Spiegel Online International: Strict Immigration Laws ‘Save Denmark Billions’

by , under All categories, Enrique

Comment: This story below, published by German news magazine Der Spiegel, shows the never-ending arguments and excuses that the Islamophobic Danish People’s Party (DPP) will use to justify its hardline immigration stance. The DPP is of special interest to us because Perussuomalaiset anti-immigration hardliners like Jussi Halla-aho believe that Finland should follow Denmark’s path.

Denmark, which has the most restrictive immigration laws in Europe, now tries to tell us that such a policy is justified because it has brought savings in the last years to the tune of 6.7 billion euros. I wonder if they will ever put out a report on how much the country has lost due to draconian immigration policies.

Would you invest in a country that is especially hostile to non-Western immigrants?

The report was published by the integration ministry under anti-immigration hardliner, Søren Pind.

DPP leader Pia Kjærsgaard, who is known for her provocative statements, said that the report showed that Somalians are “no good for anything” and “that is simply not acceptable.”

The saddest matter in Denmark is that there is presently a stalemate due to the anti-immigration policies of the DPP. Even if they plan to tighten even more immigration policy because the country will hold elections this year, it appears that building a high wall around Denmark is the DPP’s only answer on how deal with immigrants.

Here is another interesting story on the DPP in Copenhagen-based daily Politiken in which the Social Liberals have refused any further tightening of immigration laws.  Read “No to Circus Kjærsgaard.”

_________

By Anna Reimann

Denmark’s strict immigration laws have saved the country 6.7 billion euros, a government report has claimed. Even though Denmark already has some of the toughest immigration laws in Europe, right-wing populist politicians are now trying to make them even more restrictive.

Read whole story.

  1. Allan

    So you have the proof in front of your eyes and you still stand with your principles? Man, I admire your perseverance!

  2. PS Politicians

    If Denmark’s “Draconian” laws which are mainly targeted at primary illegal immigration save the country 6.7 billion, how can immigration laws like theses be a financial loss to the country?. At the moment legal workers are allowed to work in Denmark you can still visit Denmark for your holiday both bring financial benefits to the country. Yet you think that Denmark have lost money by saving 6.7 Billion over the last decade by cracking down on mainly illegal immigration, Could you please explain in which way this is a loss?

  3. JusticeDemon

    This follows on from another thread here discussing the NIESR report in the UK. In that thread I pointed out that there is no standardised way to measure things like this. In particular, there is no way to determine the applicable time scale.

    No expenditure makes sense unless the time scale is determined. Otherwise everyone would automatically be poorer every time they bought groceries. The only way to avoid this consequence would be to eat the food at the instant of paying for it.

    Similarly any cost-benefit analysis of immigration is meaningless without a time scale.

    Government expenditure is also not divorced from the rest of the economy. A strictly corresponding analysis of any public policy would show a “gain” to be made by closing down public services in the policy area concerned. This is the same as the money that you save by not buying groceries.

    Denmark could “save” hundreds of billions by actively discouraging people from having children (for example on the grounds that history will end in December 2012, or whatever the popular end of the world myth happens to be). As children pay no taxes and remain entirely unproductive consumers for at least 15 years, the savings to be made would be very considerable indeed. Moreover the longer the policy of childlessness continues, the more wealthy each surviving member of society becomes until the last surviving old person owns the entire country…

    PS Politicians

    Please explain what you mean by illegal immigration, as your remarks about it make no sense. I normally understand illegal immigration in terms of people living in a shadowy underworld that by definition resists any attempt at cost estimation. Economists normally understand that this phenomenon provides a short-term boost to a developed economy in much the same way as slavery.

  4. PS Politicians

    Illegal immigrants as in Asylum seekers.Most who are uneducated and illiterate which cost the host nation huge amounts of money in trying to get them fit into society which in most cases ends in failure which then costs even more money .Its no coincidence that when Denmark had more a liberal view to asylum that the government funding was greater with dealing not just with asylum but also social integration protects which where mostly aimed at those given asylum in Denmark. Now that the laws asylum laws are tighter and asylum claims are down less money will be needed to fund the Asylum system before the claim for asylum and after. This is one of the benefits of having a stronger asylum system which is based around what is best for the host nation and not the asylum seeker. If it is the reverses then government funding will be greater because not only do you have to deal with the asylum claim but also have to deal with problems which come from having a more liberal view on asylum. In Denmark the sensible argument wins on the subject of Asylum, as the 6.7 billion saving will tell you if it was the reverse then like i said it would be a 6.7 billion funding over the last decade.

  5. JusticeDemon

    PS Politicians

    Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.

    Perhaps you haven’t heard that Finland acceded to both the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees on 10 October 1968.

    An asylum seeker is – by definition – a person awaiting the outcome of an application for leave to remain. As such the residence of an asylum seeker in Finland is lawful pursuant to subsection 3 of section 40 of the Aliens Act:

    Ulkomaalainen saa laillisesti oleskella maassa hakemuksen käsittelyn ajan, kunnes asia on lainvoimaisesti ratkaistu tai on tehty täytäntöönpanokelpoinen päätös ulkomaalaisen maasta poistamiseksi.

    Your claim that asylum seekers are illegal immigrants is thus self-evidently incorrect. Aside from this, the rest of your last contribution (insofar as it wasn’t complete gibberish) suggests that you don’t really know what asylum is.

    Feel free to write in Finnish if you are not literate in English.

  6. PS Politicians

    Illegal immigrant or asylum the name does not make any difference because this is a issue of economics .If they where illegal immigrants they would be a financial burden, if they where asylum seekers they would also be a financial burden. Either way people who enter a country without no education are literate and do not have financial means will become a long term or a permanent burden for that society if they ask for government help . Denmark have now been very successful in preventing this for happing and are not enjoying the fruits of their labour.

    • Enrique

      –Illegal immigrant or asylum the name does not make any difference because this is a issue of economics.

      PS Politiians, I would kindly suggest you get informed. Please ask those “PS Politicians” to follow you like Teuvo Hakkarainen. One of the biggest flaws in your argument is that you think illegal immigration, which is NOT a problem in Finland or Denmark, is as JusticeDemon said beneficial to the economy. Think about how slave owners benefit from slaves.

      But I understand your argument: since family unfication touches about 300 people a year in Finland, we must now shift radically to the right, tighten our laws, pile the rhetoric even higher and produce byproducts like racism and xenophobia. I would call this stupid and counterproductive logic.

      Not only is it counterproductive, we have politicians who cannot handle the real problems of Finland because they are too busy swimming in their populism.

      Do you think that a country that has a xenophobic view of the world can attract skilled labor and foreign investment? The country is the biggest loser.

  7. PS Politicians

    You can explain what is a illegal immigrant or a asylum seekers and how human rights laws define this. But as this article was about how Denmark has saved money mainly from non European immigration which most if no all would be illegal immigration or asylum seekers. Do you now think, like I said that the asylum issue in Europe is now motivated about what is better for the European country in question and not the human rights of Asylum seekers. Because if it was still based around the immigrant there never have been an report from a mainstream magazine about the economic benefits of reducing immigration especially if you read between the lines illegal immigration

  8. PS Politicians

    “One of the biggest flaws in your argument is that you think illegal immigration, which is NOT a problem in Finland or Denmark”

    Its not a problem in Denmark because the DPP have reduced the numbers from the tens of thousands to a few thousand. This is why they have a a few billion euors extra in the bank.

    You just gave the DPP a seal of approval with that statement.

    “Do you think that a country that has a xenophobic view of the world can attract skilled labor and foreign investment”

    Do you think Muslim business men from the middle east would do business in Europe which allows alcohol to be drank and has womens rights?

    ..

  9. JusticeDemon

    PS Politicians

    Interesting that you didn’t take up my suggestion to write in Finnish.

    Illegal immigrant or asylum the name does not make any difference

    What you call things most certainly does make a difference in discussions of public policy, as your Mr Hakkarainen just discovered. You can do whatever you like to asylum procedures and it will have no impact whatsoever on illegal immigration, because these are unrelated policy areas. If you’d done the reading (and more importantly, the thinking), then you would know this.

    However, as we can no longer assume that your words really mean what they normally mean in public discourse, then we must be free to speculate on the your real nature of your problem.

    I am sure it all comes down to skin colour and ethnic extraction. When you use “asylum seeker” as an unspecified boo word, you are really declaring a dislike of “yids and darkies”. The entire context of your remarks points to this, but the failure of your underlying ideology on the battlefields of Europe in the 1940s now forces you to speak in code. Incidentally, I consider this to be progress. The first step in eliminating an ideology is to make people ashamed to admit that they espouse it. Racism, antisemitism and xenophobia will never again be salonkikelpoisia puheenaiheita. This is an important advance in the history of ideas.

    Of course then you have to be smart enough to interpret everything into the code – and this is obviously an ever bigger problem in your case.

    Anyway, your original contention has been refuted. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. If you can be wrong on this very obvious point, then you can’t really contribute here with a whole lot of credibility on these policy areas in general.

  10. Mark

    PS Politician’s lapdog

    Ah, so nice to have a few morons visiting the blog from time to time thinking they can gloat over those liberals because their ‘mates in office’ came up with a very distorted report.

    – “Its not a problem in Denmark because the DPP have reduced the numbers from the tens of thousands to a few thousand. This is why they have a a few billion euors extra in the bank.”

    Well, this is the nub of the matter, Mr Numpty PSPol. You clearly have no fucking clue how a real economy works. For a start, it’s fucking pointless having a few billion extra sitting in the bank, because it’s doing nothing for the betterment of society if it is there.

    Welfare benefits are generally so limited across Europe, that those who live on them generally live hand-to-mouth and are spending that money almost as soon as they get it. That means that local shops, landlords, and services will all be down by about €6 billion if that money is saved and shoved in the bank, as you like to put it. Of course, you could shift that money to the rest of the economy, but actually investing in basic welfare is a good investment because the ‘velocity’ of money flow through the ‘basic’ (food) economy is generally very quick, and the money very quickly goes back to the government, e.g. in VAT, corporate taxes, salary-based taxes and so on.

    So, within about two or three months, the government already has about 90% of that money back in the bank, except that on its travels, it’s done some work, like paying a salary, maintaining jobs, and enabling individuals to eat etc. Of course, you can shift money to other parts of the economy, but in this case, the velocity reduces and the lack of stimulation to the economy has a knock on effect of creating more unemployed.

    You see, the biggest fucking hole in your understanding, you PS numpty, is that money paid to immigrants disappears down a big fucking hole in the ground! Absolutely fucking clueless. Why is it that people who are racist and prejudice think that as soon as they find a politician that appears to think like them, they automatically know everything there is to know about politics? Cos you’ve got your bruvers wiv ya?

    Justice Demon hit the nail on the head. An economic evaluation like this has no fucking meaning unless a time scale is put on it, and, just as importantly, the effects of that money spent are seen in the wider context of the economy in which that transfer takes place.

    Bring it on, PS! Any other nonsense you want to throw at us?

  11. Allan

    Quite correct. Not all asylum seekers are illegal immigrants, some 10% are given asylum as they fulfill the UNCHR definition of a refugee. The rest 90% are illegal immigrants blatantly abusing the system. So only most of the asylum seekers are illegal immigrants.

  12. Mark

    Allan, if you are an illegal immigrant, then you are not able to claim benefits, so how are they abusing the system?

  13. Allan

    They claim to be asylum seekers when they are in fact illegal immigrants. The asylum seeker system should be changed so it is not possible nor have any incentives to abuse it.

  14. StiflersDad

    That means that local shops, landlords, and services will all be down by about €6 billion if that money is saved and shoved in the bank, as you like to put it. Of course, you could shift that money to the rest of the economy, but actually investing in basic welfare is a good investment because the ‘velocity’ of money flow through the ‘basic’ (food) economy is generally very quick, and the money very quickly goes back to the government, e.g. in VAT, corporate taxes, salary-based taxes and so on.

    You are confusing couple of issues here. Firstly you should distinguish between what role consumption and savings play in growing the economy. Consumption can be stimulated in the manner described (the old drop bag of money from a helicopter idea) via transfer payments. The correct terminology is the multiplier effect, the velocity concept relates more to the nominal impact via the money supply. However, consumption can only be used to move the economy towards its long-term potential GDP…or to a level above it for a short period of time. Investment in physical capital (funded from savings) or in human capital (e.g. education funded by using tax money on schools rather than on transfer payments) is what enables the underlying real GDP to grow.

    In simpler terms – consumption affects the level of current activity and thus determines how far we are from potential GDP at a given time. Savings determines the ability to grow this potential GDP level – this is the backbone of the whole economic growth model. Too much consumption relative to economic output leads to underinvestment and will have a negative impact on future GDP levels. There is a lot of debate about what is the “correct” savings ratio i.e. how much needs to be invested rather than consumed. Generally people believe 15% – 25% is a good savings ratio for a growing economy.

    Most countries in western world need to increase their savings levels. Currently much of the capital expenditure, even the replacement component, is funded via debt (mainly from China and from some oil states). If western countries were expected to fund their own infrastructure, healthcare and education from own savings, then we would see a major reduction in living standards within 10 years. Savings are higher when one person has 10 units…and he only consumes 6. It is much harder to save when you split those 10 units to 5 x 2 units via transfers…because everything has to be consumed to satisfy even the basic needs. Heaven forbid if the guy originally producing 10 units decides to quit due to his view that he is being taken advantage of.

  15. JusticeDemon

    Allan

    The expression illegal immigrant describes people who have entered a controlled territory without requesting leave to remain within a reasonable period, or people whose requests for leave to remain have been finally denied. A further group comprises people who fail to depart after their leave to remain has expired. Asylum seekers – by definition – cannot be classified under any of these headings.

    All licensing systems work like this. We do not describe learner drivers as illegal road users. Nor do we assume that an unsuccessful application for an environmental permit is proof of a fraudulent application submitted with intent to pollute. Precisely the same understanding applies to the system for licensing applications for leave to remain submitted by displaced persons.

    There are various forms of human displacement, and these are not all directly considered in international law. Individuals with a well-founded fear of political persecution fall under the ambit of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. By contrast, there is no international instrument that directly considers individuals who are displaced by environmental catastrophe. This does not mean that anyone from the Maldives who happens to be in Finland when that country finally disappears beneath the Indian Ocean can be flown back to certain geographical coordinates and dropped in the sea. Nor does it mean that an application from such a person for leave to remain in Finland is fraudulent.

    The most common reason for generalised population displacement is human conflict. The Finns who sought shelter in other countries during and after the Finnish civil war were in precisely this situation, and there was nothing fraudulent or illegal about their migration.

  16. JusticeDemon

    StiflersDad

    That seems reasonable as far as it goes.

    Could you now comment on the quality of the economic analysis that claims a “saving” here, and explain how this differs from the “saving” that could be achieved by reducing the birth rate in Denmark?

  17. StiflersDad

    Could you now comment on the quality of the economic analysis that claims a “saving” here, and explain how this differs from the “saving” that could be achieved by reducing the birth rate in Denmark?

    Just one quick comment for now, the rationale is probably that spending money on adults is less likely to pay off then on kids – if an adult is not contributing the odds are high that he/she remains that way. The argument here, from your perspective is that the second and third generations will pay off in spades i.e. the first generation should be seen as part of the investment for the future rather than be expected to be additive to the economy.

    Related issue is also the matter of public goods and sunk costs. The shools are already there, the teachers are trained, the books have been printed – even if you want to cut back on education costs (in your strange experiment) it makes sense to at least use the schools until they start really falling apart, to employ the teachers until they retire, use the books that are already lying around.

    I think much if the negative sentiment, or turning sentiment, is around my first bullet point. Previously people assumed that investment in immigrants will eventually pay off. Looking at the problems with 2nd / 3rd generation immigrants in France (for example) makes people question this assumption. Add in some degree of intangible items such as discomfort with new cultures, high crime rates in immigrant populations (either real or perceived…the impact is the same), language problems , etc…and you can see why the tide is turning.

  18. Mark

    StiflersDad

    I guess I should start with your final comment, as this seems to be the thing most relevant to the discussion of the economic impact of immigrants.

    – “Heaven forbid if the guy originally producing 10 units decides to quit due to his view that he is being taken advantage of.”

    LOL. Imagine if women producing ‘baby units’ and getting paid hardly anything in relative terms for adding to societies assets decided to stop this work? Is it not the point of a capitalist system for ‘entrepreneurs’ to take exploit the skills of others? Imagine if all workers decided they were fed up of being ‘taken advantage of’. That, my friend, is a very slippery slope you are arguing on.

    I think the confusion comes because you dismissed the significance of the point and made other points. I did not introduce the ideas of ‘consumption’ and ‘savings’ into my example because I didn’t think they were relevant, but I have nothing against using those terms and broadening the discussion.

    There is more to velocity than the ‘nominal impact via the money supply’. I’m assuming you mean the acctual amount of extra euros in the economy. Money doesn’t just get dumped into an economy and then it disappears. It goes on a journey. Velocity is about the number of times that money ‘does work’, i.e. how many times a measurable unit of money is ‘spent’ in a given time. If I have €50 and buy a sack of grain, and then the same farmer buys some chickens and a cow for the same €50 price, then the size of the economy would be €100. In other words, an economy is not simply measured by the amount of money that is in at the start, but rather by what that money does, how much exchange in products and services are stimulated, to put it simply.

    That is exactly what I wanted to refer to when I spoke about the impact of transfers. Immigrants are generally poor, meaning they spend their money quickly, meaning that money returns to the government quickly and also benefits the local economy. It is an important point. Money just doesn’t disappear into immigrants pockets. That is the stupid stereotype that people have about ‘giving benefits to immigrants’.

    If you take that money out of the economy, and just to stick it in the bank, then the whole economy suffers by not having that money doing any work. It’s money’s ability to facilitate exchange that makes it useful. Truth is, even money in the bank is working, because banks lend on the strength of it’s capital assets. But, then, the decision-making power about how that money is spent is in the hands of the banks and the businesses that make use of it, so less guarantee that that money does work that serves the greater good of society.

    The helicopter dropping money is only half the picture, because that same helicopter is also sucking up the bank notes almost as quickly as it’s dropping them. People pay tax on benefits. Then you spend that money and generally pay another 22% of VAT. Money spent on services and goods then pays the next round of salaries. For a local shop keeper, the euro earned today might be already spent by tomorrow on new stock or paying a salary or just self-consumption. Assuming a simple model of 22% VAT followed by 26% Income Tax for each phase of a two-phase cycle and you can see that if you start with €100, then after just five phases, transactions, 75% of the original capital has already gone back to the government. In the meantime, various sections of the economy benefit from that activity.

    If you give that money to a rich person, who already has several millions or billions sitting in the bank, then it may be several years or never before they actually ‘spend’ it. In that sense, tax breaks to the rich do not necessarily stimulate the economy, they may even have the opposite effect, to stagnate it. When people make more money than they can spend, then that money can simply ‘disappear’ temporarily. Of course, the more you spend the more you can potentially profit. But the fact is still that rich people get richer, meaning they are earning more than they spend.

    In this day and age, debt and savings are two sides of the same coin. One person’s debt is another person’s savings. The most important thing is to keep the flow of money going. There is always a battle for capital, but some countries are clearly benefiting. But it’s rather like the world of bacteria, where a good bacteria benefits most when it doesn’t kill the host, thereby biting the hand that feeds it.

    It’s ridiculous to say that money on transfers could be money spent on ‘human capital’, i.e. education. By the time you’ve gone to the trouble of hiring and installing a new teacher, the money necessary has already paid the immigrant and returned to the Treasury. Likewise, if you train a worker and that worker then works for an international company, then the ‘profit’ of that investment may simply travel abroad. What wealthy investors do is put enough capital into the system to make it work and produce more capital, which they syphon off. If they take too much out, the economy implodes, if they leave too muc of the profit ‘in’, their share of the wealth diminishes.

    So, I just don’t buy this ‘savings is the backbone of the whole economic growth model’. Growth is generally mortgaged against future earnings, while risk is tranfered all the way down the economic chain. That is why the world’s richest man got 38% richer in one year when the rest of the world’s economy barely crawled out of recession. Profit and security in one direction, risk and stress in the opposite direction. That’s the basis of the current economic model.

    There is an irony here, because an islamic person is likely not to smoke, not to drink and not to spend money on frivolous items 🙂

  19. Mark

    Stifler’sDad

    – “Add in some degree of intangible items such as discomfort with new cultures, high crime rates in immigrant populations (either real or perceived…the impact is the same), language problems , etc…and you can see why the tide is turning.”

    The impact is the same real or perceived. Well, cry me fucking river! So, what you are saying is that racist people think that those fucking foreigners are causing crime, even when they are not, and that that perception is enough to make them feel bad, and that that is all that matters. So, whether it’s real or not, it doesn’t matter, because the poor racist feels bad about all these foreigners?

    First, it is hugely misleading to simply talk about this as an economic argument; hey, there’s a fucking elephant in the room! If this was just about economics, then people like yourself would be bending over backwards to condemn lazy Finns, of which there are a great many more than there are lazy foreigners, going on the statistics of the long term unemployed. We are talking percentages of the populations, then yes, immigrants can appear to be more of a drain on the economy because of higher percentages (ignoring that they are already hugely disadvantaged in job seeking). But percentages hide actual numbers, and there are actually over 400,00o Finns who are unemployed, compared to a few thousand African origin immigrants. But you cry about the immigrants. Irony is, the areas where immigrants live are generally those areas where there are the most unemployed Finns. And yet we only see the foreigners!!!! But, no, we are not racist.

    It’s a bit like on an estate. It starts with our Johnny getting into trouble and then it turns out that Johnny has been hanging out with Patel, and so it’s naturally Patel that has corrupted our Johnny, even if it is completely the other way. Then it’s not just ‘that boy’ next door, but very quickly it becomes ‘that family’, and then, ‘those fucking Pakis’. I mean, it’s just an extension of stupidity to the highest category available. There is a clear cognitive deficit here, in this kind of thinking. And then when an individual from one’s own group goes off the rails, he’s just an individual, we’re not all like that. But when an individual of ‘that group’ goes off the rails, it just proves they are all like that’. The blindness in these kinds of judgements is staggering. But that is the actual basis of racial prejudice.

    • Enrique

      – “Add in some degree of intangible items such as discomfort with new cultures, high crime rates in immigrant populations (either real or perceived…the impact is the same), language problems , etc…and you can see why the tide is turning.”

      I agree with Mark. One interesting argument by some people who don’t want immigrants and are against cultural diversity is that they think newcomers live as perfect model citizens when they move to a new country. This is a tall and ludicrous order taking into account that since we are humans no society is perfect never mind one that is made up by immigrants.

      If you ask me what has the PS has done in Finland with respect to immigrants, I would give the following response: It has planted racism, stereotypes and suspicion of immigrants and minorities. It has done so only with the opportunistic goal of gaining power (votes) and spreading its ideology, which excludes and divides society.

  20. Allan

    I think its the peoples actions that place these suspicions, or do you claim the police warnings of beggars pickpocketing is just because the police is racist? Maybe there wouldnt be any pickpocketing if there was no media attention?

    • Enrique

      –I think its the peoples actions that place these suspicions, or do you claim the police warnings of beggars pickpocketing is just because the police is racist?

      Who is stating that? There is, however, a thing called racial profiling.

  21. Allan

    JD there is a difference between a learner driver, and someone who forges a drivers licence and tries to exchange it to a valid one.

  22. Mark

    Allan, are you really so blind. Of course a criminal gang can belong to racial or cultural grouping. The same can be true of Finnish criminal gangs. The question is always about how you interpret that. Do you say that some Finns are criminals, therefore most or all Finns are criminal? Clearly not. So why would you do it for any other racial/national group?

    I have not heard you say a single positive word about immigrants. Is it just not in your vocabularly? Don’t you think there is a lack of balance in that?

    So many fucking excuses for racism. It’s about economics, ignoring there are unemployed Finns; It’s about crime, ignoring there are Finns who are criminals; it’s about language, ignoring that Finns are free to choose what language they speak; it’s about customs, ignoring that Finns are free to choose which customs to adopt or ignore; it’s about dress, ignoring that Finns can choose what they want to wear; it’s about lack of civility, ignoring that Finns can be pretty uncivilised, especially after they’ve had a few.

    Every excuse you give for why you don’t like them or you don’t want them here reveals you to be a hypocrite, a self-delusional ignoramous.

    I think the idea that racism has just learnt to hide itself better in the modern day is about right.

    You only have to ask yourself, if this was the behaviour of a Finn, would i condemn the behaviour or condemn their Finnishness and their right to live here?

    Even then, I absolutely refuse to accept that these racial stereotypes are accurate. Can you not see it is morally reprehensible to make these kinds of judgements about racial characteristics?

    If you were listing positives and negatives and it turns out that these balance up between nationalities, then that would appear as something reasonable and fair, though not necessarily accurate or useful. But when you refuse to assign positive attributes, when you refuse to see equivalence with the same negative traits in your own nation’s people, then you are being racist. And it’s wrong and morally degraded. It’s also an extreme form of stupidity. I mean, racism is frowned on almost universally for a reason. But still, you want to find reasons to be remain a racist.

  23. JusticeDemon

    Allan

    JD there is a difference between a learner driver, and someone who forges a drivers licence and tries to exchange it to a valid one.

    If you don’t understand the Finnish administrative system, then why don’t you just admit it instead of writing this confusing gibberish?

    It’s really very simple. An applicant for an operating licence is not the same as an unlicensed operator. Only the latter can ever be correctly described as illegal. A person applying for the first residence permit after arriving in Finland is in precisely this situation. Most applicants of this kind are typically returnees of Finnish origin and the spouses and children of Finnish citizens.

    By your reasoning subsection 3 of section 40 of the Aliens Act says that it is lawful for illegal immigrants to remain in Finland. If you can’t see the contradiction in your reasoning, then please do keep hammering away at this point. It’s really reinforcing everyone’s opinion of your general competence to comment on the entire subject of immigration.

    Perhaps we should also explore the implications of your view in terms of Finns arriving at Ellis Island in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. By your reasoning they were ALL illegal immigrants. Blinkers on now and tell me that’s racist.

  24. Enrique

    Here is a follow up on this story on the UNHCR website:

    Denmark
    Economists criticise report on immigration
    The Government’s conclusions in its new report on immigration are being criticised by a number of economic experts and organizations. The Government and the Danish People’s Party argue that the report shows that stricter immigration legislation has saved a lot of money, and therefore further restrictions on immigration should be introduced.
    http://www.unhcr.no/Pdf/Baltic_nordic_HL_2011/May_2011.pdf

  25. Allan

    Mark, you are forgetting one thing. Back in the olden days people sailed in ships and settled in places and forced the locals to adapt to their customs, with variable success. These days it is not allowed any more. When you go somewhere you respect the natives. It is their country, so they make the rules. Not someone who comes there and asks a leave to remain.

    • Enrique

      Allan, the modern efficient way of doing it is treating newcomers the way you treat your neighbor. Adaption and integration is a two-way process. It works better that way.

  26. Allan

    JD – its nothing to do with administrative systems of Finland. All west european countries face the same issues – especially those which provide incentives. Why for example is the amount of asylum seekers so low in Estonia? No welfare. Why do people flock in calais to hide in a lorry to get to the UK? Yes, the fault is with the administrative systems indeed.

    • Enrique

      Allan, apart from your lowly view of refugees, you forget that one day you, your children, grandchildren or great grandchildren may be refugees. It was over a hundred years ago when millions of Europeans went to the Americas. Who knows, with all the stuff being pulled by right-wing populist parties as an answer to society’s problems, we may see immigration and refugees leaving for the Americas. What kind of a reception would you want to have? Would you want to see the PS or MP Teuvo Hakkarainen welcoming you and using you for political fodder? What about the Danish People’s Party? Geert Wilders? Sweden Democrats? Jobbik?

  27. Hannu

    “family unfication touches about 300 people a year in Finland,”

    So 4000 + 5800 applications currently in process doesnt matter (source migri).

    • Enrique

      –So 4000 + 5800 applications currently in process doesnt matter (source migri).

      Hannu, I am not talking about applications but those that were accepted in Finland. And what’s the beef? Are you worried that Finland is going to be taken over by Africans. There are positive sides to family unification: it creates social networks and help newcomers adapt to their new home.

  28. Hannu

    “It was over a hundred years ago when millions of Europeans went to the Americas.”

    And one was my grandfather of my grandfather. Thanks to him, he died there, wife and childrens lost everything and childrens were “huutolainen”.
    Tell me how that was better than other relative who was one of longest serving “member of parliament” just due because he was stubborn and who did get something to live for thousands in here instead of fleeing for dream. Of course he was evil because he (well his son) actually got factory here what used that so precious wood what should be only looked and preserved… You know one of our few resources we have and what you despice.
    And can you please provide legistlation from that time they accepted everyone who said “refugee” and didnt want somekind of prove that one had possibility to take care of himself and tell also what kind of social benefits they received?

  29. Hannu

    ” There are positive sides to family unification: it creates social networks and help newcomers adapt to their new home.”

    You said adapt, thats one step from facism where people say “when in rome” 😮

    “I am not talking about applications but those that were accepted in Finland.”
    Provide year by year statistics, you probably, well hopefully, understand what sudden flood of applications mean.

  30. JusticeDemon

    Allan

    its nothing to do with administrative systems of Finland. All west european countries face the same issues

    This is your response to my explanation that you are clearly misusing the term “illegal” in relation to immigration, and that this is prejudicial, as you do not use the term “illegal” in this way when discussing any other licensing system. Somehow an applicant for a residence permit is an “illegal” immigrant, but you don’t describe an applicant for an environmental permit as an “illegal” industrial operator, nor is an applicant for a driving licence an “illegal” road user.

    Your use of the expression “illegal immigrant” in this way also describes hundreds of thousands of Finnish immigrants to North America. It equally refers to Finnish returnees, the foreign spouses and children of Finnish citizens, and any other person seeking a first residence permit after arriving in Finland.

    Please try to keep the debating parameters clear.

    I think it’s really rather obvious that you don’t understand the context of your own remarks, but continually writing gibberish is not a response.

  31. JusticeDemon

    Hannu

    Try writing in Finnish. Then maybe some of us will be able to work out what you are trying to say.

  32. Allan

    JD – stop comparing different things – you can compare a factory belching smoke applying an environment permit after its already running. And the only thing that is evident is that you are benefitting from the abuse of the asylum system, and seemingly worried about your income when the laws are changed.

  33. Allan

    Family unification touches 300?

    Convenient lies, bigger lies and statistics as usual. Primary sources, people, and not third-party heresay. The real figure is 5000, and thats positive decisions 2009. The 300 is refugees only, which is a few percent of the total.

    Family unifications

  34. JusticeDemon

    Allan

    So what’s your point? The total family reunification figure includes the foreign family members of Finnish citizens, EU, Nordic and EEA citizens living in Finland and foreign specialists working in the new economy and university sector. Which of these would you try to exclude?

    The link is here, by the way.

  35. JusticeDemon

    Allan

    Business often apply for environmental licences for their ongoing operations. This is a consequence of new and increasingly strict environmental legislation. The operation may lawfully continue provided that a permit has been requested. Only when the application has been finally refused does the operation become illegal.

    Learner drivers are not usually expected to have a full driving licence before they are allowed to drive as part of their training to take the driving test so that they can get a licence.

    The residence permit system works in the same way as any other public administrative licensing system, so to be consistent you must also describe learner drivers as illegal road users and you must prosecute factories for unlicensed operations immediately when the licensing law changes. This will be easy to arrange, because these factory operators will apply for licences and then you can catch them. The same goes for driving tests. All you have to do is nab them for driving without a licence when they take their tests.

    It is astonishing that you have the temerity to call anything illegal when you are so profoundly ignorant of the most basic principles of public administrative law in general and Finnish immigration law in particular.

    An application for a residence permit submitted by, say, the spouse of a Finnish citizen is governed by entirely the same principle. I already pointed you to the specific statute confirming that the residence of an applicant remains lawful pending the final outcome of the application. Your analysis claims that these legal residents are illegal immigrants even though the legislature says they are not. At the risk of playing a silly game of Achilles and the Tortoise, all I can do is refer you here.

    If you still don’t get it, then perhaps we should reconsider the policy of letting inmates at Lapinlahti use the net without supervision. 🙂

  36. Allan

    Asylum seeking is a way to gain entry to the country, acommodation, income and a permit to work. It does not change the fact that the person is acquiring a permit by abusing the system as opposed to gaining the residence permit on the merits a workers residence permit is granted.

    • Enrique

      –Asylum seeking is a way to gain entry to the country, acommodation, income and a permit to work.

      It’s also a way to escape persecution. Anything wrong with that? I would do the same if I lived in a country that was at war with itself. It’s a sensible choice.

  37. JusticeDemon

    Allan

    And asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. That was the point. They are applicants for a residence permit, and as such they are no less legal than any other applicant.

    An application for a worker’s residence permit may also be submitted after arriving in Finland. Some of these applications are approved and others are turned down. The relevant factors in such cases are complex and there is often no way to forecast the outcome with any degree of certainty.

    The term illegal immigrant correctly describes individuals who evade the immigration control system, not the clients of that system. Even people whose applications have been finally refused do not thereby become illegal. According to the statute, Ulkomaalainen saa laillisesti oleskella maassa hakemuksen käsittelyn ajan, kunnes asia on lainvoimaisesti ratkaistu tai on tehty täytäntöönpanokelpoinen päätös ulkomaalaisen maasta poistamiseksi. You might like to reflect on why the expulsion decision has to be enforceable. In the narrow sense, this refers to the special conditions set out in section 201 of the Aliens Act, but in a more general sense it also covers instances of practical impediment, as occurred in the much publicised cases of Eveline Fadayel and Irina Antonova.

    Have you got it yet?

  38. Allan

    JD – using legal loopholes does not make it morally any more right. Illegally entering the country makes an illegal immigrant even there is a loophole in the asylum seeker process.

    Enrique – explain to me why not then stop in any of the other countries in between? Nothing to do with social welfare and benefits?

Leave a Reply