SDP on immigration
What’s the only difference between SDP’s view on refugees versus the True Finns view on refugees? The True Finns are at least honest about their opinions. Finnish interior minister, Kari Rajamäki (SDP), says…
“Finland must move from an active refugee policy to an active and work-based immigration policy. This policy must also enjoy the acceptance of the citizens,”
Is he implying here that refugees aren’t ready work, and aren’t ever going to be in the near future?
Because of the shrinking labour force due to an aging population, new ways of servicing welfare society are to be sought, added the minister.
I’ve never liked this attitude towards immigration. He’s basically saying, “We need to keep our little welfare state utopia, we couldn’t possibly cut any public services, so we’ll need to import foreigners to drive our buses, sweep our sidewalks, and clean our toilets so we Finns can continue to enjoy our short work weeks and long vacation time which we’ve come to expect.” …And if it wasn’t for Finland’s shrinking labour force, we’d close our borders and keep all those damn foreigners out!
“Although more and more foreigners will be needed in Finland, one must at the same time remember to take care of internal security.”
Internal security? Like not letting too many foreigners in because we don’t want terrorists or ghettos? If I were to say, “I don’t want any of those dark skinned people in my neighborhood cause I’ll feel insecure!!” - you’d call me a racist, right? But what is it when a politician essentially says, “We don’t want any of those dark sinned people in our country cause we’ll feel insecure!!” ??
It was quite interesting he used the phrase “servicing welfare society”. I was actually positively surprised he wants us to have immigrants at all. But Phil, the welfare state is a reality and libertarianism is a utopia. I know our welfare society sounded unbelievably utopian even to most Social Democrats before it was built. But now it’s there in case you haven’t noticed and it was never solely an SDP project; many political parties have been involved in building our welfare system over the decades. In a sense you too, Phil, are servicing the welfare society since you pay taxes here.
I haven’t heard him talking about the need for more immigrants before, so I’m pretty happy to hear this stuff even if I don’t share his general views on immigration. I think we need both a refugee policy and an immigration policy - REPLACING a refugee policy with an immigration policy sounds like we’ll stop taking refugees and take immigrants whose only reason to come here is work instead.
If what he says means that we’ll keep taking refugees but we’ll be above all seeing them too as people who need jobs (just like all the other immigrants), that I believe would be a revolutionary change to the better in our way of thinking.
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
“Is he implying here that refugees aren???t ready work, and aren???t ever going to be in the near future?”
It’s a legal thing. Refugees don’t have work permits when they come here. Refugee with work permit becomes an immigrant.
Comment by Krasnapolski — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 1:31 pm
Rajam?¤ki said clearly “more and more immigrants”. Which True Finn would ever say that? Those politicians who are against immigration usually say that Finns should procreate more to solve the problem with an aging population.
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 1:44 pm
Yes, it is actually quite a liberal formulation (in many senses of the word including the economical). Immigrants will be good for the country in countless of ways, but would it not be natural for the government to try to minimize potential cultural conflicts? I would like all the races to mix in all sorts of alliances (including homosexual ones), but would not like to see for example many Muslim fundamentalists in the country. Am I a racist then?
Comment by mjr — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 2:20 pm
Muslim fundamentalists are not a race. mjr, if you have a problem with a group here it’s about their religious orientation. But if you can’t differentiate between Arabs and Muslims then you might be a racist. If you can’t differentiate between Muslims and Muslim fundamentalist, you are a religious bigot but that has nothing to do with racism.
The Tartar Muslims that are an established minority in Finland are quite secular and do not differ from the majority population very much. But their ethnic origin is not Finnish. If you have a problem with them, you can be 100% certain that you’re a racist.
I’d like the races to mix but I’d also like the religions to mix. Religious freedom is a very important part of a tolerant society. Any group that are willing to practice their religion without creating religious tensions are cool. I don’t mind at all to have devout Muslims all over the place, as long as they’re peaceful. When a Muslim fundamentalist issues anti-semitic statements, then that’s a big problem. The idea of tolerance is live and let live. My idea is that people who let live should be welcome in this country.
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 2:44 pm
I realized that I contradicted myself in my statements. I’ll try to clarify.
A person who dislikes Muslims qua Muslims (you can read Christians or Jews or Buddhists instead of Muslims in that sentence) is a religious bigot. That person is likely not to want to have a white Finn who has converted to Islam in this country.
A person who dislikes a certain group of Muslims because they belong to an ethnic minority is a racist.
Fundamentalism is not a racial attribute, sometimes a white European who converts to fundamentalist Islam can be more strongly fundamentalist than an Arab who is a fundamentalist Muslim simply because coming from a fundamentalist home. Converts can be (but need not be) more zealous than people who see a strongly religious outlook as a part of their life from the beginning. Now Islam is one of the most common religions in the world and Muslims come in all shades and forms.
As I’m a strong supporter of Turkey’s EU membership (provided that they respect human rights showing continuous progress in that area) I tend to think that the argument “we don’t want Muslims in Europe because we’re Christians” is one of the silliest ever. Turkey is one of the best friends of Israel and a strong example of how secularism can be combined with a large Islamic population. Even many devout Muslims in Turkey support the separation of Church and state (one of my pet issues).
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 2:56 pm
I guess in Turkey one should speak of the separation of religion and state or the separation of mosque and state. I’m a strong supporter of the separation of any religion from the state but that in no way means that I support infringing on religious freedoms. I see that the state should, however, keep a wary eye on fundamentalisms of all forms, especially those that propagate a violent confrontation between religions. So preachers of religion should be welcome in Finland but preachers of hatred in the guise of religion should be combatted everywhere in order for mankind to survive and that’s much more than an issue of immigration.
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 3:02 pm
If internal security means state surveillance of religious groups that propagate hatred, I’m with Rajam?¤ki. Anyone who simply practices religion should be left alone but anyone who starts preaching the need for attacks against religion X (be that Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other religion or attacks against atheists for that matter) then there should be a strong state apparatus to deal with those people. Religious freedom is only maintained when people are allowed to worship, or not to worship, in peace. In the end only the state can guarantee that freedom.
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 3:08 pm
Well, in that sense then I would not qualify even as a bigot - but what about this thes: I think it is fair to say that great volumes of immigrants from certain Muslim cultures are quite likely to create political and religious conflicts that any prudent government should wish to avoid. This regardless how blameless and non-fundamentalist these immigrants are as individuals. Races and genes and sexualities I would like to mix with no boundaries whatsoever, but my Western liberalism I would like to have undiluted (though I would in defence argue that it is not Western but universal liberalism) - I really think this could be in danger of making me a cultural racist in the current climate.
In any case, I would say that I am quite intolerant of fundamentalism which I see as an inherently hegemonistic and aggressive world view regardless of its particular philosophic or religious context.
Comment by mjr — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 3:33 pm
I think you can be a very tolerant person even if you are culturally intolerant of intolerance. Liberal societies are vulnerable because we think that anything can be tolerated.
We make a mistake if we simply classify people from Muslim cultures according to ethnic origin. Yes, you bet that Turks, Egyptians, Tunisians and Moroccans represent liberal societies compared to certain other Muslim cultures. Saudi Arabia is a very conservative society with a state apparatus that is closely allied to fundamentalist religion, yet individual Saudis represent very different outlooks on religion and the world. Just because Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia and his deputy is an Egyptian, we can’t draw conclusions on immigration policy based on that.
Even if I generally advocate immigration of liberal and tolerant Muslims rather than mass immigration of fundamentalists, I’m not sure we can have an immigration policy based on a person’s passport. Anyway, a child of a very tolerant and liberal family can join the Taleban in a gesture of uproar towards the parents’ liberalism.
Extremism is the big problem. A fanatic of any persuasion who is ready to kill another person because of that person’s beliefs belongs behind bars. A society that wants to remain liberal needs to spend some resources in preventing people from being recruited by hate groups. No matter what the ethnic composition of a society is, we all have to be prepared to challenge such extremism that leads to terrorism.
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
Phil:”He???s basically saying, ???We need to keep our little welfare state utopia, we couldn???t possibly cut any public services, so we???ll need to import foreigners to drive our buses, sweep our sidewalks, and clean our toilets so we Finns can continue to enjoy our short work weeks and long vacation time which we???ve come to expect.”
Well, Toyota seems to think otherwise:
“Earlier this month, the Canadian Press reported that Toyota decided to build a new $800 million auto assembly plant in Woodstock, Ontario. It will employ 1,300 people.
Toyota passed up hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks from several American states to build in Canada.
Why? Toyota believes that workers in Ontario are easier and cheaper to train than their American counterparts. They also won’t have to worry about health insurance costs because of Canada’s taxpayer-funded single-payer health care system.
“The level of the workforce in general is so high that the training program you need for people, even for people who have not worked in a Toyota plant before, is minimal compared to what you have to go through in the southeastern United States,” Gerry Fedchun, president of the Canadian Auto Parts Manufacturers’ Association, told the CP.”
“The educational level and skill level of people down there (Mississippi and Alabama, where Nissan and Honda have auto plants) is so much lower than it is in Ontario,” he said, adding that in Alabama, trainers had to use pictures to train illiterate workers how to run high-tech plant equipment.”
So much for the competitive edge of US of A.
Comment by tim73 — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 6:54 pm
As much as Phil would like to scrap the welfare state, I don’t think he would like to replace it with the US system. Anyway, it’s very hard for a libertarian to argue for a system, they tend to be in opposition. Phil can take solace in the fact that as today’s reality is yesterday’s utopia, so can today’s utopia be tomorrow’s reality. Maybe our great-grandchildren will live completely without welfare right here in Finland, who knows?
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 7:07 pm
Birth rates are rapidly declining everywhere in the world, even in countries like Mexico, India and China. So this thinking, that there will be endless “replacement” supply of refugees and immigrants, is just outdated.
Only solution left is simply to have more babies. It doesn’t mean that women should go back to being barefoot baby factories. If the family norm would be three chilren instead of two, it would solve the problem.
Comment by tim73 — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 9:24 pm
“???We need to keep our little welfare state utopia, we couldn???t possibly cut any public services, so we???ll need to import foreigners to drive our buses, sweep our sidewalks, and clean our toilets so we Finns can continue to enjoy our short work weeks and long vacation time which we???ve come to expect.??Â
Sounds good plan. Add cut for unemployment benefits so we can get some lazy finss to work
But one thing is sure: please no muslims to this country. Anything else but no muslims. I am sure that for example Latin America is full of people who would like to work in Finland if advertised properly.
And second thing: assimilation. No multiculturism. So that is why we can’t take very much immigrants.
And third thing: no africans.
Comment by Syltty — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 11:18 pm
Toyota builds in Ontario because the wages are cheaper there than in the US, even with the low dollar. The costs of healthcare, also, are borne by Canadian workers, in their personal income taxes: so Toyota is off the hook for having to provide for that, as in the US. And it doesn’t surprise me that a Canadian representative would have disparaging things to say about America: he is a competitor.
It’s fantastic that the obvious has to be explained to a Finn.
Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, Jul 25th, 2005 @ 11:52 pm
FYI: a recently-published report by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health says that Finland is no longer a welfare state in the classic Nordic sense of the term…
Comment by Make — Tue, Jul 26th, 2005 @ 6:39 am
The idea of a monocultural state is outdated. I don’t think you can ask anyone for more than obeying the laws of this country. Religious freedom is in our culture, it is no longer a foreign idea that has to be imported from the United States or something.
If Finland would be truly a one-culture nation, I don’t think any other religion than Lutheranism would be tolerated. But we are not a nation of one religion and we’ve never been that no matter how much that would have been the desire of the state.
When I go get a haircut, somebody from Africa does that job. Now if Syltty were to decide, that service would not be available to me. During the years I’ve met plenty of other Africans, who have turned out to be smart people willing to work. And I have yet to meet a single African who has behaved toward me in a racist manner, even though I’m not black. I know I haven’t travelled in Africa but I know enough of the unbelievable diversity of African cultures, languages, religions, customs and so on to know that the idea that all Africans are the same is nonsense.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jul 26th, 2005 @ 10:48 am
Make, I don’t think the only definition of a welfare state is the classical Nordic model. All states evolve over time.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jul 26th, 2005 @ 11:00 am
And I have yet to meet a single African who has behaved toward me in a racist manner, even though I???m not black.
Let me guess: you’re a guy.
Believe you me, “I’m here with my boyfriend, piss off”, does NOTHING to get the slimy African man’s slimy hand off my ass when I decide to excercize my right to go to a bar for a quiet drink on a Friday night.
It works on most Finnish men, though.
It seems to me as if most men from Africa think that a white woman in a bar = whore.
Then again, many Finnish men think that Russian/Estonian woman = whore.
I guess this problem is more about sexism from the men’s part than it is about racism, although it certainly is a combination of both. It is equally disgusting.
Comment by Anzi — Tue, Jul 26th, 2005 @ 6:41 pm
Yes, I’m a guy. A black African guy actually tried to hit on me once but when he understood that I was straight and not interested, there was not the slightest problem. The only person who ever touched my ass in a bar was a white woman but she didn’t mean it in a bad way and I wasn’t offended. At that time I was single and I guess she was simply trying to tell me that if she hadn’t been there with her then boyfriend she might have been interested in something.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jul 26th, 2005 @ 6:49 pm
“Believe you me, ???I???m here with my boyfriend, piss off”, does NOTHING to get the slimy African man???s slimy hand off my ass when I decide to excercize my right to go to a bar for a quiet drink on a Friday night.”
Yeah. Some african dude tried to hit my girlfriend, he just did not believe when she said she already is with somebody. There is enough dumbasses in finnish males so we really don’t need more idiots from other continents.
Comment by Syltty — Tue, Jul 26th, 2005 @ 7:01 pm
Yes, I???m a guy. A black African guy actually tried to hit on me once but when he understood that I was straight and not interested, there was not the slightest problem.
I seriously envy you. Want to trade places?
There is enough dumbasses in finnish males so we really don???t need more idiots from other continents.
I wouldn’t say that either. I have also met very many well-behaved, smart people from Africa. I would gladly welcome more people like them.
But when I make a list of unpleasant droolers in bars, I’m very sorry to say that the top 10 is dominated by the dark continent.
Comment by Anzi — Tue, Jul 26th, 2005 @ 7:08 pm
“I seriously envy you. Want to trade places?”
I’m quite recently married so I wouldn’t want to trade places with anyone.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Jul 26th, 2005 @ 8:09 pm
I???m quite recently married so I wouldn???t want to trade places with anyone.
Good for you. You do realize that that was a jokingly meant rhetorical question?
Comment by Anzi — Wed, Jul 27th, 2005 @ 8:14 am
Sorry for answering a rhetorical question. Sure I figured it was a joke.
Comment by Helsinkian — Wed, Jul 27th, 2005 @ 2:53 pm
Ah, remember what George Carlin said about ’servicing the customer’.
Comment by hfb — Fri, Jul 29th, 2005 @ 12:03 am