By Enrique Tessieri
Pekka Siikala is a blogger of the Green Party who writes stinging commentary about anti-immigration groups in Finland. In his latest blog on Uusi Suomi, Three type of immigration critics (Kolmen sortin maahanmuuttokriitikoita), is no exception.
(I personally don’t use the term “immigration critic” because it is a red herring that hides the true nature of the beast: anti-immigration and Islamophobia in the most extreme cases. Click here to get a better explanation in Finnish.)
The most visible of the three groups cited by Siikala are the ones that see religion as the key issue. This groups, led by Jussi Halla-aho and James Hirvisaari, hate Islam and in practice Somalis. He considers this group to be the most dangerous to Finland because it is made up of religious fanatics.
The second group comprises of those that simply fear foreigners. Their main argument hinges on skin color and dress. Like the first group, this one is also highly suspicious of Muslims and Somalis. Their favorite motto is “conform to our country or leave.”
The third group is worried about the chances of immigrants adapting to Finland. They are critical about immigrants moving to our country because they believe that we do not have the resources to integrate them in our society. This group is less visible and the smallest of the three mentioned by Siikala.
In my opinion, there are two big groups concerning those that take part in the immigration debate: those who see immigration as beneficial/positive and those that see it as a threat/negative. The arguments that ensue from these two views are only “background information” supporting the former or latter group’s stance directly or indirectly.
Do you agree?