Keskisuomalainen’s incredulous editorial on immigration

by , under All categories, Enrique

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?

  1. derp

    >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.

    Yeah, that was a stupid move. The possibilities for the integration of some groups could just get worse over time if they decide to keep to their own and form ghettos. There would come a point where no amount of Finnish language courses will persuade them back into the society that supports them.

    >But take a look at all the things it has brought in the way of economic growth, dynamism and innovation.

    Sure, if you care to show them to me. I sadly have to admit that I am unaware of the profit and innovation that taking in illiterate people gives us. Of course, highly educated workforce is a different thing, but…

    >In my opinion, the last affirmation is a diplomatic way of saying that we don’t even want highly educated immigrants to come here.

    I do wonder if there’s anything they could have said that you wouldn’t interpret negatively. If they had left it out, you could’ve complained about them advocating the impoverishment of the other countries’ opportunities.

    • Enrique

      –Yeah, that was a stupid move. The possibilities for the integration of some groups could just get worse over time if they decide to keep to their own and form ghettos. There would come a point where no amount of Finnish language courses will persuade them back into the society that supports them.

      So, Mr. Sociologist, you are now going to enlighten us on which groups can and should integrate into our society. That is the stumbling block in your argument. You believe that people cannot adapt while in truth much of the problems arise from attitudes like yours.

      –Sure, if you care to show them to me. I sadly have to admit that I am unaware of the profit and innovation that taking in illiterate people gives us. Of course, highly educated workforce is a different thing, but…

      There are a bunch of European countries like Sweden, look at the Americas, Australia for starters. Another myth you are bringing, maybe? And can you show me proof how many Somalis are illiterate in Finland? You forget that most of the Italians, Spaniards and other immigrants that moved to the Americas were also illiterate. It was a problem but not one that caused them to fall flat on their faces. What was the benefit? Their children got a better education and opportunities in their new homeland.

      If you ask me, I would not trust with tweezers any comment on Somalis coming from the Finnish Immigration Service. I think they have a special grudge on this group.

      That Keskisuomalainen editorial is one of the worst ones I have ever seen. You could not call it an editorial because it was shoddy work on behalf of the editors. You probably believe that refugees should be helped in their home countries. Do you know the difference between a refugee and an immigrant?

  2. Tiwaz

    -“So, Mr. Sociologist, you are now going to enlighten us on which groups can and should integrate into our society. That is the stumbling block in your argument. You believe that people cannot adapt while in truth much of the problems arise from attitudes like yours.”

    Then why for example people of African/Middle Eastern origin fail repeatedly to adjust?

    SOME of them of course do, but statistically these groups are worst ones in integrating.

    You are essentially right though, all groups can integrate. Others just need to do whole lot more work to integrate than others. And then there is question of motivation.

    Which is why I suggest principle of pesäpallo for example regarding crime. First strike, you get punished. Two strikes, you get punished again. Third strike and you (and your family since we do not want to break them) are OUT.

    Same with residence permit. When it comes up for renewal, you are tested on your knowledge of language. If sufficient progress is not made, you are not granted renewal.

    -“You forget that most of the Italians, Spaniards and other immigrants that moved to the Americas were also illiterate. It was a problem but not one that caused them to fall flat on their faces.”

    Enrique.. Are you this stupid or do you think your readers are stupid enough not to figure out the glaring problem in your example?

    THOSE ILLITERATE ITALIANS GOING TO USA WERE NOT IMMIGRATING ON 21ST CENTURY! TIME CHANGE! TIME TO COME TO 21ST CENTURY ENRIQUE!

    Immigration of 19th or early 20th century are totally different. Back then 100% literacy was hardly norm ANYWHERE. Today is different, today literacy is required from everyone.

    -“If you ask me, I would not trust with tweezers any comment on Somalis coming from the Finnish Immigration Service. ”

    Yet you are prepared to accept any claim made by Somalis as “the holy and absolute truth” without any issues.

    Shows how objective you are. They could tell you that the Moon is made of cheese and you would buy it hook, line and sinker if it somehow could be twisted to make Finns look bad.

Leave a Reply