Here is a good example of an editorial (in Finnish) in Jyäskylä-based Keskisuomalainen that shows how little the top editors of a Finnish newspaper understand immigration. If the editorial were written in the Washington Post, Financial Times or El País of Madrid, the editor would probably get the boot from the readers for making negligent statements and for practicing lazy opinionated journalism.
The editorial enlightens us by stating that there are three types of immigration: Finland’s humanitarian role in accepting refugees, labor immigrants and multicultural marriages between immigrants and Finns (they favor this).
Incredulously, the editors say that while a rich country like Finland should offer humanitarian help to people fleeing countries as refugees, the most effective way (now get ready for this!) is to help these people in their home countries! Moreover, the editors claim without showing us any credible studies that cultural differences are so great, that it is good not to bring refugees to the county because it would take two to three generations for them to adapt to our society.
Do the editors know what a refugee is? A refugee cannot live in his home country because there is political strife. They are fleeing their country because it is not safe to live there. And then the icing on the cake: “Laws against accepting refugees in Finland are the strictest (in Europe). That is why we don’t suffer from the problems that multiculturalism has brought to other European countries.”
Who says that immigration hasn’t brought problems like any other social phenomenon? But take a look at all the things it has brought in the way of economic growth, dynamism and innovation. The editors believe that a society made up of different cultures and immigrants is essentially a bad matter. They haven’t even taken the time to study Finnish history to understand that we were, are and will be a multicultural country.
With respect to labor immigrants, the editorial states point black that Finland should not be too enthusiastic about taking this road. It writes: “Highly educated people are certainly welcome to Finland but we should not do this too enthusiastically because it isn’t morally right. Highly educated people who are lured from developing nations impoverish their countries’ opportunities.”
In my opinion, the last affirmation is a diplomatic way of saying that we don’t even want highly educated immigrants to come here.
At the end the editorial it affirms that even if Finland should not take the multicultural road, it does not mean that we should close ourselves from the outside world.
Do you want any further explanations why the debate on immigration in Finland is lopsided and totally off the wal?