? Besides I think the Americans have created an unsuccessful society).

Cultural/Ethnic supremacy = the belief that a certain 'culture' or 'ethnic group' is superior to others. Often linked to white supremacy and triumphalism. Beliefs that certain divergent peoples, due to their culture or biology, cannot blend or it will deteriorate the society of the supreme group. Often supremacism is also linked with the desire to dominate or rule the lesser groups. While racism means the dislike or disrespect towards a particular ethnic group, ethnic/cultural/racial supremacy is the belief that one's own group is superior, smarter, more civilized and more productive than the other. Justification for this hierarchy has been sought in ideologies such as social darwinism or eugenics, or claims that there are differences in racial intelligence or capabilities - based on differences in e.g. lower rates of crime or violence, higher rates in education or economy, or other such factors.

[Julmuri]

But limiting immigration by not giving protection to the refugees at our border would be a violation of their human rights.

I havent read all the messages in this thread but I answer anyway. We have no moral obligation to allow immigration from the third world in large scales. We also dont violate anybodys human rights if we refuse to let them stay in Finland. Authorities have deported people to Somalia, Iraq etc. so it is perfectly legal send people back there unless they have an official UN refugee status.

UN refugee convention or the EU directive doesnt oblige us to take the so called "humanitarian asylum seekers". The EU directive mentions this very clearly by saying that those kind of people "fall outside the scope of this directive". Thats unless they can proof that they are being persecuted in their home country. But when it comes to the evidence, we decide what kind of evidence we accept as a proof of persecution. Wars, natural disasters etc. are not acceptable reasons to a refugee status.

For example Switzerland dont take people without any ID or travel documents. I think we should do the same. Everybody has some documents about their identity or travel documents. If someone doesnt have either one he/she is clearly a liar.

We have now many clear "Dublin-cases" who are granted asylum here anyway. Theres no obligation for that. Also we can put the burden of proof to the asylum seeker himself.

So basically only people we are obliged to take are the official UN-refugees and even with them we are entitled to limit the quantity to a number which is suitable for us.

[M.K.Korpela]

Here's one more nail to your coffin of naivete , I Work in Asylum System:

Bayernkurier

Mehr als die Hälfte der österreichischen Türken wünschen sich die Einführung des grausamen Scharia-Rechts.

So more than 50 % of the turks in Austria want sharia. In a question which has a near 100 % "NO" expectation value. One could assume that a 1-2 % would answer "yes , I want sharia" as a prank - there always is a 1-2 % sod off -factor in any survey - but the result 50 % just confirms the disaster Europe is going through.

We can pretty much close the books on this matter , the matter being your very naive claims of muslims' good attitude.

[M.K.Korpela]

As for the suggestion of "closing the book" on the "naive claims" on moderate muslims, the study also finds that only 14% of muslims of Bosnian origin place high importance on religious code. With that in mind I would say it's still better to leave the book at least ajar, if not entirely open for comments. The matter is far from settled.

So far as I can see this IS settled. Be it then 57 or 14 % , it is a disaster neverthelss.

It is:

• Is arson just fine Y/N ? 57 % YES.
• Should drunkdriving be legalized Y/N? 14 % YES.
• Is cannibalism OK Y/N ? 30 % YES.
• Is sharia OK Y/N ? 57 % YES.

Should be :

• Is arson just fine Y/N ? 98 % NO.
• Should drunkdriving be legalized Y/N? 98.5 % NO.
• Is cannibalism OK Y/N ? 99 % NO.
• Is sharia OK Y/N ? 98 % NO.

The very art of the question is that the exceptation value is near 100 % NO. Note that it is surprisingly hard to get a perfect 100 % in anything because there always is a clown or two among those to be surveyed , but this how it should be if the muslims are loyal to their new home countries in any serious manner.

And therefore , as I see it , the issue is settled to such a degree that one should not continue wishful thinking but to start deporting the clearly unloyal elements.

[Sivulause]

Let's split some hairs then. This is from the 2009 website you provided, in the section for the Finnish Ministry of the Interior (Somebody can make the rest of the research in terms of border or immigration controls, additional expenses, etc. if they feel like it).

Summary in English: the above estimates of the budget for the Ministry of the Interior in Finland for the year 2009 includes; reception and detention centres, legal help to asylum seekers, anti-racism work, health checks of the CoO for the annual refugee quota (750 pakolaiskiintio), travel expenses, victims of trafficking, accident insurance, rehabilitation expenses for the municipalities, welfare allowances and income support (toimeentulotuki), interpretor services, supplementary benefits, etc. all basic expenses of the reception, processing and supporting asylum seekers and refugees.

"Momentille 02. Pakolaisten ja turvapaikanhakijoiden vastaanottotoiminta valtion osalta (arviomääräraha) myönnetään 7 670 000 euroa. (sis. Oikeusapupalvelut, vastaanottokeskukset, ihmiskaupan uhrit, lahtomaan terveystarkastukset, koulutus, matkat, neuvottelukunta, rasismin ehkaisy, jne.):
2009 talousarvio => 7 670 000

63. Pakolaisten ja turvapaikanhakijoiden vastaanotto (arviomääräraha):
Momentille myönnetään 61 352 000 euroa. (sis. Toimeentulotuet,tulkkipalvalut, kuntien kotouttamiskustannukset, vastaanottokeskukset, oikeusapupalvelut, tapaturmakorvaukset, ihmiskaupan uhrit, kulutusmenot.):
2009 talousarvio: 61 352 000 euroa
(toimeentulotuki 9 613 000 euroa)

Sisäasiainministeriön maararahat, esitys vuodelle 2009: yhteensa 1 168 899 000 euroa.

This equals 69 022 000 euros for these to Moments for the 2009 estimate, of the total of 1 168 899 000 euros for the whole Ministry of the Interior, that is, 5,9%, compared to 5,4% in 2008 and 6,92% in 2007 (hurray, it has come down a bit!).

Yes, let's start splittin'

01. Maahanmuuttoviraston toimintamenot (siirtomääräraha 2 v)

Momentille myönnetään lisäystä 3 000 000 euroa.

Selvitysosa: Lisämäärärahan tarpeesta 1 000 000 euroa aiheutuu lisääntyneistä turvapaikkapuhutteluiden tulkkausmenoista, lisääntyneistä turvapaikkahakemusten käännösmenoista, DNA-tutkimusten määrän lisääntymisestä ja lisätoimitilojen vuokramenoista sekä 2 000 000 euroa 40 henkilötyövuotta vastaavan henkilöstön palkkaamisesta määräaikaisiin tehtäviin vuoden 2010 loppuun mennessä.
2009 II lisätalousarvio   3 000 000
2009 I lisätalousarvio   2 000 000
2009 talousarvio   13 668 000
2008 tilinpäätös   14 450 000
2007 tilinpäätös   13 271 000

02. Pakolaisten ja turvapaikanhakijoiden vastaanottotoiminta valtion osalta (arviomääräraha)

Momentille myönnetään lisäystä 7 228 000 euroa.

Momentin perusteluja muutetaan siten, että määrärahaa saa käyttää enintään 130 henkilötyövuotta vastaavan henkilöstön palkkaamiseen, joista 27 saadaan palkata määräaikaisiin tehtäviin.

Selvitysosa: Lisämäärärahan tarve aiheutuu lisääntyneestä maahan saapuneiden turvapaikanhakijoiden määrästä. Varsinaisessa talousarviossa arvioitiin maahan saapuvan noin 2 000 uutta turvapaikanhakijaa. Alkuvuoden kehityksen perusteella maahan arvioidaan saapuvan tänä vuonna noin 5 000 turvapaikanhakijaa.

Momentin henkilötyövuosimitoituksen lisäys johtuu valtion vastaanottokeskusten vastaanottokapasiteetin lisäämisestä kasvaneen turvapaikanhakijamäärän vuoksi.
2009 II lisätalousarvio   7 228 000
2009 I lisätalousarvio   —
2009 talousarvio   7 670 000
2008 tilinpäätös   7 491 669
2007 tilinpäätös   8 305 462

63. Pakolaisten ja turvapaikanhakijoiden vastaanotto (arviomääräraha)

Momentille myönnetään lisäystä 55 301 000 euroa.

Selvitysosa: Lisämäärärahan tarve aiheutuu lisääntyneestä maahan saapuneiden turvapaikanhakijoiden määrästä. Varsinaisessa talousarviossa arvioitiin maahan saapuvan noin 2 000 uutta turvapaikanhakijaa. Alkuvuoden kehityksen perusteella maahan arvioidaan saapuvan tänä vuonna noin 5 000 turvapaikanhakijaa.
2009 II lisätalousarvio   55 301 000
2009 talousarvio   61 352 000
2008 tilinpäätös   71 777 324
2007 tilinpäätös   65 256 545

So, you see the budget had to be doubled during the fiscal year. As far as I know this is highly irregular for any instance.
I'm afraid the expenses ARE skyrocketing.
Original estimates were for 2000 people. Additions were made in hopes of 5000. As we know, it came to almost 6000 people.

Finland is ill-equipped to handle this amount of asylum seekers. Last years "rush" has already congested the system badly, immigration people are desperately seeking new places to locate reception centers.

Kiko,
I think you have some good thoughts about this issue, but here's where we stray. Like you said, we have a moral obligation to help. I concur to some degree. But I honestly think that we're pushing the envelope when it comes to realistic numbers in people vs. resources. Furthermore, IF we are to educate/integrate/assimilate/or just irritate these people, we're gonna need MORE MONEY.

I read somewhere (so this basically just bs) that around 20 % of the budget for da police is allocated for services related to immigration/asylum seekers' verification. That'd be around 160 million euros.

Concerning childcare, one immigrant child usually occupies two slots for indigeous children.

Did I mention the housing, thousands of people in line for a apartment?

These issues are extremely important, because people are competing for the same resources. That raises hostility, another major reason to SLOW DOWN.

Again, I'd like to stress that these numbers are change compared to the costs that are lurking in our social service's budget.

But limiting immigration by not giving protection to the refugees at our border would be a violation of their human rights.

I havent read all the messages in this thread but I answer anyway. We have no moral obligation to allow immigration from the third world in large scales. We also dont violate anybodys human rights if we refuse to let them stay in Finland. Authorities have deported people to Somalia, Iraq etc. so it is perfectly legal send people back there unless they have an official UN refugee status.

My two cents.
let's take less people and take care of them properly. Being allowed access to Finland, w/ benefits, is not a human rights issue. If we treat it as one, we'll succumb and someone will eventually have to haul our asses back from the stoneage.

I apologize for being blunt. I also apologize for being bald, fat and incoherent, respectively.

[M.K.Korpela]

Wow. That raises certain questions. Like who would be these "unloyal elements"? All muslims, or just those muslims that think religious code is more important than local law? Would it also include members of other congregations that regard religious codes higher than the law? What, in your opinion, would constitute enough "unloyalty" worthy of deportation of citizens and where would you deport citizens?

It is now clear that you are stuck in quicksand from which you are not getting away from - it is clear that you are trying to get away from the obvious fact that the questions concerning sharia (where the answer should be close to 100% NO-sharia) are way too embarrassing to handle. Therefore , you escape into the less challenging question of state-church separation.

As much as the illoyal elements are concerned , naturally criterias for deportations cannot be phased in at once. First the public needs to be get used to the idea that criminal elements just must out. After that is accepted and implemented it is time to get forward. Next in turn are the cultural appeasements , and here means of breaking the culture is for example welfare checks.

Want separate classes for boys and girls ? Fine , here's your welfare check. Month later - anything else ? You don't want your children to attend the music class ? Well , here's your next welfare check. The fiscal means will make it uncomfortable for some muslims to live here so there will be a number of them leaving the country anyway. The remaining hard core which refuses to assimilate and as well refuses to leave country is a problem , but this number will be smaller than expected.

As a result , the system filters out those muslims who are not culturally desirable for the country which pretty much correlates with lax attitudes towards law and order. Of course there will be some undesirable immigrants from other cultures as well , but that is a red herring while for example there are no hindus demanding ban on cow beef. In today's Europe only one significant group has specific demands - the muslims.

This strategy can not be implemented overnight , but once it starts rolling the political inertia will do the trick.

[Shawast]

No it's not saying the same thing - there is a big difference in saying that money is valuable because with it we can buy a BMW, than saying that human rights are 'valuable' because it gives us security from arbitrary exercise of power.

It is exactly the same! The utilitarian principle applies to human rights also. Money loses its value if it can't buy you anything: if you print money for all the people in the world it loses its value because everybody has it. Same for human rights, people stop believing in them if they are granted or used for no good reasons.

For example, Police should not shoot a person, who is just about to shoot ten innocent people, because of human rights. Or police should not stop bank robber because he is poor and only trying to achieve better life... We can't grant human rights for reasons that lead in the long run to a devastation of society
That is why we can't grant mass immigration in the name of human rights, because there is high probability that it will lead to civil war and destruction of society.

And my premises are:

- All cultures are struggling for resources, therefore in one nation there should be only one culture.

- There are some cultures that work with capitalism better, for example, European cultures seem to work better with capitalism than African, for most part maybe because capitalism developed in Europe

[I Work in Asylum System]

I havent read all the messages in this thread but I answer anyway. We have no moral obligation to allow immigration from the third world in large scales. We also dont violate anybodys human rights if we refuse to let them stay in Finland. Authorities have deported people to Somalia, Iraq etc. so it is perfectly legal send people back there unless they have an official UN refugee status.

How do you argue for your claim that we have no moral obligation - and please refer to those fleeing war and persecution, as that was the topic in discussion - no one was talking about turning back a non-refugee being a violation (also the 'mass scale' can be debated, as even I don't endorse 'mass scale' immigration to one country). And deporting to a country currently listed as non-refoulement-country, is against law. In cases were Finland has deported back to Somalia, it would have been to those parts considered safe (Somaliland, Bantuland), which are semi-autonomous, secessionist regions.

Wars, natural disasters etc. are not acceptable reasons to a refugee status.

Wars not... So what is...?  - I'd love to hear this one! 

For example Switzerland dont take people without any ID or travel documents. I think we should do the same. Everybody has some documents about their identity or travel documents. If someone doesnt have either one he/she is clearly a liar.

Are you serious?? Do you have any idea how many people in the world never even possess a birth certificate, let alone a travel document. Don't you think that is a BIT biased a thing to say. Although those asylum seekers that come to Europe either possess valid, genuine travel documents, or they are forged - in which case either they never had them in the first place, or they threw theirs away to get a new one (e.g. some who pretend to be Somalis to get ref status.)

We have now many clear "Dublin-cases" who are granted asylum here anyway. Theres no obligation for that. Also we can put the burden of proof to the asylum seeker himself.

True, we don't currently have obligation to accept Dublin cases, as they should be under the current law be processed in the 1st country of application.

The burden of proof is already on the asylum seeker. The screening process is not easy. That is why the rejection rates are so high.

So more than 50 % of the turks in Austria want sharia. In a question which has a near 100 % "NO" expectation value. One could assume that a 1-2 % would answer "yes , I want sharia" as a prank - there always is a 1-2 % sod off -factor in any survey - but the result 50 % just confirms the disaster Europe is going through.

We can pretty much close the books on this matter , the matter being your very naive claims of muslims' good attitude.

Kmruuska Agreed, you said it all.

First of all Korpela, aside from Kmruuska's valid comments, you make the same mistake again, that many have done here. Sharia can, and has been, implemented in various degrees. Moderate sharia is implemented in most Muslim countries already as an alternative to the secular court system - i.e. it has been separated from the state, but used as a parallel court system. You would be naive to think that 50% of all Muslims in Europe want the kind of sharia that Saudi Arabia or the Talebans are implementing - these two are looked down upon by their neighbouring Muslim societies.

There are many different Islamic systems - some secular, some fundamentalist. It's like liberal democracy having different readings; some justify death penalty, some reject it. Some give medicare to all, some don't. Some contain violence against women to family matters, some treat it as a human rights issue.

I.e. the interpretations of liberal democracy and human rights vary across democratic countries. Why is it so difficult to understand that the similar heterogeneity exists in Muslim societies?

So far as I can see this IS settled. Be it then 57 or 14 % , it is a disaster neverthelss.

You proved my point; you can't argue with fundamentalists, and you also can't argue with 'cement-brained' - borrowing from kmruuska - anti-Muslim immigration hardliners who have made up their mind. For you everything will be a disaster, and nothing will prove you otherwise. No stats, academic research, polls, will change your mind - and the lack of research to prove your claim does not bother you a bit. You not only fail to prove your claims, you also stubborningly fail to accept your mistakes by implying 'say what you say, I still think it's a disaster'. A dooms-day attitude is not very constructive an attitude.

So who's naive; the one who tries to understand both sides and get information from both sides, or the one who reads selectively and fails to consider the other side at all? Not only is it naive, it is unprofessional and unintellectual.

So, you see the budget had to be doubled during the fiscal year. As far as I know this is highly irregular for any instance.
I'm afraid the expenses ARE skyrocketing.
Original estimates were for 2000 people. Additions were made in hopes of 5000. As we know, it came to almost 6000 people.

Ok, now I see your point. Whereas I am not worried about the number doubling - in fact I encouraged it. I have said from the start that we have had room for some more people. I think we could still take up to 50% more (while obviously ADDING even more to the current integration policies). Yes - I am advocating for more fiscal re-allocations towards this issue (among with other suggestions I have pointed out). I am not, on the other hand, failing to see that there is a 'roof', a limit we can't push through without serious consequences - but I believe the stats I showed before show that we are not even close to that limit yet. (smoke more cigarettes - we'll pay it all! )

So you fail to convince me on this point.

I read somewhere (so this basically just bs) that around 20 % of the budget for da police is allocated for services related to immigration/asylum seekers' verification. That'd be around 160 million euros.

Could you get me the source, please. When I know what you mean by this, I can check that from the fiscal budget. Not that it would change much - it would only justify my initial claims that more efforts on integration are needed.

My two cents.
let's take less people and take care of them properly. Being allowed access to Finland, w/ benefits, is not a human rights issue. If we treat it as one, we'll succumb and someone will eventually have to haul our asses back from the stoneage.

Here we diverge greatly; I am fundamentally against treating the reception of refugees as 'charity'. It is not charity, and should not be treated as it is. It is a legal and moral responsibility. If we treat it as charity, we'll end up like the Southern states. We need to realize that taking in people is a holistic process; it's like trying to build a house without stable foundations. If the foundations are not there from the beginning, sooner or later the building will collapse. These foundations are, among others, respect for human rights, upholding dignity, guaranteeing minimum standards of living, equality and equal opportunities, etc. etc.

It is now clear that you are stuck in quicksand from which you are not getting away from - it is clear that you are trying to get away from the obvious fact that the questions concerning sharia (where the answer should be close to 100% NO-sharia) are way too embarrassing to handle. Therefore , you escape into the less challenging question of state-church separation.

While kmruuska already answered this, may I just give you an analogy; is, or is there not, a 100% NO/YES to issues such as death penalty, abortion, gay marriage, to press freedom, social welfare, healthcare, free education, etc. Of course not.

You are mishandling the statistics, in a very unrealistic way. Not only this, you seem to be stuck in quicksand yourself; Not only do you fail to recognize the current amount of non-extremist Muslims in the world (great majority), you fail to see the speed arrows in the picture, you just stare at it as it would be frozen. You are stuck in time, with anti-Muslim goggles on. The overall trend for European Muslims to liberalize is far bigger than the amount of those who would propose fundamentalist/Islamist interpretation of sharia. But you choose to not recognize this, or see it as evidence of the possibility of successful integration. But that if anything, is fundamentalist in itself!

It is exactly the same! The utilitarian principle applies to human rights also. Money loses its value if it can't buy you anything: if you print money for all the people in the world it loses its value because everybody has it. Same for human rights, people stop believing in them if they are granted or used for no good reasons.

You have to be careful of two things here: first, utility of what, to whom - as there are many utilitarian approaches and theories (one can benefit short- or long term, or there can be overall benefits for all, all full benefits for one, etc.). Second, you are basically saying that guaranteeing HR for all reduces HR utility value, E.g., that protection from torture loses its value after it has been granted for everyone? In theory, HR as a legal instrument and a regime exists of course to make itself not needed; the HR advocates attempt to become jobless one day. But it is a very different thing to say, that the 'value' of rights that we have just for being human, would be diminished if guaranteed to all humans! Of course here we can go into the eternal debate on natural rights, etc., but in short: There are rights to do things (positive) and not to do things (negative), there are claims and liberties. Some rights have direct utilitarian value (right to vote, right to protest), some can be seen, as some would say, of having inherent value (right to life). To say that e.g. a human right to life is utilitarian, you would be saying that a right to life has the utility of... what? Of protecting life? I.e. there may be rights which seem to have tautological utility; they are useful because they guarantee the thing they are useful for. I.e. they may not be reduced to a simply external 'utility'.

For example, Police should not shoot a person, who is just about to shoot ten innocent people, because of human rights. Or police should not stop bank robber because he is poor and only trying to achieve better life... We can't grant human rights for reasons that lead in the long run to a devastation of society
That is why we can't grant mass immigration in the name of human rights, because there is high probability that it will lead to civil war and destruction of society.

You are making a fallacy here; HR do not prevent the police shooting a person about to shoot 20 people. In fact, these moral dilemmas can be contested ad infinitum. The majority would vote for him to shoot, in the name of HR. Your robber example fails equally poorly; no HR is saying that.

- All cultures are struggling for resources, therefore in one nation there should be only one culture.

Here we come back to some of my initial criticism; there is NO ONE CULTURE. There are cultures within cultures within cultures. E.g. the problem of the nation-state is in the very fact that the borders have been created artificially, and doing so, split in half many already existing groups and subgroups. When states develop unequally, the other half benefits, the other one lags behind. I agree that most conflicts are due to resource competition - but be careful what you mean by 'cultures'. There are Muslims fighting each other, Christians fighting each other, language groups fighting each other - who belongs to which group? You yourself belong to many groups; you're a Finn (I assume, and from a certain municipality and town and neighbourhood and household and and room and bed..), a North European, a European, a Westerner, white, man (assuming so), possibly Christian, etc. etc. Where do you belong? By answering 'here!' is empty. You must realize that to talk about a 'cultural collition' or 'clash of civilizations' is an aged discussion, it does no longer apply to the globalized world - if it applied ever.

I also think we should carefully think what we mean by 'nation', and to question whether the classical single-ethnic 'nation-state' really is a feasible structure anymore.

There are some cultures that work with capitalism better, for example, European cultures seem to work better with capitalism than African, for most part maybe because capitalism developed in Europe.

I don't endorse capitalism in general anyway, but I admit that it probably is not feasible in at least some undemocratic states (except e.g. Saudi Arabia, whose authoritarian system is protected by Western capitalists). But again - 'culture' is very different from 'states'. Btw, weren't we talking about fundamentalist non-liberal Islam (found mostly in Middle-East and Western Asia, and less in Sub-Saharan Africa)? (And if you didn't know, there is a growing stock and capital market and growing investment in Africa).

[Roope]

The burden of proof is already on the asylum seeker. The screening process is not easy. That is why the rejection rates are so high.

I am not convinced. Police is telling that there are thousands of asylum seekers with residence permits in Finland who don't even have known identity. Those people can't possibly ever been thorougly screened. According to authorities they mostly only check whether the background story is consistent and plausible (i.e. can't be proven wrong easily) or not. Asylum seeker is not obliged to prove his identity, provide documents, help in the process or even tell the truth.

On what grounds do you claim that our rejection rates are high? Compared to other countries or previous history? After eliminating Dublin cases, safe origin and manifestly unfounded asylum requests the rejection rate is nowadays 20 percent.

Whereas I am not worried about the number doubling - in fact I encouraged it. I have said from the start that we have had room for some more people. I think we could still take up to 50% more (while obviously ADDING even more to the current integration policies). Yes - I am advocating for more fiscal re-allocations towards this issue (among with other suggestions I have pointed out). I am not, on the other hand, failing to see that there is a 'roof', a limit we can't push through without serious consequences - but I believe the stats I showed before show that we are not even close to that limit yet.

Would you please define your 'roof' for the number of asylum seekers, refugees, costs and social impacts?

You say that "we could still take up to 50 % more". Do you mean asylum seekers or refugees? Our refugee intake is going to rise in a couple of years from previous long term average of 1 500 to something like 8 000 - 12 000 refugees per year. As a consequence the costs of humanitarian immigration are likely to increase tenfold in ten years or so. Despite that there has been no political action by government to limit asylum immigration or to even define the limits.

[Zngr]

Reply to poster Zngr

Just piping in to say thank you for the reply to my message, as well as the other replies and various links you provide in this thread.

I'm in a hurry but to summarize your response to me it's "I agree".

And do not by any means think it's in any way negative thing if this thread grows and features kilometer long posts, quite the opposite, I believe the longer this gets the more useful it will prove.

(And we moderators are trying to keep it as clean as possible. For everyone viewing the thread, I reiterate, any trolling, posts written in Finnish, over the top ad hominem attacks and meaningless one liners will be deleted and repeat offenders will be awarded time in the penalty box.)

[Julmuri]

Lainaus
Wars, natural disasters etc. are not acceptable reasons to a refugee status.

Wars not... So what is...?   - I'd love to hear this one! 

Okay. Now I know that you havent read even the most basic documents of refugee rights. Namely, UN convention and EU directive. I suggest that you read them both and come back then when you actually know something. Heresay is another thing, convention text another.

Persecution must be for personal reasons, beliefs, sexua orientation, political beliefs etc. Wars and natural disasters are not those kinds of things and the Geneva UN refugee convention says this very clearly that they dont apply because war or natural disaster are not personal persecution. I hope that you r just playing stupid?

Are you serious?? Do you have any idea how many people in the world never even possess a birth certificate, let alone a travel document.

Nobody gets from third world to Finland unless they have somekind of document. I didnt say it has to be real but still they tell a lot to authorities. Asylum seekers always protect human traffikers and cover their traces.

And why so many people destroys their documents before coming to FInland if they dont have them?

True, we don't currently have obligation to accept Dublin cases, as they should be under the current law be processed in the 1st country of application.

So why some of them are still taken? To feel morally good? To make me pay more tax euros?

But please read the convention and the directive so that you dont look so ignorant.

[Miniluv]

Attention! In order to avoid bogging down the thread, do not continue on pros, cons and feasibilities of diverse economic systems around the world.

Thank you for your co-operation.

[Julmuri]

Because "Kiko" thinks that wars and natural disasters are acceptable reasons to refugee status I must write a little bit more about the conventions.

Definition of a Refugee

Article 1 of the Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol provides the definition of a refugee:
"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."[1]

Now, I want Kiko to show me where in this definition the convention mentions wars or natural disasters? Can Kiko in his brain think any reasons why those words dont exist in the document? What would have happened to Switzerland or Sweden in WW2 if refugee convention would already have been written and interpretated in Kikos way that war makes it compulsory to accept all the refugees. Same logic can be used to natural disasters. That is the reasons those words are missing from the convention. Its no accident, they have been left out on purpose because no nation would have been part in a treaty which can mean a national suicide or worse.


However, in Finland our own politicians have made such laws. Our own Finnish immigration law forbids to return anybody to countries which have "poor security situation". This means that there are about 1 000 000 000 people (exact number is a few hundred millions more) who are automatically entitled to free living in Finland plus to get their familys here also and there is nothing we can do about it at the moment. Luckily this is just our own law, so we can change it anytime.

The scope of UN refugee convention was originally to help resettlement of WW2 era european refugees like germans. Geographical limit was even mentioned in the document.

[RP]

In any case if we are only talking about afore-mentioned groups, I doubt Afghans, Somalis and Iraqis are gonna take over the world. (remember that Sharia in Afghanistan is maintained with the force of fear, Somalia is in eternal war limbo and Iraq.. )

Take over the world? Hardly. Make here a troublesome minority that is fast growing, yes. From 1990 to 2008 the number people with Somali as the mother tongue in creased from 0 to over 10 000. About 9000 of them in greater Helsinki area. Last year news reports included estimates by immigration service that the numbers would double in about 2-3 years, based on the current numbers of asylum seekers and the future family reunions.  

Remember that what we are dealing with is a very new phenomenon - it's not gonna happen next year, but some change is inevitable. I find it naive and short-sighted to think otherwise, and deny that cultures and customs evolve, adapt and change.

I find also naive to assume that everything will be just fine if we wait. We have had Romas here for hundreds of years, and addition to their conflicts with the main parts of the population (I am not claiming that the fault for what has happened in the past is all on their side) they are still having their blood feuds among themselves today.

cultures change! Why do they need protecting? You will not even notice when it has changed, and when your grandgrandgrand children one day wake up in a different culture, they will 'feel' it as their own as much as you feel this one as your own. Is the 'time-psychology factor' so hard to understand?

I do understand, and I'm willing to accept that were it possible to meet my descendants 200 years in the future we both easily could find the other party at least bit weird. However, it does not follow from the fact that change is inevitable that one should consider it irrelevant or all possible directions of change equally desirable. I do not want this country to change culturally towards Somalia, Afghanistan or even Arab countries

Besides, 'multiculturalism' is an existing fact, not only a 'value' (to some).

An 'ism' is by definition an ideology. In this case an ideology that ethnic and racial(*) diversity within (western) countries is considered valuable as such, without no actual consideration of the consequences or consideration of the cultures in question.

(*) Yes, 'race' is nowhere in the word itself, which makes it even more amusing how it every now an then pops out into the surface how it is actually important part of the practical multiculturalism (http://izrailit.blogspot.com/2009/08/its-called-race-stupid.html ).

realistic, sustainable approaches to accommodate this fact into the globalizing world while respecting human rights and equality.

I do not know what you mean with 'equality' here, but I at least do not wish 'equality' at the Finnish border. I am in the select group having a Finnish passport and like it that way. This maybe considered selfish, but it is selfishness that I'm not embarrassed to admit, but I value far more health, safety and well-being of my children than some poor kid in developing world. I do not wish them evil; hopefully all the nations of the world can get their lives in order and escape the worst of poverty as people in Finland did, in the end not that long time ago (as improbable as it may sound, people died of famine in great numbers here within the lifetime of a grandfather of mine), but the problems of hundreds of millions or billions will not be solved by immigration to Finland, while even a tiny fraction of that number could fundamentally change this country, and not for better.

If there were a sect here advocating following the every letter of Bible, especially old testament, I would be against mass immigration such people as well. That does not seem to be problem though. As an atheist I can note with some satisfaction that Christians have mostly managed to get rid off Bible...

Your last sentence seems very high and mighty - ever been to conservative Christian countries? You know that our part of the world is one of the most secular of all.

A) Yes, I'm writing from Finnish perspective. I'm aware of it, but I do not see what is the problem with that.
B) In which of those conservative Christian countries they, for example, stone people to death for committing adultery? (That is quite explicitly in the bible, after all....)

Hamas are much hated and despised by the vast majority of Muslims.

Do you have a source for that?

Why, thanks for asking:  

Barely a quarter of Palestines supports Hamas anymore (<25%) (Sept 2009):
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3112

January 2009:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1075/before-israels-invasion-hamas-popularity-was-waning-among-its-neighbors-even-in-gaza-itself

Your links state that they would have support of one quarter of Palestinians. That is bit more than what Center party got here in last elections, but I would still find it bit too much to say that Matti Vanhanen is much hated and despised by the vast majority of Finns (even if he was probably more popular at election date than he is now)

The other link shows favourable/unfavourable opinion distribution in a group of countries. The both figures are of the same order of magnitude in all countries except for Turkey, which is far more secular country than almost any other Muslim majority country (which still hasn't made the integration of their countrymen to Germany smooth) and Lebanon, a highly sectarian country with a large Christian part of the population.

They seem to be pretty good with PR. Pity that the Palestinians (Arabs in general) haven't had much leaders genuinely interested in the welfare of their citizens.

Indeed. But not all Arabs: e.g. Saudi Arabia has a welfare state. Not that the majority of the Western countries are very interested in the welfare either... or in fact any country in general, aside from few!

Majority of western countries (and handful better governed elsewhere (I am not including Saudi-Arabia here)) nevertheless manage to keep the level of contempt towards citizens and cleptocratic tendencies of their leaders in somehow acceptable level. As consequence the material standard of living has greatly risen and we are having the discussion what to do with people from Muslim countries and Africa coming to west, not with westerners looking for better life south or east from Mediterranean.

But these are our countries -don't we have a right to do things our way here? The rest of the world can do what they want in theirs (although I would prefer they would choose a path not leading people coming here seeking asylum (or "asylum")

Sure, by all means go and buy a self-help book if you feel like it, but if your buddy Jukka doesn't need it and prefers to seek help from his community, don't go and tell him not to do so as that wouldn't be individualist enough for you! Are we liberal or are we not? What on earth is your problem with Muslims relying on community more than self-help books? Ever been to Finnish countryside?

Born and lived until adult in countryside. If you go back to the part of Sennels' text you were commenting, the 'community' he was referring to is not the immigrant community, it is society at large (us). He was not talking about people seeking help to improve their lives, but blaming others when their lives are not what they would want then to be.

Iraq and Somalia have been some of the MOST important sources of genuine asylum seekers, with a recognition rate up to 99,9%! So please, check your facts before you go on pickering on refugees.

This has been pointed out by many already, but once more for repetition. The great majority from those getting residence permit have not got it because they would have been recognised as refugees as defined, not be me or you, but by Geneva conventions, but by looser standard, which can be translated as "there is no evidence that you have suffered persecution, but your country is so f---ed up, that we let you stay here anyway" (By they way, isn't that already a sufficient reason, even if decide to let them in as individual human beings to request to adapt to norms of this country. If in their own country they have created just famine and clan warfare, I do not want to experiment with them here too)    

Are we talking about real Islam or some abstract ideal Islam? It is the real Islam that generates the news.

No, it is the marginal (e.g. extremist) part of Islam that generate news. Have some media eye; normal life doesn't interest anyone. If you want to see it, go travel there, don't expect to find it on news.

Extremists  of course generate lot of news, but there is also the deeper underlining reality. Most certain way of 'Finland' to be visible on international news sites is when many people have been killed violently, but there is also the news of pretty strong economy, industries (and at least at lower levels) pretty well working education system and boring elections (where boring is a good thing, as nobody is surprised that the elections actually take place and people are not killed because of them).

More specifically on what commented earlier, how do you re-conciliate your words

.not to mention how truly devoted Muslims never blame anyone for the unfortunate tragedies they have suffered – Insh'allah! If it is the  God's will, there is no point feeling vengeful or pointing fingers. ..I suppose Sennels just to forgot to mention this very inherent part of real Islam

with the venomous anti-Israel sentiment in Islamic countries (or extreme willingness to blame 'racism' for the problems they have in Finland).    

(besides, referring to honor killings; around 5000 happen each year, whereas victims of domestic violence in some developed countries amount to 12000-20000/country)

You are equating non-lethal violence in other countries with honor killings?

Sorry, I was actually meaning KILLED by domestic violence a year - just forgot to put the word there. 12-20 000 get KILLED by domestic violence in some developed countries annually in one country!

Show the statistics, please. I note that homicide rate in USA is apparently about 5.5 / 100 000 persons. Multiplied with 300 million that gives about 17000 person killed in USA. That is the total number of all homicides of which only a part (I would not care guess exactly how much, but it seems safe to assume that while it is not a tiny fraction it is not the majority either) are from domestic violence. USA is also the most populous of developed countries, and more violent than most, so I'm pretty sure their total absolute number of homicides must be the largest. (So I am not really expecting you to be able to produce that list of developing countries where in (on country) 12-20 000 people would be killed by domestic violence annually.)
 

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. All asylum seekers granted asylum are refugees, and entitled to protection.

Yes, and their number has been... In 2000 nine (9) and in 2008 eighty nine (89)

(Favourable decisions, category 'asylum'). Please, "you have no idea what you are talking about" is not probably very constructive argument in any case, but even less so if you don't have the basic facts right.

There is no 'economically humanitarian migration' outside work visas, etc.

Suprime Administrative court:

B on ilmoittanut haluavansa muuttaa Suomeen ainiaaksi, koska tuntuu olevan parempaa elää yhdessä Suomessa. Hän on täsmentänyt olettavansa asian olevan näin, koska hänen poikansa ja veljensä asuvat siellä. Suomesta B ei kertomansa mukaan tiedä mitään. B on ilmoittanut, että he eivät voi viettää perhe-elämää Etiopiassa, koska hänellä ei ole työtä siellä. Suomessa se B:n mukaan on mahdollista, koska elämä siellä on ilmaista.

Somali applicant: "we can not live as a family in Ethiopia because I do not have work there. In Finland it is possible, because life there is free"

If one is not sufficiently motivated to study the language, then I have to presume one is not very motivated to be employed either.

Not true, and this would be clear if you worked with asylum seekers and actually understood them.

Please, tell me why should I not consider some unemployed foreigner (irrespective actually whether they are asylum seekers or not) unwilling to work if he/she does not show interest in learning the language of this country?

Besides, I find especially male immigrants very eager to learn language.

Good. After some time eagerness should then show as actual results (language skill)

I would rather see the language training of the women also as mandatory, to give them more independence.

Absolutely nothing against that. Do you admit though that the fact you bring this subject out shows that there is some other problem (not a language one) involved. Why exactly would they not go to voluntary training?

I wasn't trying to say that and by now you should know better; not all have entailed genocide or colonization, and many cultures have co-existed together for long periods of time. What I AM trying to say is exactly that there is a stone rolling - the world is globalizing - and our responsibility is to guide that stone, not let it roll over others.

It may be inevitable price to pay for our industries to have export markets and to be competitive there, that I have to live in a world with competition against Chinese people with mostly comparable skill sets  and willingness to work for fraction of the salary that I get. I can accept that. There are positives and negatives, and even the negatives (for me) mean somebody else has a possibility with his own hard work can make the life for him and his kid better.

This is no way linked with the humanitarian immigration. If you know some other export products from Somalia than piracy, narcotics and terrorism, please tell me (I know the previous sentence reeks contempt. Sadly, I think it is also factually warranted). We can also certainly live without their domestic market for our goods, and by statistics we already have plenty or unemployed reserves here if some unforeseen eventuality would generate a great need for Somali speaking workers. Decision is ours how many and what kind of immigrants we want to have in this country (or at least what we don't want here. We can't of of course force anybody to arrive. Increased burden for social services from non-integrated humanitarians probably does not increase the amounts of those who would be ready come to work and pay taxes).

[I Work in Asylum System]

I have waited for a good time to answer, as your comments definitely deserve a few. Apologies for the delay. I see RP has made a long comment, but we'll see if I have time to read and answer it this week. Will definitely answer at some point though.

Lainaus
Wars, natural disasters etc. are not acceptable reasons to a refugee status.

Wars not... So what is...?   - I'd love to hear this one!  

Okay. Now I know that you havent read even the most basic documents of refugee rights. Namely, UN convention and EU directive. I suggest that you read them both and come back then when you actually know something. Heresay is another thing, convention text another.

I love when people claim the other one doesn't read but then don't read themselves. I love splitting hairs. (not that I haven't provided you with quotes and sources already about this...)
You wrote:

UN refugee convention or the EU directive doesnt oblige us to take the so called "humanitarian asylum seekers".

..making the same old mistake of confusing refugees with asylum SEEKERS, who are not necessarily refugees. They are, indeed, SEEKERS. And indeed, the directive DOES NOT oblige us to accept asylum seekers and give all of them 'protection', as not all of them are genuine refugees. My stress is on those who come from non-refoulement countries and whether they are justified for refugee status (ceteris paribus that they are not persecutors themselves, or faking their identity although not from war countries). I'll continue:

But when it comes to the evidence, we decide what kind of evidence we accept as a proof of persecution. Wars, natural disasters etc. are not acceptable reasons to a refugee status......
Persecution must be for personal reasons, beliefs, sexua orientation, political beliefs etc. Wars and natural disasters are not those kinds of things and the Geneva UN refugee convention says this very clearly that they dont apply because war or natural disaster are not personal persecution. I hope that you r just playing stupid?

...

Let's see who is playing stupid here:

Firstly, as you yourself noted, the reason to grant refugee status are well-founded fears of PERSECUTION. Wars are not mentioned, as "war" in itself is a vague concept that can't be easily defined, whereas persecution entails many of the threats that exist in war.

Secondly, the Convention establishes non-refoulement as the cornerstone of the Convention.

So the 4 terms to be defined here are 1) persecution, 2) war, 3) refugee and 4) non-refoulement.

to persecute = To pursue in a manner to injure, grieve, or afflict; to beset with cruelty or malignity; to harass; especially, to afflict, harass, punish, or put to death for adherence to a particular religious creed or mode of worship. To harass with importunity; to pursue with persistent solicitations; to annoy.

A war =
1.   A conflict involving the organized use of arms and physical force between countries or other large-scale armed groups. The warring parties hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war.
2.   By extension, any conflict, or anything resembling a conflict.

The 1951 Convention reads:
Refugee = owing to wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear,
is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,
not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former
habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such
fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Source: 1951 Convention, http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf

Non-refoulement= is a principle in international law, specifically refugee law, that concerns the protection of refugees from being returned to places where their lives or freedoms could be threatened. Unlike political asylum, which applies to those who can prove a well-grounded fear of persecution based on membership in a social group or class of persons, non-refoulement refers to the generic repatriation of people, generally refugees into war zones and other disaster areas...Today the principle of non-refoulement ostensibly protects recognized refugees and asylum seekers from being expelled from countries that are signatories to the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol.

UNHCR clarifies: Refugees have to move if they are to save their lives or preserve their freedom. They have no protection from their own state - indeed it is often their own government that is threatening to persecute them.

UNHCR also clarifies, that in the event of mass migration of people from countries in conflict, instead of assessing individually every case in terms of asylum seekers, the people are considered as 'prima facie' refugees.

Persecution defined by EU Directive:
serious and unjustified harm (by virtue of its nature or repetition) on the grounds of race, religion, nationality or political opinion;
physical or mental violence, including acts of sexual violence;
legal, administrative, police or judicial measures implemented in a discriminatory manner; prosecution or punishment applied in a disproportionate or discriminatory manner.

(The European Council at its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 agreed to work towards establishing a Common European Asylum System, based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 (Geneva Convention), as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 (Protocol), thus affirming the principle of non-refoulement and ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution).

IN OTHER WORDS:

Do not misread the convention. You have to understand what it's saying before you quote it. The Convention states clearly  that those refugees fleeing the criteria of persecution found in some wars are – ceteris paribus – entitled to refugee status. The principle of non-refoulement applies to e.g. Somalia and Afghanistan, and refugees from those countries are considered prima facie refugees. I.e. they are considered a generic group of refugees who have reasons to fear persecution – exceptions given to the granting of asylum to these refugees are made when an AS is suspected of e.g. being a perpetrator himself.

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/search?page=search&docid=3b33574d1&query=non-refoulement

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33176_en.htm

http://www.unhcr.org/3c0f495f4.html

Now, I want Kiko to show me where in this definition the convention mentions wars or natural disasters? Can Kiko in his brain think any reasons why those words dont exist in the document? What would have happened to Switzerland or Sweden in WW2 if refugee convention would already have been written and interpretated in Kikos way that war makes it compulsory to accept all the refugees. Same logic can be used to natural disasters. That is the reasons those words are missing from the convention. Its no accident, they have been left out on purpose because no nation would have been part in a treaty which can mean a national suicide or worse.

They don't mention those concepts exactly because of the vastness of the meanings – as you saw above, the Convention focuses on certain effects, that have been identified as effects of the wars in current non-reofulement countries. Just because war is not mentioned in the Convention, doesn't exclude their effects being mentioned – and indeed they are. From above this should be quite clear; the Convention is by no means saying that we should grant protection for all people coming from all countries in war – there are about 30 countries with conflicts at the very moment. The Convention establishes specific criteria which has been found to be satisfied by the critical situations in e.g. Somalia.

Thus, to conclude, by saying that wars are not good enough reasons for refugee status is a false reading of the problematic, and the Convention itself.

I will not tackle the issue of natural disasters here, it is another sub topic entirely.

Asylum seekers always protect human traffikers and cover their traces.

You seem to picker me for 'not understanding terminology', when you yourself don't understand the difference between trafficked and smuggled people... anyway,  refering to genuine refugees (not asylum seekers necessarily), they have three ways of leaving their war-ridden country:  by leaving a country legally, by registering in a refugee camp and wait for resettlement, or by – either at the camp, after, or without ever going there – crossing the border irregularly. They can either do that by walking across the border themselves if possible, or, as usual, organizing the transportation and travel documents through smugglers. The reasons many choose to do this should be obvious: bad administration and destitution at the camps, hopelessness and little chance of resettlement to really safe, good countries, drive many people to seek alternatives. They can hardly be criminalized for that.

And why so many people destroys their documents before coming to FInland if they dont have them?

Isn't that a bit of a funny sentence? How do you know they have destroyed their documents before coming to Finland if they have never had them?
Anyway,  you again have to separate asylum seekers in general from refugees – a subgroup of asylum seekers. Secondly,  it should be common knowledge that people fleeing persecution have to often use false documents to leave the country.  In these cases, they would – and I would too – rather throw the false documents away than face forced return to a country where they are not even originally from.

"In recognition of this fact Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention prohibits governments from penalising refugees who use false documents."

And obviously, I am here referring to those most likely genuine refugees, not the 'economic migrants' pretending to be refugees: around 70% of all asylum seekers get already rejected based on that.

So why some of them are still taken? To feel morally good? To make me pay more tax euros?

This you can't ask me, as I have no idea why some people choose not to abide regulations. Although to be frank, even though I'm quite a by-the-book person, I know plenty of cases where, if I could have made the decision, I would have rather granted asylum in Finland than send them back to e.g. Greece or Italy. For sure.

Wars and natural disasters are not those kinds of things and the Geneva UN refugee convention says this very clearly that they dont apply because war or natural disaster are not personal persecution. ...But please read the convention and the directive so that you dont look so ignorant.

And now that I explained it to you, what you say? Are you really that ignorant that you think that all the refugees currently in refugee camps in Africa or wherever are persecuted for 'personal reasons' in terms of "he's coming after me because he hates me!", or do you realize what the Convention means with 'persecution for personal reasons'? Do you think the Convention would be applied around the world to treat Sudanese, Congolese,  Somali, Afghani etc.millions of  refugees if THAT is what it was meaning. The convention says CLEARLY that people whose lives are endangered because of the effects of war are prima facie refugees and the principle of non-refoulement applies to them.

Please do your research next time so that I don't have to do it for you.

On what grounds do you claim that our rejection rates are high? Compared to other countries or previous history? After eliminating Dublin cases, safe origin and manifestly unfounded asylum requests the rejection rate is nowadays 20 percent.

I don't understand your point; the two latter statuses are included in the overall rejection rate, obviously. Why would you exclude them again? The rejection rate outside Dublin cases can be found in the above link and stats I have given.


In any case I have never claimed that the system is not being abused at all. I have never said that I even like the system as it is. I have merely talked about moral obligations. And those obligations limit our right to turn back people among whom we might have genuine refugees.

Good story on the abuse of the system: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3077663.stm

Other stuff:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/18/failed-asylum-seeker-iran-detention
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581789,00.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/asylum-seeker-r/


"People who arrive on our shores without prior authorisation from Australia, with no documents, or false documents are not illegal.They are asylum seekers ..." Facts and myths on asylum seekers:
www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/.../Facts_and_myths_on_Asylum_Seekers.doc

Would you please define your 'roof' for the number of asylum seekers, refugees, costs and social impacts?

Hard core question for someone who is no more a fiscal planner than I am.

In general: as long as immigrants are employed, we are able to sustain them. This is the principal of sustainable growth – keeping unemployment rates as low as possible. This means that if the current levels of unemployment keep the same or keep rising, this will be unsustainable. To the question, how many can we take, depends on how we tackle unemployment. There are plenty of opportunities:

"Problems of labour availability have recently been most common in construction and transport. Recruitment problems have also occurred in a number of occupations in social and health care. Southern Finland and the province of Kainuu have been the most problematic regions.

In the long run, the number of job openings is projected to be highest in service work and social and health care. Apart from replacing retiring workers these industries are expected to increase their total employment."
http://www.tem.fi/index.phtml?C=91414&product_id=99&s=2687

A research made by the city of Helsinki revealed that reducing the unemployment of immigrants would bring savings for the city's public sector  for up to 58 million euros.

http://www.kunnat.net/k_perussivu.asp?path=1;29;121;43719


These should give a good indicator on what we should invest to make immigration sustainable, and even a push for more growth. It is not a question of status quo – more immigrants but into the same system. It is a question of wise reform of existing policies and implementing new ones.


Other interesting Finnish sources:

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/uutinen.asp?id=1646408&ref=lk_is_ko_1

http://www.taloussanomat.fi/kotimaa/2007/05/29/maahanmuuttojohtaja-varoittaa-koyhyyden-etnistymisesta/200713121/12?ref=lk_is_ko_2

http://ylex.yle.fi/radio/ohjelmat/ylex-tanaan/mielipidevanki/pitaisiko-suomen-ottaa-lisaa-maahanmuuttajia

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/uutinen.asp?id=1740465&ref=lk_hs_ko_2

http://maahanmuuttotieto.wikidot.com/vaikutukset

[Lemmy]

So in other words, nothing else supports any of your theses, except "moral obligation". There is no problem as long as you fund this moral obligation of yours out of your own pocket.

To the question, how many can we take, depends on how we tackle unemployment. There are plenty of opportunities:

So if there are opportunities, why are our "golden eggs" then unemployed? Nothing to do being lazy? After all they get handouts - in USA they would need to go to work - then again the difference is that in USA there are jobs, in Finland not.
http://www.hs.fi/talous/artikkeli/Ty%C3%B6tt%C3%B6myys+kasvoi+voimakkaasti+viime+vuonna/1135252406276

I think we agree it is only bringing more conflict bringing more people in to high unemployment areas - especially if they need more resources (education, healthcare etc.)

[I Work in Asylum System]

Ok I can answer quickly to the most pervailing points in RP's comments, and then I may have to come back to you guys somewhere in next week for this.

I find also naive to assume that everything will be just fine if we wait. We have had Romas here for hundreds of years, and addition to their conflicts with the main parts of the population (I am not claiming that the fault for what has happened in the past is all on their side) they are still having their blood feuds among themselves today.

Well I hope you have read the thread, so that you would know that NOBODY as far as I know is saying everything will be just fine if we WAIT. In fact, you will see by reading my comments that I am quite the contrary an opponent of the status quo. I get tired of repeating this, and trying to attack me by ridiculing and misreading my comments is even more tiring.

Romas are another story and would have to be dealth in a separate thread. By no means can we label all minorities or immigrants under the same label, and it is a very silly way of discussing the problem indeed. Analogy therefore not very fruitful.

An 'ism' is by definition an ideology. In this case an ideology that ethnic and racial(*) diversity within (western) countries is considered valuable as such, without no actual consideration of the consequences or consideration of the cultures in question.

Multiculturalism is the acceptance or promotion of multiple ethnic cultures, for practical reasons and/or for the sake of diversity and applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, usually at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities or nations. In this context, multiculturalists advocate extending equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting any specific ethnic, religious, and/or cultural community values as central.
Wiki.

"...there is no evidence that you have suffered persecution, but your country is so f---ed up, that we let you stay here anyway" (By they way, isn't that already a sufficient reason, even if decide to let them in as individual human beings to request to adapt to norms of this country. If in their own country they have created just famine and clan warfare, I do not want to experiment with them here too)    

On the Convention you can read above, and regarding the last sentence I'm sure you yourself see the problem. I can't tell you how much it pisses me off to blame the victims for the wars. It seems to be symptomatic in this forum, this shortsightedness.

but there is also the news of pretty strong economy, industries (and at least at lower levels) pretty well working education system and boring elections (where boring is a good thing, as nobody is surprised that the elections actually take place and people are not killed because of them).

...as much as there are similar news (ed. System, industries, elections) from e.g. African countries, if you would care to read them. I really don't see your point here. :0

More specifically on what commented earlier, how do you re-conciliate your words......with the venomous anti-Israel sentiment in Islamic countries (or extreme willingness to blame 'racism' for the problems they have in Finland).

Well I never said I was talking about majority of Muslims in general. You say that – in general – Muslims tend to blame others for their misfortunes, even though in my opinion you are talking about the other side of the continuum – and I remark that while those Muslims, as much Muslims than these but on the opposite side of the line, would give it to the God to decide. It is those between who are probably neither this or that, but somewhere in the grey area.

And as it happens, Finns seem to blame all the problems on immigrants – a very similar black & white attitude indeed. What one can see from looking at most conflicts or e.g. territorial disagreements in the world, the other side always blames the other – regardless of religion or culture. The North blames as much the South than South blames the North in Ireland. The phenomenon is universal, not something inherently 'Muslim'. This is what I meant.

Show the statistics, please.

Hmph, I was sure I had put the link there. :/ I even had a link with the numbers 12 000-20 000 (Japan having the largest number, other countries being USA, Mexico, Italy, Hongkong, etc. other developed countries). I'll try and fish it, but meanwhile:

"Studies by the Surgeon General's office reveal that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44, more common than automobile accidents, muggings, and cancer deaths combined. "http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/statistics.shtml

"Based on several surveys from around the world, half of the women who die from homicides are killed by their current or former husbands or partners...  A study conducted in São Paulo, Brazil, reported that 13 percent of deaths of women of reproductive age were homicides, of which 60 percent were committed by the victims' partners... According to a UNIFEM report on violence against women in Afghanistan, out of 1,327 incidents of violence against women collected between January 2003 and June 2005, 36 women had been killed — in 16 cases (44.4 percent) by their intimate partners "
http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/violence_against_women/facts_figures.php

"The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that the annual world-wide number of "honour killing" victims may be as high as 5000 women... According to a government report, 4,000 women and men were killed in Pakistan in the name of honour between 1998 and 2003, the number of women being more than double the number of men [30]. In a study of female deaths in Alexandria, Egypt, 47 percent of the women were killed by a relative after the woman had been raped [31]. In Jordan and Lebanon, 70 to 75 percent of the perpetrators of these so-called "honour killings" are the women's brothers "
http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/violence_against_women/facts_figures.php?page=4

•   "Six in every 10 women who are victims of homicide were murdered by someone they knew. About half of these women were murdered by a spouse or someone with whom they had been intimate.
•   Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15-44.
•   Every 21 days, a woman is killed by domestic violence."
•   http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/Disorders/DomViolFacts.html
"On average, two women a week are killed by a violent partner or ex-partner. This constitutes nearly 40% of all female homicide victims.  "http://womensaid.nemisys.uk.com/domestic-violence-articles.asp?section=00010001002200410001&itemid=1280

== > My point being; beatings, killings etc. of women are and have been common for ages also in Western countries, and in majority of the cases are done by an intimate partner. Why do you think men in West beat up women, hutn down their exes and kill them? It is just another form of honor or pride.

Yes, and their number has been... In 2000 nine (9) and in 2008 eighty nine (89)

(Favourable decisions, category 'asylum'). Please, "you have no idea what you are talking about" is not probably very constructive argument in any case, but even less so if you don't have the basic facts right.

Do people just refuse to read my words or what´s the problem? I have already previously put it here quite clearly, that those who have been granted asylum are refugees:

"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

In other words, as stated so many times before, refugee is a generic term for those who have been granted asylum. In the statistics, the different protection statuses given have different labels, one of them also being 'asylum' as a generic term, compared to e.g. subsidiary protection. Yet all these are under the same heading: asylum. It is circular, yes, but that's just the way it is.

There is no 'economically humanitarian migration' outside work visas, etc.

Obviously I was referring to official labels. Anyway humanitarian trumps economic -> a refugee coming from a non-refoulement country is first and foremost a humanitarian migrant, whether or not he applies to Finland for economic benefits he would not get in Ethiopia. Case dismissed.

...  if he/she does not show interest in learning the language of this country? Good. After some time eagerness should then show as actual results (language skill)

Repeating the same question doesn't help if you ignore the answer. In any case I strongly disagree that they have no interest in learning the host language, and I have seen otherwise (especially with regards to men). On integration policies and problems with language I have already discussed briefly above.

Do you admit though that the fact you bring this subject out shows that there is some other problem (not a language one) involved?

Why do Homma people all the time keep assuming that I am seeing no problems anywhere, and am as happy as ever with the status quo? How many times do I have to repeat that this is not so, and how many times people here rather avoid answering me and instead intentionally misinterpret my words to ridicule me?

Why on earth is it so difficult for you guys to see that I can easily disagree with you, and STILL recognize many of the same problems than you?

Will you please read my comments on status quo and needs for reform of existing policies. Also check what I said about language, and you can also easily look for info yourself.

If you know some other export products from Somalia than piracy, narcotics and terrorism, please tell me (I know the previous sentence reeks contempt. Sadly, I think it is also factually warranted). We can also certainly live without their domestic market for our goods, ...

Sadly, you seem to be incapable of understanding humanitarian migration from the perspective of moral and legal responsibility, and are only seeking to benefit yourself. Your call.

The rest I'll skip for now, as they hardly contributed anything new. I'm getting tired of repetition.

Edit: typos

[Lemmy]

Sadly, you seem to be incapable of understanding humanitarian migration from the perspective of moral and legal responsibility, and are only seeking to benefit yourself. Your call.

You call these humanitarians somehow moral or with legal responsibility?

[Roope]

Thanks for reply.

On what grounds do you claim that our rejection rates are high? Compared to other countries or previous history? After eliminating Dublin cases, safe origin and manifestly unfounded asylum requests the rejection rate is nowadays 20 percent.

I don't understand your point; the two latter statuses are included in the overall rejection rate, obviously. Why would you exclude them again?

I thought you used that high rejection rate as a proof of Finnish asylum policy being particularly tough. My mistake if that was not your intention. It's just still such a common misconception.

Would you please define your 'roof' for the number of asylum seekers, refugees, costs and social impacts?

Hard core question for someone who is no more a fiscal planner than I am.

In general: as long as immigrants are employed, we are able to sustain them. This is the principal of sustainable growth – keeping unemployment rates as low as possible. This means that if the current levels of unemployment keep the same or keep rising, this will be unsustainable. To the question, how many can we take, depends on how we tackle unemployment.

Yes, that's one way to look at it, although you are neglecting the social impacts. We can be absolutely sure that current incoming refugees are not going to reach any sustainable dependency ratio or acceptable unemployment rate. Far from it. (AA or other cheap trickery not allowed!) So are we still going to receive as many of them as we do and in the mean while try to figure out some silver bullet to solve the problems? Let's presume that situation isn't going to change for better. What's the limit then?

"Työttömyys jää pysyväksi ilmiöksi, eikä suurten ikäluokkien lähtö eläkkeelle johda työvoimapulaan."
Jaakko Kiander, Palkansaajien Tutkimuslaitoksen johtaja - HS 23.1.2010

A research made by the city of Helsinki revealed that reducing the unemployment of immigrants would bring savings for the city's public sector  for up to 58 million euros.
http://www.kunnat.net/k_perussivu.asp?path=1;29;121;43719

I'm familiar with that reasearch and your news items as well. Helsinki research didn't take into consideration WHY those immigrants are unemployed. In reality their unemployment is mostly due to their qualities (language skills, qualifications, experience, connections) that cannot be changed by some committee decision. Read that research. I find the conclusions mockery of scientific study.

These should give a good indicator on what we should invest to make immigration sustainable, and even a push for more growth. It is not a question of status quo – more immigrants but into the same system. It is a question of wise reform of existing policies and implementing new ones.

I am no wiser after reading that. You hope to change something in Finnish system somehow while receiving even more refugees and immigrants. I just don't see how this all comes together. Could you be more specific about your master plan?

[Julmuri]

..making the same old mistake of confusing refugees with asylum SEEKERS, who are not necessarily refugees. They are, indeed, SEEKERS. And indeed, the directive DOES NOT oblige us to accept asylum seekers and give all of them 'protection',

Indeed not. And that is a basic fact that should not be confused.

My stress is on those who come from non-refoulement countries and whether they are justified for refugee status

The so called "non-refoulement" countries differ a lot even between Sweden and Finland. So the criteria for non-refoulement is basically what we ourselves want it to be. It is clear to me that there is no obligation to "non-refoulement" just because there is/might be a state of war. Some "third world bla bla blaa comission's" intrepretation of international law doesnt bind us to a thing.

In your links I find a lot of political approach to the issue and very little legally binding facts, one link didnt work at all. So, as I was saying there is no legal obligation to not to deport somebody just because his/her country may be in a state of war. Of course there can be other aspects of war which make asylum seekers application acceptable.

The principle of non-refoulement applies to e.g. Somalia and Afghanistan, and refugees from those countries are considered prima facie refugees.

There are not any universally recognised international organ which forbids us deport people back to Somalia or Afganistan. I clearly see why you left Iraq out of your list.

But lets look once again the convention itself, not any politically motivated interpretation about it but the convention itself:

Definition of a Refugee

Article 1 of the Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol provides the definition of a refugee:
"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."[1]

So "state of war" itself doesnt give you any rights. Kiko conviently ignored what I said about Sweden and Switzerland in the second world war. It would have been a national disaster for them to accept any european citizen based on a "non-refoulement" principle. Of course you can argue that the human rights system we know today was made largely after and because of the second world war but it still doesnt change the basic principles of nations. Those principles include for example that you are not automatically entitled to free living for the rest of your days in some country just because you from country X or Y.

And that is why our new immigration law sucks. It gives rights to people with vaguely modified "humanitarian protection due to a poor security situation" (I translated from memory only, so actual text may differ but I think the message is correct).

[RP]

Yes, and their number has been... In 2000 nine (9) and in 2008 eighty nine (89)

(Favourable decisions, category 'asylum'). Please, "you have no idea what you are talking about" is not probably very constructive argument in any case, but even less so if you don't have the basic facts right.

Do people just refuse to read my words or what´s the problem?

The problem is that you do not seem to actually read what copy paste here:
But let's try one more time step by step:

I have already previously put it here quite clearly, that those who have been granted asylum are refugees:

Those who have been granted asylum are refugees - that is correct

"REFUGEE STATUS

Refugee status is granted to the following people:
An alien who has been granted asylum in Finland

Yes, as I pointed with statistics from Migri, this a number that varied between 8 and 89 annually during years 2000-2008.

An alien who has been issued a residence permit on the basis of refugee status and admitted to Finland within the refugee quota

Yes, these, currently 750 annually, are refugees although not asylum seekers any more (as they have permits before entering the Finland in the first place)

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."

= family members of the said 750 + 89 (in 2008). Again, they apply for their permits before entering Finland and are not at least technically asylum seekers.

And take a good note: This is where the list ends. These, and only these people of all those given a residence permit in Finland on humanitarian grounds are refugees.

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.

In other words, as stated so many times before, refugee is a generic term for those who have been granted asylum.

And that is number that has been varying (trend is pointing up) between few and few dozen a year. Additionally there are the quota refugees and the family members of the two groups.

In the statistics, the different protection statuses given have different labels, one of them also being 'asylum' as a generic term, compared to e.g. subsidiary protection. Yet all these are under the same heading: asylum. It is circular, yes, but that's just the way it is.

It only looks circular because you desperately try to twist the definitions to match what you falsely claimed here. Most of those asylum seekers that get a residence permit, get one despite they do not match terms of Geneva convention and are therefore not in the eyes of the law (bot Finnish and international) refugees.

Obviously I was referring to official labels. Anyway humanitarian trumps economic -> a refugee coming from a non-refoulement country is first and foremost a humanitarian migrant, whether or not he applies to Finland for economic benefits he would not get in Ethiopia.

He was safe in safe in Ethiopia. What was lacking was the level of social security enabling him and the family live nicely 'free' (= without earned income).

[I Work in Asylum System]

Apologies for delay, I am frankly losing my interest in participating in this conversation as it keeps on going in circles, but I should keep my promise and comment:

In your links I find a lot of political approach to the issue and very little legally binding facts, one link didnt work at all. So, as I was saying there is no legal obligation to not to deport somebody just because his/her country may be in a state of war. Of course there can be other aspects of war which make asylum seekers application acceptable.

There are not any universally recognised international organ which forbids us deport people back to Somalia or Afganistan. I clearly see why you left Iraq out of your list.

I didn't leave Iraq from the list 'on purpose'. You can read on Iraq for example here:
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/11/26/stuck-revolving-door-0

The international organ you are referring to that forbids deportation to countries with a situation such as Somalia or Afghanistan IS the UN General Assembly and its commitment to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.

If you are referring to enforcements, you should know that in international law no such things as enforcement tools in national law exist. It does not nevertheless make international law useless or without any authority, as you should know.

The legal obligation not to act refoulement stands UNLESS:
"Article 33 (2) of the 1951 Convention provides that the benefit of the non-refoulement principle may not be claimed by a refugee 'whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country ... or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country'. This means in essence that refugees can exceptionally be returned on two grounds: (i) in case of threat to the national security of the host country; and (ii) in case their proven criminal nature and record constitute a danger to the community. The various elements of these extreme and exceptional circumstances need, however, to be interpreted.

For Article 33 (2) to apply, therefore, it is generally agreed that the crime itself must be of a very grave nature. UNHCR has recommended that such measures should only be considered when one or several convictions are symptomatic of the basically criminal, incorrigible nature of the person and where other measures, such as detention, assigned residence or resettlement in another country are not practical to prevent him or her from endangering the community. Read in conjunction with Articles 31 and 32 of the 1951 Convention, a State should allow a refugee a reasonable period of time and all necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country, and initiate refoulement only when all efforts to obtain admission into another country have failed."

So "state of war" itself doesnt give you any rights. Kiko conviently ignored what I said about Sweden and Switzerland in the second world war.

Sorry I'm too lazy to go through old posts but I don't remember what you're referring to about S&S, in any case you're right: state of war in itself doesn't give prima facie a refugee status: i.e. in the beginning of the 20th century over 90% of war victims were combatants - today it's mostly the civilians who suffer. The nature of war has changed, so has the nature of our responsibility with regards to those civilians who are under the special threats mentioned before.

It would have been a national disaster for them to accept any european citizen based on a "non-refoulement" principle. Of course you can argue that the human rights system we know today was made largely after and because of the second world war but it still doesnt change the basic principles of nations.

I couldn´t disagree with you more: ever since the birth of the UN and the concept of humanitarian interventions, the 'basic principles of nations' have changed dramatically: sovereignty does not trump human rights anymore. Nations and nation-states are changing, and adapting to the required duties and rights applicable today.

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=438c6d972

[I Work in Asylum System]

= family members of the said 750 + 89 (in 2008). Again, they apply for their permits before entering Finland and are not at least technically asylum seekers.

And take a good note: This is where the list ends. These, and only these people of all those given a residence permit in Finland on humanitarian grounds are refugees.

Copy and paste from my old comment:

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

Additionally there are the quota refugees and the family members of the two groups.

Indeed.

It only looks circular because you desperately try to twist the definitions to match what you falsely claimed here. Most of those asylum seekers that get a residence permit, get one despite they do not match terms of Geneva convention and are therefore not in the eyes of the law (bot Finnish and international) refugees.

How have I tried to twist any definitions, by copy and pasting from Migri's website?? :0

Residence permit is not the same as protection. Some asylum seekers who are not refugees get other types of permits to reside in the country. Therefore they are not refugees.

I repeat my earlier comments: my talks about deportation applies to REFUGEES. Those who are NOT refugees can be deported, and perhaps should under certain circumstances. Just like I have said BEFORE.

He was safe in safe in Ethiopia. What was lacking was the level of social security enabling him and the family live nicely 'free' (= without earned income).

Ethiopia has been in a state where non-refoulement applied, even if not today. In addition, asylum can be granted on individual basis - and IS granted as such - to persons from any country where they are under threat. People from all over the world have been granted asylum for political reasons from China to Cuba, from Nigeria to Russia.




Was that it? Or has everyone real arguments against mine, that would seriously undermine the principles I have supported here? Or shall we consider the discussion over, as this is going in circles and not leading anywhere?

[RP]

Copy and paste from my old comment:

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

Of which number of granted asylums, for those fulfilling the requirements set by Geneva convention on refugees: 0 (zero). (actually there were two granted asylums for Somali asylum seekers in 2009, but you were quoting actually from 2008 figures so I continued from there)

Ethiopia has been in a state where non-refoulement applied, even if not today.

And some time previously that would have applied to Germany, but with present applications lets talk about present day.

In addition, asylum can be granted on individual basis - and IS granted as such - to persons from any country where they are under threat. People from all over the world have been granted asylum for political reasons from China to Cuba, from Nigeria to Russia.

Yes, but in very small numbers and extremely rarely to the most populous humanitarian group here, the Somalis.

Was that it? Or has everyone real arguments against mine, that would seriously undermine the principles I have supported here? Or shall we consider the discussion over, as this is going in circles and not leading anywhere?

Actually, I had been planning the comment on some of the other issues in your postings, but I thought you had left for good. Won't do it perhaps today, but in a few days time...