Are current levels of benefits for asylum seekers inhumane?

by , under All categories

The German Constitutional Court ruled Wednesday that current levels of benefits for asylum seekers in Germany are inhumane, according to Spiegel Online International. Are benefit levels in Finland, which amount to 290 euros/month, inhumane? 

For an asylum seeker in Finland who stays at a refugee center, the monthly allowance (lowered from about 400 euros  in 2010) is supposed to cover all of the person’s expenses except for rent and some travel expenses.

If the asylum seeker moves to another address from the refugee center, 50 euros are discounted from his or her monthly allowance.  The monthly allowance will then total 240 euros, or close to what is paid (224 euros/month) to asylum seekers in Germany.

“The sleeping quarters at the refugee center can have between eight and two people,” a former asylum seeker told Migrant Tales. “All cellphone, food and clothing expenses must be paid from the monthly allowance. If the person has to travel to visit the police, those expenses are paid by the state.”

macaronies, tuna fish flakes, onion and oil will quench your hunger for about a euro. 

Is living off 30 euros/month, or about 1 euro/day for food expenses, sufficient proof that current allowance levels are sufficient in Finland?

How can anyone spend 30 euros a month for groceries when we spend such an amount daily?

Here’s how it works:

  1. macaronies 0.22 euros/400 grams
  2. Can of tuna fish flakes 0.80 euros/150 grams
  3. Onions 0.99 eruos/kilo

“Extras” include vegetable oil (2.50 euros/liter), milk (about 1 euro/liter), and flour (1 euro/kilo), 10 eggs (about 1.80 euros) to make pancakes.

While inadequate monthly allowances may encourage you to eat unhealthy foods that can have long-run health consequences, other problems emerge as well. Would you shoplift if you were hungry and without money?

It is unfortunate that Interior Minister Päivi Räsänen and the government have turned a blind eye to the plight of asylum seekers and immigrants in Finland when it comes to their monthly allowances. This unfortunate trend began in the previous government, when Astrid Thors was minister for immigration and European affairs.

 

 

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –One can start working after 3 monthes after arriving.

      True, but tell me about those Finns, especially those that are 15-29 years old, who are unemployed? Why can’t they find work? Are they, in your opinion, lazy and/or social bums.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –Finland has the most generous benefits in Europe.

      Can you prove that. I showed you in the blog entry that our levels are almost as low as in Germany, where the Constitutional Court considered them inhumane. Can you live off 290 euros a month? I couldn’t.

      Your claim above is a typical of anti-immigration groups.

  1. tp1

    Asylum seekers should be provided housing, food and clothing, nothing else. As long as they are still waiting for the decision for their asylum, there should be no need in giving them free extra money, but instead they should be given free food and clothing and a place to sleep/stay)

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      they should be given free food and clothing and a place to sleep/stay

      This would effectively double the per-client costs of the refugee reception system, while discouraging self-reliance and hampering the acquisition of important survival skills.

      Like other remarks of the ignorant, it sounds superficially sensible until you look at how it would work out in practice. Exactly how would you arrange “free food”? This would require establishing an industrial catering and distribution agency operating in parallel with services that already exist (i.e. ordinary shops). The same applies to clothing.

      If such schemes were viable, then they would have been introduced for welfare claimants years ago. Indeed the idea of mass kitchens or welfare vouchers comes up recurrently with each new generation of pig-ignorant armchair commentators who cannot be bothered to do their homework before pontificating.

    • tp1

      Not like that. They could have coupons and they use those coupons to pay for food and clothing. And those coupons can’t be used for anything else.

  2. Marco

    –One can start working after 3 monthes after arriving.

    True, but tell me about those Finns, especially those that are 15-29 years old, who are unemployed? Why can’t they find work? Are they, in your opinion, lazy and/or social bums.

    –One can start working after 3 monthes after arriving.

    True, but tell me about those Finns, especially those that are 15-29 years old, who are unemployed? Why can’t they find work? Are they, in your opinion, lazy and/or social bums.

    I think all people who can work should work but that does not mean that Finland should import more unemployed people from abroad.

    • JusticeDemon

      Marco/Hannu/Eihannu/Question/etc.

      I think all people who can work should work but that does not mean that Finland should import more unemployed people from abroad.

      Finland does not “import people”, unemployed or otherwise. That is offensive.

      Finland complies with its international treaty obligations by examining claims for humanitarian protection individually, impartially and on their objective merits. That is the decent, honourable thing to do. You remember decency and honour, don’t you Hannu? It’s that quality that others have and you lack.

      No doubt you were standing at the Vainikkala border post cheering when Finland sent a torture victim back to his torturers last Thursday.

  3. Happy

    –One can start working after 3 monthes after arriving.

    True, but tell me about those Finns, especially those that are 15-29 years old, who are unemployed? Why can’t they find work? Are they, in your opinion, lazy and/or social bums.

    I would love to hear what justifications “Marco” has for Finns who choose not work. Are they lazy, are there no jobs? If Marco knows the answers to the problems raised by asylum seekers, then as a Finn, he must know the answers to such issues…

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –Enrique, why was it lowered from 400 euros a month?

      I suspect it was because of political pressure and because anti-immigration sentiment was on the rise. Not much leadership here.

  4. Yossie

    Well students get pretty much the same amount. They get some extra for the rent but in most cases rents are higher than that so they are living with less than that 290 euros.

    Also I dropped the ball in between getting 240 euros to having only 30 euros for food? They use 210 euros for clothes and phone bills? Sure you might be streched thin if you come here in mid winter and have to buy whole set of clothes from that 240 but in a long run 240 should be enough…

  5. JM

    –Enrique, why was it lowered from 400 euros a month?

    I suspect it was because of political pressure and because anti-immigration sentiment was on the rise. Not much leadership here.

    Thanks Enrique. Yeah, I suspect it may have been the governing coalition at the time’s attempt to try and appease more right wing voters from going over to the True Finns.

  6. JusticeDemon

    tp1

    Not like that. They could have coupons and they use those coupons to pay for food and clothing. And those coupons can’t be used for anything else.

    You really have no idea. Do some basic research into welfare provision models. Voucher schemes are costly to administer and impossible to police. They have been researched and even tried in response to demands from the moronic right in many many countries, and they have always failed in terms of practicality and overall cost.

    Your coupons are essentially parallel value vouchers. We already have a general public value voucher scheme: it’s called the currency.

    How would you arrange those vouchers in practice? With a value expressed in cash, in goods or on some other way? If the value is in cash, then you have introduced what amounts to a parallel currency (with certain similarities to luncheon, travel or culture vouchers). In order to police the scheme you will also have to individualise the vouchers reliably and issue standardised identity documents to voucher holders. If the value is in goods, then you must be ready to honour whatever price the shopkeeper demands when the vouchers are redeemed. You are not allowed to specify the shop in question, as this would constitute unlawful discrimination in allocating a government subsidy. This means that the voucher holder must be free to purchase the goods in the most expensive shop in town.

    This is just the beginning of the problems that plague such schemes. No system of this kind has ever been operated cost-effectively anywhere. Nor is this relevant to the current thread, which concerns the overall standard of asylum-seeker subsistence. A voucher scheme does not even begin to address this question.

    I realise that empathy is a scarce commodity in Hompanzee land, but try to imagine that you are a Bangladeshi torture victim seeking asylum. Could you feed yourself for 1 euro per day in a country with Finnish price levels (e.g. Japan) where you don’t know the language or the customs? How? Where is the cheapest place to buy food in Tokyo? I’m sure that you can find someone who speaks Bengali who will explain this to you before you starve to death.

  7. tp1

    I realise that empathy is a scarce commodity in Hompanzee land, but try to imagine that you are a Bangladeshi torture victim seeking asylum. Could you feed yourself for 1 euro per day in a country with Finnish price levels (e.g. Japan) where you don’t know the language or the customs? How? Where is the cheapest place to buy food in Tokyo? I’m sure that you can find someone who speaks Bengali who will explain this to you before you starve to death.

    Where do you get that 1 euro / day? It’s 240 euros per month, which equals almost 10 euros per day.

    I don’t care about the money that needs to be spent for feeding asylum seekers. I am only against giving them money for something extra.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      tp1, from some people I spoke to, they claimed that they live off 30 euros a month, which is about 1 euro per day.

      Your reasoning, 10 euros/day, sounds like when I was trying to save money a long, long time ago but failed miserably because it’s very hard to live off so little money. So what do you think they spend the nine euros on? A cup of coffee 1.50, pastry 2.00 euros (almost 50% spent), and a pack of cigarettes (5 euros). It’s not a lot of money.

    • Mark

      tp1

      Are you still living at home, enjoying mum’s cooking and having your dirty underpants cleaned? I ask this because a household needs a damn sight more than ‘food’ in order to function. You need money for household items – fuses, plugs, brushes, screws, nails, torches, lights, furniture, wellies, doormats, tin-openers, storage containers etc etc. There is no end to a household’s requirements – every month you can expect to ‘need’ something else or to renew something else. The idea you would only give vouchers for ‘food’ is one of the most stupid conceptualisations of human living that I have ever come across – the grossly moronic intellect that it would take to even begin to conceive normal household living in such a one-dimensional way is quite beyond me!

    • Yossie

      Enrique

      You use 1 euros per day for food, but use 1,5 for a cup of coffee? 2 for a pastry? Something really doesnt add up… Are they stupid or something? If they decide to use their money on luxury items them dont come moaning you have only 1 euro left for food.

      Mark

      As far as I knew, we were talking about people living in refugecenters. Nevertheless, even if they live on rent, its not that much money they need for it.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      Yossie, have I ever called you “stupid?” Is it possible that you cannot ad? If you go to a coffee shop expect to pay 3-4 euros for coffee and pastry. Maybe you can do it for less than a euro. We’d be interested to know where.

      If you read the story, it states that you can make food for about 1 euro. That’s the point.

    • Yossie

      Enrique

      “If you read the story, it states that you can make food for about 1 euro. That’s the point”

      Are you moving the goal posts for your own convinience? The whole point was that you claim asylum seekers are treated inhumanly when they only have 1 euro for food per day.

      That is ofcourse all wrong whey they have 10 euro per day to use. If they use that for something as expensive and useless 1,5 euros of coffee in coffee shop then they have nothing to complain since they have made their choice.

      Also I would like to add that the amount of money for asylum seekers should be as low as possible. It should not be a way for those that dont have true bases for reguge to make money.If they are, like you say, able to make do with 30 euros a month, then they are quite able to make good profit (in their own country standards) with their time in regugee center.

  8. tp1

    Why can’t we just provide them a facility (like a hotel) where they have a room, so they wouldn’t need any money for household items. Also we could provide for example breakfast, lunch, dinner etc. That would also create jobs for people who work in the facility.

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      Why can’t we just provide them a facility (like a hotel) where they have a room, so they wouldn’t need any money for household items. Also we could provide for example breakfast, lunch, dinner etc. That would also create jobs for people who work in the facility.

      Now you are essentially describing current refugee reception centres, except that it is more cost-effective to arrange these on a self-catering basis like a travellers’ hostel, rather than trying to organise industrial catering services for people with a wide variety of dietary requirements.

      Perhaps you should take a look at this old Ministry of Labour booklet on the reception system. There is an English language edition here

      One important point that seems to be readily overlooked by the Hompanzees is that if an asylum seeker can live on a greatly reduced income, then it must be possible for a Finn to do likewise. Basic income support (toimeentulotuki) should therefore be no more generous than the living allowance granted to an asylum-seeker. If Finnish claimants starve to death on the level of support granted, then the appropriate response is to advise them to visit the local refugee reception centre to discover how people are able to live comfortably on the level of benefit provided. If, on the other hand, Finnish claimants turn to petty crime in such circumstances, then they should be deported.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –Also we could provide for example breakfast, lunch, dinner etc.

      I think JusticeDemon answered this question earlier.

  9. JM

    Yossie wrote:

    You use 1 euros per day for food, but use 1,5 for a cup of coffee? 2 for a pastry? Something really doesnt add up… Are they stupid or something? If they decide to use their money on luxury items them dont come moaning you have only 1 euro left for food.

    1 Euro per day for food? I’m genuinely curious where you shop, because in none of the grocery stores I frequent in Helsinki can you get as much as a whole meal for 1 euro. You can buy a pack of pasta or a can of tomato paste for 1 euro, but not both together.

    Maybe if you want to live off of 1 pack of instant noodles per day? But that’s no way to live.

    • Yossie

      How about you read again what I said. You are understanding me totally wrong..

  10. tp1

    JusticeDemon

    One important point that seems to be readily overlooked by the Hompanzees is that if an asylum seeker can live on a greatly reduced income, then it must be possible for a Finn to do likewise. Basic income support (toimeentulotuki) should therefore be no more generous than the living allowance granted to an asylum-seeker. If Finnish claimants starve to death on the level of support granted, then the appropriate response is to advise them to visit the local refugee reception centre to discover how people are able to live comfortably on the level of benefit provided. If, on the other hand, Finnish claimants turn to petty crime in such circumstances, then they should be deported.

    You can’t compare these two. There are no basis to that asylumseeker should be provided same level of support as the residents of this country.

    Residents (Finns) should be provided for comfortable living, but not asylum seekers. Asylum seeker should get ONLY what is necessary for staying alive, their living does not need to be comfortable. You need to remember that they are escaping from death, so compared to that it is a paradise to get the minimum in Finland.

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      Residents (Finns) should be provided for comfortable living, but not asylum seekers. Asylum seeker should get ONLY what is necessary for staying alive, their living does not need to be comfortable. You need to remember that they are escaping from death, so compared to that it is a paradise to get the minimum in Finland.

      Doesn’t it bother you that you are completely ignorant of Finnish social welfare and have to take lessons from an immigrant?

      Section 1 of the Social Assistance Act (Laki toimeentulotuesta, no. 1412 of 1997) stipulates the following standard of basic income support:

      Toimeentulotuen avulla turvataan henkilön ja perheen ihmisarvoisen elämän kannalta vähintään välttämätön toimeentulo.

      The published STM translation renders this as follows:

      Social assistance is used to ensure the person or family at least the minimum income needed for a life of human dignity.

      Experience shows that we have to join the dots when dealing with Hompanzees (and even then you will claim that you have been misunderstood and it all depends on the meaning of words, n’est-ce pas, Farang?). What the foregoing means is that the rate of income support represents the minimum income that is needed to ensure a life of human dignity* (ihmisarvoisen elämän kannalta vähintään välttämätön toimeentulo).

      An income that is less than the minimum rate of income support does not, by the government’s own admission and definition, satisfy the requirement for a life of human dignity. Now look back at the title of this thread.

      You may like to reconsider your response now that you know this most basic of all facts about the social welfare system of your own country. Please do not respond again before reading section 19 of the Finnish Constitution.

      * Human dignity, by the way, is something that your convicted racist criminal Master Hahaa-lol considers fictitious.

    • Yossie

      JusticeDemon

      So by your definition we have a way larger group deprived of human dignity then. Students get pretty much that same 290 euros. If they are expected to manage with that, then it should be enough for asylum seekers.

      Also, who or what are “Hompanzees”? What are you trying achieve by calling people with that name?

    • Mark

      tp1

      You can’t compare these two. There are no basis to that asylumseeker should be provided same level of support as the residents of this country.

      You can’t? Actually, you can and must. The key issue is a guaranteed minimum subsistence level. The second issue is preventing social and gender inequalities. The third issue is providing resources and opportunities for immigrants. The fourth issue is preventing marginalisation and poverty traps. The fifth issue is alleviating child poverty. The sixth issue is finding cost-effective methods for achieving your various political and social goals in regard to immigration. These are the issues a responsible government will seek to address. Your contribution on the subject? Next to fucking useless, tp1, except to make Finland look like it’s inhabited by Hompanzees!

      Residents (Finns) should be provided for comfortable living, but not asylum seekers. Asylum seeker should get ONLY what is necessary for staying alive, their living does not need to be comfortable. You need to remember that they are escaping from death, so compared to that it is a paradise to get the minimum in Finland.

      The arrogance and insensitivity of this statement beggers belief! I can imagine your recommendations of psychiatric support services for refugees from conflict zones – get over it, you’re living in paradise now at our expense, so get busy being grateful and figuring out the best lake to drown yourself in at the next Juhannus!

  11. Mark

    JusticeDemon

    So by your definition we have a way larger group deprived of human dignity then. Students get pretty much that same 290 euros. If they are expected to manage with that, then it should be enough for asylum seekers.

    Also, who or what are “Hompanzees”? What are you trying achieve by calling people with that name?

    Yossie

    It’s a fact that kids are largely supported by their families during their studies and are likewise already beginning from a somewhat ‘wealthier’ starting point. Second, many students are forced to take on work while studying because a minimum subsistance income is so difficult to maintain.

  12. Mark

    tp1

    Add to that list ‘social inclusion and participation’, which is an important factor in reducing marginalisation and its EXPENSIVE effects, and it’s clear that simply ‘feeding’ immigrants is nowhere doing enough as well as merely costing more in the long run.

    What you have no bloody clue about tp1 is the importance of investing in immigrants as citizens, not merely as labour force participants, though this is a key part of being a citizen.

    Your approach is a recipe for disaster, division, poverty, resentment and insecurity.

    But you’re not very bright, are you tp1.

    • JusticeDemon

      Mark

      I suppose it’s worth stressing the point that an asylum-seeker is not (yet) an immigrant.

      With application processing periods measured more commonly in months and years than in days and weeks, on the other hand, it is obvious that people cannot be simply kept in limbo. A quick look at the typical activities arranged in and around reception centres indicates that this point is well understood by everyone with at least half a brain.

  13. JusticeDemon

    Yossie

    So by your definition we have a way larger group deprived of human dignity then. Students get pretty much that same 290 euros. If they are expected to manage with that, then it should be enough for asylum seekers.

    And another proud patriot steps forward for a basic lesson in Finnish civics. It’s not my definition; it’s the definition of the Republic of Finland and its government.

    Subsection 1 of section 2 of the Act on Financial Aid to Students (Opintotukilaki, no. 65 of 1994) specifies three sources of publicly-financed aid: (1) student grants, (2) housing supplement, and (3) State-guaranteed loans.

    It is a matter of straightforward public accounting that these three sources together easily satisfy the minimum income requirement stipulated in the Finnish Constitution. The loan repayments are also not distrainable to the extent that this income requirement would be infringed.

    This is a more fundamental guarantee than the response that Mark provided, though I would generally endorse the point that students very often enjoy a more privileged starting point.

    I would be delighted to see a comparable financial aid system applied to asylum-seekers, even as the convicted racist criminal Hahaa-lol and his fascist cronies spit blood and teeth at the idea.

    Also, who or what are “Hompanzees”? What are you trying achieve by calling people with that name?

    You are familiar with the expression hompanssi, so don’t play dumb with us. I promise to stop using this expression (together with the peculiarly useful epähikke) right after I no longer hear all of those silly neologisms coined by the Hahaa-lol school (“kukkahattutäti”, “punavihermädättäjä”, “hyyssäri” and so on). The ball is in your court.

    Hompanssit

  14. JM

    How about you read again what I said. You are understanding me totally wrong..

    Perhaps, sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

  15. tp1

    Mark, you are now getting immigrants mixed up with asylum seekers. This thread is about asylum seekers and I have all the time talked about asylum seekers.

    So please don’t mix immigrants here.

    Asylum seeker is still waiting for decision whether or not he even have the right to be here. During that time we should not give them anything extra, just minimum to keep them alive.

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      I already pointed out this distinction above, but also called attention to the point that processing periods for asylum applications are measured in months and years.

      You have yet to provide your justification for recommending that asylum seekers should receive less than the basic rate of income support, which is defined by the Finnish government as the minimum income that is needed to ensure a life of human dignity. By recommending a lower guaranteed income for asylum-seekers, you have suggested that they should not lead a life of human dignity.

      I could point out that this would be contrary to Finnish social welfare laws, the Finnish Constitution and various promises that the Finnish State has made internationally, but in my experience this is something that you epähiket Hompanzees generally don’t understand (given your stated aim of defending Finnish values, it is hugely amusing that you really don’t know what those values are). Instead I ask you to state your justification for denying human dignity to asylum-seekers. Is this because you agree with your convicted racist criminal Master Hahaa-lol that there is no such thing as human dignity, or is it simply a fundamental lack of a moral compass?

      If the latter, then why should anyone afford any credibility to your moral opinions? Your condemnation of this or that aspect of immigrant behaviour can simply be written off as the incoherent ravings of someone with no sense of right and wrong.

    • tp1

      JusticeDemon. We don’t need to provide them anything before their application is approved. Their human dignity is not our responsibility as long as they are asylum SEEKERS, who have not yet been accepted.

      Our laws guarantee the minimum support ONLY for citizens and approved immigrants.

      Or are you also suggesting that we should start giving money also to tourists and illegal immigrants?

      Even if you seem to know the law, you make silly mistakes, like not understanding that asylum seeker is not comparable to someone who is a resident.

  16. honrigue

    I’m having a hard time understanding how 290€ a month translates to 1€ a day, but since somebody claimed that it does, I guess it absolutely has to be so. Free living and 290€ a month doesn’t sound like a bad deal to me. Right now, this country can’t even afford to take care of her “own” people. I’m sure Enrique has read how many elderly live in rather inhumane conditions because there’s simply not enough money to hire enough nurses and such. But my God, surely we must give asylum seekers at least 1,000€ a month, right? You’d think that many of these people were grateful for having given the chance to live in peace with no fear of persecution because of ethnicity/political view/etc.? That and free living and 10€ a day to buy food as they like. We Finns truly are horrible people!

    • Enrique Tessieri

      Hi honrigue, nowhere in the blog entry does it claim that “we Finns truly are horrible people!” You are stating that. Whether anti-immigrant populists and far right groups are “truly horrible people” is another question.

      These blog entries, like the one on rape statistics, show and prove that much of the claims by the anti-immigration crowd is simply a bunch of baloney.

      Who wants to live off 290 euros/month? I think the idea is to make something out of yourself in your new homeland and be proud of your achievements so you can call the folks back home and brag.

      If a Constitutional Court ruled that 240-euro monthly allowances are inhumane in Germany, I think we are doing the same because the cost of living is higher in this country.

  17. JusticeDemon

    tp1

    We don’t need to provide them anything before their application is approved. Their human dignity is not our responsibility as long as they are asylum SEEKERS, who have not yet been accepted.

    Our laws guarantee the minimum support ONLY for citizens and approved immigrants.

    Leaving aside what this response says about you as a human being, Farang, you are (yet again) completely wrong about Finnish law. The Finnish Constitution guarantees rights to everyone who falls under Finnish jurisdiction (search the text for the word kansalainen if you don’t believe me). Finnish social welfare laws are based on residence and physical presence, and asylum-seekers are registered as residents of the local authority district where their reception centre or other accommodation is located. This registration is a consequence of their asylum applications, which are administrative processes governed by the rule of law.

    Our laws guarantee a minimum income to everyone who falls within the jurisdiction of our public authorities including a fortiori asylum-seekers. Though your evident lack of moral compass may make this legal fact distasteful to you personally, it remains quite plainly a legal fact.

    Your depravity and lack of basic knowledge is embarrassing. Grow a moral sense and get some book learning. Stop spouting bullshit here about things that you quite obviously don’t even begin to appreciate or understand. There is nothing admirable in the mindset of an uneducated thug.

  18. Mark

    tp1

    Mark, you are now getting immigrants mixed up with asylum seekers.

    Yep, probably because I approach human rights as ‘universal’ rights. I forget that there are bums like you in this world that would, at the drop of a hat, strip away fundamental human rights from human beings.

    Interestingly, Article 20 of the Convention on the status of refugees talks about ‘rationing’, and that refugees must receive equal treatment as the native population in regard of rationing. I’m sure that the spirit of this provision is to safeguard reasonable treatment of refugees.

    I cannot read anywhere in that Convention mention that Refugees are to be subjected to rationing even while the main population enjoy no such restrictions. That, almost certainly, would be against the spirit of the Convention.

    In other words, I think that asylum seekers should receive the same level of minimum subsistence guaranteed to immigrants and ordinary citizens of Finland.

    Their human dignity is not our responsibility as long as they are asylum SEEKERS, who have not yet been accepted.

    Actually, I would say that our treatment of asylum seekers has a lot to do with our OWN sense of dignity. I would find it an offence to that sense of Finland’s dignity to sanction this kind of attitude and approach to asylum seekers that you propose. It’s a bit like keeping a house guest in the dog kennel with the bare justification that ‘well at least your not dead’.

    That’s the problem with dicks like you tp1, you have no fundamental respect for your fellow human beings. That’s a luxury you can afford, in your place of privilege in a western society, but it should not be the official policy of a modern democracy.

    Our laws guarantee the minimum support ONLY for citizens and approved immigrants.

    The Convention on the rights of refugees, which we are a signatory to, provides the legal framework for the humane treatment of refugees, tp1. Have you read the Convention?

    Or are you also suggesting that we should start giving money also to tourists and illegal immigrants?

    As if this were a logical extension of treating asylum seekers humanely? Idiot. So, by this same inane logic, because Finland has a welfare system, we might as well give all of Finland’s wealth to Nepal, yes?

    Why is treating people humanely such a problem for you? We cannot afford it? Are you unemployed? Are you poor?

    Will you get less in benefit payments as a result of any changes or increases to asylum seeker payments? Nope.

    There is no justification for your stance. Or do you see it somehow as a deterrent to refugees? I think that would certainly be seen as a ‘penalty’ imposed on asylum seekers, which is contrary to the Convention that Finland is signed up to.

  19. tp1

    Your depravity and lack of basic knowledge is embarrassing. Grow a moral sense and get some book learning. Stop spouting bullshit here about things that you quite obviously don’t even begin to appreciate or understand. There is nothing admirable in the mindset of an uneducated thug.

    I find it offensive that people abroad start to dictate how we should spend our own money. As I am a Finnish tax payer, it’s my money which is given to asylum seekers. Therefore I should be allowed to have my opinion about those.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –I find it offensive that people abroad start to dictate how we should spend our own money.

      Who is dictating and what?

    • Mark

      tp1

      Bollocks. These are agreements and principles upheld by Finns. This is not people abroad. Don’t try to make this a ‘them and us’, because that is a bloody huge lie and lazy. Many many Finns are committed to these human rights principles, and Finland’s constitution was built around them as has subsequent legislation.

      It’s just typical of your xenophobia that you try to make this about foreigners and your fake resentments of them. If you don’t like this set up, at least have the decency and integrity to admit to yourself that it is other Finns (a majority even) that you are in opposition to.

  20. tp1

    Yep, probably because I approach human rights as ‘universal’ rights. I forget that there are bums like you in this world that would, at the drop of a hat, strip away fundamental human rights from human beings.

    It is not a human right of every human in the world to come to Finland and live off with welfare provided by Finns. Get your facts straight.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –It is not a human right of every human in the world to come to Finland and live off with welfare provided by Finns.

      It’s there human right to seek protection in Finland or any country that claims to uphold such rights.

    • Mark

      tp1

      Get your head out of your arse, you dumb fuck. Describing a human right as a universal right is not the same thing at all as saying that the world has the right to come to Finland and live off welfare. A universal right is a human right that has overwhelming recognition and acceptance across the globe.

      The rights of movement are governed by many laws. What universal human rights establish is a minimum standard of treatment of human beings.

      I cannot believe your ignorance sometimes, it’s off the bloody scale!

  21. tp1

    Why is treating people humanely such a problem for you? We cannot afford it? Are you unemployed? Are you poor?

    Because I spend 8 hours of my day working hard and then I have to give away half of the money I earn so that other people can play good samaritans on my expense.

    It’s easy to say “WE can afford this” when you get to use someone else’s money.

    There’s nothing wrong in treating people humanely, but I have already pointed out how that can be done without giving them money in their hands.

    Don’t get me wrong. I would rather spend 1000 euros on wellbeing of immigrant instead of giving him 500 euros in hands. They have not earned the freedom to spend the money how they wish, that’s the thing I oppose.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –Because I spend 8 hours of my day working hard and then I have to give away half of the money I earn so that other people can play good samaritans on my expense.

      Or would you suggest playing the human rights abuser and start torturing people with your tax money?

      The taxes you pay are insignificant and are a very microscopic drop in a huge bucket. What makes your tax contribution even more insignificant is that you are a minority. Most people, who understand they are social animals that must help each other, disagree with you.

    • Mark

      More beer fog from Farang!

      Because I spend 8 hours of my day working hard and then I have to give away half of the money I earn so that other people can play good samaritans on my expense.

      My guess is that less than 1% of your tax contributions will find their way into the hands of an immigrant, and chances are, it will be back in the Finnish economy within a matter of days.

      Based on this rather pathetic idea that providing welfare is a form of charity, you would object to the entire Nordic Welfare State model. In other words, you have an utterly resentful attitude towards the political identity of Finland, which has been developing over the last 70 years or so. One assumes therefore that this resentment also means that you would CHANGE Finland’s political identity forever in order to remove this ‘good Samaritan’ from our social and political landscape.

      Words fail me. Utter self-delusion.

      but I have already pointed out how that can be done without giving them money in their hands.

      You have done no such thing. You have made several more than useless naive and completely fickle suggestions that reveal only that you haven’t given this more than the barest of consideration.

      Don’t get me wrong. I would rather spend 1000 euros on wellbeing of immigrant instead of giving him 500 euros in hands. They have not earned the freedom to spend the money how they wish, that’s the thing I oppose.

      Interesting to see you talking about immigrants now and not asylum seekers, but let’s let that go. So basically you are saying that you would happily double the budget towards immigrants as long as they don’t actually have any spending power.

      That’s interesting. You take a group of individuals that are clearly recognised as being the least powerful within Finnish society and you want to take what little power they have away from them? That’s fucking deranged, tp1, no other way to describe it. And why? I still cannot see why? It seems like arbitrary hatred and resentment, simply because they are somehow ‘outsiders’, so who cares about them?

      You talk about ‘earning the freedom’. That’s an interesting way of interpreting the ‘minimum subsistence level’. The right to be treated with dignity is not a right that has to be earned. You are ignorant of the world you live in and what has been done to make that world a safe and civilized place to live. Rather you would dismantle that world and not even realise for a second what you are doing. The problem is that your attitudes are exactly the attitudes that inform the majority of PS political policy and that is why it must and should be challenged.

      And you don’t consider this attitude of yours to be the least bit insulting or derogatory towards immigrants?

      tp1, you are sick, mate. I’m amazed that you cannot see that. It’s like you have this complete shield up to seeing the actual real and extremely negative consequences that would arise from your proposals.

      What you propose would almost certainly threaten the security of all of us, as train people in the way you suggest would bring an inevitable backlash.

  22. tp1

    The taxes you pay are insignificant and are a very microscopic drop in a huge bucket. What makes your tax contribution even more insignificant is that you are a minority. Most people, who understand they are social animals that must help each other, disagree with you.

    Not true. If there would be a nation wide poll and every Finn would get to answer, and the question was: “Should we give money to foreigners?”, majority would answed No.

    • Mark

      tp1

      How about you ask, ‘should immigrants or asylum seekers in Finland be treated with dignity’, what do you think the answer would be?

      Do you think that not giving any money or freedom to make even a single consumer choice in our society is treating people with dignity? And you think a majority of other Finns would agree with you?

      Where does this hatred come from? It comes from somewhere. Where does this ‘us and them’ resentment come from? Were you bullied as a kid? Difficult/authoritarian parents? Do you have a substance abuse problem that clouds your judgement and affects your close relationships?

      This kind of resentment that you target towards ‘outsiders’ doesn’t come from nowhere. You are damaged, Farang, and you are actively working towards extending that damage into the lives of Finland’s most vulnerable population. Kick a dog when it’s down, eh!

      So, what is it Farang, what is it in your personal life that has made you so angry and resentful that you look for a scapegoat to take out your rage on?

    • Yossie

      Mark

      Unfortunately everyone dont play fair and nice. I remember couple of years back there was a lot of roma from romania that applied refuge. They didnt ofcourse have any grounds for it but they were able to reep the benefits for the time they were asylum seekers. That ofcourse was their aim and then they got flown back home.

      The thing is, in many cases, when you have even a tiny bit of people fucking things up, you have to resort to means that are not good choices overall.

      I would love to go to store and not look for coins for the chain in the trolley, yet because somepeople just left their trolleys all over the place, stores had to resort in means that are not in anyones advantage.

      In a very same way because there is people who are more than willing to come here and enjoy our standard of living rather than staying in the safe coutry they first entered or just stay in their own country that is safe and sound. That is why we need means to make sure the system isnt exploited.

  23. Mark

    Yossie

    Unfortunately everyone dont play fair and nice.

    Agreed. I would say that you and tp1 are definitely not playing ‘fair and nice’.

    I remember couple of years back there was a lot of roma from romania that applied refuge. They didnt ofcourse have any grounds for it but they were able to reep the benefits for the time they were asylum seekers. That ofcourse was their aim and then they got flown back home.

    Romanians are a special case in Europe and require a Europe-wide solution to their marginalisation and the problems associated with their movement out of Romania. Also, I’m not sure you can realistically speak about what the ‘aims’ of Roma people are unless you have close links with them, which I doubt.

    Also, regardless of the problems that arise with asylum system, that is no excuse to reduce the treatment of asylum seekers below the level of human dignity.

    The thing is, in many cases, when you have even a tiny bit of people fucking things up, you have to resort to means that are not good choices overall.

    This is a fairly generic truth about humans. What you imply though is that a deterrent needs to be built – which in old money is the utilitarian idea, which in fact was built on the principle of finding the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Security would therefore be a way to achieve this. I’m not advocating completely open borders. That is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is the attitude and approach to those individuals that are in Finland legally or illegally, it makes no difference. There is no derogation to the principle of respecting human dignity with human rights legislation. Changing that would be a massive step backwards.

    In a very same way because there is people who are more than willing to come here and enjoy our standard of living rather than staying in the safe coutry they first entered or just stay in their own country that is safe and sound.

    First of all, again, there are no excuses for reducing the minimum standard of human dignity afforded to an individual residing legally or illegally in Finland. NONE. Second, you make a lot of assumptions about what is safe or how or why a person has entered Finland. Your attitude appears to be that because Finland is in the Northern part of Europe and not bordering a conflict zone, that by definition, we really shouldn’t have ANY asylum seekers here. That’s just stupid, Yossie. The idea of an international convention was set up precisely to avoid a country neighbouring a conflict zone from having to shoulder the entire responsibility of taking care of displaced persons or persons feeling persecution and conflict. The idea was to share the load. Such a global ‘insurance’ scheme is perfectly in keeping with how modern societies function and how they distribute social risks. You don’t seem to appreciate the principle even, let alone getting down to the question of how best to apply that principle and what safeguards to put in place to stop the system being ‘abused’.

    Second, asylum seekers are in no way ‘enjoying our standard of living’ when they enter Finland. They enter as citizens with restricted rights, poor immediate prospects, few assets, and entering a system that appears alien in many ways. Add to that the resentment of the native population and there is no way you can argue that this is ‘enjoying our standard’. It is beginning at the very bottom rung of Finnish society’s ladder.

    So don’t spread stupid lies about the status of asylum seekers in Finland or their motivations for coming here.

    • Yossie

      Mark

      Yes, there should be no asylum seekers as Finland is surrounded by safe countries. Why are these people making the long and expensive trip all the way to Finland which has totally different climate, culture and like you said: “poor immediate prospects, few assets, and entering a system that appears alien in many ways.”? The reason is the same why estonia gets so few immigrants and why Finland gets so many: Money. It is no wonder people resent them.

      What comes to shouldering the responsibility, It should be shared. But in a way that other countries help the receiving country by sending supplies and other forms of help near the conflict zone. Why? Because having refugees near their own country means the culture is more similar, their own skills would most likely be more relevant than in here and they could get back home easier when the conflict ends. Also there is the fact how sensible it is to harbor couple refugees here with the cost of equivalent to thousands near their own country.

    • Mark

      Yossie

      Why are these people making the long and expensive trip all the way to Finland which has totally different climate, culture and like you said: “poor immediate prospects, few assets, and entering a system that appears alien in many ways.”?

      Because there are established communities of their fellow countrymen. In the same way that Finns stuck together in parts of the US following migration. It’s no great surprise.

      The reason is the same why estonia gets so few immigrants and why Finland gets so many: Money. It is no wonder people resent them.

      3769 residence permits were issued in 2009 in Estonia, with a population a little over a million. While the number of asylum applications were low, nevertheless, family reunification with immigrants from the Russian Federation were significant. I guess as you mentioned Estonia, you probably know about the MINAS project (Minimum Standards for Reception, Protection and Qualification of Asylum Seekers in Estonia)? So, while you offer Estonia as an example of good practice, you nevertheless fail to mention that they do promote minimum standards for asylum seekers.

      But in a way that other countries help the receiving country by sending supplies and other forms of help near the conflict zone.

      This already happens. However, individuals choose to migrate to Europe, and Europe welcomes this to an extent. Clearly there is a limit, and clearly everything should be done to make it a favourable situation for all concerned. Maintaining minimum standards of humane treatment is one part in that puzzle. Treating asylum seekers like cattle will only threaten our own security in the long run. Should be a no-brainer really.

      Because having refugees near their own country means the culture is more similar, their own skills would most likely be more relevant than in here and they could get back home easier when the conflict ends. Also there is the fact how sensible it is to harbor couple refugees here with the cost of equivalent to thousands near their own country.

      Well, the returns are totally different. Investing in helping immigrants become productive in Finland brings direct returns to the Finnish economy, whereas sending money abroad does not. I thought you were all for self-interest here? Also, if PS are reluctant to bail out Greece and Spain in the name of a stable EU, what hope that they will be keen to send money abroad? Isn’t it the policy of PS to reduce the overseas development aid budget?

  24. tp1

    How about you ask, ‘should immigrants or asylum seekers in Finland be treated with dignity’, what do you think the answer would be?

    Answer would be most propably yes. But here comes your incorrect assumptions. You seem to imply that only way to treat person with dignity is to give him money.

    You are now drawing lines to somewhere where there should not be any. A person can be treated with dignity even without giving him money.

    • Mark

      tp1

      But here comes your incorrect assumptions. You seem to imply that only way to treat person with dignity is to give him money.

      Let’s put this way, seeing as you are quite adept at twisting what might be my opinion, ‘giving money’ is a means to achieve a basic goal, to ensure a minimum subsistence level for a citizen. This is something that takes place all the time with Finns. The level has to achieve two contradictory aims – not be too high that it leads to dependency and not be too low that it leads to marginalisation and a poverty trap. Achieving a balance is genuinely difficult, especially in a depressed economy or in economically deprived areas. So, it is not merely about ‘giving a blank cheque’.

      However, your suggestion is specifically to give them NO money, but merely ‘benefits in kind’. That this would be administratively extremely expensive seems to pass you by. That this would be glaringly discriminatory seems to pass you by. That this would affect the dignity of an asylum seeker passes you by.

      Basically, you think it’s fine to tell a refugee that you cannot be trusted to be responsible enough to choose how to spend an allowance given for your subsistence. But it’s not insulting or demeaning in any way? How about if your salary was paid in the same way? Would you find that acceptable?

      Because, let’s face it, with consumption at over 10 liters of pure alcohol volume per capita per year in Finland, it’s quite clear that Finns as a whole cannot be trusted in how they spend their salaries, as they are burdening their health and the health system with this very high level of alcohol consumption!

    • Mark

      None of the surprise and revulsion that I feel for your ideas in any way detracts from actually responding to your comments in a constructive way. I have always responded directly to the comments you have made, even if I express my revulsion at the same time. There is nothing ‘dear’ in the way you regard ‘outsiders’ Farang. I see you are not willing to share anything personal about your life or your resentments. I guess you will not consider for a second that perhaps your resentments stem from something rather closer to home, eh?

  25. Mark

    JM

    We do this because Farang created a new pseudo-identity, tp1, when his old account was placed into moderation some months ago. Farang was a commentator on the previous site too, but for some reason, he decided to ‘start afresh’ with what appeared to be a more moderate persona, for reasons only he knows. However, it wasn’t long before he was returning to form, at which point the editors decided to call him on it.

    • JM

      Thanks Mark. I guess I misunderstood what was meant by “Farang” in this context. As you know, I’m fairly new to this site so I’m really not familiar with the history of past commentators on Migrant Tales.

  26. tp1

    I have perfectly clearly stated what my opinions based on. Just because you disagree with them, you refuse to understand my reasons.

    I have always said that I want equal treatment regardles of persons colour or ethnic background. I have stated why I am not willing to give money as benefits and I have also backed these up.

    Still you call me racists and demand answer to something that I have already explained.

    And it’s funny that you call me Farang, instead of the nickname I used very first, before Farang 😉

    • Mark

      tp1

      I have perfectly clearly stated what my opinions based on. Just because you disagree with them, you refuse to understand my reasons.

      No you haven’t. The only explanation you have given is that you resent ‘foreigners’ using 50% of your tax contributions, which is plainly false. In fact, your suggestion is that you would be happy to double your tax contribution as long as asylum seekers are NOT given any cash, regardless of how expensive, wasteful and inefficient that scheme would be. And this just to serve your resentment that asylum seekers have some freedom in deciding how their allowance is spent. However, you have no such resentment towards the hundreds and thousands of Finnish citizens that likewise receive cash benefits.

      I have always said that I want equal treatment regardles of persons colour or ethnic background

      What you have suggested is by no means equal treatment.

      And it’s funny that you call me Farang, instead of the nickname I used very first, before Farang

      Funny that you choose to change your username so as to appear as another individual and then to change back again.

      So, just to humour me, tp1, were you bullied as a child? Did you/do you have a difficult relationship with one or both parents? Have you had significant problems in close relationships? Do you binge drink on a regular basis? Are you unemployed?

      If the answer is no to all of these questions, then I might be wrong about you. But my guess would be that there is a yes there somewhere, and that this yes has a lot to do with the resentment you feel towards asylum seekers. Abusers have usually been abused. So how were you abused/ are being abused? Where did you learn that the weakest is the one that gets kicked around the yard?

    • Mark

      tp1

      Once more, please answer this: Why should we give asylum seeker any benefits that we are not giving to tourists?

      Once more? This is the first time you’ve compared asylum seekers to tourists. To answer your question – a tourist has a home to go to. An asylum seeker is seeking to establish a home and work in a new country. Many asylum seekers are fleeing conflict or persecution, which is rather different to a tourist, don’t you think?

      Consider this though: If a tourist is involved in a traffic accident, should Finnish taxpayers’ money be spent on rescuing them? If a tourist commits a crime in Finland, should Finnish taxpayers’ money be spent seeking and prosecuting that individual? If a tourist seeks to enter Finland, should Finnish taxpayers’ money be spent on border controls to meet them? If a tourist in Finland is robbed, should Finnish taxpayers’ money be spent on providing police services? If a tourist comes to Finland, should they enjoy the freedom to use the roads, public buildings, transport services that have been built up with Finnish taxpayers’ money?

      You see, even your idea that Finnish taxpayers would not pay something that would directly or indirectly benefit a tourist is incorrect. In return, tourists spend money here in Finland. In return for citizenship, an asylum seeker will on the whole attempt to become a productive member of Finnish society. That after all is the only way to really ‘enjoy our standard of living’, as you put it.

  27. tp1

    The only explanation you have given is that you resent ‘foreigners’ using 50% of your tax contributions, which is plainly false.

    So, just to humour me, tp1, were you bullied as a child? Did you/do you have a difficult relationship with one or both parents? Have you had significant problems in close relationships? Do you binge drink on a regular basis? Are you unemployed?

    Do you even read what i write? I never said i resent foreigners and i never said they use 50% of my tax contribution. I said I pay taxes 50 % of my salary which is totally different thing.

    And answer to all those questions is no. I find it though interesting that as you would expect yes to those questions you would find it humorous. Why would anyone think that if someone has been bullied it would be humorous?

    • Mark

      tp1

      Do you even read what i write? I never said i resent foreigners and i never said they use 50% of my tax contribution. I said I pay taxes 50 % of my salary which is totally different thing.

      Actually, this is precisely what you wrote:

      Because I spend 8 hours of my day working hard and then I have to give away half of the money I earn so that other people can play good samaritans on my expense.

      So what is the ‘on my expense’ bit refer to? One euro a month, or half your salary, as you implied?

      You are not ‘giving away’ your money, your paying your way in society like everyone else. You implied that all this money is used by ‘good Samaritans’. If you actually meant less than 1%, then perhaps you could have been honest in wording it the way you meant it, instead of trying to legitimise your resentment by somehow claiming you were ‘paying for immigrants’ out of your own pocket.

      I find it though interesting that as you would expect yes to those questions you would find it humorous.

      Humorous? I don’t think so. I don’t think there is anything funny in your opinions at all. I see you attempting to victimize a group of people who are already burdened in way you could scarcely imagine. And yet you want me to feel sorry for you because you pay taxes that in some part help to maintain a healthy democracy within Finland. Sorry, but it doesn’t wash.

      You clearly do resent asylum seekers. I find it strange that you would claim otherwise given the kinds of arguments you put forward against them.

  28. tp1

    Once more? This is the first time you’ve compared asylum seekers to tourists. To answer your question – a tourist has a home to go to. An asylum seeker is seeking to establish a home and work in a new country. Many asylum seekers are fleeing conflict or persecution, which is rather different to a tourist, don’t you think?

    Interesting. I made the comparison on August 14, 2012 at 12:36 am and you even quoted that and answered to that 🙂

    Anyway, in my opinion asylum seeker should first get the approval before he should gain the status of a resident. During that time he is provided shelter and food but NO MONEY by any means. As long as he is only a seeker, he should not have the same priviledges as residents.

    And could you please remember that this is my OPINION. There is no right or wrong answers here, because they are just individual opinions. I understand that your opinion is different, you like to share everything with everyone. And I respect your opinion, I just disagree with it.

  29. tp1

    Consider this though: If a tourist is involved in a traffic accident, should Finnish taxpayers’ money be spent on rescuing them?

    That’s why tourists usually have insurance. It’s insurance company who pays it. If a tourist needs medical operation or is hospitalized, no country will treat them free. All expenses are claimed from the tourist in case he doesn’t have insurance.

    • Mark

      tp1

      Some medical bills are paid, but the actions of the emergency services are not. Again, you dodged the question. Not all expenses are claimed from the Tourist. I’ve been a tourist in Finland in need of emergency medical treatment and I was NOT billed.

  30. tp1

    So what is the ‘on my expense’ bit refer to? One euro a month, or half your salary, as you implied?
    You are not ‘giving away’ your money, your paying your way in society like everyone else. You implied that all this money is used by ‘good Samaritans’

    No. I said I pay taxes half my salaray. It doesn’t mean that ALL of that money would go to foreigners, just part of it.

    But I’m trying to give you a viewpoint here. Even the taxes I pay is not a signifigant sum in the total pot, it is a very significant sum to myself. And I need to sacrifice my own free time to do the work where I earn that money from. So it’s very understandable that people get pissed off when they have to work in order to give the money someone else who doesn’t have to do anything.

    I can tolerate the money is given to people who are member of this society, but I would expect them to atleast try to get a job.

    • Mark

      tp1

      It doesn’t mean that ALL of that money would go to foreigners, just part of it.

      Yes, and what part? You haven’t given a realistic figure.

      So it’s very understandable that people get pissed off when they have to work in order to give the money someone else who doesn’t have to do anything.

      As if it was all that simple!

      I can tolerate the money is given to people who are member of this society, but I would expect them to atleast try to get a job.

      That is just plain offensive. JD has pulled you up many times on this exact same point. There is a sanction that is made when an immigrant refuses to accept a job or activation measures, that results in reduced welfare. Show me the figures that say that immigrants are subject to these sanctions more than Finns?

  31. tp1

    Humorous? I don’t think so. I don’t think there is anything funny in your opinions at all. I see you attempting to victimize a group of people who are already burdened in way you could scarcely imagine. And yet you want me to feel sorry for you because you pay taxes that in some part help to maintain a healthy democracy within Finland. Sorry, but it doesn’t wash.
    You clearly do resent asylum seekers. I find it strange that you would claim otherwise given the kinds of arguments you put forward against them.

    You said that it would humour you, if I would answer yes to some of your questions regarding being bullied or being unemployed.

    I don’t resent asylum seekers, how many times do I have to repeat it. I only said I don’t want to give them money, it doesn’t mean I resent them.

    I don’t resent my neighbours either and I don’t want to give money to them either. How do you draw these conclusions that if someone doesn’t want to give someone money, it must mean that he hates them???

    • Mark

      tp1

      You said that it would humour you,

      Well that is lost in translation. It means if you cannot do it for any good reason that you yourself see, then you would do it to ‘keep me happy’.

      I only said I don’t want to give them money, it doesn’t mean I resent them.

      You are talking about a basic benefit here, and you are talking about creating a very specific and discriminatory scheme for foreigners that would operate in a completely different way than it operates for everyone else who has to claim benefits. Your comments about your ‘hard earned cash’ likewise paint a picture of resentment. Your implication that foreigners are lazy and don’t want to work also paints a picture of resentment. I guess people don’t always know when they are angry.

      I draw this picture because the treatment that you would give to foreigners is so very different to the treatment you would give to people in exactly the same circumstances, who you do not know from Adam, but who have ‘Finnish citizen’ written into their passport.

  32. tp1

    Enrique, could you please show some trust in me. I have already shown you that I can write without doing insults etc, so it would really help discussion if you let me post without premoderation.

    Thanks.

  33. tp1

    Mark, you still mix things up. I dont expect asylum seekers to get a job. I was talking about Finnish people who are on welfare and dont even try to get a job.

  34. tp1

    Once more? This is the first time you’ve compared asylum seekers to tourists. To answer your question – a tourist has a home to go to. An asylum seeker is seeking to establish a home and work in a new country. Many asylum seekers are fleeing conflict or persecution, which is rather different to a tourist, don’t you think?

    Interesting. I made the comparison on August 14, 2012 at 12:36 am and you even quoted that and answered to that 🙂

    And reason for this comparison is to highlight the fact that we can’t be obliged to give money to just everyone who crosses the border.

    Anyway, in my opinion asylum seeker should first get the approval before he should gain the status of a resident. During that time he is provided shelter and food but NO MONEY by any means. As long as he is only a seeker, he should not have the same priviledges as residents.

    And could you please remember that this is my OPINION. There is no right or wrong answers here, because they are just individual opinions. I understand that your opinion is different, you like to share everything with everyone. And I respect your opinion, I just disagree with it 🙂

  35. Mark

    tp1

    And reason for this comparison is to highlight the fact that we can’t be obliged to give money to just everyone who crosses the border.

    Your comparisons are ludicrous. Leaving your country, family and friends is not easy. There is no basis whatsoever to compare asylum seekers with holiday makers except to somehow diminish the status and circumstances of asylum seekers, that it somehow has something to do with ‘having fun’ or taking a holiday. It’s this supercilious attitude of yours that is quite offensive and tiring.

    During that time he is provided shelter and food but NO MONEY by any means.

    Why? It makes no sense. All welfare dependents are paid in cash benefits, because it’s an efficient means of taking care of an individuals unique living expenses, and yet you would try to deny it to a class of individuals with no justification whatsoever, except some basic sense of resentment that they don’t deserve it. And you claim you do not resent asylum seekers?

    There is no right or wrong answers here, because they are just individual opinions.

    🙂 now you are joking, yes? So one opinion is just as good as any other, and there is no morality, no moral consequences to any of the decisions or system of rights that is put in place? Just close your eyes and it doesn’t exist, eh!

    …you like to share everything with everyone

    Don’t be a prick, tp1. Is this the only way you can deflect criticism of your ludicrous ideas, by misrepresenting mine? This is your response to someone that challenges you about your lack of any kind of developed moral sense, to say that we want to give everything to everyone? You are a joke and hardly worth discussing with.

  36. tp1

    Mark, you can’t expect that every person who has good morale should be ready bring every person in the world in Finland and give money to everyone who crosses the border. That has nothing to do with moral, but more with common sense.

    When person comes and seeks an asylum, we can’t at that point know if he even needs an asylum. Good example was already mentioned above about the romanians, who were only abusing the system.

    This means that when asylum seeker enters Finland, we can’t know if he actually is anything different from a tourist.

    • Mark

      tp1

      Mark, you can’t expect that every person who has good morale should be ready bring every person in the world in Finland and give money to everyone who crosses the border. That has nothing to do with moral, but more with common sense.

      Gosh, here you go again, representing other people’s opinions in the form of absolutes just to try to strengthen your argument. Let’s strip them out and see what is being said:

      Mark, you can’t expect that people with good morals should be ready to let some people into Finland and to give some money to a portion of those that cross the border. That has nothing to do with moral, but more with common sense.

      See how much more reasonable it sounds when you’ve stripped out the unnecessary absolutes? The point is that some people coming to Finland do not need support. I did not need it – I’m a net contributor to Finland’s economy. Other do, on humanitarian grounds. It’s not an open door and it doesn’t have to be.

      When person comes and seeks an asylum, we can’t at that point know if he even needs an asylum. Good example was already mentioned above about the romanians, who were only abusing the system.

      I think in the big scheme of things that Roma have received a lot more abuse than they have been guilty of. Also, it’s actually unclear why the Romanians came to Finland and what they hope to gain by being here. Maybe it is better than Romania. However, removing the rights of ordinary asylum seekers simply because Europe as a whole has a problem integrating Roma into its society doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t solve the Roma problem and it makes the asylum problems worse.

      This means that when asylum seeker enters Finland, we can’t know if he actually is anything different from a tourist.

      Well, let’s see – a tourist has a ticket home, does not claim asylum and does not suggest that they are fleeing persecution. How much clearer does it need to be before you accept they have nothing in common?

      I find it highly offensive that you continue to associate asylum seekers with tourists. It’s a cheap shot, tp1!

  37. tp1

    Gosh, here you go again, representing other people’s opinions in the form of absolutes just to try to strengthen your argument. Let’s strip them out and see what is being said:

    Seriously, can’t you see what I write at all? If I say “not everyone”, it basically means same as “some of”. BUT why I need to use “not everyone” is to emphasise the counter argument to you, who made the claim that everyone with good morale must think like you do. It’s all up to context.

    I find it highly offensive that you continue to associate asylum seekers with tourists. It’s a cheap shot, tp1!

    Do you do that on purpose? If someone compares 2 things and finds some similarities, it in no way means that these 2 things are same.

    By comparing asylum seekers and tourists I have concentrated on certain issues which are similar: Crossing our border with their own will, without any real reason for asylum.

    Until the application is handled, we have no way to be sure if the asylum seeker falls in above category or not. And if the investigations shows that asylum seeker has no grounds to get asylum, then he actually falls in to that same category as tourist.

    It was you who made the misinterpretation that I would say that ALL asylum seekers are like tourists.

    • Mark

      tp1

      everyone with good morale must think like you do.

      It’s morals, not morale, that means something else, like good mood. tp1, I would give you the benefit of the doubt if I thought for even a second that you were open to the idea that asylum seekers are more oftne than not vulnerable people who need supporting, not handcuffing. That you seem to object to asylum seeking on principle, or to conflate cases of opportunism with those who genuinely need to the asylum system in order to remain alive is also cause for me to question your morals, not merely because your opinions are different to mine, but because you have shown not even the slightest understanding or appreciation of the world’s human rights framework. Instead you talk about people spending your money, about lazy asylum seekers, abusers etc.

      Do you do that on purpose? If someone compares 2 things and finds some similarities, it in no way means that these 2 things are same.

      You are an unprincipled turd, tp1, and I lost respect for you a long time ago. You have shown no similarities. Instead, you heap insult upon insult upon asylum seekers. For every case of asylum abuse, I could show you a hundred cases of genuine human suffering.

      Until the application is handled, we have no way to be sure if the asylum seeker falls in above category or not.

      Look, there is absolutely no grounds whatsoever for comparing an asylum seeker with a tourist. Tell me one thing they have in common, just one!!!!

      Edited: removed swearing. I am really fed up with this line of attack, tp1. It offers nothing to the debate and it is offensive. I would ask the moderators to remove your comments if you continue to persist, I’m pretty sure that it breaks the rules. You’ve offered no supporting argument whatsoever, so I can only assume that you are deliberately trolling and making the conflation so as to denigrate asylum seekers.

  38. tp1

    Look, there is absolutely no grounds whatsoever for comparing an asylum seeker with a tourist. Tell me one thing they have in common, just one!!!!

    One thing in common? They are both citizens of another country and have entered Finland. There is one thing in common.

    Why do you have so much problems with my opinions? I have not insulted anyone, I have not offended anyone, I have only voiced my opinion how asylum issues should be handled in MY OPINION. Why do oppose the idea that every person has I right for their own opinion?

    I respect your right for your opinion, why can’t you do the same?

    • Mark

      tp1

      One thing in common? They are both citizens of another country and have entered Finland. There is one thing in common.

      That’s nowhere near good enough, tp1. One arrives with the intention of leaving after a short period of relaxing leasure, the other is here one presumes on humanitarian grounds and has little prospect of returning home to their loved ones or home nation. Trying to infer that they have something meaningful in common is disengenuous and you know it.

      Why do you have so much problems with my opinions?

      Perhaps because your opinions are obnoxious.

      I have not insulted anyone, I have not offended anyone…

      Stop right there….LET ME REPEAT this, you clearly insult asylum seekers comparing them with tourists. An asylum seeker is by definition ‘seeking asylum’, which last time I checked is rather different to ‘seeking tourism’. Second, I AM OFFENDED, and I’ve told you several times now that I am and why. Why are you ignoring that? How can you say no-one is offended? I don’t exist in your mind? Who the hell are you discussing with?

      Why do oppose the idea that every person has I right for their own opinion?

      Oh, here we go again, more absolutes. I guess you are just trying to be deliberately irritating. Good luck with getting your posts past the moderators, because i cannot see this approach doing you any favours. You are given the freedom to express your opinions here on this blog, within reason, and that I think you can assume, means that Migrant Tales (which includes me) respect your right to have an opinion. That, however, does not give you immunity from criticism.

    • Mark

      tp1

      They are both citizens of another country and have entered Finland. There is one thing in common.

      Like I said, that is not a meaningful basis for a comparison. Why don’t you start with dictionary definitions:

      asylum seeker
      n
      (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (Law) a person who, from fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, social group, or political opinion, has crossed an international frontier into a country in which he or she hopes to be granted refugee status

      tour·ist
      n.
      One who travels for pleasure.

      Can you not see that implying that an asylum seeker ‘travels for pleasure’ completely misrepresents their status and situation?

  39. tp1

    I am really fed up with this line of attack, tp1.

    I really don’t understand. I am purely concentrating in discussion here about asylum seekers, but in every message you write you in some way attack me as a person.

    Why can’t you just comment on the issues here? Why do you need to comment about me?

    • Mark

      Because you ignore arguments made against you, you misrepresent my views, and you continue to insult asylum seekers and take absolutely no responsibility for that fact or even to begin to look at why that might be the case. Consider it for a second, do you think calling asylum seekers ‘tourists’ can be construed as demeaning? Come on, put your thinking cap on? Go on, hold your face straight and tell me NO, I dare you!

  40. tp1

    Because you ignore arguments made against you, you misrepresent my views, and you continue to insult asylum seekers and take absolutely no responsibility for that fact or even to begin to look at why that might be the case. Consider it for a second, do you think calling asylum seekers ‘tourists’ can be construed as demeaning? Come on, put your thinking cap on? Go on, hold your face straight and tell me NO, I dare you!

    I don’t ignore your arguments, I just disagree with them.

    Anyone can come to Finland and put in an application for asylum. That alone doesn’t yet prove that the person actually needs an asylum. Therefore I think they should not be given any priviledges before tha application is approved.

    It’s quite similar if a person is requesting some benefits from Kela. They will first go through the application and check the facts and if everything is ok, then the person will be paid the benefits.

    • Mark

      tp1

      I don’t ignore your arguments, I just disagree with them.

      You do ignore them. You simply continue to repeat your opinion and take no account of the criticism against you. And now you tell me you don’t even see yourself doing it?

      That alone doesn’t yet prove that the person actually needs an asylum.

      This seems to be a more accurate and therefore more acceptable formulation of your idea. How difficult was that? This is true, but this cannot be a pretext upon which to penalise asylum seekers or seek to diminish their rights by way of ‘deterrent’. The best deterrent to very straightforward abuse would be a swift and efficient administration process.

      I’m assuming that you wish to deter plain old economic migrants who have no real case to make for persecution. That would be reasonable in my view, but again, it simply requires an efficient system to process these claims quickly and so diminish the negative effects. As a developed country, we suffer a great deal less from bogus claims for asylum from economic migrants than for example Spain or Italy. In that sense, our geographical location does act as a buffer. Which makes me suspicious that anti-immigrationists are borrowing the arguments of their Southern cousins simply because they know they may have had some traction already in those countries.

      All I ask of you is to be respectful to the genuine needs of the majority of asylum seekers, and not to diminish their circumstances by making constant reference to bogus claims as if they characterise all claimants. That is tarring everyone with the same brush and unfairly penalises honest asylum seekers. Further, suggesting we reduce the rights of ALL asylum seekers on the basis of bogus claims is a bit like saying that all shoppers will be banned from shops because of the actions of a few shoplifters – not exactly self-serving is it?

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      Anyone can come to Finland and put in an application for asylum. That alone doesn’t yet prove that the person actually needs an asylum. Therefore I think they should not be given any priviledges before tha application is approved.

      This is where your lack of a moral sense trips you up. How can you say that anyone “should” get anything? That’s a moral judgement, and we have already established that you are not capable of moral judgements. The fact that you now characterise the minimum income needed for a life of human dignity as a privilege to be “given” after completing some “process” shows the depth of your depravity. This income level is a human and Constitutional right of everyone subject to Finnish jurisdiction. That is very basic Finnish law, Farang, and part of the most fundamental grounding in civics that you also patently lack. It was explained to you at school while you sat at the back of the room giggling and making farting noises.

      They say that Finnish administrative officials are lousy at moral judgements but experts at following rules. In your case, Farang, you fail miserably at both. That would make you dangerous if you ever had any political power. Fortunately, you don’t and never will.

      It’s quite similar if a person is requesting some benefits from Kela. They will first go through the application and check the facts and if everything is ok, then the person will be paid the benefits.

      Your ignorance is again quite unbelievable. The minimum income guarantee has nothing to do with Kela. If it did, then people would starve to death while waiting for decisions.

      The basic social security of asylum-seekers is administered by local authorities through the reception centre system. A person becomes a client of a reception centre by submitting an application for asylum at a local police station.

      The reception centre system is similar to the local authority emergency housing scheme. Essentially local authorities have a duty to house homeless individuals who are physically within their territory and lack the means to secure shelter. The standard of housing must meet the same minimum needed for a life of human dignity.

      I find it quite remarkable that people who have completed basic education in Finland can be so spectacularly ignorant of the most fundamental facts about how society functions. Aren’t you just embarrassed at being so obviously dumb about the society in which you live? Do some reading and get some basic learning.

  41. tp1

    You do ignore them. You simply continue to repeat your opinion and take no account of the criticism against you. And now you tell me you don’t even see yourself doing it?

    No I don’t ignore them. Would you expect me to change my opinion and if I don’t change my opinion, then you say that I am ignoring you? I can acknowledge your arguments even if I don’t agree with them.

    • Mark

      tp1

      No I don’t ignore them. Would you expect me to change my opinion and if I don’t change my opinion, then you say that I am ignoring you?

      Hmm, let me see now, is that what I would mean? Ugh, no!

      I can acknowledge your arguments even if I don’t agree with them.

      Well, that would be a positive step forward. I try to acknowledge your arguments and their strengths and weaknesses.

      So, do you think making a comparison between tourists and asylum seekers can be seen to be demeaning? Let’s go back to that question and see if you are inclined to answer that?

  42. tp1

    So, do you think making a comparison between tourists and asylum seekers can be seen to be demeaning? Let’s go back to that question and see if you are inclined to answer that?

    It’s a far stretched comparison and I tried to explain it already. So please don’t understand it in a way that all asylum seekers would be comparable to tourists.

    Asylum seeker, whose application is rejected after it has been seen that there were no grounds for the asylum, is comparable to tourist and he should get no benefits. But I already mentioned that earlier. As we can’t know the real status until it has been investigation then we don’t know if there are any reasons to give him money, like we don’t give money to tourists either.

    Is that any more clear now?

    • Mark

      😀 you still didn’t answer my question. So, last time before I give up – do you think that calling an asylum seeker a tourist could be demeaning?

    • Mark

      Good, a response. Yes, I’m aware of the difference between compare and call, but really that’s semantics, as if I compared you to a pig (tp1 is like a pig), then you will assume I’m calling you a pig to an extent.

      However, you have finally acknowledged that there is the real possibility that your comment can be seen as offensive to asylum seekers, and others? Whether you directly intended it to be is another question. Assuming you don’t intend to offend and now discovering that it is offensive, will you stop using this comparison? So far you have given no real justification for using it.

  43. tp1

    I don’t think anyone except you find it offensive, it’s pretty clear what I mean.

    When you say “tp1 is like a pig” you already make a statement that tp1 and pig have so many factors in common that tp1 is actually like a pig.

    To me comparison just means an activity for seeking similarities and differencies between two subjects.

    And when you go back to where I first introduced this comparison, you can see that already there I made it pretty clear that the factor that I was comparing asylum seekers with tourist was just the being here in Finland without being a citizen. And my comment was that “we don’t give money to tourists” so we shouldn’t be giving it to people whose status is still unknown.

    It would benefit all if we could handle the applications so quickly that asylum seekers wouldn’t have to be with that status too long.

    The romanian case was absurd because it was already 100% clear that they can’t get asylum, but still we got the benefits running to them as long as the applications were officially handled. That loophole is hopefully fixed now.

    • Mark

      tp1

      I don’t think anyone except you find it offensive, it’s pretty clear what I mean.

      I think you take an unwise liberty in dismissing my opinion or its value so quickly. I’m known for being reasonable and fair minded.

      To me comparison just means an activity for seeking similarities and differencies between two subjects.

      This really is playing semantics. If you mention ‘tourists’ and ‘asylum seekers’ in the same breath, people are pretty quick to realise that you mean some kind of freeloaders, out merely to abuse the system in some way. It’s derogatory, and we have just spent several posts getting you to admit that, which you have.

      With this kind of public debate comes responsibility, to respect people’s status and their human dignity. The complete lack of respect that many commentators show towards immigrants or asylum seekers is frankly flabergasting sometimes.

      I made it pretty clear that the factor that I was comparing asylum seekers with tourist was just the being here in Finland without being a citizen.

      Well, I’m sure you had your intentions, and I’m pretty sure your intention was to try to ‘win the argument’ by using a powerful statement that somehow had an impact. Unchallenged, it sounds like a strong argument. But it should be challenged – because it’s inaccurate and false, and because it gains much of it’s force as a statement from implying something negative about asylum seekers. And it’s these negative stereotypes that do so much damage and fuel further discrimination down the line in the integration process. Like I said, it’s a cheap shot, which is fine, but someone picks up the tab at some point tp1, both morally and practically!

      Now that you agree that calling an asylum seeker a tourist can be demeaning, then really there shouldn’t be any more discussion about this and you should accept that it is unacceptable to make that kind of comparison. It’s plainly false.

      Imagine if we were discussing Finland’s postal services and how best to manage them, and you came out with a statement like, ‘those bloody parcels, they should just be sent home, their like bombs’. I protest that they are nothing like bombs, but I cannot deny that actually, some parcels are bombs. I also cannot protest that parcels are typically square and covered in brown paper like some bombs. Where does this get us?

      You really should work to show more respect and appreciation for the situation of asylum seekers. I’m not being sentimental here. Finland does not open its arms inviting millions of the world’s downtrodden and oppressed. But the point is, if they get here, then we have a duty of care towards these people. It is no bad thing in today’s world that ultimately the world community will have to take more and more responsibility for the world’s poverty and strife, rather than merely seeking ways to exploit it for OUR financial benefit. But that’s a big picture perspective, and I doubt you’ll stretch your imagination to that level.

  44. tp1

    The basic social security of asylum-seekers is administered by local authorities through the reception centre system. A person becomes a client of a reception centre by submitting an application for asylum at a local police station.

    Yes. And in my opinion they should be fed in the center and taken care of. Somehow Mark and you seem to think that because I don’t want to give them money, I would like them to starve.

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      The present self-catering system fosters community and important survival skills, and it is demonstrably far more cost-effective than the full-service hotel arrangement that you recommend, Farang.

      Leaving aside the issues of moral value, as I know they are beyond your comprehension, how do you justify the additional expense? How much extra tax are you willing to pay to do it your way, Farang?

      I don’t know why I bother asking, as your contributions to this discussion so far have displayed such an appalling degree of willful ignorance that there is little prospect of getting any kind of intelligently reasoned answer from you. Why don’t you just accept that other people with far more knowledge and intelligence than you have fairly determined that the current system is simply better? You are effectively telling us that they have got it wrong all along and that you have greater knowledge and wisdom in these matters. This is not a pub discussion, Farang. The aroma of your bovine excrement will still be there in the morning.

  45. tp1

    JusticeDemon, there is no reason to educate me how system works. I am just telling how it should be IN MY OPINION.

    If there is a speed limit of 80 in some road and I think there should be limit of 120, am I not allowed to voice that opinion? As long as I dont actually drive over 80, whats the harm?

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      there is no reason to educate me how system works.

      See remark above re. willful ignorance.

      I am just telling how it should be IN MY OPINION.

      And yet above you came out with this completely incorrect claim of fact:

      Our laws guarantee the minimum support ONLY for citizens and approved immigrants.

      Not the ghost of a “should” or “ought to” or “in my opinion” there. You genuinely presented and shared a complete falsehood concerning a fundamental tenet of Finnish law. And you aren’t even bright enough to understand how this makes you look like a total wiener.

      An admission fee is payable for serious debate, Farang. You cannot pay that fee when you are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

      You remind me of someone who enrols in a professional poker tournament and then, when the first hand is dealt, throws a card down on the table, shouts snap! and gathers up all the chips. All that you achieve by protesting is that everyone in the tournament hall sees you for what you are: an obvious tosser who should not be there.

      You have your reading list.

  46. tp1

    Leaving aside the issues of moral value, as I know they are beyond your comprehension, how do you justify the additional expense? How much extra tax are you willing to pay to do it your way, Farang?

    By not giving money would eventually discourage those who have no grounds for asylum to make an application in the hope of getting free money. I don’t care how much it costs to help the people, as long as they are taken care of, I just don’t want the system to be abused by people who don’t really need it.

    Why don’t you just accept that other people with far more knowledge and intelligence than you have fairly determined that the current system is simply better? You are effectively telling us that they have got it wrong all along and that you have greater knowledge and wisdom in these matters. This is not a pub discussion, Farang.

    Come on! Please try to even read what I have already written. I have never claimed that current system is wrong. I have only said that I have a different opinion. People can have different OPINIONS, you know? And still it doesn’t mean that either is right or wrong. I have my opinion and if it was up to me I would make the system work differently. Still it doesn’t mean that current system is wrong. It has just been established by people who have diffrent opinion than I have.

    And what do you mean by “this is not a pub discussion”? This is exactly a pub discussion. There are different people here discussing and voicing their opinions. This is not an official court hearing, you know?

  47. tp1

    tp1
    there is no reason to educate me how system works.
    See remark above re. willful ignorance.

    It’s not ignorance. I don’t need to be educated because it has nothing to do with the matters we are discussing here.

    And yet above you came out with this completely incorrect claim of fact:
    Our laws guarantee the minimum support ONLY for citizens and approved immigrants.

    Yes, I was wrong about that. But still that had nothing to do with my opinion. Because I am not talking about here what the law says, but I am talking about how it should be in my opinion.

    Very few here knows the exact details of every law. If that would be the case there would be no jobs for lawyers.

    Even if I don’t know every single detail of law, it doesn’t mean that I can’t discuss about the issues.

    I say same to you as I said to Mark: Plese try to focus in the discussion instead of concentrating on me as a person and my knowledge of the law.

  48. Mark

    tp1

    By not giving money would eventually discourage those who have no grounds for asylum to make an application in the hope of getting free money.

    Gosh, let’s try to get you back on track here. Living on minimum income sucks, even in a country like Finland. That it can develop into a dependency is well-known and a challenge for a great many more Finns than it is asylum seekers in Finland, and yet I’m pretty sure you are not active in trying to persuade people about removing cash benefits for Finland’s unemployed? If you are focused only on the problem, then clearly you have missed what are the bigger problems in Finland.

    Also, if the issue is really about ‘free money’, then why don’t you look at ways of helping asylum seekers be productive during the application process? This could involve community work, training schemes, integration classes, or even access to the short-term labour market. Involving people in meaningful activity would appear to be a much more constructive way of approaching this element of ‘getting something for nothing’ that seems to concern you.

    I don’t care how much it costs to help the people, as long as they are taken care of, I just don’t want the system to be abused by people who don’t really need it.

    You are not taking care of these people by comparing them to tourists or making such a song and dance about the fact that they get ‘cash’ to pay for a minimum subsistance. This is actively working to demean them, to make people suspicious of them and their reasons for being here. I really cannot see any degree of ‘care’ in that at all.

    You are stuck on this idea of people abusing the system and trying to create some kind of ‘harsh’ deterrent, but you fail to understand or acknowledge that the people who will pay the price are to a large extent innocent of the wrongdoing that concerns you. That kind of ‘collective punishment’ is not a reasonable or acceptable way of problem solving in a modern democracy.

    The notion of ‘deterrents’ as used in law enforcement relates to people’s free choices in regard to their behaviour: a hefty fine or imprisonment for drink driving would, one hopes, reduce road deaths, but one has the choice about whether to drink and drive and whether one eventually becomes subject to that ‘deterrent’.

    The same is not true of asylum seekers who have no choice at all about their status, except not to be here. And that seems to be your main point. You don’t want asylum seekers. But that cannot ever justify reducing the level or standard of treatment of asylum seekers in Finland. If we take your principle to its logical conclusion, we might as well torture them when they enter and send them home, with the aim of stopping anyone else from having the stupid idea of coming to Finland.

    The answer to welfare dependency in regard to asylum seekers or immigrants is the same as with Finns – activation, which also entails creating opportunities for productive activity that eventually leads to proper integration. It does not reside in reducing Finland’s commitment to basic human rights and a respect for the dignity of all individuals who reside in Finland.

    • JusticeDemon

      Mark

      This could involve community work, training schemes, integration classes, or even access to the short-term labour market.

      We are already way ahead of you, mate. These things are arranged to a greater or lesser degree in various reception centres. Formally identified asylum-seekers are eligible to take any kind of work after three months, and unidentified asylum-seekers are eligible to take any kind of work after six months (Aliens Act, section 81, subsection 2).

    • JusticeDemon

      Mark

      Why does that not surprise me? 🙂

      Probably because you haven’t lived in Finland for long enough. We have come a very long way since the policy of indefinitely detaining all asylum-seekers in police cells that was applied in the late 1980s.

  49. Marco

    MT as well as any other person talking about asylum seekers should base their discussion on facts, not emotions.

    Justice demon should know that asylum seekers are the ones destroying the process. Only 5% are granted asylum (2011) so one should talk about Migration instead, perhaps social migration.

    Now, Germany and Finland are processing (and paying for) unreasonably much of people that have no reason to request asylum.

    • Mark

      Marco

      MT as well as any other person talking about asylum seekers should base their discussion on facts, not emotions.

      🙂

      for the past 11 years only 1-2 % have been granted asylum, of the total nro of asylum seekers.

      So, after telling us that we should stick to facts, you promptly pull a false figure out of your arse! 🙂

      Here are some accurate figures for you:

      Positive asylum (2008) = 4%
      Positive asylum (2009) = 3%
      Positive asylum (2010) = 3%

      However, the key thing is how many of those asylum applications are given residence permits even if they are not given asylum status. This number is a further 35%, 29% and 27% respectively for the same years. This is a direct quote based on Finnish Immigration figures:

      Concerning the proportion of positive to negative asylum decisions on first-time applications, the ratio (including decisions in favor of asylum and other asylum-related residence permits) was roughly one to three in the 1990s. Since 2000, the ratio has been around one to four, with the exception of 2001 when the positive to negative ratio peaked at three to four. These figures mean that, on average, more than 25 percent of all asylum seekers between 1990 and 2010 were entitled to remain in Finland with some type of residence permit.

      And the majority of declined applications are based on the Dublin agreement, where an asylum seeker is returned to another EU country of origin, which considering Finland’s geographic location, is a convenient way of passing the buck and says absolutely nothing about the nature of the asylum claims.

      What was that about basing the discussion on facts?

  50. tp1

    Anyway, that clearly proves that big marority of asylum seekers are not eligible to asylum so they should not be eligible to any benefits either. That’s why I would not recommend giving them money but instead just feeding them and keeping alive during the process.

    And what comes to givin money and some claims Mark and JD made about benefits being quite small: It has alrady been investigated and proven that many immigrants and asylum seekers sends part of their benefit (money) back to their home countries. That itself is a proof that the current benefits are more than enough.

    • Mark

      tp1

      Anyway, that clearly proves that big marority of asylum seekers are not eligible to asylum so they should not be eligible to any benefits either. That’s why I would not recommend giving them money but instead just feeding them and keeping alive during the process.

      See my comment to Marco about residence permits.

      And what comes to givin money and some claims Mark and JD made about benefits being quite small: It has alrady been investigated and proven that many immigrants and asylum seekers sends part of their benefit (money) back to their home countries. That itself is a proof that the current benefits are more than enough.

      Okay, let’s see, how many is ‘many’? Show me your evidence? What investigation? Also, it is not uncommon for people to ‘go without’ in order to try to help other family members, whether here in Finland or abroad. You do realise that it often costs money to get family members to Finland or out of harms way. I can understand family members trying to give whatever they can to help in that process.

      Time and again you fail to appreciate the genuine human stories behind the numbers.

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      Many Finnish recipients of basic income support spend part of their benefit (including child allowances) on alcohol, tobacco products and lottery tickets.

      Do you conclude that this is “proof that the current benefits are more than enough”?

  51. Marco

    2000: 9/3170= 0,2%
    2001: 4/1651= 0,2%
    2002: 14/3443= 0,4%
    2003: 7/3221= 0,2%
    2004: 29/3861= 0,7%
    2005: 12/3574= 0,3%
    2006: 38/2324= 1%

    …..

    http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto.html

    refugee status is not the same as residence permit. It is the government policy to attract labor to Finland but these people do not qualify for the refugee under GC.

    PS! It is probably less than 1% that are given asylum during this millenia :/

    • Mark

      Marco

      okay, I agree, over the 11-year period, the average positive decisions has been 1.8%. My apologies. However, following 2006, positive decisions increased markedly:

      2007: 68/1505 = 5%
      2008: 89/4035 = 2%
      2009: 116/5988 = 2%
      2010: 181/4018 = 5%
      2011: 169/3088 = 5%

      Training to be a politician, are you? I originally quoted Arno Tanner, who works for the Immigration service and Helsinki University (source:http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=825)

      refugee status is not the same as residence permit.

      No, it’s not, but it does lead to permanent residency in Finland in most cases, so it is extremely relevant. Also, even where asylum has not been granted, judicial inspection has nevertheless revealed a need for protection and has granted the residence permit. Look at the table that you linked to, at point 2), which reads:

      Includes residence permits granted on the basis of humanitarian and subsidiary protection

      This makes it abundantly clear that the immigration service is often denying asylum in cases that manifestly merit it. Now it’s rather convenient to argue that so few asylum claims are shown to be ‘legitimate’, when Finland’s own judiciary is so often granting a residency permit on the basis of a recognised need for protection. The key thing here is being able to verify a claim of persecution, which can be extremely difficult when an individual is coming from a country in conflict. It all depends on the criteria set out. Finland’s immigration service has been recognised as being quite demanding in this respect.

      Likewise, what you fail to mention is that over 10,000 applications in the last 20 years were from the former Soviet Union and Russia, and this at the same time as implementing the return policy for Ingrian Finns. Perhaps no surprise that so many applications came from those areas.

  52. JusticeDemon

    Marco

    You are simply trolling again. We have been down this road more than once with your previous incarnations on Migrant Tales.

    Please explain how to apply for shelter as a displaced person in Finland without applying for asylum.

    With the exception of people displaced by the war in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia (who were covered by a special enabling Act of Parliament), ALL such applications are processed as requests for international protection under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. This is simply the way the Finnish system is structured. Without that very fundamental item of background knowledge, your statistics are quite useless.

    The Finnish humanitarian immigration clearance system works like a tropical hospital in this respect. Everyone who checks in complaining of fever is processed as a case of suspected malaria. This does not mean that people who “only” have influenza are somehow cheating the system.

    The detailed examination of asylum claims often discloses other grounds for issuing leave to remain in Finland, even when the applicant is not eligible for refugee status, just as a detailed study of a patient’s symptoms often discloses other grounds for treatment, even when the patient does not have malaria.

    This is the converse of the way your neighbours treat you, Hannu. When you are walking unsteadily, slurring your speech and vomiting all over the pavement, they assume that you are simply pissed again and they call for the paddy wagon. Nobody begins from the assumption that you need anything more than a night in the lockup.

  53. Marco

    Mark

    it does not really matter if it is 1 or 5% does it? 95-99% of the applications are without ground. Though, they are given an opportunity to make their life in Finland, with a low level of succeess for the individual as well as the Finnish society.

    • Mark

      Marco

      it does not really matter if it is 1 or 5% does it? 95-99% of the applications are without ground. Though, they are given an opportunity to make their life in Finland, with a low level of succeess for the individual as well as the Finnish society.

      It is not correct to say that 95-99% are without grounds. It is correct to say that the Finnsh immigration service has often failed to recognise what a judicial officer has recognised is a genuine need for protection. And in that sense, a quarter of asylum applications lead to Finland giving such protection. This is in addition to the refugee quota and the family reunification.

      Also, ‘low level of success’ is further negative propoganda put out by yourself in regard to immigrants.

    • JusticeDemon

      Mark

      It is not correct to say that 95-99% are without grounds. It is correct to say that the Finnsh immigration service has often failed to recognise what a judicial officer has recognised is a genuine need for protection. And in that sense, a quarter of asylum applications lead to Finland giving such protection. This is in addition to the refugee quota and the family reunification.

      Certain counterintuitive parameters can make Migri statistics difficult to interpret. It is not clear, for example, how the system accommodates refusals that are overturned on appeal. In terms of administrative decisions made, it is quite possible for Migri to issue two or three refusals before finally acknowledging grounds for granting leave to remain. These decisions may be spaced over a period of 2-3 years, and essentially all concern the same administrative case. Intuitively we would class this as one application with one favourable outcome, but statistically it may involve several administrative and judicial decisions both favouring and opposing the applicant’s interests. Without understanding the detailed operation of the humanitarian immigration system, there is no way to appreciate what these various Migri statistics really mean.

      As noted above, all applications for shelter are automatically assumed to be requests for international protection under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, even when it is clear from the outset that this is not the relevant instrument. Many applications are well founded under Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, even when the applicant does not qualify for refugee status based on a justified fear of individual persecution. Many applicants are also unaware of the distinction between Convention refugeehood and the shelter granted to displaced persons, and their lawyers are often too busy to quibble over the specific reasons why their clients have been granted leave to remain. There is also a risk that the administrative courts will dismiss an appeal without prejudice on the grounds that it is premature. The courts are free to take the view that their supervisory role should only be invoked at the point where material differences emerge between the rights conferred by various administrative decisions (for example at the stage of family reunification).

    • Mark

      JD

      As noted above, all applications for shelter are automatically assumed to be requests for international protection under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, even when it is clear from the outset that this is not the relevant instrument.

      Is this an EU-wide practice for processing asylum seekers? Is it also an unnecessary delay in the processing of the majority of applications? Or is it that individuals are presumed not to have any ideas about their own legal status and so it must be assumed that they are governed first and foremost by the GC?

      If different instruments confer different rights (e.g. in regard to family reunification), is it the case that refugeehood is seen as the best status and so applications are made regardless of whether the chance of success is extremely slim? Reminds me of science publishing, where BMJ and Lancet are usually the first stop for publishing a health article, even if it’s obvious that it has little chance of acceptance, but the rewards are so good that its perceived as worth the effort and delay.

      Sounds like an administrative maze.

    • JusticeDemon

      Mark

      Is this an EU-wide practice for processing asylum seekers? Is it also an unnecessary delay in the processing of the majority of applications? Or is it that individuals are presumed not to have any ideas about their own legal status and so it must be assumed that they are governed first and foremost by the GC?

      I wasn’t saying that it is undesirable to presume that all requests for shelter are claims for Convention status, only that we have to bear this in mind when interpreting asylum statistics. The associated delay is probably not a lengthy one nowadays, as the investigation stage gathers case data that are relevant to various outcomes. In other words, the process already acknowledges the variety of outcomes that can emerge. A tropical hospital that processes all feverish patients as potential malaria sufferers is taking a safety-first approach. It is simply an error to assume that as only a tiny fraction of those treated turn out to have malaria, this must mean that the rest are hypochondriacs.

      It is also fair and reasonable to assume that applicants will not have the kind of detailed knowledge that is needed in order to decide which kind of humanitarian immigration category they belong to, much as a feverish patient should not be expected to know whether the fever is due to malaria, influenza or food poisoning.

      If different instruments confer different rights (e.g. in regard to family reunification), is it the case that refugeehood is seen as the best status and so applications are made regardless of whether the chance of success is extremely slim?

      Convention refugee status is clearly more secure and confers somewhat stronger rights than the status of a displaced person. Indeed one of the issues that is currently under review is withdrawal of certain family reunification rights from displaced persons that are guaranteed to Convention refugees by international treaty.

      Sounds like an administrative maze.

      The system is not as Kafkaesque as it once was, but it still involves considerable complexity.

    • Mark

      Marco

      hahah Mark. If one wants to be a success you can be. Ethnic divide(s) has social divisions

      So speaks the man with an open mind, eh! Typical right-wing myth about society being free for all in terms of opportunity, and social mobility being just a matter of lifting your arse off the chair and making an effort. Simply individualise the problem and then blame the individual. If only it were that simple.

      Care to explain what you mean by ‘ethnic divide’ and what’social divisions’ you refer to?

  54. Marco

    ethnic groups becomes social groups or statuses.

    That policy is also the most efficient way to drive down Finland’s and Europs’s economy and a consequent of this to reduce, diminuish the help to the third world.

  55. Mark

    Marco

    ethnic groups becomes social groups or statuses.

    I’m afraid this is very unclear and it’s impossible to know what you mean by it. Perhaps you could spare a paragraph to detail your idea?

    That policy is also the most efficient way to drive down Finland’s and Europs’s economy and a consequent of this to reduce, diminuish the help to the third world.

    I’ve followed a significant amount of debate about Finland’s commitment to the developing world and overseas aid, and nowhere have I seen the argument made that reducing the rights of immigrants in Finland or even reducing the number of immigrants will positively impact the developing world.

    In fact, it is a known fact that many asylum seekers will often return to their country of origin having benefited their host country and further, using their experience of the developed world to help reform and development in their native country. Also, it is not uncommon for immigrants and returnees to establish trade links between their host country and native country, which is mutually beneficial to all parties.

    But hey, keep churning out the same old doom and gloom that you have been doing for some years here on MT.

  56. tp1

    tp1

    Many Finnish recipients of basic income support spend part of their benefit (including child allowances) on alcohol, tobacco products and lottery tickets.

    Do you conclude that this is “proof that the current benefits are more than enough”?

    Yes, definitely. Pia-Noora Kauppi (Kokoomus Member of European Parliament) said it like it should be: The benefits should only cover basic needs, food, clothes and apartment. If person living on benefits have money to go to movies, then benefits are too big.

    • Mark

      tp1

      Yes, definitely. Pia-Noora Kauppi (Kokoomus Member of European Parliament) said it like it should be: The benefits should only cover basic needs, food, clothes and apartment. If person living on benefits have money to go to movies, then benefits are too big.

      You seem to miss the point. A basic allowance that allows for certain basic requirements can nevertheless enable an individual to follow their own priorities and to accept losses in terms of basic requirements.

      In other words, it’s perfectly within the rights of an individual to decide to skip lunch a couple of times a week in order to save enough money to visit the cinema. Such a decision may be beneficial in maintaining healthy weight, in maintaining one’s sense of belonging and well-being within Finnish society, and in terms of giving an element of control and confidence to someone who typically suffers through lack of work from having a feeling of very little control. Such a balancing of priorities is acceptable and even to be encouraged.

      In fact, the idea that you would try to micro-manage people’s decision-making in regard to their own economy would likely be opposed by all the major political parties, and for good reason: it smacks of ‘nanny state’!

      The fact that some people choose to prioritise alcohol, cigarettes and gambling even while on a very low income generally reflects a compulsive/impulsive personality that perhaps needs support and even treatment. But the idea that you would penalise ordinary benefit recipients by further diminishing the benefit because of these people is frankly indefensible. However, if individuals do choose to spend on beer, lottery tickets and fags, at least they are giving the money back to the goverment at a much faster rate than otherwise given the rather high duties on these consumables.

  57. Marco

    what is the entire idea of humanitarian migration?

    -crash the world
    -develope the world
    -create a fog

    The fact that you have not seem arguments that you stated does not mean they do not exist. Those arguments do exist and they are based on facts.

    The more you have to pay for social migration, the less will be resources available for ”healing” the world.

  58. tp1

    You seem to miss the point. A basic allowance that allows for certain basic requirements can nevertheless enable an individual to follow their own priorities and to accept losses in terms of basic requirements.
    In other words, it’s perfectly within the rights of an individual to decide to skip lunch a couple of times a week in order to save enough money to visit the cinema. Such a decision may be beneficial in maintaining healthy weight, in maintaining one’s sense of belonging and well-being within Finnish society, and in terms of giving an element of control and confidence to someone who typically suffers through lack of work from having a feeling of very little control. Such a balancing of priorities is acceptable and even to be encouraged.

    But now you seem to miss the point. If a person can survive with 10 lunches less, then he don’t need those 10 lunches and his allowance is a price of 10 lunches too big. If person can manage without X then X is not his basic need. Simple as that.

    • Mark

      tp1

      But now you seem to miss the point. If a person can survive with 10 lunches less, then he don’t need those 10 lunches and his allowance is a price of 10 lunches too big. If person can manage without X then X is not his basic need. Simple as that.

      Gosh, I really wonder what planet you are living on sometimes. It is absolutely not true to say that if a person can live without it, it must not be a basic need. I rather think that the Nazis would have embraced you whole-heartedly in the concentration camps – if they live, then it’s clearly enough, even if they become emaciated in the process and die of some illness. I mean, just how low will you stoop in this ridiculous attempt to make your original suggestion appear credible?

      Let’s just take the food allowance. A recommended daily intake might be 2500 calories, and an allowance for food would take account of this. For example, let’s say that 2 EUR is set aside for a lunch that comprises 650 calories. It is the requirement of the state to provide enough for a healthy diet, but it’s not unhealthy to skip a lunch a few days a week. That gives the individual the possibility of spending the lunch allowance on something else. To suggest that someone can live on less than a healthy diet, even though this is possible for a short period of time, is clearly inhumane. Again, you could take this logic to its extreme and say that we could feed them pig swill as it has all the necessary nutrients and costs 10 cents a day!

      Hopefully you get the point. There is a minimum and there is a minimum.

      People should have the freedom to make choices. That is the bedrock of our modern society, but it seems a principle that you do not altogether appreciate.

  59. tp1

    In fact, the idea that you would try to micro-manage people’s decision-making in regard to their own economy would likely be opposed by all the major political parties, and for good reason: it smacks of ‘nanny state’!

    My philosophy is that a person can make the decisions how he spend HIS OWN money. But when is is spending someone else’s money, then he can’t expect to have the control.

    If I go to spend my own money, my neighbour won’t have any say on that. But if I go spend my neighbours money, then I expect that my neighbour would propably have a say how he wants it to be spent.

    This same effect is seen in charity and other monetary help. It is nice and easy to play a part of good samaritan when you can help people with someone else’s money.

    • Mark

      tp1

      My philosophy is that a person can make the decisions how he spend HIS OWN money. But when is is spending someone else’s money, then he can’t expect to have the control.

      If I go to spend my own money, my neighbour won’t have any say on that. But if I go spend my neighbours money, then I expect that my neighbour would propably have a say how he wants it to be spent.

      Absolute pile of hogwash, tp1. Really, do you expect people to take you seriously?

      First, the welfare system is fundamentally an insurance system. What you suggest is a bit like saying, I pay my car insurance, so that gives me a say in what repairs are done on your car!

      Second, it’s not your neighbours money, it’s the government’s money, meaning, it’s a collective. That’s an altogether different thing. Maybe the reason passes you by, but let’s put it like this, when the government decide to spend money on something, they don’t come to you Farang to ask you what you think about it. In the big scheme of things, you have a rather blunt say in the matter via the ballot box, but let’s not pretend that that’s anything like asking your neighbour to pay for something for you and so giving him a choice about it.

      Third, government functions entirely on the concept of working with ‘someone else’s money’, and yet they are still held accountable. Just because money paid to immigrants in benefits is ‘someone else’s money’ doesn’t mean that it’s somehow ‘easier to spend’. On the contrary, the government is subject to a lot more scrutiny and transparency than your average charity!

      Fourth, don’t pretend you have a PHILOSOPHY. A philosophy is something that you spend years constructing and where you make a genuine effort to understand the weaknesses and to construct a robust defence of it. What you are proposing is not a philosophy, but a series of off-the-cuff rationalisations of your prejudice, an altogether different thing.

  60. tp1

    Let’s just take the food allowance. A recommended daily intake might be 2500 calories, and an allowance for food would take account of this. For example, let’s say that 2 EUR is set aside for a lunch that comprises 650 calories.

    It’s no point in arguing about this. I already suggested that it should be possible from them to eat at the center as much as they want.

    This whole argument is already discussed through, I don’t understand why you want to continue. I have shown my point and opinion and told you why I would recommend this. It just seems that you have problems if someone else is happy with their opinion which disagrees with yours that you just have to keep going and desperately try to changes ones opinion.

    Why can’t you just respect my right to have my opinion, like I respect you to have yours?

    • Mark

      Why can’t you just respect my right to have my opinion, like I respect you to have yours?

      Why does continuing to debate with you mean I don’t respect your opinion? The point is really that you are NOT discussing it, not in any meaningful way. You simply repeat your opinions over a cycle of comments, throwing in ever more ridiculous statements that generally fudge the issue. You do not stop for a second to look at the strengths or weaknesses of your own arguments, and you certainly don’t stop to properly process what’s being said to you.

      Everything has to be simplified for you to the point of ABC.

      You say that they should eat at the centre through inhouse catering even though this is MUCH more expensive, and yet your complaint about asylum seekers is that they are paid for with your taxes. You suggest a ‘hotel’ type catering scheme merely to avoid giving money to an asylum seeker because you are so appalled at the idea that this will give them ‘consumer power’, and that they would also be able to set their own priorities in regard to their various needs. Not only that, but by manipulating this power, they could even help their relatives abroad. This absolutely incenses you, even though one of your arguments is that giving money to asylum seekers means there is less money to give to people abroad (or was that Hannu’s argument?). And then in the next breath you are saying that we ‘don’t give our money away abroad, so why give it to asylum seekers’.

      Round and round the merry-go-round!

      I respect your opinion, but I will say something when I start to feel dizzy. Got it? 😀

  61. tp1

    but let’s put it like this, when the government decide to spend money on something, they don’t come to you Farang to ask you what you think about it. In the big scheme of things, you have a rather blunt say in the matter via the ballot box,

    That would be the case if we would live in democracy, but we don’t. Majority of people voted for persons who were against the bailouts of European countries, but still the minority ruled against it.

    So it’s pretty naive to say that we could affect things in this “democracy”.

    • Mark

      tp1

      That would be the case if we would live in democracy, but we don’t. Majority of people voted for persons who were against the bailouts of European countries, but still the minority ruled against it.

      This is a very revealing statement from you. You are quite the radical, aren’t you? We do live in a democracy, but that doesn’t mean that all government decisions are by definition democratic decisions. Likewise, if a political party does not achieve a majority of votes, then it will be a coalition and therefore inevitably a rule by ‘minorities’. Not only that, but we live in a parliamentary system, meaning that parliament (discussing an agenda set by the government) makes the decisions on our behalf. That is why they are referred in the Constitution as ‘representatives’.

      So, continuing your long overdue education, tp1, we live in a representative democracy.

      So it’s pretty naive to say that we could affect things in this “democracy”.

      Learnt a new word? 🙂 We affect things not so much through individual influence (though some individuals can have a lot of influence), but through our collective influence. That is part and parcel of what democracy means.

      However, you can ‘affect’ democracy in many other ways too, by becoming in involved in politics or activism, or merely choosing to understand your own choices as a citizen in a more informed way, hence providing yourself with more ‘real’ choices and options, and not merely following the choices of your peers or family members.

      You know, it really seems to me tp1 that you seem to have some beef with a great deal about this society in Finland. I don’t know if that is just ‘rebel without a cause’ syndrome, or whether you just don’t appreciate the value of the work that has already gone into creating this Finnish society.

      It really makes me wonder how much of this current society you would change if given the chance and how?

  62. tp1

    You say that they should eat at the centre through inhouse catering even though this is MUCH more expensive, and yet your complaint about asylum seekers is that they are paid for with your taxes.

    Here it comes again, you make a claim about that and I have already explained it very clearly:

    To me it doesn’t matter if it is more expensive for them to eat at the centers. I have very clearly said that my opinions have nothing to do with the actual money that is spent. My only concern is that I don’t want money/cash to be given to a person who is not eligible to it.

    And the reasoning behing this all is to prevent people from abusing the system. If the giving of money would stop, then it wouldn’t encourage those imposters to come and seek for asylum anymore.

    Just to summarise: I would be much more happier to give 100 euros to a person who is REALLY in need, than to give 20 euros to some imposter.

    • Mark

      tp1

      Here it comes again, you make a claim about that and I have already explained it very clearly:

      I didn’t point out your opinion because I wanted you to explain it again, I think it bears repeating because it’s so ludicrous.

      To me it doesn’t matter if it is more expensive for them to eat at the centers.

      Exactly. Your nuts mate, and good luck convincing people that that is a good idea simply because YOU don’t like asylum seekers carrying cash around.

      And the reasoning behing this all is to prevent people from abusing the system.

      I find this hard to believe. I’m more inclined to think that you don’t like the idea of your cash going in the hands of black people. Why do I say that? Because this idea that it would prevent people abusing the system is rubbish, which makes me think there must be another reason it makes you so angry.

      People make asylum claims in the hope of getting asylum or residency, not for the minimal cash they get while they are waiting for their case to be processed. So it is extremely unlikely that it would act as any kind of deterrent. I’ve already addressed this fallacious argument about ‘deterrents’. You’re living in dream land if you think that would address the issue.

      I would be much more happier to give 100 euros to a person who is REALLY in need, than to give 20 euros to some imposter.

      Well, until their claims are processed, it’s not possible to say who is ‘an imposter’ so there is absolutely NO WAY that you can create a possibility where you will give someone 100 EUR because you know they are not an impostor. And given that fact, measures that are expensive and which treat asylum seekers like criminals are just not going to happen, tp1! Not ever.

      I find that word ‘imposter’ offensive too. Even if Finland attracts some economic migrants among the asylum seekers, I wouldn’t call them impostors. Generally speaking, they are people who come here wanting to work and provide a better future for their kids. I think it’s perfectly possible to admire that, even if we cannot have an open door policy that would make it possible. There by the grace of God go I, and you!

Leave a Reply