So Phil, do you have a libertarian solution to asylum shopping?

Wouldn’t the correct libertarian solution be to abolish the border controls? Why should a government know best where people should live? Of course the immigrants would not receive any support either. Hmm, somehow this reminds me of a certain quote by Hobbes…

Who knows, maybe working for the border control could be one of the biggest forms of public sector employment in Phil’s version of the night-watchman state?

How many asylum shoppers do you think would come here if they didn’t get all sorts of taxpayer support like money, food, clothing, shelter etc? Probably not too many.

I like the border policy of the United States before it began to get strict in the mid-1900s – People saved their own money to come work and establish themselves. My grandparents didn’t expect any government handouts when they got off the docks in Baltimore. Of course, housing/food/whatever was actually inexpensive back then, immigrants could afford these things. But as the welfare state grew, the borders closed tighter and tighter.

Wouldn???t the correct libertarian solution be to abolish the border controls?

I like the border controls between Finland & Sweden/Norway.

Doesn’t the fact that many of the asylum seekers are called asylum shoppers already prove that despite of taxpayer support Finland is not exactly the first choice on the list of most people as a safe haven?

As long as different EU member states have different immigration policies, it’s sort of natural that people who want to come in face a serious choice in which country to apply for asylum or residence permit.

Doesn???t the fact that many of the asylum seekers are called asylum shoppers already prove that despite of taxpayer support Finland is not exactly the first choice on the list of most people as a safe haven?

So should we take on Sweden’s immigration policy, just to make things more harmonized?

That’s a really tough issue, I’m not sure if the immigration policies should be harmonized. Even if they should, can they ever be harmonized? At least it is an intriguing philosophical question and a very real issue for EU policy makers.

I like Sweden’s immigration policy for us Finns, the time I lived there it was just like moving to another city in Finland…

The Nordic countries have had a mutual immigration policey since the 1950′s. Ireland and the UK have had a similar agreement, and I am sure theres been more.Germany’s “gastarbeiter” programmes for example. However these are for neighbouring countries. Now the EU has a “free movement” clause which makes all EU countries a free market area. Therefore I don’t see any idea in having separate immigration policies in different countries within the EU, as this ends up with people shopping around say getting a Finnish passport all they want to do is bugger off to France or the UK which is their initial destination.

You all seem to be mixing two seperate ideas, asylum and migration. They are seperate. Asylum is given to refugees and is an obligation on all countries that have signed 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Migration is an issue which it is up to individual sovereign states to decide on. Of course they get mixed together, both by the rightwing and nationalist press and politicians who are against all migration, and also by people from poor countries who realising they will never get entry into a rich country as a migrant looking for a job and a better life (like, I presume, was the case for Phil’s grandparents – unless they were fleeing Nazi Germany due to their religion or political beliefs) and therefore try to get into countries say they face persecution in their homeland.

Finland is obliged by international law (which is so assiduously supports in so many other respects) to take refugees – the only debate is over how many and how you decide on the validity of the individual claims to refugee status.

Finland is not obliged to take migrants from other countries (except the rest of the EU). If it does so it is because it is seen by the govt. of the day to be in the national interest in some way.

So the fact that Phil’s grandparents didn’t expect anything when arriving in the US has little to do with whether support of asylum seekers now attracts them to Finland (unless of course, as I said above, Phil’s family were refugees – and even that is a bit different if they went to the US before 1951). When I came to Finland, I didn’t expect any support from the Finnish govt. as I came here under my own free will.

I think also the asylum seeker’s home country, or in the case of a war the invading country that has displaced the persons should be made to pay for the expenses of their upkeep. Fine – you have shit conditions in the country, improve them and you won’t be getting any bills.

And what law says asylum seekers are entitled to free room and board and 1200 euros a month and then leave with all the proceedings? Real asylum seekers need help, but those who need help usually cannot get as far as Finland.

Hank, are you saying that rich people don’t need help if they’re persecuted? In your logic only poor people deserve to be granted asylum. Some asylum seekers who come to Finland spend their entire fortune just to get here. Refugees who get here or anywhere distant from where they start are often people who have been initially relatively well-off but who may have lost all their property.

Anyone who is familiar with stories of refugees from the 1917 Russian Revolution and the subsequent Civil War knows that people even from princely conditions turned out to be in dire need of help. Many refugees would rather return to their home countries if doing so wouldn’t threaten their lives. Refugees are people who get bad treatment, at home and in neighboring countries who are the ones truly flooded with refugees and unwilling to take more. This bad treatment often continues in the distant countries that have resources to take some refugees, even if only a very small number.

Some quota refugees are actually chosen from refugee camps close to crisis spots and they don’t have to be rich, just lucky, to get here. Conditions in those refugee camps that are most densely populated are subhuman.

Why should the rich people be given preferential treatment over their 1000 countrymen waiting for the lottery?

As we have this global outsourcing and companies taking all their business out of Finland we should follow the example of the USA and outsource the asylum seeker process. USA has had its Haitian & other refugees in Guantanamo; we could outsource ours say to Vyburg or some other quaint Russian town.

They have a lot cheaper cost of living east of the border; and sitting in a village in the middle of the trees is the same either side of the border.
- The people really looking for Asylum would not mind as there is no war in Russia.
- The people shopping for asylum would think three times before applying.

Now on the same train we could actually send all the bums there as well, living is cheaper and booze much much cheaper… Isn’t it true in the USA they used to give winos and bums out of jail a bus ticket to go to California and promise not to come back?

Isn’t it true

I’m not advocating preferential treatment. I’m just saying that when a refugee gets here and why wouldn’t that happen, we have one neighbouring country actually at war, it’s fair to examine whether that person is a real refugee.

The Australians outsource some of their refugees to Nauru.

Toby

“Finland is obliged by international law (which is so assiduously supports in so many other respects)”

Their is no such thing as “international law” (only politically binding treaties and agreements between states).

Finland is under no obligation to except such immigration and it should not. I live in the UK where 99% of so called asylum seekers are economic migrants. These colonialists have completely taken over Britain (45% of the population) and France and are intent on usurping ethnic Europeans via a politically motivated policy of demographic displacement.

Greg

Truly hilarious that someone from Britain would call foreigners “colonialists”. The high percentage of foreigners in Britain and France is a direct result of these countries’ colonialist past. Policies such as Le Pen’s are an attempt not to live with the consequences of your history. Finland’s problem has always been that the country is not ethnically diverse enough, that’s why we have so many genetic diseases that are typical for Finland.

My logic is: I would rather support 1000 refugees in need ?” 120 euros a month in Russia, than 100 “refugees” in Finland ?” 1200 euros a month.

And just for any romanians reading this:In finland there is a law requiring to remove obstructions on the road to traffic by any means possible.

Greg, A couple of points:

“These colonialists have completely taken over Britain (45% of the population”

1) You are totally wrong – from the 2001 census: “First detailed results on ethnicity and religion from the 2001 Census reveal that 87.5 per cent of the population of England and Wales (seven out of eight people) gave their ethnic group as White British.” (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp) You’ll have to look up the Scottish results yourself, but Scotland has LESS immigration than England and Wales. And 2) even if you were right, which you aren’t, how could 45% be considered as “completely overtaken”? I might only have GCSE maths, but last time I checked 45% percent was called a minority. I don’t know what your beef is, but at least start by getting your facts straight.

Oh yeah – and this one: “Finland is under no obligation to except such immigration and it should not.” Wrong again. It would have to leave the EU to be able to deny me, as an EU citizen, entry.

At least Finnish policy is not as moronic as that of the Canadians:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20050624.SYRIA24/BNPrint/theglobeandmail/TopStories

“I like the border controls between Finland & Sweden/Norway.”

I think it’s too hard for the dogs!

Yes but Toby we were not talking of EU people but outside EU people here – or how many EU asylum seekers you’ve met?

I refer you to my first point Hank – immigration (for economic or whatever reason) and asylum seeking (refugees) are different issues governed by different laws.

“Looks like our strict immigration policies are known worldwide.”

OUR?

“I would rather support 1000 refugees in need ?” 120 euros a month in Russia, than 100 ???refugees?? in Finland ?” 1200 euros a month.”

Why is that? “Economical rationality” is not the reason obviously?

???Looks like our strict immigration policies are known worldwide.??

OUR?

I’m sorry, I shouldn’t say “OUR”, I should say “OURS…not including Thomas”

“I???m sorry, I shouldn???t say ???OUR”, I should say ???OURS??¦not including Thomas??”

Are you a finnish citizen? If not, then don’t refer to finnish policies as OUR POLICIES.

I think it’s schizophrenic if a resident has to talk about THEIR policies all the time. I think it’s natural that someone like Phil would use first person plural both when he’s talking about his old country and when he’s talking about Finland. It’s his choice to feel where he belongs spiritually and he can choose both if he wants to. There is no law stating that only the citizens among us have the right to feel that they’re part of the country they live in. Anyone who pays taxes here has the right to say our policies.

Are you a finnish citizen? If not, then don???t refer to finnish policies as OUR POLICIES.

I’ve heard that comment so many times from the jew-haters, black-haters, mexican-haters, foreigner-haters back in the states. “What you mean OUR country, nigger??”

pls let have freedom and all refuges they are not fools they help them selfs like

It a nice site collecting all info about shopping goods.
I need this info because i want to buy a good dress.
Thanks

those fucking kurds are scum everywhere cheating everyone.
in fact it’s arabs who are victims in iraq but not fucking sub-human kurds who are shitty animals!!!