Hommaforum Testi

NICOLAI SENNELS: AMONG CRIMINAL MUSLIMS
Critique and Commentary by Kiko Kennels
_________________________________________

NOTE: comments to this thread in English only. A Finnish translation of the interview can be found here:

http://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,20165.0.html


This is a comment-under-quote critique of Sennels' interview, inspired by someone who asked for the reasons I find Sennels a pseudo psychologist. I apologize for a lot of repetition, sporadic side-tracks, ridiculously complicated sentences, some simplicities, satiric or sarcastic comments and harmless generalizations to make my point as clear as possible. This is not supposed to be an academic reply, but my initial thoughts when reading this interview late in the evening. I wish to point out as well, that I am not a fully fledged academic yet myself, being just a Master's student on my final year, but have researched and worked in the area for some years. I'm sure I have omitted something, or have not clarified clearly enough. Sorry for this. Hope you'll get some sense out of my text.  ;D

QuoteNicolai, can you give a short version of your life story?

I was born in 1976 and grew up far out in the countryside in Denmark. During my studies in Copenhagen I worked as a social worker with teenagers. I also worked as a semi-professional rock musician for a couple of years while studying psychology at the university. I have worked with troubled youngsters all my adult life. It has always been very easy for me to like them, connect to them and help them. I have developed new kinds of therapies, especially for Muslims, and my methods have been mentioned positively in several professional magazines, newspapers and on the radio.

The professionality of this writer seems to me unproven. I have not been able to find any concrete evidence of the positive feedback given by established academics or professionals. In fact, all references I have found to this fellow seem to link directly or indirectly to conservative right-wing people, blogs, websites and magazines. Those few outside extreme political right seem to view him with ridicule. Whatever he considers as 'professional' media is perhaps 'professional' in terms of politics, but very little in terms of psychology or social sciences.

Besides, as an off-hand note, as far as I understand, his degree is an 'authorized candidate psychologist', which in Denmark means only 1y of studies in psychology, and 1 year of work practice. Do you think one could be a professional in psychology in one year? - When other people study from 5-7 years to become psychologists or psychiatrists? This already should show how not everything the guy says should be swallowed – of course not all Doctors and Professors are necessarily right either, but argumentation is essentially a 'skill' and a 'method' developed and learned especially in higher education – which is why both Sennels himself and most of his readers – sorry but it's true – lack the 'skill'. Of course this should not be held against him, as only his arguments in themselves should be the target. I merely wish to point out that many people claim to be professionals, but it takes quite a bit to actually be one. How old is the guy anyway?

QuoteWhen did your interest in integration and Islam start?

Ten years ago we had a horrible case in Denmark. Four young Muslim boys dragged a young woman by her hair all through the biggest shopping street – Strøget – in Copenhagen and tried to rape her. Even though she was screaming and it was clear that something was terribly wrong, nobody did anything to stop it. Imagine that: a young woman being dragged through the most busy street in Denmark – with lots of bystanders – and nobody tries to stop it. Not actively trying to stop a bad thing happening – even if you risk that your collegues, friends or family think critically about you or you may get yourself a blue eye – is probably the worst thing one can do to one's own self-confidence, personal ethics and humanistic values. If we are only willing to help the weak when it is without any risk for ourselves, we are useless cowards. Today this help is not so often physical – even though all men should learn to fight, either in martial arts or in the territorial army

Even though this does not relate directly to the topic and is a very personal standpoint, I cannot help but wonder the background of this statement. This by no means should be taken as granted; I wonder if this does not correlate nicely with another extremism – absolute pacifism. Not that I don't value martial arts in general - did them myself at some point - but I generally dislike anything absolute and extreme.

Quote– but intellectual. Writing letters to newspapers, blogs, telling one's honest thoughts when the talk on Islam or immigration starts in the lunch break at work – all this is very helpful. Being passive while women are treated bad and failed integration threatens to drag down our cultural values and welfare societies is failing to live up to our responsibility as humans. Especially men should take their role as protector of women very seriously.

Anyway, as most other Danish, I was shocked about the rape story. Both the brutality and the fact that nobody helped that poor woman was devastating to me.

I remember many years back an incident in the central railway station in Helsinki, where a white, Finnish born woman was raped by a white, Finnish born man – behind a statue in the very middle of the square, late, but a busy Friday (?) night. The woman had screamed for help – no one had come to rescue. Another event reminded me of a woman (?) who in the middle of the same square, daytime, attempted to stab her boyfriend in a crazy fit – she actually succeeded to stab him a few times before anyone (guard?) came to stop her. They were native Finnish. How many times has Sennels himself ignored similar events, when he suddenly 'wakes up' as soon as this brutality is done by a Muslim?

QuoteBefore this incident my ears were closed to those who critizised Islam and Muslim immigration but from then on I started listening with a more serious attitude. At that time I was still sure that successful integration was just a matter of time and that social injustice was the main responsible for the ethnic tensions. I was also too nervous about getting criticized to share my worries with others.

Doesn't sound he really believed in what he said he believed before, if he had 'worries he couldn't share.' But anyway...

QuoteToday things are different: I no longer vote for the Social Democrats. I also no longer care what people think of my opinions about Muslim culture etc. I am also no longer passive - I feel a responsibility for defending suppressed Muslim women, our freedoms and for showing people that we can say exactly what we think about Islam and Muslim immigration.

By the way, just as a footnote: it accidentally turned out that three of these four Muslim boys were sentenced to live for a period at the institution where I worked at that time. Confused, insecure young men with the too typical Muslim male chauvanistic attitude and strong victim mentality and no real values in life except getting as much as they could with as little effort as possible.

While the previous sentence could be understood in two ways; as associating all afore-mentioned factors as 'typical Muslim', or merely describing general victim mentality or value-vacuum, I feel the need to point out a couple of things;

'Typical Muslim male chauvinism' – although undeniably present in Islamic societies, let us not forget the presence of male chauvinism in most non-Muslim cultures, such as; Hindus, Latinos, Pacific Ocean nations, many Asian nations (incl. traditional Confucian traditions), and, lo and behold, the West! In fact, through my travels around the world I have witnessed in my own eyes, how some females of some latino nations have less freedom and rights than some Muslim women of some Islamic countries, and many traditions associated most often with Muslims can be found in other cultures (e.g. forced marriages of young girls are still practiced in some parts of South America, as of course in the Pacific, India, China, etc., and FGM itself preceded Islam and is also done by e.g. animists, etc). And, not wishing to offend any latinos or hindus, I have felt much more unsafe, and have experienced much more mental and physical breaches of personal space, in e.g. India and South America, than in those Muslim countries where I have traveled. Those friends or colleagues of mine having lived in the worst parts of the Middle East, generally feel the same. So I would, in no circumstances, associate chauvinism solely with Islam, or in any way more integrated into Islam than into many other cultures.

Also, maybe you would like to know that Islam prohibits forced marriage of girls. – this does not mean of course that it's not extremely common, and unfortunately so, but don't mistake a tradition that preceded the Prophet as the words of himself, when Quran actually prohibits forced marriages:

"No father or mother or any close relation can force his/her children to marry any one against their free will and consent"
"No female whether a widow or divorcee will be forced to marry any one unless her express and categorical consent has been freely taken and in the same way a woman not previously married can never be forced to marry anyone unless her free consent and permission is taken"
Source: Sahih Al-Bukhari

The point is that there is no 'Muslim culture'. There is 'Somali culture', 'Ethiopian culture', 'Saudi culture', 'Malay culture', and within these cultures, many other subcultures. Traditions and tribal customs are deeply integrated into many of these culture's Islamic practices, but it is not Islam itself – and not all Muslims either. Again, Sennels' experiences are limited to only a couple of these different Muslim 'cultures'.

I will repeat this many times, but Muslims are not only 'one' culture; they hold a variety of cultures, traditions, subgroups, identities, languages, histories.... Just like Western nations. The traditions of one Muslim group – e.g. Somalis from Mogadishu – varies greatly from others – Saudis, or Muslims in Indonesia, Uighurs in China, etc. etc. Would you say that Italians are like Danish? Or that Mexicans are like Peruvians? Of course not!

...if Sennels were against some of these groups, I would take him more seriously (probably not...), but as he is declaring against all Muslims and the Muslim Culture, I find his generalizations ridiculous. A professional of Muslim youth, who knows nothing about Islam?? – even less than a post-grad like me!

'Strong victim mentality' – although I agree with this from first-hand experience, let me give a perspective on this, before anyone hurries to associate this too strongly on 'Muslim immigrants'; victim mentality is common among most – or all - marginalised groups, whether it be non-Muslim refugees, Romas, Russians in Finland, Samis, drug abusers, alcoholics, criminals..... and yes, almost all have some degree of victim mentality! Have you not heard an alcoholic uncle excuse his addiction by blaming the society? How is it in any way surprising, that the most marginalized people in Finland – black asylum seekers from Muslim countries traumatized by a long chain of tragic life events – have a strong victim mentality?

'No real values...etc' – this sounds like my two brothers, in capital letters (don't tell me 'oh but your brothers haven't done this and this'... as you have no idea!)! Come on, Sennels is a psychologist for disturbed children, and how many of them are not like he is describing?! Again; not only are we talking here about young people in general, we are also talking of children – you know, like Little John or Little Tao - with severe problems. I just want to remind everyone not to associate this story to Muslim background per se, as the Muslim identity the boys carry is just one of very many different identities (not the least important being war-children!) – use your imagination, I'm sure you can come up a few on your own!

QuoteTell us about your conflict with the municipality of Copenhagen.

Well, after working for several years with both Danish and Muslim children and teenagers, it was very clear to me that there are certain very deep psychological differences between these two cultures. These differences are without doubt so deep that Muslims will have to leave many of their core values behind if they are to integrate in our societies and feel Danish, Finnish, German, etc.

This I will not deny; integration / assimilation always entails a certain degree of change in one's values – whether it be 'our' values or 'their' values! Whether these are core values or not, depends on the person; one's core value might be 'love', another's 'dignity', (whatever a 'core value' even means...) but this is not necessarily linked to religion or tradition – although in many cases it is.
...Yet in this thought pattern I find a couple of problems:

'if they are to integrate...' – implies only a one-way model of integration; they come into our 'bubble'. Of course it is very problematic to see integration as only a one way street; rather, the bubbles should 'merge', or the horizons 'overlap' to some extent. I do not believe people have the skill, or even the will, to drop their values to the basket like candy wraps. 'Change' in this respect would probably mean more something like changes in priorities – something the receiving country also has to do to make integration possible.

'to feel Danish, Finnish...' – this is a matter of opinion, but knowing first hand many people with two, three, even four nationalities, the way these people answer to the question 'where are you from', varies greatly – independently of the country of origin. I mean, an Indonesian living in Australia for five years already feels more Australian than Indonesian. A Finnish having lived in South Africa all her life doesn't think of herself as Finnish – and doesn't speak the language. An Ethiopian born in Sweden says he is Ethiopian – an Eritrean in Italy for 10 years says he is Italian. An Assyrian with a good self-confidence answers that 'I'm an Assyrian born Muslim grown up in Sweden and living in Malta – you choose!'. The point is, integration is not necessarily about 'feeling' anything (in terms of nationalities). This should not be a goal, or it becomes a self-imprisoning value, something that might end up preventing integration rather than supporting it. Different concepts should always be put to question and revised if needed.

QuoteAs a psychologist with special knowledge about criminality and foreigners I was invited by Copenhagen's mayor of integration to participate in a conference on integration at the city hall. The discussion was about criminal foreigners, foreigners and integration, foreigners and terror, foreigners and parallel societies, etc. I got irritated about the way the discussion went, because everybody generalized all foreigners as if they came from the same culture.

I find it quite amusing that Sennels himself does exactly the same – generalizes all Muslims as if they came from the same 'culture'!

QuoteI argued that the main part of the problematic foreigners have Muslim background and that we should discuss the meaning of culture when trying to find causes and solutions.

Sennels doesn't really seem to be discussing it either. Culture! What is it? I could write a book about this, but I just want to say the following – not related to Sennels directly, but directed to the readers of Hommaforum more specifically; the problem with conservatives or traditionalists is their emphasis on the notion of culture, without even necessarily knowing what it is. There are many cultures within cultures – a culture within a culture within a culture. Cultures overlap. Cultures are also more and more transnational – a subculture of a music style extends across all nations, while a culture of, let's say, the Sami, is limited to a more territorial one. Cultures change. Cultures are born, they disappear. Cultures are eternally self-morphing, almost organic entities that shrink and expand, twist and whirl, and exist into ad infinitum. If one wants to put emphasis on a protection of a 'Culture', he must find a way to resist this ad infinitum. One must somehow resist this natural change and transformation, revision and redefinition, deconstruction and reconstuction of his Culture. He must justify the arbitrary borders of nation-states if he is to link his Culture and language with a specific nation-state. He must somehow prevent the stone from rolling, isolate the Culture from other influences and hope that it will stay the same. How to do this, and with what cost, is another question.

Rather....one should not ignore the common qualities between other 'cultures', and most surely not ignore other identities that an individual might possess. It could be seen quite arrogant for a conservative to tell me on my behalf that my culture is for me more important than, let's say, my need to help the refugees. My culture is not a universal value – such as a right to live, which none of us can really deny – so it should not take priority over the latter. Also, like said, cultures do change and disappear! Finnish culture is not what it was before, and what it was before then. And are we that much worse off? Who is to really say that the 'next' Finnish 'culture' is not as functioning or stable, or even 'better' than the current? This is something the conservative right hasn't been able to answer, even though the whole history shows the contrary!

In other words, even though you readers of the Hommaforum probably feel as 'obvious' that Finnish culture is.... (what?), and needs to be protected (..from what?), and you take your 'culture' as granted, remember that there are others who do not! In fact, there are reasons why your standpoint is viewed as.. conservative... ;)

If you now sigh and shake your head in disbelief that someone could be so ignorant as to not value our 'culture' and 'heritage', do not misunderstand me; a person can be very fascinated about Finnish history and culture, have studied it quite a bit, feel deep nostalgia for past times, honour the fallen, celebrate our independence – and yet, a person can question the dusty, worn-out idea of 'protecting our common culture and heritage'.

..back to the topic before I get off track...

QuoteThis was far too strong for both the mayor and most of the people attending the conference. Another discussion at the conference was that we should try to help criminal foreigners find peace in their life by inviting them to become more religious. Here I reminded the mayor and the others about the many passages in the Quran that actually bid Muslims to do criminal acts – and that several Mosques in Copenhagen are known to be very extremistic. Again this was more than the politicians could handle.

Obviously, as it is not in any way a Truth. Regardless that Sennels is not a scholar of Islam, or any other related field, and just because he has interpreted his Quran – and the commentaries of other biased interpreters that European public discourse is currently infested with – from his own agenda, does not make this a valid claim!

I would love Sennels to show us the passages in Quran he feels directly bid to do criminal acts? Or could he be referring to certain Islamists who have done their own Tafshir (=Scholarly interpretation of Islamic texts, a method encouraged by some to modernizise Islam, and something rejected by the Prophet himself to avoid wrong, and lethal misinterpretations of his words) to drive their own agenda? Certainly, some traditions in Islamic countries – such as chopping of a thief's hand, are criminal to us, and surely the Saudis who come to Europe should not be allowed to do this (and I wish Saudis will stop the practice soon), but this does not make it integrated into Islam (in fact, this tradition is illegal in most Islamic countries).

Perhaps in his book Sennels shows some passages, but so far, as much as I have been involved in this topic, I have never seen anything that would fit to Sennel's description as 'Quran bidding to do criminal acts'. Criminal from whose standpoint, and what acts exactly? What Sennels might be describing are claimed Islamic practices, such as stoning (stoning is not an Islamic practice, it is not mentioned in Quran,  - whereas it is mentioned in the Deuteronomy 22:20,21 of the Bible!), or honor killings (---just as many old traditions were integrated into both Bible and Quran when they were written; - both can then be said to encourage criminal acts.), both remnants of local tribal traditions that became integrated into Islam during the early 7-10th centuries or even much later, and opposed by large majority of Muslims. It is often difficult to keep traditions and religion separated, as they often go hand in hand, but in fact looking at the history, most traditions we think as religious preceded the religion itself; from Christmas tree to wedding ring, all traditions have a history before the religion. Thus it is vital to remember that in this particular case, honor killings and stoning are no less than localized tribal traditions, never that popular in the first place, but pertained throughout history alongside with Islam, to be later somewhat merged with it, and today carried into the West as something inherently 'Islamic'.

While it is true that some mosques in Copenhagen and elsewhere are known to be very extremists (some, not all), the Imam's word is not necessarily Quran's word. In fact, if this was the case, then we wouldn't even have to have this discussion – we could just label all Muslims as dangerous terrorists who don't respect human rights! But this would be unjust to those hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not practice criminal acts, or interpret Quran 'bidding' them to do so! We must remember that Islam and Islamism are too different things, a politicized, dangerous Islamism drives the agenda of those in power, and ignores the opinions of the masses!

Bible has been interpreted in various ways, and there are passages that could and have been interpreted as encouraging to do questionable acts, such as murder, stoning or having sex with a 5-year old, but it does not by any means entail Christianity being a religion that encourages murder or pedophilia!

Sennels, and all others, must also understand the nature of political Islamism as opposed to Islam as a religion. When the East London mosque started holding extremist reunions, all other mosques feared the direction the extremism was taking, and avoided sending their kids to pray there. Unfortunately the trend was becoming more and more popular – like Communism, Maoism or Fascism became once for many young adults – and some kids from traditional, peaceful mosques, started going to EL. The old Imams were worried crazy how Islam would be viewed by the outside, when they just wanted to live a peaceful, uneventful, religious life. A previously relatively well integrated, peaceful Muslim population was soon transformed into a source of potential terrorism – not because of Islam, but because of the growth of Islamism as a political ideology, something very different from Islam!

And before anyone says how Muslim citizens in Middle East all support Islamism, I suggest to have a closer look on the dynamics of extremism and what is today called 'the new war'. For example, the tools of an extreme group such as Hamas are not only to sweet talk into the ears of young, desperate Muslims; in fact, Hamas are much hated and despised by the vast majority of Muslims. What does buy their support, on the other hand, are the bribes given to the people by Hamas – services that the State is not giving them, thus turning the destitute to the only services available – those offered by Hamas. These include, among others, medical care, free education, micro-credit loans, subsidies, rebuilding of destroyes houses, dental care, milk powder, live stock..... you name it.

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

This, in effect, is one of my core criticisms of Sennels: from the very start, he associates young, criminal kids with Muslim background as representing Islam in itself. This is like associating drunk, Finnish middle-aged people in the pubs as representing Finnish culture!

QuoteI have later debated with the mayor of Copenhagen on my blog "The Cultural Cleft" on Jyllands-Posten. I started the debate because he promised to pay the Muslims' religious festivals if they helped him get reelected at the local elections on November 17th. He – by the way – did not get reelected. The new mayor, Klaus Bondam, is unfortunately an even worse choice. Since he is a homosexual and wears makeup, I guess he will have a hard time communicating with the Muslim society.

QuoteWhy is it so difficult to have a dialogue with Muslims about the high crime rate and integration problems?

The reason has to do with cultural psychology. In Muslim culture people see their lives mainly as controlled by outside factors – Islam, Allah, the imam, the father of the family, cultural norms and traditions, society, and - when the experience problems - especially non-Muslims and non-Muslim authorities. In our Western culture, it is in many ways the opposite. Here we see ourselves as being in control of our own life. We see our motivation, view on things, way of thinking, communicating and acting as the most important factors deciding our lives. This is why we have so many psychologists and therapists, a great number of social sciences, tons of self help books, etc. – all of which are aimed at our inner life and build on the view that we create and change our own life ourselves. You do not have all these things and also not this view in Muslim culture. If you have a problem as a Muslim, you are not raised to think, "What am I doing wrong since I always end up in trouble?" In the Muslim culture you look outside yourself: "Who did this to me or my life?"

With this way of thinking you always see ourself as the victim and somebody or something outside yourself as the cause of your problems. Bernard Lewis, the famous professor in Islamic history, has observed the same cultural difference. In his words Westerners asks themselves, "What did I do wrong?" and Muslims asks, "Who did this to me?"

Therefore many Muslims do not think that they create the problems. And talking about a person's problems with somebody who thinks that everything is everybody else's fault is not easy...

First about self-help books and all that; Just to provoke a bit, one could say that the Western individualism is famous for separating the individual so strongly from the community, that the individual is not able to rely on the community but needs self-help books or professionals to lift him on his feet again. This indeed is one criticism against West given by other 'cultures', such as Latin American or Asian cultures, known for strong family bonds, community sense and putting more emphasis on responsibility than personal gain or 'right'. Can Sennels really, without being unfairly ethno-centric, say that 'our' way is better way of 'self-help' (do I need to remind Sennels of the high percentage of alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide in Northern Europe, so surprisingly absent in many other 'cultures'?)?

In other words, I find it quite appaulling that Sennels keeps polarizing the world so into West and Muslim, when in fact only a tiny fraction of the world's population think like us; buy self-help books and seek councelling. In most of the world the family or the community is there to help when in need. Besides, one's life almost everywhere in the world (incl. Northern Europe), is largely determined by 'the authority, the father of the family, cultural norms and traditions, society,etc.' ... I find it therefore very etnocentric, even Euro-centric, to ignore this fact. I would have appreciated Sennels much more if he could have said the same about other cultures – but of course as not as many Latinos or Vietnamese do 'criminal acts' in Copenhagen than Muslims, this would not help him much.

Secondly about control; a) are Muslims really that much 'out of control'? Many devoted Muslims seek personal peace in their religious meditations, rather than 'outside'. Muslims are active members of the community, helping and supporting others. Muslims have different hobbies and activities – identities – like many other people; footballers, chess players, Quran readers, literature freaks, singers....you name it. Is it not a bit arrogant to belittle these activities and their importance on a Muslim individual's mental stability? B) are we really that well in control? Some would say quite the opposite!

Why is it so difficult for Sennels to differentiate between a child victim of war and a average adult Muslim???

..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.

In effect, (forgive me my little straw man) Sennels' standpoint is so utterly ethnocentric that it is a wonder he lives in the 21st century, and not in the time of the very first anthropologists in the heart of Africa, referring to Africans as monkeys. :P

This is another main point of my criticism of Sennels: His psychology is little less than popular psychology from such an etnocentric standpoint, that it would be impossible to 'academicize' his 'science' in any way. Not wishing to go too ad hominem, I have to wonder again how he got his 'authoritization' to practice psychology!

QuoteDoes the upbringing have anything to do with criminal behaviour?

Upbringing has everything to do with criminal behaviour. Well brought up people in general have good self confidence, a generally good mood and constructive ways of solving their problems – and they find it easy to love and be useful for themselves and others.

As an experienced professional psychologist within the field I can tell you that most criminals have a lot of anger, insecurity and very little ability to feel empathy. An important question is of course: why are many Muslims brought up in a way that makes them criminal?

Here is a very serious problem; assume that because a larger number per population who do criminal acts come from Muslim background than from native Danish/Finnish, etc., derives from the way the families have brought them up!

I am not saying family is out of the question (especially a family that has travelled through deserts and prisons to get away from flesh-tearing war). But I find it highly problematic to imply that 'many Muslims are brought up in a way that makes them criminal'. This in fact, is absolutely, and completely so out of base that it is ridiculous! Sennels seems to be – again – generalizing from a tiny representation of society (Muslim immigrant kids who have escaped, or their parents have escaped, from war, and of whom a portion become so disturbed they end up doing criminal acts) into the Muslim society as a whole.

Of course for a psychologist who has not witnessed war himself, or worked as a psychologist especially for traumatized victims of war (which is a separate field indeed), it is simply impossible to understand the background that these kids come from – but I would have assumed him to be a bit more aware of the complexity of the issue, and not reduce the problems to the family so easily!

If he could reframe his question, and ask 'why are so many Muslims kids in Denmark, who have, or whose parents have escaped war, inclined to do criminal acts' I would have been more impressed. To say 'Many Muslims' and 'are brought up as criminals' is a choice of words so utterly ridiculous that I am simply left out of words myself. I can only wish that Sennels does not use the same premise in his book.

QuoteLet me answer that question with an analogy. Some families are healthy for children to grow up in. They develop a sense of self-responsibility, they develop empathy and learn that destructive emotions such as anger, jealousy, revenge, etc. are negative and should be controlled and dealt with. Some families are unhealthy for children to grow up in: they become inflexible and unable to adjust to social rules, they become careless of others and themselves, etc. In this way all families have their own culture, their own emotional and cultural environment, which shapes the people growing up in it. Just as families have different cultures and can be healthy or unhealthy for people's developement, so can whole cultures.

There is no doubt that the Muslim culture in general is unhealthy to grow up in.
Its admiration of anger, its suppression of female qualities (in psychology known as "femina"), its very insecure relationship to honor, its victim mentality and its lack of focus on individual reflexion on the connection between one's own behaviour and one's own problems very easily create immature and aggressive individuals with low self conficence.

Sennels is showing such a remarkable lack of professional skill and knowledge that I am again left with no words. Or not..

'generally unhealthy to grow up' – obviously Sennels has not spent time with Muslims, especially within Muslim countries, to make such a ridiculous claim. Although I can sincerely say, that extreme interpretations of Islam, e.g. those in Saudi Arabia, many parts in Somalia or Taleban-run Afghanistan, to mention a few are undeniably horrible environments to grow up in, to say that 'Muslim culture in general' shows a remarkable degree of ignorance and experience. I have to refer to my earlier commentary on Muslim 'cultures' and the variety of forms that Islam can manifest in various countries (and Islamism!). I deplore the fact that there is little I can prove in terms of 'healthy Muslims' although I personally know so many of them, and know them to be so healthy, that just through my own experience I could prove Sennels claim faulty, - but the claim can also be criticized for its simplistic generalization, and its arrogant claim that 'there is no doubt' (when there is so much doubt in fact). Of course Sennels would not dare to look into the mirror and ask, whether a Western world with its eating disorders, body images, jealousies, envies, greeds, anxieties, etc. is a 'generally healthy culture to grow up' (is it healthy that almost 50% of young girls suffer some degree of eating disorders? Are the alcoholism and suicide rates in Europe healthy? How about general apathy, disregard for strangers' sufferings, lack of trust, domestic violence?

'Admiration of anger' – in which way? Certainly Muslims are not Zen Buddhists when it comes to anger management – but I find them generally more patient and calm than latinos! In fact, Muslim 'culture' – in 'general' – respects composure, good behaviour, calm and patience, tolerance and dignity. How is 'anger' any way more 'admired' than these qualities so inherent in Muslim 'cultures'? There are also differences to how a Turkish displays his anger to that of a Yemenese's. In effect, the former's temperament is very little different from e.g. Italians... :P

...or is Sennels again making a dangerous generalization from 'young, criminal Muslims' to Muslims in 'general'?

'honor' – is 'honor' not admired greatly in other cultures as well, such as Hindu, Confucian, Daoist or Buddhist cultures? How is a Japanese's or a Latino's or a Hindu's 'honor' less 'dangerous' than that of a Muslim's? Is a skinhead's sense of 'honor' somehow not relevant here, them being Western and all? In fact, isn't one of the reasons for domestic violence against Western women by Western men related to the man's 'honor'? (besides, referring to honor killings; around 5000 happen each year, whereas victims of domestic violence in some developed countries amount to 12000-20000/country)

'femina' – suppression of female qualities? While I am very strongly against those cultural/traditional/tribal/Christian/Muslim/whatever/[insert] customs that violate female's rights and deny their freedom (FGM, domestic violence, low salaries, objectification, patriarchy, stoning of a rape victim, etc.), I find this terminology quite confusing. What female 'qualities' are actually being suppressed? And I generally agree to the fact that by denying women rights, the man also harms himself in the long run, but they are in no way an instant sequitur; violating a woman's right to freedom does not, unfortunately, necessarily make a man insecure, aggressive or immature.

Again, if Sennels wanted to make himself a bit more credible, he would have extended his argument to concern all societies that suppress women's right of self-expression; following his argument, I guess that would make most of world's 'culture's 'sick and unhealthy' – although he would undoubtedly deny this involving West even in the smallest degree. As always, for Sennels', there is just 'us' and 'them'.

Most of the Muslim female friends of mine carry themselves with great dignity, with a head held high and beautiful, feminine, latest clothes and make-up – and they can talk about sex and boys for ages. Again; there are differences between cultures ( young Somali women in Helsinki tend to be much more liberated than in Somalia, but many e.g. Iranians or Turkish are very full of 'femina' in their home country)

On the topic of women's rights I could go on for ages, but here I could point one thing; Muslim women are organizing more than ever before. Sisters of Islam and other organizations have spread in millions around the world, joining both male and female Muslims under the cause of improving women's rights. From general suffrage to FGM (did I mention FGM's not a Muslim practice per se, it has also been practiced by Christian Africans, animists and other groups aside Islam. -- Here again we need to remember that tradition and religion are not always the same thing!), these women have already made a tremendous progress, and will continue to do so, as new generation of Muslims are becoming liberal – in fact, the movement labelled as 'liberal Muslim' consists more than half of the Muslim population in the world (and the 'liberalization' is an evolving process in itself) – while mostly women, also men are included. From my own acquiantances with refugee women in Europe, most if not all of them are very aware of their rights. I also want us to remember history; e.g. pre-Soviet invation women in Afghanistan carried more rights and freedoms than many women in other parts of the world at the time, including a right to walk unveiled, study in a university, work as a judge or whatever, etc. Remember also, that there were times a couple of hundreds of years back – before general suffrage in the West – when in Muslim societies women had more rights, freedom and respect than women in the pre-Victorian, and especially pre-Enlightenment era in the West! In fact, the first notions of democracy weren't only found in Ancient Greece; they were found in the heart of Africa and in Middle East as well, and famous Islamic philosophers have discussed it before being influenced by West.

QuoteAre your professional observations seen as political instead of sheer observations of a professional psychologist?

Of course I and also my book have been criticized. As you can hear, I say things straight out. But those who criticize me have either no experience with working professionally with Muslims or are Muslims themselves.

Maybe Sennels could define who he refers to as 'those who work professionally with Muslims'...as I, including myself, know many people who work professionally with Muslims and would find many of Sennels' claims absolutely ludicrous.

QuoteWhen I do lectures for school teachers and social workers on schools with many Muslims, they all agree with me. At those occassions it is not at all a question of whether I am right or wrong – because they have exactly the same observations as I do.

...Observations that are little less than judgements without much theoretical or psychological understanding of the issue....

QuoteAt those lectures we go directly to the solutions. The Danish magazine for professional Danish psychologists, PsykologNyt, recently reviewed my book. The review was very positive, stating that it is "a provoking eye-opener, convincing and well founded with many concrete examples". Several national newspapers also wrote positively about the book and even our most famous Muslim politician, Naser Khader, who has himself written a book on Muslim culture, was very favourably disposed. Khader states that "the professional expertise that Nicolai Sennels has is exceptional and the clear examples in his book make it a must-read for all teachers and social workers". Among people who have experience with Muslims, I am clearly seen as a experienced professional psychologist.

Based on this interview I am not particularly impressed. I would assume that if his book was well-founded, he could present himself in a credible way in interviews, but this doesn't seem to be the case. I am therefore not sure whether I should waste my time, or hope that he withdraws these unfounded claims in his book, claims that he so confidently declares in interviews, and read it... but if any of the previous 'smarties' are repeated in the book, I'll skip it – and label the book together with Scientology and Social Darwinism.

QuoteWhy aren't the media and academia reacting? Is it because those journalists and academics who have so to speak invested to appeasement would be risking their careers? After all, if we go back to assimilation, plenty of people within the media and universities with multicultural careers would face a personal disaster ?

I wish to answer this one from the perspective of myself, my fellow students, colleagues and professors, having joked about this quite a bit; the academia is not reacting because Sennels – such as Halla-Aho & Co. – are generally seen as jokes, and pseudo-social science. They are treated by most with absolutely no respect in the fields that tackle the issue; from professional psychologists, to anthropologists, sociologists, political theorists... hardly any one truly academically trained would buy the claims of Sennels or Halla-Aho, unless they read their production as a sort of a religious guidebook – with purple glasses and turning the academic switch OFF. How many academics bother refuting UFO-freaks, scientologists or conspiracy theorists? Not many – because they're not worth it! (even though have to admit that Sennels did a much better job than Tatu Vanhanen or Halla-Aho)

QuoteThe main creed in academic circles is that cause and effect does not work for Muslims. With cause and effect I mean that people create their own lives. In Academic circles you are taught that the fate of poor and anti-social people are in the hands of the rest of us.

It is true that the mainstream social science has been more humanistic than realistic in the last decades, but this trend has been shifting from the 70's; the modern theories such as micro-credit are just examples of innovations that attempt to enhance the individual's own capacities instead of treating poor and anti-social people as victims who need a pat on the head. But let us not confuse the issue; integration policy is a large, and a vast field of research, and it has definitely always taken interest in the individual participation; too bad that the projects and approaches created hardly ever gain enough popular or economical support to actually make a big difference. Integration is the key issue of this dicussion as well; and the source of this discussions are not the criminal Muslims, nor refugee flows, nor lack of monetary investments – but inefficient, ignorant and unfunded integration policies.

QuoteBut it is completely clear

....Sennels seems to have it all so clear, when high-ranking officials or highly educated academics do not have it so clear at all, not at all..

Quotethat Muslims create their own problems by not integrating, not learning Danish, not educating their children, not allowing their women normal human rights, not working, not opening up to our Western culture, etc. Especially their oppression of female qualities is very harmful to both their women, men, children, and their ability to build transparent, free, democratic and humanistic societies. The only case where cause and effect works – according to academics – is when rich people are depressed or are unsuccesful: that is their own fault and serves them right... Ridiculous. If we are not willing to show people their own part of the problems they have, how are we to teach them how to solve them?

'not integrating' – again Sennels seems to see integration as a one-way street. He seems to be one of those who think 'we have already done enough' by admiting these people in in the first place. Yet this approach is questionable in e.g. following way; asylum seekers are treated, according to him and according to mainstream right wing, as receptors of 'charity'. Yet, without even having to refer to the UN Convention that denies us the freedom to forcedly return a refugee to a country where he will be in danger, it should be noted that the asylum system is first and foremost a humanitarian system based on a moral responsibility, not charity. When member states shift from the 'charity' approach to the 'moral responsibility' approach, I believe we have better chances in implementing real, efficient, two-way integration programs.

...'not learning Danish'... is part of the problem of inefficient integration policies. An example of a two-way approach could be for example an imposition of a criteria for residence permit; a duty to participate in so and so many Danish classes over a such and such a period, or e.g. social welfare will be denied or reduced. Incentives are needed for the asylum seekers to put more effort in learning language. Yet this is a two-way program, because until now the offer of language classes has been limited to bare, of a very short length, and doesn't usually reach those immigrants who are already living in the community (out of centres). This needs more resources and political will, something the receiving countries have lacked so far. Yet language is the first and foremost integration strategy!

'not working' – this is ridiculous. I am surprised that a psychologist knows so little of the physical and mental difficulties faced by immigrants from all parts of the world when looking for work. Seen all those Africans hanging out on roadsides in Southern Europe in thousands every morning from 4am until late evening, waiting for someone, just someone to come and give a few hours of work? Seen all those Africans in the employment centres in Finland or Denmark, coming every morning to check on the latest classifieds for job opportunities? As a psychologist, has he really never had as a patient one of those African grown-ups who fall into tears when talking about the desperation regarding their job situation? Big men crying in front of a Western official/psychologist! ...'Not working??'

'not opening up to Western culture' – again, Sennels bases all his claims on his experiences having worked with criminal Muslims, and sees integration as a one-way street. That means, he has little experience of non-criminal Muslims. I personally know many of them who are well adjusted to Western culture, and have taken up Western habits with pleasure from veil-abandoning to sleeveless tops, from pork to porn, from dancing to art. Tolerant they are all those I know, even if not fully embracing some silly Western trends (a couple of friends of mine choose to veil themselves for personal reasons, being very devoted believers – such as some in the West choose to visibly carry a cross. Veiling is not always a violation of a woman's freedom! (burkha is another issue)). If Sennels is only referring to those Muslims who come from conflict countries, this is an antirely different matter – and a psychologist should understand how different – and even in this case I have witnessed some brave Somalis/Eritreans/etc. who have lost all their family and still managed to become educated and employed in Europe. Has Sennels ever spent some time in London or Paris? (not to mention USA, Australia, or any Muslim countries ...) Or are his experiences only based on 'criminal Muslims'? And on this he writes his book!

QuoteBritain and Sweden appear to be competing for being the European leader in hiding problems under the carpet. Sometimes Denmark is considered to be some kind of forerunner in more free debate. But this image of Denmark may not be that accurate – you still have Tøger Seidenfaden and DR. And has so much changed in Danish politics during last years, in spite of all the talk?

Denmark is world famous for our open debate on Islam and Muslim immigration. And we surely deserve the attention. Our newspapers are full of readers' letters criticizing Islam and the failed immigration of Muslims. It is simply a part of Danish culture to speak out and to ridicule those who get angry and lose face when criticized. Of course we have people not realizing the great danger of Islam and of having ethnic tensions resulting from failed immigration of Muslims. There is no doubt that extreme leftist newspapers such as Tøger Seidenfaden's Politiken would lose readers – and thereby money – if they started being realistic about the problems. But they are already losing readers and their only two parties, Enhedslisten and De Radikale Venstre, are on their way out the parlament's drain. The normal woman and man of the street sees very clearly what is happening to our countries. They meet the aggressive Muslims in discos, in their children's schools, in the subway, etc. Most important is that people talk together about it. For every person who just mentions a bit about their worries about Muslim immigration at work, for example, will help several of their collegues to think and talk more freely about the subject at work, family dinners, etc.

What would be the most important change you would make in handling Muslim immigrants, given that you could decide?

Inviting people from a completely other culture to live in our countries is the biggest sociological experiment in history of mankind and it is clearly turning out bad.

Here's the part that is historically and actually not correct. It is a biased opinion, nothing less. Mass migrations have happened before, and cultural 'collitions' have happened many times before. Many could say in fact, that this is just one sociological experiment among others in the history of mankind. I could go into depth in this history – and an unbiased historian could do so even more -, but I want to keep this short; nothing is clearly turning out anything; just because current integration policies suck does not mean that Muslims cannot live in peace with different cultures. In fact, they have lived, and they are living, as we speak. Sennels seems very fatalist, even social darwinist for a psychologist – something not consistent with his general sense of activism and individual freedom. And, as always, he makes the fatal generalization from a very marginalized group of Muslims into Muslims in general, not understanding the complexity and diversity of the Muslim immigrants' background, Muslim culture, political Islamism, and the teachings of Islam.

Social Science has long ceased to be simplistically reductionist; instead of reducing everything into one thing, social sciences are aiming more and more each day to understand the complexity of the issues it deals with, the various sources of problems and their interconnections, and finding holistical solutions to particular problems.

QuoteMaking deep changes in the demographics of a whole continent is very harzardous.

As before, this is a funny statement, although, understandably, it's not coming from a historian (well, nor am I a historian, but anyway..). Deep changes in the demographics of a whole continent is the story of human kind! :D Hazardous? Maybe. At least they are changes. Sometimes species got extinct (Neanderthal for example), sometimes they fused (into homo sapiens). Sometimes many were killed (genocide of aboriginals in Australia or Indians in America), sometimes many were 'assimilated' (Afro-Caribbean, Indo-Chinese). Sometimes  they were marginalized for hundreds of years (Jews), sometimes they became dominant (Latin America). - Although a bit simplistic, my point is hopefully clear.

QuoteImmigrants who do not want to assimilate – meaning taking our culture to their heart and becoming Westerners – should not be here.

This, in essence, is a scary claim; they should become us? Of course, I am not saying that we need to become them, of course they are coming here after all! But what does this mean? Assimilation in essence means a sort of unification – like Marquis de Condorcet in the, was it 18th century when he introduced his concept of cosmopolitanism, envisaged a world where everyone is coffee-colored and speaks different dialects of the same lingua franca – and this usually goes both ways. In essence, simplistically speaking, multiculturalism (= 'integration') is a somewhat different conception from absolute cosmopolitanism (='assimilation'). I myself believe a measure of cosmopolitanism will happen in due time in future unless surprising natural disasters stop globalization, but for our current age we should probably talk about integrating many cultures so that they can live together...  that is, we are not looking to convert Muslims to secular or Christian Westerners, we are seeking to evolve our communication and customs so that Muslims can be Muslims, and we can be what ever the heck we want to be, but we can live together and thrive.

QuoteWe have to find places on our planet where such people can live without the pressure of having to integrate and where their surroundings do not suffer from their anti-social behaviour, religious fanatisism and lack of contribution to our economy.

...here we go again.
'anti-social behaviour' – as we are undoubtedly talking about Muslim refugees and not Muslims in general (or are we?), let me just say that Muslims in no way are anti-social by nature in Finland or Denmark or wherever. In here they may be resigned, depressed, withdrawn, scared, tired, destitute, lonely, shy, traumatized, and what not, but anti-social? That's a bit harsh. What kind of a psychologist anyway – a professional who's supposed to understand individual's needs and not do general anthropology – reduces immigrant criminal Muslim's – or any other's – social problems into 'anti-social behaviour'?

'religious fanaticism' – again, Sennels & Co. must understand the difference between mainstream Muslims and political Islamists. If there are a lot of young people with Islamist inclinations (and I am not sure if there are that many at all), is this something inherent in Islam coming to Europe, or something compeletely different? (such as the oppressed and marginalized turning towards a political ideology in time of great desperation, such as during the peak of Communism & Co.?)

'lack of contribution to our economy' – assuming, again, that we are only talking about refugee Muslims.... In any case, not to mention all those Muslims that do work, should I remind again about those thousands on the roadsides or the employment offices, or does Sennel find an excuse for why they are not working, such as 'they do not wait long enough' (I'm sure he himself would tire after 6-12 hours of waiting in a day), 'they do not do it the correct way' (maybe he can teach), 'they don't really want work they just do it to show'.... These are called ad hoc arguments, that is, they are given when the opponent wants to continue arguing stubborningly, even when his arguments have been refuted. Many religious fundamentalists, such as Creationists, use the same technique. It is like trying to prove them that God does not exist, as there is no real way to prove that anyway... Or if Sennels is talking about only young, criminal Muslims, then he should know how young criminals in 'general' go on with things like employment, education, routines and responsibilities...

QuoteOn internet forums with a critical tilt on immigration, the cultural appeasements given to Muslims are considered exactly the 180 degrees wrong policy. Especially those Danes and Swedes who have lived at close proximity to Muslim neighbourhoods state that the appeasements just make muslims even more demanding. Could it be seen that these appeasements have an effect on criminality? Is all appeasement bad, or are there any bright spots?

There is no doubt that appeasement makes Muslims feel stronger and feel that they are right. It also makes us look weak in their eyes. Their victim mentality grows immensely every time the appeasers open their mouth. You see, appeasement is a Western tradition.

No, it is not.

Appeasement is "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous." (WikiBible)

Appeasement (suom. Myöntyvyyspolitiikka) is a widely practiced tradition, in many various forms, across cultures. Whether or not it got it's fame and name from the WWII is irrelevant; rational negotiating has happened since early Africa. Anyway... the term has been ridiculed since its failure in the War, but the contrary of the term has usually lead to equal mistakes; Iraq war was justified based on the belief that 'appeasement will not work'. But does it ever work? Of course it does; most peace negotiations today, such as the succesful Aceh held by our former president Martti Ahtisaari, was based on appeasement.

--Does it work in this case? First of all, I am not sure at all if we are dealing with an international 'quarrel'! We are dealing with unsatisfied younger generation, disturbed Muslim kids, who turn to a political ideology or crime when they have nothing better to be offered – and some older generation conservative traditionalists who have a hard time of keeping their prodigy on a leash, and who will probably die soon anyway and give room to the liberalists, who are a majority! Second of all, admitting and satisfying grievances is the only way for sustainable peace building. Tyranny, dominance, submission, 'shut up or leave'-type of argumentation doesn't work. Surprise?

QuoteIf we make a compromise or are nice to somebody, we naturally expect that they feel thankfulness and will do their best to solve their part of the problem. Muslims think differently: in their culture it is the dog that barks the loudest that becomes the boss.

Many anti-immigrationists feel that immigrants are not 'grateful' enough for the 'hospitality' our countries have provided. First of all, this disappointment on behalf of the receiving country for this lack of gratitude stems from our belief that this is a 'charity' that we are doing – instead of fulfilling a moral and legal responsibility.

Secondly, I myself would not be very grateful, if I had spent years being tortured and malnutriotioned, then almost killed myself to get to Europe, only to be treated like garbage in detention centres and failing to get the employment and security (I hope you don't associate social welfare for unemployed immigrants as 'security' in terms of a sense of independence, self-esteem and pride – employment is unbelievably important for immigrants, and much more than some native Finnish lazy-asses I know!) I came here for. I am, in fact, surprised at how many asylum seekers and those with protection I have met  are incredibly grateful; in one of the most inhumane closed detention centres in Malta which has been criticized as being worse than Philippine death rows or Palestine prisons (words of a former diplomat's and an ex- colleague of mine – an unfortunately not the only one in Southern and Central Europe), an asylum seeker still said, repeating how grateful he is to Malta that he is better off now than in Somalia – 'at least he's not gonna wacked by a machete here'. But he had just arrived... and hadn't yet experienced the torturing system on the island or in many other receiving countries.

And thirdly, in Muslim culture it's certainly not the dog that barks that becomes a boss! In fact, as Sennels should know, the religious leaders, for their wisdom and knowledge are the bossest of the bosses. It is completely another question if a brutal dictator takes control of che country and brutalizes its citizens – this has happened in non-Muslim countries as well. And when it comes to personal career, fame is gained through efficient deeds, polite manners, good connections and intellect – hardly no one respects a barking dog over an Imam or a respectful political leader.

Where does Sennels base his claims on? On his experiences as a psychologist for disturbed children??? Well in the kids' 'culture' all over the world the dog who barks the loudest does become the boss – surprise??

QuoteIn our culture we think that only small dogs bark – big dogs do not have to, because they are big and do what they want. When they bark we think that they are immature and need a hand. When we just appease and compromise our own values, they think we are weak and vulnerable and the feeling of needing to adjust to our culture gets smaller. Appeasement politics is a deadly result of not understanding this crucial difference between Western and Muslim culture.

I do agree in one respect; whether Muslims being Muslims or Holabattuuns or Dwarks, one way appeasement policies are never effective. Hushing up, brushing the problems under the carpet – none of these work, nor does patting on another one's head, say 'there there' and hope he will feel better. Apologies don't help, nor do punishments. Both lack respect; but the key is to create a level of mutual respect and understanding. - Not baby sit Muslims and think of them as kids we need to teach (= imperialism), nor be apologetic and apologize for everything we say and do. They should be treated like adults. (and here we should remember that the vast majority of the criminals, rioters and violent Muslims are young adults, not grown-up dads, moms and career people. It is a completely different thing to talk about young people's minds than all Muslims' minds in general!)

QuoteThe worst thing is that the appeasers and the politically correct crowd has managed to scare a lot of people not to speak their opinion out loud. People are afraid of being called a racist or that others think bad about them. My advise is: Don't care! If you saw a scared girl being dragged by the hair by four boys – would you try to stop them? If you are seriously worried about Islam and Muslim immigration – would you tell it?

QuoteThank you for your effort Nicolai , and we wish you all the best.

Thank you , and thank you for yourselves for the interest !

SUMMA SUMMARUM:

What's wrong with Sennels' arguments? Why is he a perfect example of a 'pseudo-psychologist´?

His reasoning is characterized by generalizations, he fails to do what a scientist should do; keep the test sample separate from the source (i.e. not generalize orangutans into all primates). This is such a common feature of his argumentantion that it should be obvious. He is also making frequent simplified, even falsely interpreted claims about statistics, Quran and other things.

Let's also remember that he is not just a claimed psychologist, but in fact a politician, member of the Danish People's Party. This explains why his dialogue is so politically simplistic and provocative, rather than 'professional and academic' as he attempts to present himself.

Sennels has also been presented as having special insight on Muslim culture for being a psychologist for juvenile criminals in a juvenile prison – this of course is an obvious fallacy; the only thing Sennels has any expertise of, is criminal and marginalized juvenile asylum seekers with Muslim parents living in Denmark - a very narrow group indeed, hardly representing Muslim culture in general!

A professional, academic psychologist with expertise on Muslim culture???

...I hope you agree with me after reading this far, that Nicolai Sennels is nothing more than a pseudo-psychologist riding on the wing of political provocation and the sympathy of right-leaning, largely uneducated, mostly xenophobia-ridden victims of a growing number of other popular pseudo –scientists who make their arguments sound valid, while ignoring facts and resorting into hideous argumentation fallacies with a shameless, yet equally shameful, aggressivity. If, after this, you have even the slightest doubt whether your stand is faulty, but are too shy to show it to your Sennels- or Halla-aho-quoting friends, go and experience it for yourself; there are many places where you can see and meet with those Muslims that have been doing their best in integrating into a Western culture. Talk to them, hear their story, ask them questions, and maybe you will realize that there is more to everything than just the evil monster of Islam.


Yours Truly,

-Kiko Kennels-


Studying Muslim integration in Europe:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/20/muslim-integration-gallup

Hi, and welcome to forum!

I will reply only partially today.

Quote from: Kiko Kennels on 12.01.2010, 00:39:59
The professionality of this writer seems to me unproven. I have not been able to find any concrete evidence of the positive feedback given by established academics or professionals. In fact, all references I have found to this fellow seem to link directly or indirectly to conservative right-wing people, blogs, websites and magazines. Those few outside extreme political right seem to view him with ridicule. Whatever he considers as 'professional' media is perhaps 'professional' in terms of politics, but very little in terms of psychology or social sciences.

The little that I have heard of Sennels doesn't make me able to judge this. I think I want to hear what Sennels replies on that.

What is the "political right" and "right-wing" you are talking about? What makes them "right wing"? Is there a group categorising itself as "right wing" that supports Sennels, or is this name "right wing" given to people or groups because they support Sennels or some other politically incorrect thinkers?

I am a leftist and green. If I would believe what Sennels says, would you categorise me to "right wing"?

I'm just wondering how is it possible that only the "right wing" doesn't defy Sennels. As far as I have read there is nothing especially "right wing" on what he says. "Right" and "left" are not based on that sorts of questions, they are not defined on ones opinion of psychology or religion as they are mainly economic stances.

QuoteI remember many years back an incident in the central railway station in Helsinki, where a white, Finnish born woman was raped by a white, Finnish born man – behind a statue in the very middle of the square, late, but a busy Friday (?) night. The woman had screamed for help – no one had come to rescue. Another event reminded me of a woman (?) who in the middle of the same square, daytime, attempted to stab her boyfriend in a crazy fit – she actually succeeded to stab him a few times before anyone (guard?) came to stop her. They were native Finnish. How many times has Sennels himself ignored similar events, when he suddenly 'wakes up' as soon as this brutality is done by a Muslim?

What is the point of this argument? I havent heard of this incident, but lets suppose its true. Ok, there was an evil Finnish person doing an evil thing. How is it related to this argument? Are you trying to say that Finnish people on average rapes as often as muslims of Denmark? Such incidents committed by Finns are not that common.

No ethnicity is perfect, and no ethnicity is all bad. It seems to me that Sennels wants to say that this incident in Denmark was just an instance. But it was an instance that made him to think of these questions and realise things like that there are problems with integration, that on average some ethnicities commits rape or other crimes more often than the others, etc. How would a different instance in Finland affect on these conclusions? Sennels doesn't say we should generalise things based on instances, so the instance you gave seems irrelevant. If someone "wakes up" and starts demonising ethnic Finnish minority of European Union based on such a horror story on the news, then it's of course sad, but its not an analogy of what Sennels is doing.

I'm short of time so just some comments

Quote from: Kiko Kennels on 12.01.2010, 00:39:59
Also, like said, cultures do change and disappear! Finnish culture is not what it was before, and what it was before then. And are we that much worse off? Who is to really say that the 'next' Finnish 'culture' is not as functioning or stable, or even 'better' than the current?

We are talking this primarily in context of immigration from countries like Somalia, Iraq and Afganistan. Do you seriously consider that adaptation of cultural straits from those specific countries would be desirable?

QuoteIn other words, even though you readers of the Hommaforum probably feel as 'obvious' that Finnish culture is.... (what?), and needs to be protected (..from what?), and you take your 'culture' as granted, remember that there are others who do not! In fact, there are reasons why your standpoint is viewed as.. conservative... ;)

That there exists culture in Finland should be self evident. Finland and it is people could not be described just by listing the biological characteristics of the members of species Homo Sapiens living in it. Likewise it should be self evident that most of the characteristics of Finnish culture are not to unique to it, but the nevertheless (if you've lived in other countries, you should have noticed) the combination of them is at least somewhat different from what you see in any other country. The cultures we have most in common are (for historical reasons) typically those geographically closest.

Interesting that in the name of "multiculturalism" some people in west Europe seem to advocate deliberate destruction of some cultures, namely their own.

QuoteBible has been interpreted in various ways, and there are passages that could and have been interpreted as encouraging to do questionable acts, such as murder, stoning or having sex with a 5-year old, but it does not by any means entail Christianity being a religion that encourages murder or pedophilia!

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...

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

Do you have a source for that?

QuoteWhat does buy their support, on the other hand, are the bribes given to the people by Hamas – services that the State is not giving them, thus turning the destitute to the only services available – those offered by Hamas. These include, among others, medical care, free education, micro-credit loans, subsidies, rebuilding of destroyes houses, dental care, milk powder, live stock..... you name it.

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.

QuoteIn other words, I find it quite appaulling that Sennels keeps polarizing the world so into West and Muslim, when in fact only a tiny fraction of the world's population think like us; buy self-help books and seek councelling. In most of the world the family or the community is there to help when in need. Besides, one's life almost everywhere in the world (incl. Northern Europe), is largely determined by 'the authority, the father of the family, cultural norms and traditions, society,etc.' ... I find it therefore very etnocentric, even Euro-centric, to ignore this fact.

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")

Quote..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.

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

Quote(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?

Quote'not integrating' – again Sennels seems to see integration as a one-way street. He seems to be one of those who think 'we have already done enough' by admiting these people in in the first place. Yet this approach is questionable in e.g. following way; asylum seekers are treated, according to him and according to mainstream right wing, as receptors of 'charity'. Yet, without even having to refer to the UN Convention that denies us the freedom to forcedly return a refugee to a country where he will be in danger, it should be noted that the asylum system is first and foremost a humanitarian system based on a moral responsibility, not charity. When member states shift from the 'charity' approach to the 'moral responsibility' approach, I believe we have better chances in implementing real, efficient, two-way integration programs.

First of all number of refugees entering the country on their own have been between few and few dozens annually. That is only tiny minority of the whole "humanitarian immigration". Secondly, even one would accept a moral responsibility over a larger group people, that would be moral responsibility to offer them shelter from persecution, not responsibility to support permanently healthy adults or tolerate criminal behaviour.

Quote...'not learning Danish'... is part of the problem of inefficient integration policies. An example of a two-way approach could be for example an imposition of a criteria for residence permit; a duty to participate in so and so many Danish classes over a such and such a period, or e.g. social welfare will be denied or reduced. Incentives are needed for the asylum seekers to put more effort in learning language. Yet this is a two-way program, because until now the offer of language classes has been limited to bare, of a very short length, and doesn't usually reach those immigrants who are already living in the community (out of centres). This needs more resources and political will, something the receiving countries have lacked so far. Yet language is the first and foremost integration strategy!

The suggestions you give are not bad, but if there lack a genuine motivation to learn forcing an immigrant to language class maybe just a waste of money. Anyway, the offer of language classes (here) is not "limited to bare". I know because my wife attends them, and so far there has not bee one course she has not been able to get in when applying in time. I pay the course fees (not that high anyway) from my own pocket; "Humanitarians" and other qualified groups could get the money from unemployment office.

Just bit later you claimed that immigrants, especially Africans are eager to work. I'm sure many are, but just above you said we need more incentives for them to attend language courses. At least If you are not highly educated professional, not knowing the language of the country is damn big obstacle for finding a job. If one is not sufficiently motivated to study the language, then I have to presume one is not very motivated to be employed either.

Quote

QuoteMaking deep changes in the demographics of a whole continent is very harzardous.

As before, this is a funny statement, although, understandably, it's not coming from a historian (well, nor am I a historian, but anyway..). Deep changes in the demographics of a whole continent is the story of human kind! :D Hazardous? Maybe. At least they are changes. Sometimes species got extinct (Neanderthal for example), sometimes they fused (into homo sapiens). Sometimes many were killed (genocide of aboriginals in Australia or Indians in America), sometimes many were 'assimilated' (Afro-Caribbean, Indo-Chinese). Sometimes  they were marginalized for hundreds of years (Jews), sometimes they became dominant (Latin America). - Although a bit simplistic, my point is hopefully clear.

No, actually it is not clear. Because surely you are not trying to say that since other people have suffered genocide, colonization, cultural destruction earlier, we should happily invite anybody welcome anybody who wants to come here. Even if it ends up badly for us, it would not be the first time in history?!

QuoteAssimilation in essence means a sort of unification – like Marquis de Condorcet in the, was it 18th century when he introduced his concept of cosmopolitanism, envisaged a world where everyone is coffee-colored and speaks different dialects of the same lingua franca – and this usually goes both ways.

Even if one saw this form of global monoculturalism would be considered desirable, I would want the resulting mix to resemble more of our  end the cultural spectrum than the one in Somalia. The road by the way is not travelled in both directions. Here the slogan seems to be "Europe belongs to everybody" while elsewhere it is "Africa belongs to Africans". Which taken into it's logical conclusion, and considering the relatively populations and birth rates would mean "Europeans do not have place anywhere"

Quotewe are seeking to evolve our communication and customs so that Muslims can be Muslims, and we can be what ever the heck we want to be, but we can live together and thrive.

And what do we do with those member of Muslim immigrant community that want no such thing? (I do not claim this equals all of them)

(out of time)

Quote from: Pöllämystynyt on 12.01.2010, 02:37:06
Hi, and welcome to forum!

I will reply only partially today.

What is the "political right" and "right-wing" you are talking about? What makes them "right wing"? Is there a group categorising itself as "right wing" that supports Sennels, or is this name "right wing" given to people or groups because they support Sennels or some other politically incorrect thinkers?

I am a leftist and green. If I would believe what Sennels says, would you categorise me to "right wing"?

I'm just wondering how is it possible that only the "right wing" doesn't defy Sennels. As far as I have read there is nothing especially "right wing" on what he says. "Right" and "left" are not based on that sorts of questions, they are not defined on ones opinion of psychology or religion as they are mainly economic stances.

Your question 'what makes them right wing' deserves a better definition of what I meant as 'right':

Political spectrum is not simplistically a horizontal right-left line (traditionally understood leftism and rightism) - and I apologize if I haven't emphasized my point clearly enough; there is also a vertical line, and your economic stance and conservativeness can be placed somewhere on this diagram (communitarianism and individualism or authoritarianism and libertarianism). Simplistically speaking, you maybe a right wing in terms of economics (neo-liberal), but not in terms of conservativeness.

I.e. the spectrum goes; the horizontal lines is progressive left on the far end, and conservative right on the other, and on vertical (economic) it goes libertarian vs. authoritarian. Fascism is an extreme form of conservative authoritarianism, and anarchism is an extreme of libertarian left. Yet there are always overlapping characteristic between these two polar ends, and a leftist can indeed be anti-Muslim (e.g. hard core Communists who are against all religion), and a rightist can be pro-Muslim. Yet overall majority of anti-immigrants present conservative right.

So in politics, right generally refers to support for preserving traditional customs  - the horizontal right wing usually endorses ethnic nationalism and cultural conservatism. Ethnic nationalism has not historically been found on the left, while 'civic/liberal nationalism' that was developed in Quebec and other places based its nationalism on common citizenship - regardless of ethnicity -, is often associated with the left. This is why I find it very hard to understand how a green and a left could endorse ethnic nationalism.

Why I simplified Sennels speaking mostly to the 'right wing' audience is because I thought it clear that we are talking about conservative right, not necessarily economic right (I myself stand somewhere in the middle when it comes to economics). Right wing in the modern politics, e.g. European elections 2009, presented the side of anti-immigrants and anti-Muslims, while the left tend to be either neutral or pro-immigration (while many from the economic right are pro as well).

So by all means, feel yourself green and left (although if you want to be a member of political party, you should read their manifests before joining), as you have all the liberty to be anti-immigration and a liberal left - even if this might mean contradicting some of your goals in terms of human rights and equality.

QuoteWhat is the point of this argument? I havent heard of this incident, but lets suppose its true. Ok, there was an evil Finnish person doing an evil thing. How is it related to this argument? Are you trying to say that Finnish people on average rapes as often as muslims of Denmark? Such incidents committed by Finns are not that common.

No ethnicity is perfect, and no ethnicity is all bad. It seems to me that Sennels wants to say that this incident in Denmark was just an instance. But it was an instance that made him to think of these questions and realise things like that there are problems with integration, that on average some ethnicities commits rape or other crimes more often than the others, etc. How would a different instance in Finland affect on these conclusions? Sennels doesn't say we should generalise things based on instances, so the instance you gave seems irrelevant. If someone "wakes up" and starts demonising ethnic Finnish minority of European Union based on such a horror story on the news, then it's of course sad, but its not an analogy of what Sennels is doing.

What was the point? The point was the arbitrary moment when Sennels suddenly -woke up' to the reality - when he has been oblivious of the shortcomings of his own nation. The point is exactly that one should not demonize any group based on some horrible incidents such as afore-mentioned. I find it utterly incomprehensible that you find no problem in that. It is just a personal note on my behalf, that I find his 'wake up call' arbitrary, and I believe he was more influenced by his hidden prejudices than he would admit. But that's imho. The analogy was ridiculous exactly because I find Sennels''wake up call' quite ridiculous - and reading his comments he does seem to generalize these acts as something 'inherent in Islam', when he says for example that 'Quran bids to do criminal acts', and that Muslims have an 'aggressive, chauvinist nature' more than others, etc. etc. It's like he sees all Muslims as potential rapists and attackers that drag girls from hair on a public street. Imho.

Some ethnicities commit rape more often than others? Firstly, are we now talking about ethnicities, races, religion, or culture? I am confused. Secondly, it is by no means a 'Muslim' thing to rape women on the streets. If anything among some (some!) Muslim refugees, rape is a tool of war they have grown up with - used by Christians, Asians and other nations in wartime as long as man has lived, and it is a weapon, as it is a systematized method of violating the pride of the opposing group. Just as the rape camps held for Muslims were created to humiliate the Muslims, a rape can be seen as a way of humiliating those who have humiliated them - a regrettable cycle. But a) is it in their ethnicity or some other factors that make some rape? Really, what do you think, why people rape in the first place?, and b) is it not worrying that you don't see how common rape is in all parts of the non-Muslim world as well?

Again - we should separate 'ethnicities' and 'culture' from victims of war (and this particular sample group Sennels so likes to generalize from)! (by the way, American war veterans were known to be very sexually aggressive after the horrors they had witnessed (and committed) in war - rapes by veterans after the war was common. Many repatriated have serious problems with aggressivity (as well as depression etc.). Is it in their ethnicity, or is this something war could create? Perhaps Sennels could some some sweet generalizations from this sample group.)

EDIT: Fixed the quote tags.

My opinion: Your nick is quite offending and arrogant and obviously meant to be. Such an nick prevails your attitude in this area and doesnt help receiving your "message". Be informed that this your preselected mental attitude instead of neutral truth seeking is very visible. But usually most people discussing here doesnt care about such an lack of manners.

Anyway, these issues have been discussed here several times in other threads in Finnish and most of them have not specially (or at all) connected to Sennels interview. You could have participated to several threads here (in Finnish)for discussion of such items. So why did you brought them up in your own English only thread?  

Last but not least: Please learn the tags used in forum postings (buttons in text editing window) for quotations. Now your answers are very difficult to read.

So, lets presume that the tendency to rape is generated by war. What would you do to prevent these war trauma based rapes in countries giving asylum? I believe that you agree that the war is no justification for raping?

By the way, could you give us some links to the rape statistics of war veterans, and to the sources RP asked for?

This was quite an extensive reply to Mr. Sennels - at least in length. I lack the resources to discuss it in detail so I just post a simple series of questions.

a) Do you acknowledge that there is a large ongoing problem with immigrants from certain parts of the world AND with their descendants?

b) If such problems exist and "professional" psychologists are as powerful and knowing as you insist, why do the problems remain unsolved even after several decades of the best efforts of authorities and academics?

c) How much longer do we have to put up with this sorts of problems?

d) You seem to suggest that majority of problems of African refugees/immigrants/asylum seekers can be explained by their war trauma. The question remains, is it our duty to take here massively damaged persons to burden the already overextended mental care system?

Quote from: Kiko Kennels on 12.01.2010, 09:07:22
Ethnic nationalism has not historically been found on the left

National socialism was a leftist political ideal that had a strong element of ethnic nationalism.

QuoteWhy I simplified Sennels speaking mostly to the 'right wing' audience is because I thought it clear that we are talking about conservative right, not necessarily economic right

You are using the words as you feel they best suit your goals without thinking what they actually mean. Conservatism comes from the latin term "conservare" and it literally means and ideal to conserve the present values and traditions. Conservatism is defined by what is status quo. The status quo of today in most of the states of European Union is multiculturalism. Thus to be multiculturalist is literally to be conservative, that is; to be someone who tries or wants to conserve the status quo. Thus Nicolai Sennels is the antithesis of conservative, since he wants to shake the whole political system of his country.

QuoteSo by all means, feel yourself green and left, as you have all the liberty to be anti-immigration and a liberal left - even if this might mean contradicting some of your goals in terms of human rights and equality.

You are making an assumption that to be of anti-immigration (which doesn't mean anything, since immigration is not a monolithic concept, but immigration happens of various radically different reasons and one cannot simply stack all different kinds of immigration under the same roof) stance is to contradict goals of human rights and equality. You don't have any proof for that and that is just your assumption and opinion. You have to understand that immigration has caused several of the current human rights crisises, like what is going on in Britain where they are implementing multitude of different legal systems at the same time. To implement different laws for different people depending on the situation is not compatible with human rights.

QuoteWe are talking this primarily in context of immigration from countries like Somalia, Iraq and Afganistan. Do you seriously consider that adaptation of cultural straits from those specific countries would be desirable?

Thank you for being smarter than Sennels in his interview, and actually referring to certain more specific groups than 'Muslims'. Of course I could go on for ages analyzing afore mentioned 'cultures', but let's keep this short; - desirable? Which one? FGM? No. Forced marriages? No. Honor killings? No. And let's keep this clear; 1) what evil customs do they possess, that we would find undesirable?, 2) does this mean we shouldn't let them in at all? 3) what do we mean by 'adaptation'?

1) Burkha? - an Afghan rural tradition that was infrequently used before Taliban, and then taken up as a legal requirement during their regime. Today its use is again declining. Khat? - a Somali custom practiced widely, but also seen by many Somalis (about half if I remember) as a bad habit that should be stopped. Women not driving a car? - an Iraqi Islamists' practice to maintain control over the women, an essentially a political strategy but facing increasing rebellion on the streets of Iraq, and not endorsed by a majority of Iraqis.

Shar'ia? - a tradition followed also by some fundamentalist Jews and Christians, but not implemented in all Muslim countries (mostly just Iran, Saudi Arabia and to some extent Iraq etc.). Most Muslim countries adopt Sharia together with secular law, while only Iran and Saudi Arabia use it in all aspects of law. Good info here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/sharia_1.shtml

Of course I would not want Sharia here - and here we are again talking about integration being a two-way street; those who come here should not expect Europe to adopt Sharia as a holistic jurisprudent system, and in fact majority do not expect this - it is well known that Sharia could not be implemented in a non-Islamic state. I do not see Sharia as a problem to Europe, and I do not think any exemptions that would violate our conception of human rights should be allowed.

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.. ;) )

2)No. See below.
3) adaptation (WikiBible) = "is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.[1][2] This process takes place over many generations,[3] and is one of the basic phenomena of biology"
Note: 'many generations' . This involves some measure of change from both sides (integration/assimilation). This does not require in any way that customs from immigrants are necessarily taken as they are, and the customs do not have to remain, and some disappear. We already went through this. You can already see the process of adaptation of Muslims in the West. Good source is http://pewglobal.org/ . 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.

QuoteThat there exists culture in Finland should be self evident. Finland and it is people could not be described just by listing the biological characteristics of the members of species Homo Sapiens living in it. Likewise it should be self evident that most of the characteristics of Finnish culture are not to unique to it, but the nevertheless (if you've lived in other countries, you should have noticed) the combination of them is at least somewhat different from what you see in any other country. The cultures we have most in common are (for historical reasons) typically those geographically closest.

I wasn't saying there doesn't exist culture - but I questioned you by asking 'what is Finnish culture' and from 'what does it need protecting from'. WHAT is Finnish culture, and is it something that is not allowed any room to change? Just because we can somehow 'feel' it, doesn't define it; the culture we 'felt' 20y ago has changed, and the culture we will 'feel' 50y from now will be different. This is my point! I refer to my previous post where I described what I see as 'culture'; 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?

QuoteInteresting that in the name of "multiculturalism" some people in west Europe seem to advocate deliberate destruction of some cultures, namely their own.

You are making a fallacy here (often heard from 'you guys'); interpreting 'our' stand in the worst possible way, ridiculing it and missing the point. Deliberate destruction? How is 'deliberate isolation' of the culture from change not your stand then? Of course your are not advocating the extremist stand of isolating Finland from the world to preserve its culture, no more than I am advocating a 'revolutionary social engineering project that will annihilate our civilization as we know it'. Interesting that you would resort to such twisting of my stand. Accepting the realistic fact that cultures interact, change, adapt, etc. is nothing more than what it is.

Besides, 'multiculturalism' is an existing fact, not only a 'value' (to some). I don't see multiculturalism as a value in itself anymore than I see monoculturalism (which of course doesn't exist), but I see it as a fact, and through the process of globalization this fact has to be dealt with in new, innovative ways - not traditional, ineffective, unrealistic ethno-nationalist ways. 'We', the 'multiculturalists' (your name, not mine), advocate nothing more than realistic, sustainable approaches to accommodate this fact into the globalizing world while respecting human rights and equality.

QuoteIf 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.

'Mass immigration' - here we get to another point. Our sense of proportions are different. To me the current amount of Muslims we are accepting into our society is not that 'massive', and I believe we could sustain even more of that. But also I see a limit to any 'mass immigration' - obviously we can't let everyone in in one go, no state apparatus or economy would handle that.

Quote

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

Do you have a source for that?

Why, thanks for asking:  ;D

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

QuoteThey 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! :P

QuoteBut 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?

Your lack of understanding concerning asylum is worrying. While many immigrants are not entitled to asylum (and get rejected), these people come predominantly from Western or Northern Africa, India, etc. But Afghanistan, 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.

QuoteAre 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.

Quote

Quote(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!

QuoteFirst of all number of refugees entering the country on their own have been between few and few dozens annually. That is only tiny minority of the whole "humanitarian immigration". Secondly, even one would accept a moral responsibility over a larger group people, that would be moral responsibility to offer them shelter from persecution, not responsibility to support permanently healthy adults or tolerate criminal behaviour.

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. All asylum seekers granted asylum are refugees, and entitled to protection. There is no 'economically humanitarian migration' outside work visas, etc. Asylum seekers granted asylum are refugees who are through a thorough screening process found as eligible for asylum, and currently up to 99,9% of those coming from Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan are true asylum seekers, if you do not know this, check on the countries' situation! Believe me, I work in the asylum system. Every single somali in Finland deserve protection, and it is against international law, and moral responsibility, to send them back to Somalia. Period.

QuoteThe suggestions you give are not bad, but if there lack a genuine motivation to learn forcing an immigrant to language class maybe just a waste of money.

I agree, there is a lack of political will. As you hopefully have understood by now, I am not defending the status quo of the European 'asylum crisis', I am definitely against it.

QuoteIf 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. Besides, I find especially male immigrants very eager to learn language. I would rather see the language training of the women also as mandatory, to give them more independence.

QuoteNo, actually it is not clear. Because surely you are not trying to say that since other people have suffered genocide, colonization, cultural destruction earlier, we should happily invite anybody welcome anybody who wants to come here. Even if it ends up badly for us, it would not be the first time in history?!

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. I.e. not let things to get out of hand by closing borders and becoming extremists in ethnic nationalism, and not also open up borders full blow in one go and let everyone to come in. It is a holistic process and should be dealth holistically, from top to bottom and bottom up. The most dangerous approach to me is the ethnic nationalism the extreme right is trying to advocate, as that is not only dangerous, but unrealist and bound to failure.

QuoteEven if one saw this form of global monoculturalism would be considered desirable, I would want the resulting mix to resemble more of our  end the cultural spectrum than the one in Somalia.

Hey, me too, but do you really think the humanity in 1 million years will be like Somalia? :D It probably won't be the copy of our society either. In any case, whether or not cosmopolitanism is desirable, it is not something that belongs to this 'crisis' per se.

QuoteThe road by the way is not travelled in both directions. Here the slogan seems to be "Europe belongs to everybody" while elsewhere it is "Africa belongs to Africans". Which taken into it's logical conclusion, and considering the relatively populations and birth rates would mean "Europeans do not have place anywhere"

Integration is travelled in both directions. But now you are talking about migration. This is interesting! Because now we get to the reasons of a) refugee flows (war, natural disasters, etc.) and b) economic inequalities (West vs. Rest). Here we could dwell on ages!

QuoteAnd what do we do with those member of Muslim immigrant community that want no such thing? (I do not claim this equals all of them)

I do believe we should have zero tolerance for any human rights violations not accepted by us, such as FGM, etc. Those who enter a country should realize these are illegal acts, and should be punished as such. If they are, e.g. Somalis, who cannot be sent back to their home countries but want stubborningly to practice FGM (not true actually, as FGM is disappearing among Somalis both in Somalia and in the diaspora), they will either go to prison, or they will have to lose the tradition. The condition that we save their lives is that they give up FGM. I do not deny this. But this does not in any way refute other multicultural or pro-immigration arguments. Efficient law enforcement and education are the key to this.

Point in between; my principal claim is that 'culture' should not trump human rights. That is, to protect 'Finnish culture' would end up denying the rights of people to apply for asylum, something I find abhorrant. This goes both ways; FGM should not be allowed because of it's a tradition - I am by no means a cultural relativist!

In some cases, such as for those who would wish Sharia to be implemented as a holistical jurisprudent system (again, a minority, but there are people who think this - mostly male), a system chould be created in collaboration of Sharia-implementing countries. I.e. I'm proposing a relocation programme with incentives, control, monitoring and safety mechanisms, and strict conditions on the protection of the relocated people's rights (so that they don't become enslaved, imprisoned, etc. upon arrival). This is unfortunately a very long, expensive process, which needs the receiving country to provide insurance of the welfare of the relocated, and the deal would have to be good enough so that the conditions are held -and I'm sure this is a utopian ideal and there will never be political will to try it. :P

In general I find the biggest problem of the current 'crisis' the lack of 'burden-sharing' mechanisms between EU member states and other countries. Forcing some countries to take on an unfair proportion of asylum seekers (such as Malta and Spain) as opposed to other countries (such as Finland), is harmful both in short and long term. The current Dublin II agreement should be revised, to at least guarantee some exemptions for those countries that are drowning under the pressure. (The Dublin II states that the country which receives the asylum seeker for the first time he enters Europe has to process the application).

Other issues concern development and resettlement programs for 3rd world countries (which, in the end, receive the biggest amount of refugees - millions - => as opposed to 75 000 in Europe in 2008), amending the current mandates for humanitarian intervention and int. law, all the way up to improving small-scale integration programs from mixed schools (polarized schools show more violence and racism) to not incentives for moving out of (or into) ethnic clusters in cities. The 'cure' for the crisis is not one- or two - but hundred-fold, but it is the only sustainable alternative for the status quo.


P.S. I see there has been 5 new messages while writing this one, so I hope to be able to comment on some of them asap. Happy to see this is provoking responses! ;)

So this writer is arguing that the tendency to rape is generated by war? Maybe partly so. But I think then again we must ask what is war generated by? Environment? Political structures? Economy? Of course these agents are involved, but what are they generated by? I believe that the answer can be summarized with one word: genes.

People create societes, people create economy, people mould environment. It is evident that this is a two way street but still the genes are strongly affecting the behaviour of people which in turn creates material conditions and structures of society and economy.

To some degree we can explain things by outer conditions but we must go deeper. By what are the outer conditions created by? The answer lies on the inner core of the human being whether called genes or something else.

PS: sorry for my miserable english :)

Most interesting read, and I am far too lazy to question it. However, the only shortcoming is your contrast between honor killings and domestic violence. Are you suggesting that these two are alternatives? Just because there are honor killings doesn't mean that there is no domestic violence. If something I bet the domestic violence is much more rampant in countries with honor killings.

Quote from: Koskela Suomesta on 12.01.2010, 09:41:48
My opinion: Your nick is quite offending and arrogant and obviously meant to be. Such an nick prevails your attitude in this area and doesnt help receiving your "message". Be informed that this your preselected mental attitude instead of neutral truth seeking is very visible. But usually most people discussing here doesnt care about such an lack of manners.

Anyway, these issues have been discussed here several times in other threads in Finnish and most of them have not specially (or at all) connected to Sennels interview. You could have participated to several threads here (in Finnish)for discussion of such items. So why did you brought them up in your own English only thread?  

Last but not least: Please learn the tags used in forum postings (buttons in text editing window) for quotations. Now your answers are very difficult to read.

I thought my name was funny! :D

Well, Mr. Koskela Suomesta, I am deeply sorry for not having participated before in this forum, as it is so entertaining. This is in fact my very first time here! The reason I posted here was that this is where my friend had linked this interview, and I thought it the most logical forum for it! Why in English? Because the link posted was in English, and I thought of continuing the trend!

Sorry for not understanding tags, I am new to these forums. Sorry for upsetting you so bad, I did not mean it.  :-*

Quote from: Martti Munne on 12.01.2010, 09:46:52
So, lets presume that the tendency to rape is generated by war. What would you do to prevent these war trauma based rapes in countries giving asylum? I believe that you agree that the war is no justification for raping?

By the way, could you give us some links to the rape statistics of war veterans, and to the sources RP asked for?

I got my information from a study book I read a while ago in Australia, but if I find the title I'll put it here. It was a book about war's effect on the development of psyche, and it sited several instances when war veterans from all over the world - most commonly those who fought when young, even children - tend to show violent, even dangerous characteristic later in life. With quick googling I found these though, that might be of interest to you:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-benedict/violent-veterans-the-big_b_157937.html
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3848/

To the question of how to help victims of war, we could write a book. In fact, plenty have been published. Unfortunately little councelling or mental health care is given to the war children. About war children:
www.child-soldiers.org
www.icrc.org
http://www.icrc.org/eng/children
http://www.childrenandwar.org/

But what is definitely NOT ok, is to send parents or the children back to their home countries (Somalia etc.). Something must be done of course - and I doubt that juvenile prison gives enough attention to the problems these kids suffer - especially in the hand of psychologists like Sennels! (sorry :P ).

But let's not forget that not ALL asylum children rape or do violent acts!!! In the end, even if a higher proportion per population than among Finnish, they are still a minority.

Quote from: Jari Leino on 12.01.2010, 10:04:36
Definitely must keep publishing these Nordic interviews as they seem to get a lot of attention from da tolerators.  ;D

Which part did you understand as 'tolerant' (of abuses or HR violations?)?

QuoteFinnish culture is whatever we Finns say it is. :)

Great! I say Finnish culture is a welcoming and a lovely environment for liberal Muslims and liberal Finnish to live happily ever after. :P I think Mohammad, 20y, who speaks fluent Finnish and has a job, is Finnish. :)

QuoteAnd from whoever who does not take our culture as granted.

...from me then. I take nothing granted. :)

Quote from: M.E on 12.01.2010, 10:30:54
This was quite an extensive reply to Mr. Sennels - at least in length. I lack the resources to discuss it in detail so I just post a simple series of questions.

Thanks for participating in a constructive way. I like you. :)

Quotea) Do you acknowledge that there is a large ongoing problem with immigrants from certain parts of the world AND with their descendants?

Yes, and if you read my critique thoroughly, you would have understood this. I do not accept the status quo.

Quoteb) If such problems exist and "professional" psychologists are as powerful and knowing as you insist, why do the problems remain unsolved even after several decades of the best efforts of authorities and academics?

Did I say they are powerful? I hope I have made it abundantly clear that the problem is multifaceted and therefore needs reform in a holistical manner, from top to bottom and bottom up.

So therefore I do not understand this question. I do not see psychologists as 'the cure', and I do not think we have done the best possible job of integrating immigrants. I am a critic of the status quo, not an advocate of it.

Quotec) How much longer do we have to put up with this sorts of problems?

Good question, and fair one - but something I cannot answer. In general we are talking about a process of adaptation that happens in the course of decades or centuries. This doesn't mean the status quo must last our life-time, but it needs a tremendous amount of political and public will to change it asap.

Quoted) You seem to suggest that majority of problems of African refugees/immigrants/asylum seekers can be explained by their war trauma. The question remains, is it our duty to take here massively damaged persons to burden the already overextended mental care system?

War trauma is very simplistic an explanation, as obviously there's a lot more involved; not only the growing up surrounded by war, violence, hunger, loss of family members, but also the process of asylum (from journey to application to granting to settling in) itself which usually tends to destroy the hopefulness of the asylum seeker after a couple of years (it is this desperation I see every day, the disappointment of Europe's hostility, the unrealized dreams of a stable job, home and school for kids - the tears of a grown-up man who thought his kids would be safe and happy here, but are not.), etc.

Is it our duty? I am not saying we should start sending airplanes to Somalia and transport everyone here, of course not. But those who come to our borders and legally apply for asylum, and cannot be sent back to their home countries, should be taken in.  (and that's what we are doing; up to 99,9% get their asylum granted) It is not a question of burdening our mental health care system - it is a question of moral duty, and international law.

I have some good statistics somewhere... but the amount of only about 1,8% of our national defense armament budget goes to the asylum seekers a year, including reception centres and monthly social welfare. I have the data somewhere, maybe I'll put it here later... but the point is, that we are talking about priorities here, and until now, our government is not investing as much to mental health care as it should.

Quote from: Kiko Kennels on 12.01.2010, 12:08:37
Is it our duty? I am not saying we should start sending airplanes to Somalia and transport everyone here, of course not. But those who come to our borders and legally apply for asylum, and cannot be sent back to their home countries, should be taken in.  (and that's what we are doing; up to 99,9% get their asylum granted) It is not a question of burdening our mental health care system - it is a question of moral duty, and international law.

Ok. Just a detail: How come many somalis travel to their warring native country for holidays and some even send their children to be schooled there? Is it our moral duty to support the (often re-united by means of so called anchor children) families remaining in Finland whilst their children are sent back to their extremely dangerous home country? Whose moral -- and practical -- duty is it to take care of those children and secure their safety?
Or: If the above mentioned happy holidays are possible, doesn´t it imply that the country is not, after all, that dangerous and thus asylum should not be granted on that basis?
(yes, yes, individual cases, not to be generalized...) 

Quote from: Kiko Kennels on 12.01.2010, 09:07:22
Your question 'what makes them right wing' deserves a better definition of what I meant as 'right':

Political spectrum is not simplistically a horizontal right-left line (traditionally understood leftism and rightism) - and I apologize if I haven't emphasized my point clearly enough; there is also a vertical line, and your economic stance and conservativeness can be placed somewhere on this diagram (communitarianism and individualism or authoritarianism and libertarianism). Simplistically speaking, you maybe a right wing in terms of economics (neo-liberal), but not in terms of conservativeness.

I.e. the spectrum goes; the horizontal lines is progressive left on the far end, and conservative right on the other, and on vertical (economic) it goes libertarian vs. authoritarian. Fascism is an extreme form of conservative authoritarianism, and anarchism is an extreme of libertarian left. Yet there are always overlapping characteristic between these two polar ends, and a leftist can indeed be anti-Muslim (e.g. hard core Communists who are against all religion), and a rightist can be pro-Muslim. Yet overall majority of anti-immigrants present conservative right.

What you describe is one of the popular visualisations of the political spectrum, not the political spectrum itself. In that picture the "left" is on the left end and the "right" is on the right end, but defining right/left as conservative/proggressive is really misleading. Historically "right" has meant and still means for example supporters of free markets. You cant ignore this strong historic meaning of right/left spectrum. Actually the whole spectrum is very contradictory and therefore useless but lets play with it for a while.

QuoteSo in politics, right generally refers to support for preserving traditional customs  - the horizontal right wing usually endorses ethnic nationalism and cultural conservatism Ethnic nationalism has not historically been found on the left, while 'civic/liberal nationalism' that was developed in Quebec and other places based its nationalism on common citizenship - regardless of ethnicity -, is often associated with the left. This is why I find it very hard to understand how a green and a left could endorse ethnic nationalism.

Why I simplified Sennels speaking mostly to the 'right wing' audience is because I thought it clear that we are talking about conservative right, not necessarily economic right (I myself stand somewhere in the middle when it comes to economics). Right wing in the modern politics, e.g. European elections 2009, presented the side of anti-immigrants and anti-Muslims, while the left tend to be either neutral or pro-immigration (while many from the economic right are pro as well).

Conservative Islam is one of the most conservative powers in modern Europe and clearly the biggest of conservative groups. Those you claim to be "conservative" are actually against that very strong conservative power. Many of those who wants to keep Europe as democratic and free are not conservatives at all. So they might not be neither so called "conservative rightists" or economic rightists (ie. true right wing).

QuoteSo by all means, feel yourself green and left (although if you want to be a member of political party, you should read their manifests before joining), as you have all the liberty to be anti-immigration and a liberal left - even if this might mean contradicting some of your goals in terms of human rights and equality.

Its not just a feeling but a fact that I'm leftist green. There is no contradiction in my thinking while I oppose some harmful immigration. My immigration stances comes from my green and left core values. I value the diversity of cultures and therefore oppose massive movements of settlers to the lands of indigenous peoples because that is blending, melting and replacing these unique cultures with mainly Islamic monoculture. Islamising the areas doesn't make them "multicultural" but monocultural in the longer time scale.

I also strongly support development aid and demand more money to it. This is impossible in the present situation where mass immigration costs very much to the host countries that are alreaydy in deep debts. With the money that is used on one immigrant in Finland we could save thousands of people from dying or give education to hundreds if that money would be used on development aid. Immigrants are not the poorest of their countries, it costs a lot to sent people to other continents. Mainly the rich families can do that. Instead of helping a few rich people I would like to divert those resources to development aid and save hundreds or thousands of times more people that are really the poorest and most vulnerable of their countries.

Also I'm anti-fascist and therefore I oppose fascism and antisemitism that are a lot more popular amongst the muslims than amongst the indigenous Europeans. To save Finland from the wave of antisemitism and fascism that is already raging in some western European countries I oppose making intentionally Finland more Islamic with multiculturalism and mass immigration. Also I'm pro democracy and oppose suppressing democracy with suppressing free speech. This is what has happened in many of the more islamised countries where the human rights of critics of islamism are violated. Also I'm a pacifist and oppose creating more such conflicts that multiculturalism and mass immigration has caused to the areas where they have been "fully" implemented.

Also I'm not a conservative or nationalist. (I want to conserve nature and some other good things, but it doesn't make me a conservative in any relevant sense.)

It doesn't seem that there exists a "right wing" that happens to oppose your favourite politics, but it seems that you define people "right wing" because they oppose your favourite politics. But really, "anti-Islam" (what ever that means) is not the right or historic definition of "right wing".

QuoteNational socialism was a leftist political ideal that had a strong element of ethnic nationalism.

I refer to my previous 'diagram' of horizontal and vertical meanings of left: Originally NS was a combination of counter-rev right and anti-liberal left (republicanism, socialism, and nationalism) - i.e. it wasn't 'left' in the traditional sense. It opposes capitalism and conservatism as much as communism, social-democracy and liberalism. On political diagram it is extremely on the authoritarian side of the line, together with fascism. Hitler's NS especially was pure anti-socialist authoritarianism.

So, NS was only leftist in regards of its welfare program, and its reliance on authoritarianism both come from right and left extremes. It is not 'left' in our context, meaning liberal, as opposed to authoritarian, and it is not for civic, but like you said, ethnic nationalism.

QuoteYou are using the words as you feel they best suit your goals without thinking what they actually mean. Conservatism comes from the latin term "conservare" and it literally means and ideal to conserve the present values and traditions. Conservatism is defined by what is status quo. The status quo of today in most of the states of European Union is multiculturalism. Thus to be multiculturalist is literally to be conservative, that is; to be someone who tries or wants to conserve the status quo. Thus Nicolai Sennels is the antithesis of conservative, since he wants to shake the whole political system of his country.

As are you, apparently; In political theory, conservatism has an established definition, which goes as following:

CONSERVATISM = "political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices. " http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/133435/conservatism

= "is a political attitude and philosophy that advocates institutions and traditional practices that have developed organically,[2][3] thus emphasizing stability and continuity"

Cultural conservatism (your branch) = "Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture. The culture in question may be as large as Western culture or Eastern culture or as small as that of Tibet. Cultural conservatives try to adapt norms handed down from the past."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism (Wiki! :P )

And hey, 'multiculturalists' do not endorse the status quo, and no one is trying to preserve it. I wish you would have read my comments with more care. I have mentioned about the status quo in my above comments. Even using your own terminology, you would hit the air. We are first and foremost reformists, not conservatives, not revolutionaries.

El conservar es diferente del transformar!

QuoteYou are making an assumption that to be of anti-immigration (which doesn't mean anything, since immigration is not a monolithic concept, but immigration happens of various radically different reasons and one cannot simply stack all different kinds of immigration under the same roof) stance is to contradict goals of human rights and equality. You don't have any proof for that and that is just your assumption and opinion. You have to understand that immigration has caused several of the current human rights crisises, like what is going on in Britain where they are implementing multitude of different legal systems at the same time. To implement different laws for different people depending on the situation is not compatible with human rights.

I agree on the definition of immigration -part, and here I refer to my first paragraph of my first critique; I was generalizing something that was obvious to make it clearer; we ARE talking about immigration of Muslim asylum seekers, after all, aren't we?

I also repeat what I said about not endorsing status quo. Also see my comments above on human rights and sharia.

Granted that I define your stance of 'anti-immigration' in the way I believe 'your way' would lead if you could decide to stop Muslim immigration altogether and close borders for them. Perhaps you are not as strict as that - many anti-immigrants merely wish tighter control of the borders. But regardless of your stance - that I find a bit of a slippery slope towards extremism - there are indeed extreme outcomes from extreme measures. So let's define anti-immigration in the above comment of mine as 'anti-Muslim immigration to Europe'; what does this mean? This means that when an asylum seeker comes to our borders, we would turn them back, or send them to another country, disregarding their personal safety. This would mean, that we would neglect our 'Kantian' responsibility to help those at our door in need. This would also be against Western liberalism in essence, as we would be restricting the freedom to choose religion. In the very core of liberal values, we are also restricting freedom of movement - something not all liberals take for granted, but what I see as in the bottom of ideal liberalism. ..I could go on like this, but how are you supposed to make me see that you are protecting human rights by being Anti-Muslim-Immigration-Advocate? Sorry, I just cannot see that.

Quote from: Eino P. Keravalta on 12.01.2010, 11:28:17
So this writer is arguing that the tendency to rape is generated by war? Maybe partly so. But I think then again we must ask what is war generated by? Environment? Political structures? Economy? Of course these agents are involved, but what are they generated by? I believe that the answer can be summarized with one word: genes.

I don't worry about your english, but about your social darwinism. I hope you knew that biologically speaking there are no races, and some black Africans have more genes  in common with some white guys than with fellow Africans. :)

Quote from: KarriHowever, the only shortcoming is your contrast between honor killings and domestic violence. Are you suggesting that these two are alternatives?

That was indeed a very generalized out-of-the-top-of-my-head comparison. Surely I wasn't suggesting that, as should be clear. I guess it was not, sorry.

Quote from: MallaOk. Just a detail: How come many somalis travel to their warring native country for holidays and some even send their children to be schooled there? Is it our moral duty to support the (often re-united by means of so called anchor children) families remaining in Finland whilst their children are sent back to their extremely dangerous home country? Whose moral -- and practical -- duty is it to take care of those children and secure their safety?
Or: If the above mentioned happy holidays are possible, doesn´t it imply that the country is not, after all, that dangerous and thus asylum should not be granted on that basis?
(yes, yes, individual cases, not to be generalized...) 

Because, Malla, wars have elites, people in power, rich dudes as much as poor, destitute victims. In fact, it is a fact that some of those Somalis who fly to Finland come from wealthy families - which doesn't exclude the possibility that their lives are in great danger. Some of them come from middle class or lower middle class, and their families have united to pay the fare of one person. The poorest of the poorest are never asylum seekers in Europe - they simply cannot afford even to pay for the boat.

This doesn't mean that these people do not need protection. Just because you have a house and maybe a small business doesn't make you safe from the soldiers. A somali friend of mine saw his business man dad killed and slashed with machetes by some soldiers who wanted to take his car and rob his shop. After that they raped her mother and the other sister, while the other managed to escape. He and the other sister were the only ones to survive. This was less than 2y. ago. He saw many of the households around him experience the same. If you think about a happy holiday, I believe you are mistaken. Safe? You go there then!

There is also something you should understand about the war in Somalia. Don't imagine WWII; just because there is constant violence, and frequent fights, doesn't mean you can't spend a few days in silence - the population is huge after all. Besides, parts of Somalia, the autonomous regions of Buntuland and Somaliland are considered safe. Yet being autonomous and secessionist regions, not all Somalis can go there either. Most dangerous area, and the most common source of refugees, is still the region of Mogadishu.

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

And yes, of course as you probably will say next, there are always people who slip through the system, like former persecutors themselves. Unfortunately there are cracks like these - that I don't like either. There is also a problem in identifying a persecutor. Is a persecutor a child soldier who has been forced to kill by threatening to rape his mom? Or is it a soldier who has never known any better than fighting and only obeys orders? These are difficult questions and I would hope people to understand the background of war victims a bit more. But it shouldn't cover the essential question; should we, or should we not, accept asylum seekers from conflict countries (Muslim or not, as we are supposed to not discriminate religion, colour or ethnicity)? I vote yes. Surprise.

Somalia today:
http://www.alertnet.org/db/an_art/55866/2009/11/1-143347-1.htm
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,SOM,456d621e2,4ab892252,0.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/somalia.htm

More interesting question is what we are supposed to do with asylum seekers. Wait for the conflict to end and send them back? Adapt to them? Or simply offer them a chance to have a new life here as long as they adapt to our ways? Because as long as they do not adapt they are nothing but a burden to our society, and in fact not part of the society itself.

Quote from: Pöllämystynyt on 12.01.2010, 13:47:33
What you describe is one of the popular visualisations of the political spectrum, not the political spectrum itself. In that picture the "left" is on the left end and the "right" is on the right end, but defining right/left as conservative/proggressive is really misleading. Historically "right" has meant and still means for example supporters of free markets. You cant ignore this strong historic meaning of right/left spectrum. Actually the whole spectrum is very contradictory and therefore useless but lets play with it for a while.

You didn't read what I said about the economic dimension of the spectrum? I have in my opinion made it clear that in this discussion, when I refer to extreme right, I do not refer to libertarians, but the conservative, ethnic-nationalist right. I also mentioned that these 'labels' are overlapping and vague, but this indeed is the classical vertical-horizontal model of political spectrum. Simplistic? Yes. I never said it wasn't. It was to give you an idea. But I did indeed emphasize the two-dimensional character of the model, which you can find here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Anyway we are splitting hairs here. Back to business:

QuoteConservative Islam is one of the most conservative powers in modern Europe and clearly the biggest of conservative groups. Those you claim to be "conservative" are actually against that very strong conservative power. Many of those who wants to keep Europe as democratic and free are not conservatives at all. So they might not be neither so called "conservative rightists" or economic rightists (ie. true right wing).

Indeed, and part of this discussion has been, who are these Muslims in Europe anyway? I have in my opinion already covered parts of this topic, when talking about the current trend of European Muslims, and the differences between extremism and average (and of course liberal and conservative Muslims).

IF it would be the case, that all the Muslims in Europe demanded conservative Sharia to be applied, then I would agree with you - as I said, it would stand against our conception of human rights! But it is ignorant not to see the other degrees of conservatism among Muslims, especially when the trend of liberalization is so big. (Did you check the PEW or any other sources?)

I do find it contradictory for a human rights advocate to promote closed borders and rejection of legitimate asylum seekers based on a fear of 'Islamic invation of Western values'. I assume you're not that extreme, being green leftist and all, but I just wanted to say.

QuoteIts not just a feeling but a fact that I'm leftist green. There is no contradiction in my thinking while I oppose some harmful immigration.

Hey, me too! Did I ever say that I promote open borders, let everyone come in and now!?

QuoteMy immigration stances comes from my green and left core values. I value the diversity of cultures and therefore oppose massive movements of settlers to the lands of indigenous peoples because that is blending, melting and replacing these unique cultures with mainly Islamic monoculture. Islamising the areas doesn't make them "multicultural" but monocultural in the longer time scale.

And obviously I disagree with your fear that Islam is gonna take over the West. I fear you may have exaggerated a bit. :)

QuoteI also strongly support development aid and demand more money to it.

Here we disagree, at least to some measure. Most of the aid is useless. I am more into the individual-based initiatives such as Grameen Bank method. But anyway..

QuoteImmigrants are not the poorest of their countries, it costs a lot to sent people to other continents. Mainly the rich families can do that.

The asylum seekers to the North range from lower middle class to rich. The AS who come by boats range from lower middle-class to middle class. Often up to a dozen individuals joint their money to pay the fare of one person - and the journey to reunification or the first remittances can take up to 10-15 years. The investments are HUGE, otherwise we would see a LOT more refugees in Europe!

And as much as somebody might like to turn back a 'rich' AS, he might actually BE in danger - money doesn't help, in fact insome countries it can turn against you!

QuoteAlso I'm anti-fascist and therefore I oppose fascism and antisemitism that are a lot more popular amongst the muslims than amongst the indigenous Europeans. To save Finland from the wave of antisemitism and fascism that is already raging in some western European countries I oppose making intentionally Finland more Islamic with multiculturalism and mass immigration. Also I'm pro democracy and oppose suppressing democracy with suppressing free speech. This is what has happened in many of the more islamised countries where the human rights of critics of islamism are violated. Also I'm a pacifist and oppose creating more such conflicts that multiculturalism and mass immigration has caused to the areas where they have been "fully" implemented.

Very nicely you justify your islamophobia, but I must disagree in so many ways that I have already repeated here that I care not to repeat anymore.

QuoteAlso I'm not a conservative or nationalist. (I want to conserve nature and some other good things, but it doesn't make me a conservative in any relevant sense.)

You do seem to want to conserve 'Western culture' from 'evil Islam', making you quite an ethno-centric conservative to my taste.

QuoteIt doesn't seem that there exists a "right wing" that happens to oppose your favourite politics, but it seems that you define people "right wing" because they oppose your favourite politics. But really, "anti-Islam" (what ever that means) is not the right or historic definition of "right wing".

True, anti-Islam isn't necessarily (even Communists could be that) - but ethnic nationalism mostly really is in today's politics. It is not my definition anyway. (see above) I do find it very contradictory to claim to be a liberal and pro-human rights, unless your definition of liberal and human rights differ from the mainstream.

Really I think you seem like a sweet person, but I just think you have exaggerated the danger of Islam so much that you can't see the head from the tail anymore. If you are really into the issue, there are many ways how to 'test' whether your fear has any foundation. Just don't take it from granted from what the xenophobic public discourse lets you understand.

Islam is not Islamism. Religion and politics shouldn't mix (e.g. sharia), and that is what many Muslims think, but what all Islamists disagree with. The current trends on the popularity of IslamISM as opposed to Islam as a peaceful religion, can be found e.g. in the above links I have given.

Quote from: Kiko KennelsA somali friend of mine saw his business man dad killed

So did my Colombian friend. Its called "crime" and happens in third world countries. Cry me a river. If its not "safe" explain to me exactly why do then these Somalians travel "back home" and send their children there??

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

Only a fraction of those people in the streets are "refugees" in any case. Explain to me why aren't there any Somalians or others in the streets in Estonia? Oh, so they don't have welfare in Estonia? And you are trying to explain to me they're not here taking advantage of our welfare system? Why is it so difficult for you to understand this. You just moomintroll or what?

Lemmy, keep Ad Hominen attacks to yourself, please, or refrain from responding or taking part in the discussion.

That's all.

Greets, Mörökölli

Quote from: Kiko Kennels
Did I ever say that I promote open borders, let everyone come in and now!?

Yes, thats is actually what you are saying - you believe in sob stories of people who came in on a pumpkin driven by mice. You're acting in the very manner of an "useful idiot" as Stalin said of Western socialists during the Cold War. They however never went and experienced the life back in the good old days of the Eastern Bloc to experience the results of their idealism. Back then it was working for "peace and socialism" today its working for "multiculturalism". Both ideologies were designed to destroy the West - from the inside. What you should do is go live the joys of your proposed "multiculturalism" instead of wanting to destroy something you have.

QuoteAnd obviously I disagree with your fear that Islam is gonna take over the West.

Its not a "fear" - its happening because of these "useful idiots" are bending over not realising they are giving more and more rope to one day hang themselves. Libertarian ideologies do not work if you give in to extremists. Thats a fact but the people are blinded of their own ideology.

QuoteMost of the aid is useless.

Oh but it is useful to the people in charge they have no incentive in bettering their own populations life. Say, have you ever given aid to India? I'd rather people went contributing directly to their nuclear programme while they are at it.

Quote from: Jari Leino on 12.01.2010, 13:50:43
Great! Now let's have a referendum and find out what the rest of us Finns have to say. :)

The tyranny of the majority? :)

QuoteObviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Period.

??? Are you questioning whether asylum seekers are legitimate? No, of course not all; in fact, 70% of asylum claims in 2008 were rejected. The rest were granted protection. You don't think the screening process is tough enough? Almost all Somali AS were accepted - those rejected are usually persecutors themselves. You wanna go to Somalia and check whether the people really deserve protection?

Or are you just confusing the different statuses that are granted for accepted asylum seekers? It can be confusing, I don't blame you; refugee status, subsidiary protection and humanitarian protection are all different refugee statuses that entitle the AS protection.

Statistics from 2008:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-09-092/EN/KS-SF-09-092-EN.PDF

"The EU27 Member States granted protection to 76,300 asylum seekers in 2008, according to data issued today by the European Commission. The largest groups of beneficiaries of protection were citizens of Iraq (16 600 persons or 22% of the total number of persons granted protection status), Somalia (9 500 or 12%), Russia (7 400 or 10%), Afghanistan (5 000 or 7%) and Eritrea (4 600 or 6%).
These data on the results of asylum applications in the EU27 are taken from a report issued by Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities .
Nearly 30% of EU27 asylum decisions at the first instance resulted in protection status."

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091208/local/eu-granted-protection-to-76-300-asylum-seekers-in-2008

What on earth might you be talking about? I can't guess, and you're not really explaining anything. Let's assume you 'just don't know what you're talking about'.

"More than two-fifths of the asylum seekers who came to Britain last year have been recognised as genuinely fleeing persecution and given permission to stay, according to annual Home Office figures published yesterday.
The 42% official "recognition rate" explodes the popular myth that nearly all asylum claims are unfounded, and is an increase over the 31% of claims given official status in the previous year, 2000."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/aug/01/homeaffairs

QuoteBut I'm still happy for you since you've managed to find a job. In the asylum system. ;)

Yes, at least I get to meet, like, REAL Muslims! :P


--Edit: tag.

Quote from: Kiko Kennels on 12.01.2010, 11:26:32

Quote

Quote(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!

In Finland, domestic violence of immigrants is much higher than domestic violence of finns. Risk of ketting killed is twice as big for immigrant women than finnish women.

And atleast among muslims, domestic violence is mostly done without being under influence of alcohol, while big part of domestic violence of finns happens when drunk.

http://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/artikkeli/Maahanmuuttajan+v%C3%A4kivaltarikos+on+useimmin+perhev%C3%A4kivaltaa/1135251825061


Speaking about domestic stuff, but not really associated with above, I have this opinion.

I think family reunification should be stopped. Although it's logical that there's threat to family, it's kinda illogical that we have quota of refugees and then we took ten times more because we don't count family reunifications.. Anyway, I believe that family reunification does not help integration, on the contrary, it removes the reason of integration to new society. It makes it esaier to immigrant of course, but that's just the problem, immigrant should be having hard time so he/she would really try to get along, not just relax with his/her family. Immigrant might even get false sense of integration, when actually the whole family is just isolated from society.

And, if immigrant would have relatives back home, probably he/she would sometime wish to go back, after all, getting asylum shouldn't be permanent solution. Just place to be when war is going on.


I have also question about family reunification.. How big proportion of the family dies on average before family is reunificated? What I mean is that if the asylum seeker is in immediate threat, it would be logical that his family is also. Still it seems that after the anchor child has gone, it takes probably year or two before rest of the family follows, so if there isn't much casualties of war in that bunch, it doesn't sound like there probably weren't so much need for asylum in the first place.. And it should be spesifically a casualty of war, not because of bad health system or any random criminal act, since those are "acceptable" stuff in third world countries.

Saw some bad things happen to people? You think all the refugees are here to escape some conflicts and build our society? And now you believe it's our sacred responsibility to carry all the world's problems here and just adapt? Yes, welcome to the club, we have seen quite a lot of argumentation like this before.

By the way, why is this topic english only?

QuoteSo did my Colombian friend. Its called "crime" and happens in third world countries. Cry me a river. If its not "safe" explain to me exactly why do then these Somalians travel "back home" and send their children there??

Wow, so the war in Somalia is the same as the situation in Colombia? Have a look at the following links if you are not aware of what War (modern day warfare) is in Somalia.

See above about why some go back for visits.

QuoteOnly a fraction of those people in the streets are "refugees" in any case.

All (up to 99,9%) Somalis, Afghans and Iraqis and others are refugees. The rest are asylum seekers, some of who will be granted asylum (Eritreans, etc - who by the way are largely Christian) and some who will upon rejection be returned or sometimes regularized. Most of the rejected come from e.g. West African countries.

QuoteExplain to me why aren't there any Somalians or others in the streets in Estonia?

If you're asking me whether a country's wealth doesn't matter when deciding where to apply, of course it does - if the AS has a possibility to choose. It isn't surprising that Scandinavia is a popular destination. Most people on the other hand who come by boats want to reach Italy, France or some other country. I don't really understand the point of your question - in any case Finland takes very few asylum seekers compared with other countries. If your point is to prove that all refugees are economic migrants, that is just plain ignorant and naive. A majority of AS to Europe are not entitled to protection - this I never denied. They are, as you would like to label them, 'economic migrants'. (But I really am not even sure, if we shouldn't consider some EM case by case basis as entitled to regularization.)

Why not in Estonia? Because it is a relatively unknown receiving country and has only been a member for a short time. Before 2008 Estonia had received less than 200 applications. This is probably increasing in future.

Did I already mention responsibility sharing?

QuoteOh, so they don't have welfare in Estonia? And you are trying to explain to me they're not here taking advantage of our welfare system? Why is it so difficult for you to understand this. You just muumintroll or what?

Are you serious.  ??? OMG

I have a feeling this discussion is losing its sanity soon and going down the road to fundamentalism. :/

QuoteIts not a "fear" - its happening because of these "useful idiots" are bending over not realising they are giving more and more rope to one day hang themselves. Libertarian ideologies do not work if you give in to extremists. Thats a fact but the people are blinded of their own ideology.

Sorry Lemmy, we are not - at least I am not -libertarian. Watch your terminology. I have nothing to do with them.

QuoteOh but it is useful to the people in charge they have no incentive in bettering their own populations life. Say, have you ever given aid to India? I'd rather people went contributing directly to their nuclear programme while they are at it.

I agree. And no I haven't. I said already, I think most aid is useless.

Quote from: Kiko Kennels on 12.01.2010, 00:39:59
The point is that there is no 'Muslim culture'. There is 'Somali culture', 'Ethiopian culture', 'Saudi culture', 'Malay culture', and within these cultures, many other subcultures. Traditions and tribal customs are deeply integrated into many of these culture's Islamic practices, but it is not Islam itself – and not all Muslims either. Again, Sennels' experiences are limited to only a couple of these different Muslim 'cultures'...

I will repeat this many times, but Muslims are not only 'one' culture; they hold a variety of cultures, traditions, subgroups, identities, languages, histories...

...if Sennels were against some of these groups, I would take him more seriously (probably not...), but as he is declaring against all Muslims and the Muslim Culture, I find his generalizations ridiculous.

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

It is quite obvious his findings and field of work, then, only includes Muslims from these ethnic groups in a certain geographic area who have been involved in certain circumstances which could probably be described for example as anti-social behaviour. When Sennels says "Muslims" he means the Muslims in Denmark, and the problem individuals at that, not all the Muslims in the world. He has found that there are patterns that correlate with many or most of these individuals. I find it alarming you require him to attack (or in your own words "go against") various other groups first or you will not take him seriously. Why should he? Sennels can very well write about the problems of the Danish Muslim community without doing extensive work or seriously studying, say, Indonesian or Thai Muslims. This does not however in any way make his case about Danish problem groups any less relevant.

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

His profiling only concerns the groups he works with. The part where Mr. Sennels shoves every single Muslim on Earth into this profile fortunately exists mostly in your subjective view of his work. I have not found a single text from him that claims to combine his experiences into some global, universally true and monolithic Muslim entity.

I'm also rather confident a major part of the readers of this forum are aware there are 1.3 to 1.5 billion Muslims with wildly varying traditions, histories, social contract and models of behaviour, as you yourself said, FGM and other practices we find abhorrent in the West are traditions from nomadic cultures that predate Islam, and that many of these customs were also common in what are currently secular Western countries not long ago.

I wish you would stop claiming Sennels, or anyone else, who writes about localized experiences with Muslims in other than a positive light also extends his views or analysis to Muslims globally (and thus somehow victimizes, or accuses every Muslim), but would rather show us why his work and conclusions regarding the less successful part of the Muslim community in Denmark are false.

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

Case in point: if someone writes about the violence of secular Finnish men, nobody will accuse the writer of attacking every white secular man with a Christian background collectively.

If someone writes about prevalent honour related violence, endemic criminalty or lack of gender-equality in any Muslim community or country, the writer is attacked by the PC-firebrigade making claims much like you do, i.e. that the writer somehow fails to appreciate all Muslims are not the same and is making "sweeping generalizations" even when none are made. Muslim grievance groups might attack the writer for being islamophobic. Left-wing radicals would attack him for being racist. And so on.

I agree with you in that the MUSLIM THREAT or whatever is highly exaggerated and that there ARE people who indeed group all Muslims into a monolithic collective (although I would not count Mr. Sennels nor most of the posters of this forum to that group) but you will find the latter to be as common within both the anti-immigration or the pro-immigration camp. Some who oppose mass-immigration typical of the last decades within EU, unfortunately, do see Muslims as conquerors encroaching on their territory, but then again, many multiculturalists and cultural relativists who still advocate mass-immigration (if just done "properly", a feat nobody this far has managed) see Muslims as a monolithic victim group or robots who respond to outside stimuli as if they had no will of their own, for example the Motoon debacle which "forced" Muslims to riot, burn and deal fatwas left and right. Although I'm sure you are not one of these, and as somewhat traveled, can probably observe Muslims as human beings like rest most of us do.    

edit: correction, most of us and added "... but would rather show us why his work and conclusions regarding the less successful part of the Muslim community in Denmark are false".

Quote from: Kiko Kennels
Wow, so the war in Somalia is the same as the situation in Colombia? Have a look at the following links if you are not aware of what War (modern day warfare) is in Somalia.

And you apparently don't know much about Colombia.

QuoteSee above about why some go back for visits.

Because they are in no need of asylum nor refugee status?

QuoteIf you're asking me whether a country's wealth doesn't matter when deciding where to apply, of course it does - if the AS has a possibility to choose.

So in other words, they are not fleeing persecution but flocking to where the money is.

Quote
If your point is to prove that all refugees are economic migrants, that is just plain ignorant and naive. A majority of AS to Europe are not entitled to protection - this I never denied. They are, as you would like to label them, 'economic migrants'.

You are the naive one claiming all AS are some sort of "refugees" when its a fraction of them. You are ignorant and naive in this discussion, not I.

QuoteWhy not in Estonia?

Because they do not give welfare. In case you didn't know the Somalians first came via Estonia. I did not know there was a war there? Why didn't the Estonians then come over as refugees?

Quote
Did I already mention responsibility sharing?

What "responsibility" Finland has? We're not been or are in any war so they can freely share who are involved. You can freely toss your *own* money out the window, but I am not willing to be paying one penny for any welfare tourists.

QuoteAre you serious. 

You can be the circus act if I am not serious. Estonia has no refugees as they give out no welfare. Finland should adapt the Estonian legislation. After all it is an EU country so there is nothing wrong with their system.

Quote
I have a feeling this discussion is losing its sanity soon and going down the road to fundamentalism.

Multiculturalists have lost their sanity a long time ago.

Quote
Sorry Lemmy, we are not - at least I am not -libertarian. Watch your terminology. I have nothing to do with them.

You believe in double standards - different laws for different people in the same country. Of course libertarians believe everyone using their own money - while you apparently believe using in other peoples money.

Quote from: Kiko Kennels on 12.01.2010, 14:21:34
I am so tired of trying to tell people that the Somali in the street really deserved his refugee, and is not here to take advantage of you. Why is it so difficult for so many to understand this.

There is a very simple and effective solution to this problem. Lets make the refugee and "humanitarian immigration" business self-funding. Lets stop taking new immigrants through these channels until the current ones can generate enough funding (counting every aspect including social costs such as crimes etc..) to support newcomers. As long as the cost to society is zero or negative, there is no reason to suspect that people coming here are welfare tourists. According to statements by many politicians and those making a living in the refugee business, refugees and asylum seekers are an asset instead of a liability. Lets put this incredible claim to test and see what happens before taking any new ones. I bet that they are a huge liability, and therefore nobody can seriously claim that most of these people are not looking for an economic advantage. Some of them may deserve protection, but we do not owe them anything in the economic sense.

Quote from: brr on 12.01.2010, 16:24:55

Quote from: Kiko Kennels on 12.01.2010, 14:21:34
I am so tired of trying to tell people that the Somali in the street really deserved his refugee, and is not here to take advantage of you. Why is it so difficult for so many to understand this.

There is a very simple and effective solution to this problem. Lets make the refugee and "humanitarian immigration" business self-funding. Lets stop taking new immigrants through these channels until the current ones can generate enough funding (counting every aspect including social costs such as crimes etc..) to support newcomers. As long as the cost to society is zero or negative, there is no reason to suspect that people coming here are welfare tourists. According to statements by many politicians and those making a living in the refugee business, refugees and asylum seekers are an asset instead of a liability. Lets put this incredible claim to test and see what happens before taking any new ones. I bet that they are a huge liability, and therefore nobody can seriously claim that most of these people are not looking for an economic advantage. Some of them may deserve protection, but we do not owe them anything in the economic sense.

But when do you start counting? Quite a big portion of the finnish industry was started by immigrants or with immigrant money. Of course, this was quite a different setting...but still.

Quote from: Kiko Kennels on 12.01.2010, 14:51:22

Quote from: Pöllämystynyt on 12.01.2010, 13:47:33
What you describe is one of the popular visualisations of the political spectrum, not the political spectrum itself. In that picture the "left" is on the left end and the "right" is on the right end, but defining right/left as conservative/proggressive is really misleading. Historically "right" has meant and still means for example supporters of free markets. You cant ignore this strong historic meaning of right/left spectrum. Actually the whole spectrum is very contradictory and therefore useless but lets play with it for a while.

You didn't read what I said about the economic dimension of the spectrum? I have in my opinion made it clear that in this discussion, when I refer to extreme right, I do not refer to libertarians, but the conservative, ethnic-nationalist right. I also mentioned that these 'labels' are overlapping and vague, but this indeed is the classical vertical-horizontal model of political spectrum. Simplistic? Yes. I never said it wasn't. It was to give you an idea. But I did indeed emphasize the two-dimensional character of the model, which you can find here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

You should realise that you are using the concept of "extreme right"  like a profanity to describe the people you disagree with. This way it might be easy for you to detect the enemy out there that you completely disagree with. Just disagree with someone and you can label him/her "right wing". That might seem practical because it seems to make the world easy to understand, but its a wrong way. Its a way to make complicated matters silly and "black and white". Its a way to make artificial borders around you. Its a way to demonise people without a having to listen what they want to tell you.

I know that you said you know the other definition of right/left, but it doesnt matter if you keep on using the "right" as a profanity.

QuoteI do find it contradictory for a human rights advocate to promote closed borders and rejection of legitimate asylum seekers based on a fear of 'Islamic invation of Western values'. I assume you're not that extreme, being green leftist and all, but I just wanted to say.

I dont support "closed borders". That would be just ridiculous. Closed borders is  a "straw man" argument; no one really supports it.

Now you are using the word "extreme" as a profanity too, to describe those who disagree with you  You presume that I am not that "extreme" because I am green leftist, and therefore not "right wing" (another profanity to describe those who disagree). You are playing with words, using profanities to mark the people who think differently than you.

Im not an extremist, but it's not because I happen to be a green leftist like you. Being in a same category with you doesn't make people non-extremists, and being in a different category doesn't make people extremists. I am not an extremist simply because I dont have any extremist ideology. Do people agree with your favourite immigration policy or not has nothing to do with their extremism or non-extremism.

Quote

QuoteAlso I'm anti-fascist and therefore I oppose fascism and antisemitism that are a lot more popular amongst the muslims than amongst the indigenous Europeans. To save Finland from the wave of antisemitism and fascism that is already raging in some western European countries I oppose making intentionally Finland more Islamic by multiculturalism and mass immigration. Also I'm pro democracy and oppose suppressing democracy with suppressing free speech. This is what has happened in many of the more islamised countries where the human rights of critics of islamism are violated. Also I'm a pacifist and oppose creating more such conflicts that multiculturalism and mass immigration has caused to the areas where they have been "fully" implemented.

Very nicely you justify your islamophobia, but I must disagree in so many ways that I have already repeated here that I care not to repeat anymore.

What do you mean by "my islamophobia"? You dont know me, you dont know my feelings and emotions. If I resist nazis I am not a "naziphobic" and if I resist islamic nazism I am not islamophobic. Its just anti-fascism. Also I defend the jews from antisemitic islamic hatemongering and attacs. This is not a phobia, it is a defense.

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

Those who resist drugs do not have drug-o-phobia and those who resist war do not have war-phobia. Its just defense. Anti-drug -people defends for example children from negative health effects of drugs and anti war -people defends for example people from being hurt. Similarly I defend Jews and homosexuals and other people from being attacked, democracy from being replaced with totalitarism etc.

QuoteAlso I'm not a conservative or nationalist. (I want to conserve nature and some other good things, but it doesn't make me a conservative in any relevant sense.)

QuoteYou do seem to want to conserve 'Western culture' from 'evil Islam', making you quite an ethno-centric conservative to my taste.

I am not "pro Western culture", I am pro every culture (including Western). All the cultures should be spared from replacing and melting so that the world would be rich in cultural diversity that I love.

I have not been talking about "evil Islam". I have been talking about Islam that has not interagrated in any Western society no matter how much the societies have tried. Islamic world is not a problem. Islam is not a problem. Muslims are intergrated in muslim countries. The problem that I am talking about is not caused by Islam but the artificial, politically motivated planting of muslim societies inside the Western societies. This planting happens by supporting immigration and non-integration (multiculturalism).

I'm not trying to change the muslim countries. Islam is not a problem in those countries, as least not more than a conservative religion generally is. The western countries problems with Islam are caused by immigration and multiculturalism.

Quote

QuoteIt doesn't seem that there exists a "right wing" that happens to oppose your favourite politics, but it seems that you define people "right wing" because they oppose your favourite politics. But really, "anti-Islam" (what ever that means) is not the right or historic definition of "right wing".

True, anti-Islam isn't necessarily (even Communists could be that) - but ethnic nationalism mostly really is in today's politics. It is not my definition anyway. (see above) I do find it very contradictory to claim to be a liberal and pro-human rights, unless your definition of liberal and human rights differ from the mainstream.

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

Quote from: KarriQuite a big portion of the finnish industry was started by immigrants or with immigrant money.

Quite a big proportion of industries in Africa & Asia were stared by Europeans with European capital. So?

Quote from: Karri on 12.01.2010, 17:31:41
But when do you start counting? Quite a big portion of the finnish industry was started by immigrants or with immigrant money. Of course, this was quite a different setting...but still.

I don't mean the usual immigration in which authorities make sure the immigrant has means to support themselves and are not a danger to society. The refugee and humanitarian immigration is different, since the newcomers claim to be looking for refuge instead of a higher standard of living and they are not required to have labour skills, money, linguistic skills, or even willingness to work. So lets give them refuge, but not economic benefits. That has been a good motivator in the past in all kinds of societies to bring out the best in people. It would free the authorities from the burden of inappropriate asylum applicants, since there is no money and hence no reason to come here.

Excuse my poor English, argumentation and B.O. The absense of quotes and sources is also regrettable.
I thought I'd chime in nevertheless.
I see Kiko you entertain a very global mindset, when it comes to immigration and social responsibility. I give you two thumbs up, yet I have to say your perspective won't work for the people who are paying for it, the Finnish people. Their money, their perspective if you ask me.

Islamisation has never been the issue for me, nor has the survival of the ambiguous Finnish culture. I believe many here concur.

Said that, few fiscal realities to consider:
Development aid, which you consider somewhat useless (as do I), was around 950 million euros last year, give or take.
Cost of immigration centers alone was around 120 million, again give or take.
Cost of unemployed foreign dudes, around 560 million euros, yet again give or take.

These figures can be found from various statistics, courtesy of the Finnish Government.

Can these rough estimates be considered moderate expenses? In my opinion it's common sense to criticise whether or not tax payers should burden themselves with this extra cost.
How much humanitarian immigration should cost then? What would be the proper comparison? Total costs this year could exceed the amount that has been budgeted for, let's say, basic road maintenance.

No wonder immigration policies arouse controversy. I don't want to sound too small-minded, but that's kinda like the tax payers' own money. I give money to charity, Amnesty, or whatever if and when I choose to. My government doesn't get to choose for me. Like my bank teller doesn't get to transfer some of my money where he or she sees fit. Yes, for many it boils down to cents and euros. Truckloads of money, and for what? A shelter for a few guys, 'til they get to be unemployed in a country that usually has very little use for them, job-market wise?

But okay, let's forget about the money. It's boring.

I consider myself something of a world citizen.
I realize the existence of entities called nations, all holed up in their own sand boxes with their own currencies and what not. Complex thingies involving concrete thingies like economical systems, political systems or infrastructure, and then the less tangible thingies like culture. I understand, that if these structures we're forcefully torn down, I'd propably be a-okay with it. But, the world I so much like to travel and experience, would have a hard time. Finland included. Why force this never-seen-before-pace for the biggest-ever-demographic-shift? Just for the fun of it?

In my humble opinion, since the world is in a constant state of change, the best way to change is little by little. So slow, you can't even notice. That way, no conflict, no extremist-right-or-wrong-wing-movements, no fuss no hassle. Give it time.

If we're on the right track and these questions are irrelevant, why the commotion? why are we all having this delightful exchange of ideas?

Kylla te Adminit olette hauskoja. Ette parempaa nimea mulle sitten keksineet. :P

Quote from: Lemmy on 12.01.2010, 16:15:28
And you apparently don't know much about Colombia.

Do you really wanna go here? Should we start analizing the differences between the guerrilla strategy of FARC and the complex war in Somalia? I think if we keep on doing this 'mine's bigger than yours' you'll end up losing, as you still don't know anything about Somalia - or apparently Colombia either.  :roll:  ;D

QuoteBecause they are in no need of asylum nor refugee status?

So you didn't see. Ignoring my words doesn't make you look smarter.

QuoteSo in other words, they are not fleeing persecution but flocking to where the money is.

I guess discussing with you is not very fruitful as you keep repeating your same comments and ignoring mine. Convenient for you, boring for me.

QuoteYou are the naive one claiming all AS are some sort of "refugees" when its a fraction of them. You are ignorant and naive in this discussion, not I.

Are you not able to read?? I did NOT say that all ASYLUM SEEKERS are refugees, I just finished saying how 70% of them are NOT legitimate, and those GRANTED ASYLUM ARE the legitimate refugees, please READ my comments if you want to make fun of them.  :roll:

Lemmy, here's some terminology for you, 101:
Asylum seeker = turvapaikanHAKIJA joka hakee turvapaikkaa
Asylum = turvapaikka
Granted asylum = turvapaikka myonnetty
Rejected asylum seeker = hylatty turvapaikanhakija
Refugee = pakolainen jolle on myonnetty turvapaikka (eli ent. turvapaikanhakija)

Eli Lemmy suomeksi jos et osaa englantia: mina juuri sanoin, etta 70% turvapaikanhakijoista saavat kielteisen paatoksen, eli EIVAT ole oikeutettuja turvapaikkaan.

- almost all of these come as 'economic' migrants from e.g. West Africa, WHEREAS those coming from Somalia (except nowadays with the exception of more peaceful Somali- and Buntuland) are granted asylum in almost 100% of the cases, MEANING that they are REFUGEES.

Capiche?

Cheeses!  :o

QuoteBecause they do not give welfare. In case you didn't know the Somalians first came via Estonia. I did not know there was a war there? Why didn't the Estonians then come over as refugees?

It seems you do not know how Schengen asylum system works: the country where the asylum seeker first lands HAS to process the application. I am not familiar to what you are referring to and perhaps you could clarify; under the Schengen treaty it wouldn't be possible for Finland to take asylum seekers from Estonia, as Estonia would have to process them.

Somebody tell me more about this if you really KNOW something about it. I haven't heard of Somalis coming 'first' to Estonia and then Finland.

..unless you are referring to family reunification? In that case I am surprised they went to Estonia in the first place, and not directly to Finland. FR between European countries is a long and arduous process, and not very common as far as I know.

..and sure, refugee or not, I would choose to come to Finland than go there. No surprise there. Refugees are also allowed to dream.

QuoteWhat "responsibility" Finland has? We're not been or are in any war so they can freely share who are involved. You can freely toss your *own* money out the window, but I am not willing to be paying one penny for any welfare tourists.

Everyone has a responsibility - we are by the way also under treaties. And if you really want to get down on it, we can ask whether we can really escape any resp. to help, when our progress owes largely to the colonial powers and their capitalist extensions. You think Finnish progress was born out of the blue, without even indirectly exploiting others? Who's naive?

Just because you see legitimate refugees as welfare tourists is really your problem, but it's not founded on facts OR morals. It is your belief, thus I just choose to ignore it. Otherwise I'll be talking to something similar to a religious fanatic.

QuoteYou can be the circus act if I am not serious. Estonia has no refugees as they give out no welfare.

Italy and Spain don't either - and they have a bunch of asylum seekers. Many other European countries don't either. The real welfare countries get only a fraction of the asylum seekers in Europe. Stop complaining.

QuoteYou believe in double standards - different laws for different people in the same country. Of course libertarians believe everyone using their own money - while you apparently believe using in other peoples money.

So you checked what libertarianism means?  :roll: Then you realize I am not one - as I like taxes and I like to give some of them to the asylum seekers. I'm a so-called liberal egalitarian. So that you know.

I also never said I believe in different laws in the same country. I wish you would start reading my texts and not leaf them through and misread them. On the very contrary, dear Lemmy, please refer to my earlier comments and stop punching air. It's boring for us all.

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

Thank you for a contributive post, nice that some people actually can discuss intelligently. I'm happy to answer.

Here some perspective to the money question:

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

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

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

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

I agree with you, Sivulause, that there is a limit of how much we can financially invest to receive asylum seekers ( - and those we can't take in should be relocated as part of the burden-sharing programme that has been advocated so much). But do you not think the expenses have been exaggerated a tiny bit?

QuoteWhy force this never-seen-before-pace for the biggest-ever-demographic-shift? Just for the fun of it?

I guess here's something that Homma people keep mistaking me - I don't know about other pro-immigration advocates, but I am not one of those who say hey, let's take everyone in right here right now. But I just can't see the threat that you are seeing; what ever shifts are happening are happening as a result of globalization - and humanitarian endeavours are, and should, be part of it. If we abstain from our moral responsibility to oversee that globalization is directed to a sustainable direction, then, just like with climate, we have some tougher times ahead of us. Polarizing the world into areas where Muslims can go, and areas where they cannot, will certainly not bring about a more stable world. I'm sure you also don't advocate that. I just can't see what the anti-Muslim refugee immigration advocates (let's call them anti-MRIAs or whatever) hope to achieve in the long run. But hey, I am NOT saying we should take them all in, whoever knocks the door! As it happens, we are not doing that now - and we can avoid, in the case of legitimate asylum seekers, a destructive impact simply by creating a better transnational system, in the EU and outside of it. This is what I advocate, first and foremost! Burden-sharing; Finland takes the share it can sustain, the rest take the rest. But we don't have the right to turn an AS away without somebody processing them.

QuoteIn my humble opinion, since the world is in a constant state of change, the best way to change is little by little. So slow, you can't even notice. That way, no conflict, no extremist-right-or-wrong-wing-movements, no fuss no hassle. Give it time.

I agree 100%! This is one of the problem of many of my opponents; they expect everything to happen right now. But world is not a fast-food restaurant; like you said, things evolve little by little. But this doesn't mean we should choose a laissez-faire attitude - and no, I disagree with that 'we would be on the right track'. We're not completely at loss, but I myself am scared to shit (excuse my French) of the current political trend in the European migration politics. I am creeped out by the popularity of guys like Halla-aho who claims Islam is a pedophile religion (when Christiniaty isn't) and Sennels who claims that Muslims are a danger to our society. I am angry that EU is ok with Italy being ok with Gaddafi, who systematically abuses, discriminates, tortures and even kills refugees in its territory. I can't accept the inhumane conditions in the asylum centres in most Southern countries - some of which were criticized by many HR groups, and also by an ex-diplomat colleague of mine, who stated that they were worse than 'Philippine death rows and Palestine prisons'). I cannot accept racism, intolerance and xenophobia. That's all.

I'm an advocate of realistic, moderate reform, not revolution (forcing a change too quick), not status quo either. I am an advocate of human rights and global responsibility. I question the priority of the nation-state and culture over these responsibilities. Sovereignty should not trump human rights. We are in this boat together - if you think we need to unite to protect the climate, don't think we can stand by and watch when people get slaughtered, butchered and raped, or just killed by famine or destituted by poverty and inequalities. If you can't worry about other people than your neighbours in Kikkola, that's ok - but the few cents a month you pay to save a rape victims life shouldn't bother you that much - nor should the fact that there are strange looking people on the street who practice a different religion.

And that's my point.

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 12.01.2010, 21:42:44And that's my point.

Just a remark ; I'm a bit busy but do not go anywhere. I will return to your so-called points later.

No kumpi voitti?

Ei sillä etten osaa enklantia, mutta ei jaksa oikeasti lukea(jossa suurin osa on saman toistoa) jotta olis kiva jos referois taistelun ja kertois kuka voitti(anteeksi olen vähän laiska tän suhteen, mutta silti tuottavassa työssä)?? (ei pakolais työssä korjannen!)

Vaikka kyllä me tiedämme ettei kommareita pysty kääntään edes faktalla..

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System
I guess discussing with you is not very fruitful as you keep repeating your same comments and ignoring mine. Convenient for you, boring for me.

Because you are the one blindly trying to explain to me these asylum seekers are refugees. For the majority of asylum seekers they are not, but blatantly abusing the system.

QuoteAre you not able to read??

You have trouble comprehending what you read.

QuoteEli Lemmy suomeksi jos et osaa englantia: mina juuri sanoin, etta 70% turvapaikanhakijoista saavat kielteisen paatoksen, eli EIVAT ole oikeutettuja turvapaikkaan.

Yes but they get some resident status because of the idealists stupidity which de facto REWARDS the abuse of the system.

QuoteMEANING that they are REFUGEES.

No they are not.

Quote
I am not familiar to what you are referring to and perhaps you could clarify; under the Schengen treaty it wouldn't be possible for Finland to take asylum seekers from Estonia,

Time before Schengen or EU, mid 1990's and Johanna Suurpää. Do some of the research of how this immigrant and asylum business you are working in works. It was deliberately built up by communists after the USSR fell.  

Quote
Somebody tell me more about this if you really KNOW something about it. I haven't heard of Somalis coming 'first' to Estonia and then Finland.

The admins told me not to call you stupid - you then must be illiterate.
http://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,740.0.html

Quote
Everyone has a responsibility - we are by the way also under treaties.

Exactly what treaties? None of them is different what eg. Estonia has made. Its just the generous welfare system that assumes people arent' abusing the system which they mostly are if you count entering the country on false pretenses, except for the 2% getting the actual refugee status.

QuoteJust because you see legitimate refugees as welfare tourists is really your problem, but it's not founded on facts OR morals. It is your belief, thus I just choose to ignore it.

Just as I ignore your claims that more than 2% are genuine UNCHR mandated refugees. You are a multiculturalist fanatic. You benefit from these welfare tourists, so of course you do not wish to have to get a real job. Instead of being a parasite like everyone involved in the asylum business.

QuoteItaly and Spain don't either - and they have a bunch of asylum seekers.

Italy and Spain - unlike Finland, have the grey economy that thrives on exploiting the illegals.

QuoteStop complaining.

You stop the welfare seekers first.

Quote
Polarizing the world into areas where Muslims can go, and areas where they cannot, will certainly not bring about a more stable world. I'm sure you also don't advocate that.

Ah but you do not see - its the muslims themselves polarizing areas where people like police or fire brigades cannot go. And it destabilizing these places. You never read of Malmö or is your head so high up in the clouds you never read anything pertaining to reality?

QuoteI am an advocate of human rights and global responsibility

.

To have any rights you need to show you deserve them. If you are a criminal its not racism nor xenophobia to make you go packing. As for your global responsibility - it is not mine - Finland is a free country - I want to live in Finland - if you want to live in some multiculturalist paradise you are welcome to go there. Just don't bring your idealism here and try to make Finland multiculturalist and expect to get the money from dipping into my pocket. The more I read your asinine drivel, the more I am convinced that people working in the asylum business are idealistic and naive - "useful idiots".  

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 12.01.2010, 21:42:44
Kylla te Adminit olette hauskoja. Ette parempaa nimea mulle sitten keksineet. :P

Quote from: Lemmy on 12.01.2010, 16:15:28
And you apparently don't know much about Colombia.

Do you really wanna go here? Should we start analizing the differences between the guerrilla strategy of FARC and the complex war in Somalia? I think if we keep on doing this 'mine's bigger than yours' you'll end up losing, as you still don't know anything about Somalia - or apparently Colombia either.  :roll:  ;D

I'm not the naive ideologist here in this discussion. I base my arguments on facts. You will lose on each and every argument - you can rest assured of that which of us has better knowledge of things. I have never lost a debate to a barber. FARC is one of the five players, ELN and ARC and then the druglords each play a part in the conflict. As do the Colombian and Venezualan governments as well as the USA in its "war against drugs". Not complex?

Quote from: Pöllämystynyt on 12.01.2010, 17:40:45
You should realise that you are using the concept of "extreme right"  like a profanity to describe the people you disagree with. This way it might be easy for you to detect the enemy out there that you completely disagree with. Just disagree with someone and you can label him/her "right wing". That might seem practical because it seems to make the world easy to understand, but its a wrong way. Its a way to make complicated matters silly and "black and white". Its a way to make artificial borders around you. Its a way to demonise people without a having to listen what they want to tell you.

I know that you said you know the other definition of right/left, but it doesnt matter if you keep on using the "right" as a profanity.

I was using nothing as such, as not only is it a commonly known generalization (exceptions allowed), also in the late European migration tendencies it is indeed mostly the right, especially the extreme right (which many Homma represent, not all, but many, and I wasn't referring to you), that advocates strong anti-Islam policies. If you get offended for me not mentioning all the possible ceteris paribus-clauses that might exist, forgive me, but I'm not sure whether you can really escape the fact that anti-Muslim attitude is largely represented by the right, especially the extreme. I would appreciate if you didn't take it so personally that I use a terminology that those who do belong to right, wouldn't find offending at all. Granted, that extreme right is a minority in this discussion - but when I was talking about 'closed borders' and such (and of course I wasn't talking about absolute closed borders, but closed for African and Middle Eastern immigrants), this is something advacated mostly by the extreme - you and the majority anti-Muslim immigrant advocates belong to the more moderate group of more control of the borders. Does it change the fact in any way that the majority comes from right? Pollamystynyt, it is nothing personal against you!

And how does telling that a view is predominantly ´right´or 'left' means in any way demonizing it? I thought it would be just stating facts (albeit generalized).

QuoteI dont support "closed borders". That would be just ridiculous. Closed borders is  a "straw man" argument; no one really supports it.

Yes I wasn't referring to you; I was referring to an imagined HR advocate who would promote closed borders (not for everybody but for A. and ME Muslim immigrants). It would indeed be ridiculous. Therefore I assume you do promote the taking in of some Muslim asylum seekers?

If you do, then here's a question; when talking about integration - and efficient one that is, not the current model - do you believe a Muslim that would be such an under-represented minority could really integrate (e.g. 0,01%), or could it be, as I believe, that they have to have a reasonable representation in the population to really integrate?

QuoteNow you are using the word "extreme" as a profanity too, to describe those who disagree with you  You presume that I am not that "extreme" because I am green leftist, and therefore not "right wing" (another profanity to describe those who disagree). You are playing with words, using profanities to mark the people who think differently than you.

I don´t see most people in this forum that extreme, where did you get that from?  ??? I might see the majority representing the right, but I wasn't saying everybody not thinking like me is an extreme rightist. I do refer to the extreme quite a lot, since some claims made are quite extreme - Sennels included. It isn't extreme for you to say that Quran bids to do criminal acts?? :0

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

QuoteWhat do you mean by "my islamophobia"? You dont know me, you dont know my feelings and emotions. If I resist nazis I am not a "naziphobic" and if I resist islamic nazism I am not islamophobic. Its just anti-fascism. Also I defend the jews from antisemitic islamic hatemongering and attacs. This is not a phobia, it is a defense.

When you imply that Islam is going to take over our values, that is not only exaggerated, but I find it xenophobic to the least. Besides, you use the terms 'islamism' and 'islam' interchangeably, and I have tried to warn against this. Saying that we can't accept Muslims because they are against freedom of speech is not based on any fact, at all. Dictators and authoritarians are. But civilian Muslims? Btw Al-Jazeera happens to be one of the most liberal medias in the world. Please don't you also mix Islamism and political Islam with the religion and moderate Muslims.

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

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

QuoteI am not "pro Western culture", I am pro every culture (including Western). All the cultures should be spared from replacing and melting so that the world would be rich in cultural diversity that I love.

Aaa! Now I understand! You are what I might say as 'conservative multiculturalists' who are usually also communitarians. That's what you advocate! First of all, you seem to see MC as a value in itself, something to be preserved (cultural conservatism!). Secondly, you are willing to restrict freedom of movement while allowing free movement of capital and goods, to preserve these cultures from mixing. You want to keep travelling Thailand and Cambodia so that you can enjoy the rich diversity of the world - while preventing Thais and Cambodians to emigrate from 'their part of the world' and mixing with us. You don't want Hadza to move into the urban areas even if they had security and welfare, because then the last hunter-gatherers would be gone.

I see! This is finally the parting of our ways; I'm a cosmopolitan multiculturalist, you're an isolationist-to-at-least-some-degree MC. I do not see MC as a value; I see it as an existing fact. My stand is to accomodate MC with the globalizing world - you are an anti-globalization advocate, or am I wrong? You wish to stop the wheels of global migration to preserve the existing cultures. If this is indeed the case, then you are, sorry, part of the (extreme) cultural conservatisve group. But hey.... that doesn't go hand in hand with what you said about not advocating closed borders? I am confused. So ok; tourism is ok, as long as there are no great movements from one country to another? Or minimal immigration is ok, as long as they don't change the existing culture?

I'm confused now. ???

QuoteI have not been talking about "evil Islam". I have been talking about Islam that has not interagrated in any Western society no matter how much the societies have tried. Islamic world is not a problem. Islam is not a problem. Muslims are intergrated in muslim countries. The problem that I am talking about is not caused by Islam but the artificial, politically motivated planting of muslim societies inside the Western societies. This planting happens by supporting immigration and non-integration (multiculturalism).

What - me not supporting integration???? Who's making straw men now. ???

It seems we have different definitions of integration??

How much the societies have tried? Well, I don't think they have tried that much - and I have explained some of my reasoning above. I also don't think you can expect results in a decade or two. You also view integration as a one-way street just as Sennels, expecting Muslims to convert to Westerners. You also keep mixing political Islam with Muslims. Ever lived in London, let's say like pre-9/11? Many Muslims there are integrated nicely, it's the younger post-9/11 generation that's the biggest problem.

QuoteI'm not trying to change the muslim countries. Islam is not a problem in those countries, as least not more than a conservative religion generally is. The western countries problems with Islam are caused by immigration and multiculturalism.

Does this make you a cultural relativist? I guess so. In this we also differ. I do not justify human rights violations by traditions or culture. I do not accept dictatorships, tyranny or repression. I also believe humanitarian intervention is important, and every country should be helped to develop a model of democracy suitable for their own (not necessarily Western democracy).

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

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

Muslims against HR? Are you kidding? Muslims have their own parallel conception of core values that need to be protected, and we could say that especially in the case of moderate and liberal Muslims their ideas of HR overlap greatly with our own. There is also a gender dimension here; women in 'general' are strongly in favour of HR while, especially older generation males are strongly against them. Again we must remember not to talk about Muslims as a homogeneous group.

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

'us' and 'them'. Who's the one creating the extremes here?

QuoteYou don't want Hadza to move into the urban areas even if they had security and welfare, because then the last hunter-gatherers would be gone.

I would rather see tha Hadza be able to live - if they choose - in their own hunter-gatherer culture as who are you or I to go tell them that living in a city is somehow "better" than how they live now.  That is imperialism, and blatant racism to say that the Hadza do not have an equally a right to have their culture and keep it if they want.

QuoteOr minimal immigration is ok, as long as they don't change the existing culture?

So in other words, we should go back and Colonize Africa?

Quote from: Lemmy on 12.01.2010, 22:22:38
Because you are the one blindly trying to explain to me these asylum seekers are refugees. For the majority of asylum seekers they are not, but blatantly abusing the system.

NO!!! God dammit excuse my French I was NOT SAYING THAT ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE REFUGEES! Please, how can I make you understand my English!

70% of asylum seekers are economic migrants from W Africa, and they get REJECTED. 30% of the asylum seekers are legitimate refugees who's refugee status gets ACCEPTED.

OMG will you never ever learn to read???

QuoteExactly what treaties? None of them is different what eg. Estonia has made. Its just the generous welfare system that assumes people arent' abusing the system which they mostly are if you count entering the country on false pretenses, except for the 2% getting the actual refugee status.

2%???? How is 30% to you in any way 2%?? Subsidiary and hum. protection are accepted asylums as well, so the people are considered refugees as well. Please visit UM and Immi to check on the terms if you're confused.

QuoteI would rather see tha Hadza be able to live - if they choose - in their own hunter-gatherer culture as who are you to go tell them that living in a city is somehow "better". That is imperialism, and racism to say that the Hadza do not have an equally a right to have their culture and keep it if they want.

Twisting my words again. Who was saying ANYTHING about telling them to move a city? Lemmy, most of them WANT to, they choose to, and they have left already. OMG how you don't even know how to use the term racism.

QuoteI'm not the naive ideologist here in this discussion. I base my arguments on facts. You will lose on each and every argument - you can rest assured of that which of us has better knowledge of things. I have never lost a debate to a barber. FARC is one of the five players, ELN and ARC and then the druglords each play a part in the conflict. As do the Colombian and Venezualan governments as well as the USA in its "war against drugs". Not complex?

You keep saying I'm a naive ideologist when you haven't proven my claims unfounded, and you don't seem to know what my ideology is.

I haven't seen much facts from you, mostly empty blabbering.

Just because you can name some of the players of Colombian guerrilla warfare doesn't mean you can compare it with Somalia. I wasn't saying that Colombia isn't complex - I have studied the conflict myself also when living in South America. BUT it is simply ignorant to use Colombia as Somalia's analogy. Back to school, boy.

You said you read my comments, but you haven't. You purposefully twist my words, ignore facts and ridicule me, while not being able to prove anything you say. Learn from some of the other people here how to discuss.Communism... parasites... OMG You're creeping me out. I'm done with you.

:o

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System
70% of asylum seekers are economic migrants from W Africa, and they get REJECTED. 30% of the asylum seekers are legitimate refugees who's refugee status gets ACCEPTED.

So why is it then you are defending these people?

Quote
2%???? How is 30% to you in any way 2%?? Subsidiary and hum. protection are accepted asylums as well, so the people are considered refugees as well. Please visit UM and Immi to check on the terms if you're confused.

The correct number is 2% of REFUGEES. Please stop confusing the terminology yourself.

QuoteYou purposefully twist my words, ignore facts and ridicule me, while not being able to prove anything you say.

Thats what you do you. You cannot face the facts. You are promoting the destruction of Finland just because you are an idealist. And if I ridicule you its because you are so funny.

Quote from: Lemmy on 12.01.2010, 22:59:55
So why is it then you are defending these people?

Ok one last time... I haven't been defending the rejected asylum seekers at all, I have been defending ALL THE TIME those who are legitimate. We can talk about the rejected later. I need to go to sleep.

QuoteThe correct number is 2% of REFUGEES. Please stop confusing the terminology yourself.

No it is not... 30% of the AS are legitimate refugees. Asylum is granted on 3 main categories; refugee status, temporary humanitarian protection, and subsidiary status. These are all refugees. I told you to check the facts. I'll link them to you later if you can't do it yourself (obviously you can't or you would have already).

QuoteThats what you do you. You cannot face the facts. You are promoting the destruction of Finland just because you are an idealist. And if I ridicule you its because you are so funny.

Sigh... I love your argument ad hominems, I don't even know why I bother.
Last time:
Define exactly HOW I am promoting the destruction of Finland?
How am I an idealist?

If you can't argue for your own claims you are the funny one, And goddamn tiring. Now I'm out.

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System
Ok one last time... I haven't been defending the rejected asylum seekers at all, I have been defending ALL THE TIME those who are legitimate.

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

QuoteAsylum is granted on 3 main categories; refugee status, temporary humanitarian protection, and subsidiary status. These are all refugees.

No they are not, you and other idealists can _claim_ them to be refugees, but only the ones with "refugee status" are refugees for me. The rest are "legally in country" maybe, but not "refugees".

QuoteI told you to check the facts.

I told you to do that, I am not interested in debating what multiculturalist propaganda says.

QuoteDefine exactly HOW I am promoting the destruction of Finland?
How am I an idealist?

You want us to accept all the dregs of the world because of your "humanitarian" stance. You blind your eyes from the truth. The truth is that illegal immigration isn't anything Finland needs as some sort of "need" or "requirement", and multiculturalism as double standards and a divided society is something Finland needs even less. Multiculturalism destroys societies - you promote multiculturalism, therefore you promote the destruction of the Finnish society.

Quote from: Pöllämystynyt on 12.01.2010, 02:37:06

Quote
I remember many years back an incident in the central railway station in Helsinki, where a white, Finnish born woman was raped by a white, Finnish born man – behind a statue in the very middle of the square, late, but a busy Friday (?) night. The woman had screamed for help – no one had come to rescue.

What is the point of this argument? I havent heard of this incident, but lets suppose its true. Ok, there was an evil Finnish person doing an evil thing. How is it related to this argument? Are you trying to say that Finnish people on average rapes as often as muslims of Denmark? Such incidents committed by Finns are not that common.

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

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

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 12.01.2010, 14:21:34
This doesn't mean that these people do not need protection. Just because you have a house and maybe a small business doesn't make you safe from the soldiers. (...) If you think about a happy holiday, I believe you are mistaken. Safe? You go there then!

No thanks.
I would never return, not even for a short holiday, to a dangerous country I have managed to escape from nor, and especially not, send my children back there. Apparently some Somalis do. Why? What is the logic?
I fail to understand the concept of part-time asylum.

Either the country is safer than portrayed in the media OR the people in question are very irresponsible and at least child-care officials should be alerted.     

Because of my limited time I put the most important part first.

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 12.01.2010, 22:42:21

QuoteI am not "pro Western culture", I am pro every culture (including Western). All the cultures should be spared from replacing and melting so that the world would be rich in cultural diversity that I love.

Aaa! Now I understand! You are what I might say as 'conservative multiculturalists' who are usually also communitarians. That's what you advocate! First of all, you seem to see MC as a value in itself, something to be preserved (cultural conservatism!). Secondly, you are willing to restrict freedom of movement while allowing free movement of capital and goods, to preserve these cultures from mixing. You want to keep travelling Thailand and Cambodia so that you can enjoy the rich diversity of the world - while preventing Thais and Cambodians to emigrate from 'their part of the world' and mixing with us. You don't want Hadza to move into the urban areas even if they had security and welfare, because then the last hunter-gatherers would be gone.

I see! This is finally the parting of our ways; I'm a cosmopolitan multiculturalist, you're an isolationist-to-at-least-some-degree MC. I do not see MC as a value; I see it as an existing fact. My stand is to accomodate MC with the globalizing world - you are an anti-globalization advocate, or am I wrong? You wish to stop the wheels of global migration to preserve the existing cultures. If this is indeed the case, then you are, sorry, part of the (extreme) cultural conservatisve group. But hey.... that doesn't go hand in hand with what you said about not advocating closed borders? I am confused. So ok; tourism is ok, as long as there are no great movements from one country to another? Or minimal immigration is ok, as long as they don't change the existing culture?

I'm confused now. ???

No, Im not "isolationist", and again, Im not "conservative". I have said nothing to deserve these labels that are against my ideology, that you are trying to shoot on me with automatic fire. I have already explained my political stance quite completely and if you still don't understand it, please talk with me about it privately. I was already asked by an admin not to continue disturbing this thread by talking about the "definitions of my political stance" (that is not the subject of this thread), and I must respect that. 
 
I quote this again.

QuoteI see! This is finally the parting of our ways;

It seems that you really, really want to "separate our ways" in ideology by finding a separate category for me. This might be important for you in order to be able to consider my opinions as "proven false" without really to consider them. Can't you really face a person who disagrees with you without giving him/her some politically motivated label that is a negative profanity in your worldview? Don't tell me the labels you have offered are not profanities or that they are "neutral" descriptions because I know quite completely the (red-green) world view and the general rethorics related to it. Could you try to talk with me without labeling me first, about the subject that we should be talking about?

I will reply more when I have better time. Feel free to talk with me privately if you want to discuss about how to label me.

Olen pahoillani etikettirikosta, mutta miksi suomalaiset keskustelevat englanniksi keskenään? halu näyttää että ymmärrämme ja kirjoitamme englantia? julkaistaksemme käsityksiämme kansainvälisesti? tai muuten päteäksemme? käsittääkseni yksikään osallistuja ei ole ulkomaalainen?

Olen vain aina huvittunut, kun työ- tai muu ryhmä jatkaa keskusteluaan keskenään englanniksi kaikkien ulkomaalaisten poistuttua paikalta...  ;D ;D

Quote from: Koskela Suomesta on 13.01.2010, 01:01:42
Olen pahoillani etikettirikosta, mutta miksi suomalaiset keskustelevat englanniksi keskenään? halu näyttää että ymmärrämme ja kirjoitamme englantia? julkaistaksemme käsityksiämme kansainvälisesti? tai muuten päteäksemme? käsittääkseni yksikään osallistuja ei ole ulkomaalainen?

Olen vain aina huvittunut, kun työ- tai muu ryhmä jatkaa keskusteluaan keskenään englanniksi kaikkien ulkomaalaisten poistuttua paikalta...  ;D ;D

En tiedä syytä, mutta on reilua, jos Sennels pystyy lukemaan mitä hänestä kirjoitetaan. Nyt hän voi halutessaan vastatakin. Minua ainakin kiinnostaisi kuulla, mitä hän vastaa näihin väitteisiin.

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

Quote from: Koskela SuomestaOlen vain aina huvittunut, kun työ- tai muu ryhmä jatkaa keskusteluaan keskenään englanniksi kaikkien ulkomaalaisten poistuttua paikalta...

Thats what the she wanted, thats what she gets. We had some proposals back in the day wanting "Homma in English". Maybe this gets up to Google so not everyone believes Tarja Halonen in Egypt.

Besides which its good practice - I usually can't get such political bitchslapping done where I usually post.

Pitäis ottaa joku puolueeton domari. Tekstiä meinaan on niin maan bergeleesti. Ja mä en usko että mä sain kuin korkeintaan 3 tai 4 argumenttia iskettyä lekalla sisään kun vittuilupiru alkoi heiluttamaan punaisia sillejä.

We should ask Nicolai Sennels as the judge - after all its all about him  ;D

Nah ya, sekarang kebetulan hanya supaya mereka pertama pencari suaka yang kemudian akan baik status pengungsi atau berhak untuk tetap tinggal di negara ini.

Mereka tidak pengungsi segera setelah negara tullessaa, yang didefinisikan dengan baik status kontrak mereka tidak memiliki satu namun dalam situasi yang diberikan. Hanya sekitar 8% dari pendatang menerima status pengungsi. Penerima yang lain jika tidak akan tetap di Irak saja.

Ini bukan retorika, tetapi cukup ikan ketentuan-ketentuan dan perjanjian yang terdapat dalam subjek (yang "mokuttajat" ingin menyarankan sebaliknya, 99% penghambatan penyalahgunaan, meskipun), siapa lagi Anda perlu membuktikan. Go ahead. Silakan.

Englanniksi, kiitos.

Miksi? alkuperäinen kirjoittajakin häipyi jo? eikä Semmelsiä ole näkynyt...

Quote from: Koskela Suomesta on 13.01.2010, 12:52:41
Miksi? alkuperäinen kirjoittajakin häipyi jo? eikä Semmelsiä ole näkynyt...

Oletko ihan varma, että moderaattorin kanssa kannatta alkaa kiistelemään ketjussa käytettävästä kielestä?

btw, google: google translate

Quote from: Karri on 13.01.2010, 11:55:01

Quote from: Lemmy on 13.01.2010, 11:51:41
Ei se ole mun mielipiteestäni kiinni vaan faktoista. Pakolainen on pakolaisstatuksen saanut.

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

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

Finnish trolling on this thread will be simply deleted in the future, so if you have an urgent need to type in Finnish, please do it somewhere else.

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

Quote from: LemmyAh, but my definition of "legitimate" is UNCHR mandated refugees.

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

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


From MIGRI's website:

"REFUGEE STATUS

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


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

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

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

UNHCR's definition is:

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

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


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

-> Total positive: 148

Rejected: 4
Dublin: 156 *
Manifestly unfounded: 8

Total negative: 168

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

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

To compare:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, here's the logic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Lemmy on 13.01.2010, 13:25:51

Quote from: Karri on 13.01.2010, 11:55:01

Quote from: Lemmy on 13.01.2010, 11:51:41
Ei se ole mun mielipiteestäni kiinni vaan faktoista. Pakolainen on pakolaisstatuksen saanut.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Zngr on 12.01.2010, 15:52:50
You yourself note Sennels operates wholly within the immigrant and Muslim community in Denmark, and thus I'm surprised I have to point this out to you. That is, he would not give counsel or engage in consultation with Malay or Nigerian Muslims, but instead is engaged with Turkish, Pakistani, Moroccan, former Yugoslavian and possibly Somali Muslims. Who live in Denmark, and who have in some way or other required social or psychiatric services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Lemmy on 13.01.2010, 15:11:52
If you need an explanation of a self-evident fact that should be "common knowledge" before you enter a discussion that makes you somehow intelligent? You deserve all the insults for questioning your betters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Lemmy on 13.01.2010, 15:11:52
If you need an explanation of a self-evident fact that should be "common knowledge" before you enter a discussion that makes you somehow intelligent? You deserve all the insults for questioning your betters.

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

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

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

Quote from: I Work in Asylum Systembeliever or fanatic, from others? :D Things are 'self-evident' and need not clarifying, because they are 'common knowledge' - even when they aren't.

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

Quote from: Lemmy on 13.01.2010, 15:29:29
This is what I am saying, but you claim everyone stempping into the country and yelling "asylum" is a "refugee".

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

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

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

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

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

Explain.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

etc. etc. etc.

Quote from: Lemmy on 13.01.2010, 15:42:33

Quote from: I Work in Asylum Systembeliever or fanatic, from others? :D Things are 'self-evident' and need not clarifying, because they are 'common knowledge' - even when they aren't.

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

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

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

LEMMY: WHAT IS A REFUGEE???

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

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

Quote from: Lemmy on 13.01.2010, 15:58:57
I posted above you illiterate moron: "Refugee" means a person fulfilling the criteria laid out in the in article 1A of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Capiche?

..nice ad hominem.

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

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

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

Whatever... sigh. Baadaye!

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System

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

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

You yourself said

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

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

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

The law (http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2004/20040301) if you would actually care to read it actually says in 149 § yes they can be. And refugee status can be revoked 107 § Also fraud as basis for revoking the asylum status in 108 §. How about you stop pretending you actually know something as you evidently do not. The fact that the deportation is rarely used isn't a problem with the law, just its implementation or rather the lack of it.

Quote
Same applies to those with permanent resident status.

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

Quote
Often not, because a) it is expensive

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

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

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

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

Relatively (http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/Turvapaikkahakemusten+k%C3%A4sittelyaika+uhkaa+veny%C3%A4+yli+vuoteen/1135243681274)? Yeah... I can understand this in the Mediterranean area where theres the sheer numbers. But their grey economy also depends on abusing the asylum seekers and other illegals. Here there are also people benefitting - those running the asylum seeker business.

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

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

QuoteNo one is an illegal immigrant if they exercise their legal right to apply for asylum upon arrival to the host country.

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

The flaws:

Quote- Dublin II

It is not implemented effectively enough.

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

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

Quote- slow processing of rejected asylum seekers

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

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

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

Quote
- lack of diplomatic relations with countries of origin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System

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

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

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System link=topic=20859.msg290253#msg290253
For a 'professional' who gives a public interview to another country with a different concentration of nationalities, I find it not only weird but also irresponsible to not mention 'this little detail' in his interview. In fact, good point; it is a major fault in his interview.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System link=topic=20859.msg290281#msg290281
Ok, here are Kiko Kennels' opinions of what, for example, are flaws in the system:

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

etc. etc. etc.

Hooray we are in agreement.

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

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

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

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

The system is not working.

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'.

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

I just realised this is a chance for us stubborn ones to ask an expert able to explain a difficult question. Why here in this dictionary (http://www.somaliliitto.fi/suomi/sanakirja.htm) there is words for "lasku, maksaja, kansaneläkelaitos" but not for "työ, työpaikka, palkka"? It is very hard to understand.

Quote from: Lemmy on 13.01.2010, 17:38:47

I just realised this is a chance for us stubborn ones to ask an expert able to explain a difficult question. Why here in this dictionary (http://www.somaliliitto.fi/suomi/sanakirja.htm) there is words for "lasku, maksaja, kansaneläkelaitos" but not for "työ, työpaikka, palkka"? It is very hard to understand.

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

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

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

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

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

But multiculturalists want this in Finland too (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242335/Muslims-called-British-soldiers-rapists-cowards-scum-exercising-freedom-speech-court-hears.html) , after all it enriches the culture

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 13.01.2010, 14:47:13
Sorry for disappearing; I do actually have to work every now and then. :) I try to keep posting here as long as people wish to continue!

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

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

Quote from: Lemmy on 13.01.2010, 17:58:04
Well the Germans are a bit more blatant example, but there the gastarbeiters weren't even given a possibility for citizenship and just more or less left to fend on their own. UK had a headstart already in 1948 with their legislation - and need for labourers - but they weren't expecting everyone to return as with the colonial empire breaking down there were people who weren't able to go back even they'd wanted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Irwin Steltzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Stelzer), on the Irish Independent, June -09

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

Quote from: Lemmy on 13.01.2010, 23:03:30
So I think I need to re-evaluate my stand of multiculturalism being a communist ideology per se...

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

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

I wonder whom will in this day and age dare to come forth and say things like this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643826/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html):

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

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

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

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

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 12.01.2010, 22:42:21
(...) I'm not sure whether you can really escape the fact that anti-Muslim attitude is largely represented by the right, especially the extreme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: grammatics, typos

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 12.01.2010, 00:39:59(You will probably find this page interesting, as many Pew surveys many Muslim attitudes and acts and other things, e.g. Muslims' opinions on terrorism, suicide bombing and women's rights: http://pewglobal.org/ )

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

However. Here's one survey from the UK: Sharia UK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html).  So : poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK

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

___________________________________________________________________________________

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- No.

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

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

- Professor Smith , thank you your time.

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 12.01.2010, 21:42:44

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually that site says that

Tuloarvioiden kokonaismäärä:

45 908 348 000

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

PUOLUSTUSMINISTERIÖN HALLINNONALA 2 778 442 000

58.7% of our defense budjet...

Quote from: HP^2 on 14.01.2010, 09:20:03

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 12.01.2010, 21:42:44

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually that site says that

Tuloarvioiden kokonaismäärä:

45 908 348 000

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

PUOLUSTUSMINISTERIÖN HALLINNONALA 2 778 442 000

58.7% of our defense budjet...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I apologize for the poor attempt at humor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And read this:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QuoteIt is not implemented effectively enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QuoteNeither of these stances justifies hiding or not talking about serious issues.

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

QuoteI don't find semantics about terminology interesting

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

An understanding of common terminology is important.

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

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

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

Pakistanis in London:

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

Ethnic clashes in London:

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Heard about the recent riot in Rosarno, Italy?

Case: Rosarno

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, they have been forgotten, unfortunately.

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

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

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

Quote from: KarriSince 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

Quote from: LemmyWhat 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.

QuoteSo 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.

Quote from: mikkoellilaWho 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? :D Ja kylla ma ihan suomea puhun ja olen suomen kansalainen. ?

Quote from: PollamystynytThere 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. ?

Quote"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 :P )

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

QuoteAlso 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?

QuoteIn 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.

QuoteI 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. ?

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteAslo 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.

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: HP2Actually 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.

Quote from: SivulauseGood 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.

QuoteNet 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. :D :D

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 15.01.2010, 08:09:38
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)

Quote from: n.n. on 15.01.2010, 15:55:16

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 15.01.2010, 08:09:38
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.

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.

Quote from: Shawast on 16.01.2010, 14:40:38
First i want to thank you for participating in discussion, it is refreshing to have someone arguing against "us".  :)

Thanks for commenting. :)

QuoteHaving 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.

QuoteWe 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.

QuoteWe 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

Quote1. 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.

Quote2. 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]

Quote3. 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.

Quote4. 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.

Quote5. 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.

Quote from: Shawast on 17.01.2010, 13:14:48
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?

Quote--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.

QuoteRemittances 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.

QuoteYes, 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.

QuoteBut in politics generalizations must be made.

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

QuoteBiggest 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?

QuoteThe 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!

QuoteMulticulturality 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.

QuoteAgain, 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?

QuoteIn 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.

QuoteBut 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.

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

Bayernkurier (http://www.bayernkurier.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26251&Itemid=228)

QuoteMehr 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.

Quote from: kmruuska on 18.01.2010, 12:51:08As 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.

QuoteLet'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' :)

Quote01. 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.

Quote from: karkoittaja on 18.01.2010, 10:41:18

QuoteBut 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.

Quote from: kmruuska on 18.01.2010, 17:39:42
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.

QuoteNo 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

Quote from: Julmuri on 18.01.2010, 10:41:18
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.

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

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

QuoteFor 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.)

QuoteWe 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.

Quote from: KorpelaSo 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?

QuoteSo 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.

Quote from: SivulauseSo, 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteMy 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.

Quote from: KorpelaIt 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!

Quote from: ShawastIt 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'.

QuoteFor 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.

Quote- 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.

QuoteThere 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).

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 21.01.2010, 14:52:02
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.

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System
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.

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 15.01.2010, 15:18:48
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.)

QuoteLainaus
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?

QuoteAre 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?

QuoteTrue, 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.

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.

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

QuoteDefinition 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.

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 12.01.2010, 11:26:32
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.  

QuoteRemember 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.

Quotecultures 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

QuoteBesides, '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 ).

Quoterealistic, 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.

Quote

QuoteIf 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....)

Quote

Quote

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

Do you have a source for that?

Why, thanks for asking:  ;D

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.

Quote

QuoteThey 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! :P

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.

Quote

QuoteBut 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.

QuoteIraq 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)    

Quote

QuoteAre 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

Quote.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).    

Quote

Quote

Quote(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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) 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.)
 

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

(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.

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

Suprime Administrative court:

QuoteB 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"

Quote

QuoteIf 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?

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

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

QuoteI 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?

QuoteI 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 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. :)

Quote from: Julmuri on 22.01.2010, 14:34:32

QuoteLainaus
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:

QuoteUN 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:

QuoteBut 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

QuoteNow, 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.

QuoteAsylum 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.

QuoteAnd 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? :D
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.

QuoteSo 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.

QuoteWars 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. :D 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.

Quote from: RoopeOn 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

QuoteWould 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. :D

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

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.

QuoteTo 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.)

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.

Quote from: PRI 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.

QuoteAn '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.

Quote"...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.

Quotebut 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

QuoteMore 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.

QuoteShow 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.

QuoteYes, 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:

Quote from: Kiko"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.

QuoteThere 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.

Quote...  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.

QuoteDo 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.

QuoteIf 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

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System
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 (http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2009/12/islamic-sharia-in-raw-somali-man-stoned.html) somehow moral or with legal responsibility?

Thanks for reply.

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 26.01.2010, 21:25:29

Quote from: RoopeOn 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.

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

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System
Hard core question for someone who is no more a fiscal planner than I am. :D

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

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System
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.

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System
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?

Quote..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.

QuoteMy 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.

QuoteThe 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:

QuoteDefinition 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).

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 26.01.2010, 23:29:32

QuoteYes, 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:

QuoteI 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

Quote from: Kiko"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.

QuoteAn 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)

Quote
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.

QuoteSubsidiary 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.

QuoteIn 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.

QuoteIn 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.

QuoteObviously 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).

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:

Quote from: Julmuri
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."

QuoteSo "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.

QuoteIt 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

Quote= 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

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

Indeed.

QuoteIt 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.

QuoteHe 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? :)

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 18.02.2010, 18:29:58
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)

QuoteEthiopia 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.

QuoteIn 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.

QuoteWas 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...

COmmenting on some points, on assumption that you are still (occasionally) reading:

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 15.01.2010, 15:18:48But there's another point of this issue; integration doesn't happen if the existing minority is a very small minority – the smaller the minorities especially in the case of colored people who stand out – the more difficult for them to integrate; to be accepted by us, or to feel at home themselves. This is why I don't think we should take any less immigrants than what we are doing now, and I believe we could even take some more as well – up to a certain limit of course.

They of course do not stand out physically as much as some other groups, but very few on this board have anything bad to say about the Jews and Muslims that came in to Finland during the Russian period, because those people are well integrated - and they are small in number compared to many of the newer arrivals.

non-integrating people in small numbers cause smaller problems, the same people in larger number cause larger problems.

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 26.01.2010, 23:29:32In 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.

Equality of citizens irrespective of their ethnic and religious has been an European ideal for long time (and it is well known that at times it has not upheld at all). You do not need to be 'multiculturalist' for that. On the other hand being a Jew, Christian or Atheist is anything but equitable in many of the places we get humanitarian immigrants nowadays - and that is a one very good reason I do want to keep our not their values as central to this country. (If I wanted to live under those values, I would have always the option to emigrate).

QuoteI 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.

With clan warfare I was referring to Somalia. Yes, they are victims of the war. They are also its perpetrators. Somalia is not suffering under Martian or even USA armed invasion. In 1990 when the first of them came here, I was quite symphatetic. If they had put an effort in living here productive members of this society, or alternatively when things were more peacefull returned home insteads of just making holiday visits I assume I'd still be symphatetic.

Quote

Quotebut 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

Really... I understand there over 60 countries in Africa. Pick ten as an example for good governance, eduacational system and economy.

QuoteAnd as it happens, Finns seem to blame all the problems on immigrants

If that is so, then our governemnt policies are even stranger... Care to give example of Finns (preferably well known complete loonies) that think all our problems are caused by immigrants?

Quote

QuoteShow 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).

That would be a mathemathical impossibility. For Japan, one of the countries with the lowest number of murder per capita in the world, even if all the homicides would be caused by domestic violance you numbers would be off by more than a factor of ten. From the other end Hong Kong has population of 7 million, so even 12 000 would probably make murder the leading cause of death there. I asure you, it is not. (and we are accused of demonizing foreign countries we do not understand?).

Quote"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.

So now you are equating non lethal violence with murder?

QuoteAccording 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

- but thanks for pointing out that honor is not the only reason why wifes in Afganistan are killed by their families (and by the way, last time I checked, Brazil and Mexico were not classified as developed countries)

Quote== > 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.

A) there is the matter of scale, B) here man killing his (ex)wife is considered to be scumbag by the society (often he kills himself too) and has no support from his family. In some other cultures, if the father fails to kill "missbehaving" daugheter, brother will help to finish the job. There is no equivalent thing in our society (excluding some immigrant groups)

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

I have slowly got pissed of with "humanitarians" who seem to feel no moral responsibility confirm to the laws of this country or try to support themselves and their familys with their own work - and politicians and officials who seem to have no interest to compel them to do so (or kick them out at the first possibility as an alternative). Humanitarian immigration, when happens in a way that is causing a permanent burden to recieving country, is deffinietely not a cost effective way to ease the hardships in this world.

Quote from: I Work in Asylum System on 18.02.2010, 18:16:36
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:

Quote from: Julmuri
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

Ok. My bad. I thought you left it out from your list because for example Sweden deports people back to Iraq. So the case of Iraq kind of proves that there arent any universally recognised international organ who decides which countries fall under non-refoulement principole.


You wrote about UNGA. I have to disappoint you. UNGA can give only recommendations not legally binding resolutions. Only SC chapter 7 resolutions are legally binding. And we all klnow that arab oil basically rules UNGA and UNCHR. So it is a bit of paradox that worlds worst human rights violators sits there and then we shoiuld do what they say. The same goes to HRW which went to fundraising tour in Saudi-Arabia. Real champions of human rights!

QuoteIf 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,

UNSC Chapter VII resolutions are legally binding (and international commynity enforces them) but I dont see any UNSC C7 resolutions that demand us to change our country to a muslim state.



Finland has also deported people back to Somalia. Somaliland to be accurate.

Until now European states have interpretated international law to asylum seekers favor but it is changing. "Border states" like Greece, Italy etc.  simply dont care anymore and when the flow of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers grows also elsewhere  the same trend will follow.

Nation states in european context are coming back. People have now seen the other side of multiculturalism and immigration. Taxpayers are starting to see that immigrants costs far more than they contribute. We have no obligation to work as social welfare office to the whole world.

So my original point still stands. It is only up to us which kind hardships we accept as a rigth to non-refoulement or to refugee status.