Halla-aho: Outlining the immigration politics, part 1: Concepts

[AstaTTT]

Ilman tyylejä sun muuta, käännetty ja oikoluettu - voisiko joku katsoa tuoreemmilla aivoilla, mitä vihreitä sieltä löytyy, kiitos! Kun teksti on kunnossa, siitä piti tehdä stikki tai jotain.  

Edit: linkki alkuperäiseen.
http://www.halla-aho.com/scripta/maahanmuuttopolitiikan_hahmottelua_osa1.html
---

5.12.2008

Outlining the immigration politics, part 1: Concepts

Introduction

I have lately received exceptionally much (friendly) feedback wishing concrete proposals as to what immigration and social integration should be in my opinion. My practice to criticize the prevailing politics and the ideology behind it have perhaps molded an image of me as a complainer who lacks his own, constructive ideas.

In my opinion, this criticism is not entirely true or justified:

a) The society, and especially the political elite and media, are not ready for constructive, corrective proposals because they have not even admitted that a problem exists. It is mere shouting in the wind to suggest medicines to cure a bag of problems called "immigration" if your counterpart does not see "immigration" as a problem to be solved but as something that is "natural, inevitable and wonderful". I have focused on criticizing the immigration politics and its effects to wake people up to realize that we have a problem. How we should handle the problem is a question of the next level.

b) Immigration is a problem whether or not I possess the means to solve it. Often the means can be found by studying the problem. Therefore digging into the flaws of immigration politics and multiculturalism is quite constructive work on which we can plan real solutions (meaning, aimed directly at the problem) instead of quasi solutions. Those who blame me for lacking the willingness to co-create often have their own co-creation and concreteness at the level of "multiculturalism is possible if we see it as an opportunity instead of a threat, and if we manage to empower the immigrants". What is this rhetoric supposed to mean? How do you put it into practice?

In this essay I attempt to outline a kind of reverse abstract of everything that I have written so far. ("Reverse" in the sense that I bring forth concrete actions to rectify and ward off such flaws and threats that I have discussed in my earlier essays.) A voiced list of actions is in due order, because in the current situation the resistance is not aimed directly at my opinions but rather at the comic strips created based on them ("Why does Halla-aho want to deport all the bus drivers of Helsinki?!? Why does Halla-aho want to outlaw practicing Islam?!? Why does Halla-aho want to force all immigrants to eat sausage and dance Humppa?!?") I hope that through this draft plan the conversation/quarreling can move on from the travesty to actual values and views.

Even when the problems of immigration and multiculturalism are widely acknowledged, all concrete proposals for action are typically rejected using one of the following arguments:

a) "Finland has agreed in international treaties to this and that. Cannot be implemented."

b) "If Finland would do this or that, Finland would lose its face and become a castaway state/North Korea/whatever."

It is a regrettable fact that Finland is not well known in the world. Therefore Finland does not really have a face that it could lose, no matter what it did in its immigration politics. Finland is known in the world about as well as Bhutan. Nobody cares what happens here.

Regardless, I embrace such proposals that on the one hand do not contradict Finland's international treaties, and on the other have been implemented in a country that is not regarded as a disreputable castaway state/North Korea/whatever.

I will discuss three questions below: 1) Terms frequently used in immigration conversations and their misinterpretations. 2) How to control immigration? 3) How should the immigrants be integrated?

1. Terms

It may seem as splitting hair to talk about terms and terminology, but the greatest obstacle for fact-based immigration conversation is that terms are mixed by mistake and deliberately. The term "immigration" includes subcategories that have very little to do with each other and which should not be mixed.
An example:

- Immigrants that have no cause to seek asylum need to be removed from the country.
- No can do, Finland needs immigrants!!
- Is that so?
- Most of my fellow engineers are from India!!

I propose the following definitions for the following terms:

* Immigrant: A person born outside the country borders, who moves to the country for whatever reason and intends to stay permanently.

* Immigrant of an alien origin: An immigrant's child who is either born in Finland or moved in it when very young. I count adopted children outside this category; they are Finnish and they should not be told otherwise.

I do not have a clear view on how and at what point of time an immigrant community becomes a "domestic" ethnic minority. I do, however, see clearly that for example the Tatars, Jews or Romanians are not to be considered immigrants of alien origin.

* Multiculture: A situation in which culturally different and internally culturally bound groups of people live within one society.

* Multiculturalism: An ideology that views multiculture primarily as enrichment; that supports active formation, growth and sustenance of multiculture; and sees multiculture at least as one argument for immigration.

The existence of a multicultural ideology is widely denied, although the theses I propose above to define it have gained wide support. To name them as an ideological thesis confronts resistance probably because they are regarded as undeniable axioms such as the Earth circles the Sun. They do, however, need to be held ideological, because there is little proof of the enriching effect of multiculture.

Whereas of the three first terms and their definitions most probably agree with in theory. In practice the words "immigrant", "immigrant of alien origin" and "multiculturalism" however nowadays mean something else. We can approach the subject through examples. The newspaper Helsingin Sanomat writes on the 12th of November 2008 that...

"...Elisabeth Nauclér who represents Ahvenanmaa is an emigrant from Sweden but there are no "actual" immigrant members of parliament with an alien origin in the parliament. [...] Closest to the parliamentary seat was, in the election of the year 2007, the Green Party's Zahra Abdulla who missed only a few hundred votes to be elected.

The way I interpret the wording is that an anonymous reporter declines Nauclér being an immigrant of an alien origin based on intuition. Because s/he cannot determine why Nauclér is less immigrant of an alien origin than Abdulla, s/he puts the word "actual" in quotes to be on the safe side.

Discussing the same subject in a piece of news by MTV3.fi, the following was noted:

"The first black president has just been elected in the United States, but in Finland that considers itself advanced, there still are no immigrant members of parliament of an alien origin."
Based on the above definition Ben Zyskowicz is of an alien origin because his father is an immigrant. Zysse himself, according to varying versions, either moved here as a new-born or made it just in time to be born here.

What, then, is an "actual" immigrant if Zahra Abdulla is one but Elisabeth Nauclér is not? Is the "being actual" based on the reason that led to immigration (work-based immigration vs. a refugee), skin color (white vs. dark), religion (Christian/Atheist vs. Muslim) or the distance of the original country (Sweden vs. Africa)? Or does Abdulla possess some other "qualities of being actual" that Nauclér lacks?

In the same manner it is seen that the process of becoming multicultural is only beginning, although Finland has throughout times housed clearly original minority cultures (Finnish Swedes, Romanis, Tatars, Jews, the Sami people) as well as religious diversity (Evangelic-Lutherans, Pentecostals, Laestadians, Greek Catholics, Jews, Muslim Tatars).

Therefore the problem is that when we talk about "immigrants" or "multiculturalism", we refer to a certain type of immigrants and certain type of multiculturalism. Even a bigger problem is that a faction worshipping others because of their otherness, a.k.a. multiculturalists, deceitfully use the term "immigrant" in both the wide and the narrow ("actual") sense. They want "actual" immigrants in the country, such as Abdulla, not the "un-actual" ones that Nauclér represents, but because it would be difficult to market the need for "actuals" to the large audience, their immigration is justified by the (real) benefits brought forth by the "un-actuals":

- Finland needs a lot of immigrants (narrow sense)
- How come?
- Are you saying that Finland has not benefited from Karl Fazer and James Finlayson (wide sense)?
- Mmm, I guess so...
- So Finland needs immigrants (narrow sense)!!
A recent example of stretching and twisting the term "immigrant" was received when the Mayor of Helsinki, Jussi Pajunen, quite rationally required adjusting the number of received immigrants to match Finland's capability to receive immigrants.

Pajunen's opening invoked for example this reaction.

Sirkku Päivärinne, Director of Immigration Affairs in the Ministry of the Interior, does not share Jussi Pajunen's requirements to match the number of immigrants to Finland's capability to receive them.
It feels very strange that an officer of the ministry thinks Finland should receive immigrants more than it can handle.

The real pearl of thoughts comes from the Minister of Migration and European Affairs, Astrid Thors:

"The constructors of the Chemical Agency to be set up in Helsinki are immigrants as are the asylum seekers. Unfortunately Pajunen counts all those who move to Finland into one group of immigrants."
Without emphasizing the detail that the foreign constructors of the Chemical Agency are not immigrants but foreigners working on a secondment, we understand that by talking of the number of immigrants and Finland's capability of receiving them, Pajunen meant the "actual" immigrants. The ones that mainly burden the receiving society. "Actuals" are the ones that Thors wants in Finland, but because you cannot really justify the immigration, especially at the doorstep of a threatening recession (other than them being so cute), the "un-actual" immigrants, in this case the construction workers of the Chemical Agency, are saddled to make a case. Finland needs them, and because they (according to Thors) are immigrants, the conclusion is that Finland needs immigrants. After this brain stretcher the word "immigrant" is returned back the the primary, narrow, "actual" meaning.

According to Thors, "the concept of immigrant needs to be widened. I disagree. We rather need to clarify the term to know what we talk about, and to make it impossible for the thorses to switch the topic in the middle of the sentence because the term is currently so confusing and stretchy. I propose the following categorization for discourse (the categories can be named differently):

Immigration1 = IMM1: Work-based immigration. Means that a foreigner gets a job or becomes an entrepreneur. Unfortunately terms such as "work-related" and "work-based" have become mockery because they are often used to refer to essentially humanitarian immigration where Finland recruits unemployed workers to live on the labor market support. Cf. Member of Parliament Sari Palmin's (Christian Democrats) written query on the 26th of August, 2008:

As it is recorded into the Government Program, while our population is quickly aging we need to improve the growth of work-based immigration in many ways. [...] When a work-based immigrant is granted the residence permit, the immigrant can sign in at an employment office as an unemployed seeker of work. It is often impossible to receive the labor market support because according to the Employment and Economic Development Office and The Social Insurance Institution of Finland the immigrants must have been available for the labor market at least six weeks during the six months prior to receiving the residence permit, unless the absence can be proficiently explained."

I see it quite grotesque that in a situation where "Finland needs" work-based immigration, the essential problem is the difficulty of becoming eligible for the labor market support.

IMM1 category excludes all those immigrants whose employment requires intervention by the public authority (e.g. quotas, positive discrimination, empowerment courses).

IMM1 needs to be divided into two subcategories, IMM1/a and IMM1/b:

IMM1/a: citizens of the EU and the European Economic Area. No action needed.

IMM1/b: people coming from outside the EU and the European Economic Area. Coming to work and starting a business needs to be basically unobstructed. We should, however, practice reciprocity in that Finland treats nation X's citizens the same way the nation X treats Finnish citizens.

With the exception that IMM1 must categorically not load Finland's public sector in any way, it must not lead to the landing of a third world work ethics in Finland. For example the success of many ethnic restaurants is based on their proven price/quality/amount ratio, but this competitive advantage must not be based on a systematic tax evasion or the restaurant being run by a group of free or meal paid slave work force.

While IMM1 needs to be primarily as free as possible, large scale immigration import must not be used to lower salaries even if there are no relevant negative effects to the public sector. If for example nurses trained in Finland move to Sweden, Norway and Britain, the problem lies elsewhere than in the availability of work force, and it should not be solved by bringing in Philippian, cheaper nurses.

IMM1 can include in addition to the actual work emigration all kind of immigration that does not cause expenses to the receiving society. The immigrant can, for example, have the right to bring in the number of relatives s/he wishes, selected by his/her own criteria, but their entrance to social benefits should be restricted through a long waiting period. They are primarily the responsibility of the family member who immigrated to the country.

Immigration2 = IMM2: Humanitarian immigration. All immigration that does not cause positive or neutral cost effect to the Finnish society, and which Finland therefore can not perceive as beneficial. Divided into two subcategories:

IMM2/a: Asylum seekers and their families.

IMM2/b: Other immigrants moving to country for humane reasons, e.g. married to a Finn, in the case when employment is not the objective.

Once again it is to be emphasized that almost all problems of immigration are related to IMM2, as is the case with almost all dissatisfaction and criticism towards the immigration politics. In the circles of power there is obvious resistance to admit this fact. The fact that IMM1 benefits Finland is no justification for IMM2. On the other hand, if someone criticizes IMM2, it does not mean that s/he is objecting IMM1. They are completely different issues and they should be managed in different places (e.g. Ministry of Employment and Economy vs. Ministry of the Interior) and using different methods.

We need to say out loud the starting point that although IMM1 can enrich Finland and although Finland may need IMM1, IMM2 is not a fortune for Finland. The case of IMM2 is based on the needs of the immigrants, not the needs of Finland or Finns. IMM2 is computationally harmful, and we need to start a discourse on how harmful is it allowed to be and how to eliminate the harm.

The next issue will propose concrete solutions of how to organize IMM2.

[MaisteriT]

Mites olisiko Roma tai Romani (people) soveliaampi kuin Romanian, joka viittaa lähinnä romanialaiseen eikä romaneihin?

[AstaTTT]

Mites olisiko Roma tai Romani (people) soveliaampi kuin Romanian, joka viittaa lähinnä romanialaiseen eikä romaneihin?

Romani. Kiitos! 

[Frank Grimes]

En aivan loppuun asti päässyt, ihan hyvältä vaikuttaa. Tässä muutamia ehdotuksia:

Vaihtaisin sanan whiner => complainer.

"Therefore digging into the flaws of immigration politics and multiculturalism is quite constructive work on which we can plan real (meaning, aimed directly at the problem) instead of quasi solutions." => tästä puuttuu sana

laittaisin sanan real perään sanan solutions koska muuten lause on hyvin vaikeasti ymmärrettävä.

"It is a regrettable fact that Finland is not much known in the world." => olisiko well known parempi? (very well known)

[Frank Grimes]

"MTV3.fi discussing the same subject writes this:", olisiko tämä parempi?

"Discussing the same subject in a piece of news by MTV3.fi, the following was noted:"

[MMA]

MM1 can include in...

IMM1

"Banana paid" jotenkin särähti korvaan. Vaikka se onkin suora käännös, niin laittaisin tuon silti vaikka "paid in food" tms.

[AstaTTT]

Hyvä ja kiitos kommenteista; kerätään näitä hetki niin saadaan konsensus.

[Goman]

"my fellow engineers are Indians!!"

Meikäläinen pottunokka epäilee että insinöörit ovat intiaaneja? Eivät taida olla, vaan people of India , tai coming from India.

Sinänsä huonoin mahdollinen kansallisuus esimerkiksi, siis kääntämisen kannalta.

[Frank Grimes]

MM1 can include in...

IMM1

"Banana paid" jotenkin särähti korvaan. Vaikka se onkin suora käännös, niin laittaisin tuon silti vaikka "paid in food" tms.

Samaa mieltä, koko lause kaipaisi pientä hiomista. "free or banana paid slave work force".

Varsin ymmärrettävää tekstiähän tuo on ilman korjauksiakin.

[Frank Grimes]

"so is almost all dissatisfaction and criticism towards the immigration politics."

olisiko tuo parempi muodossa "as is the case with.."?

muuten tuo olisi suomeksi "joten on melkein kaikki".

[AstaTTT]

Korjaukset tehty, kommentoijille suuri kiitos!