Who needs integration: immigrants or natives?

by , under Enrique

By Enrique Tessieri

We must ask hard questions if we want our new integration program, which came into force in September, to do what it sets out to: effectively integrate new immigrants as equal members of  society.  But one of the many challenges of the program aren’t resources and immigrants but the attitudes of the native population. 

Another important question is can an integration program actually integrate people? Integration, or adaption, is a long and complex process. How many years do natives need to study at schools in order to be integrated into society and the job market?

One of the most worrisome matters in the ongoing debate concerning our ever-growing cultural diversity is how some anti-immigration groups and politicians would be more than happy to have one set of laws and rules for the majority and another one for immigrants. Thus the natives would enjoy all the civil rights enshrined in our laws while the latter groups would have limited rights.

This is not to say, however, that this two- or many-tiered society already exists in Finland.

Good examples of this situation can be found on Migrant Tales’ comment board, where some bloggers have suggested limiting religious freedom and freedom of expression for certain immigrant groups.

The Perussuomalaiset (PS) party’s Nuiva Manifesto is a case in point. If ever adopted as the big picture of how Finland should integrate immigrants, the manifesto would not only spell disaster but seriously hinder immigrants from becoming equal members of society. Even if other parties don’t have such a manifesto, they quietly identify and support it.

Debate on different social media discussion sites show us another worrisome fact:  ignorance about our basic civil rights.

Should the government launch for some Finns their very own  integration program to bring them up to date about their rights and obligations as well of that of other groups?  Certainly. The sooner the better.

In my opinion, one of the flaws of the government’s integration program is that there is no big picture concerning the role immigrants and their children in our society.  Without such a grand picture it is difficult to debate matters like equal rights, social justice and equal opportunities.

Are we hesitant to speak and promote such a grand societal view that would include immigrants because it would require some of us to accept them as equal members of society?

If we have two sets of unwritten laws and rules for the native population and other groups, integration will only be a catchword used by politicians for their own selfish means.

One very important first step in the ongoing debate should be to include more immigrants and Finns with international backgrounds in the debate. That would certainly give more perspective to the debate and permit us to look at the realities and challenges instead of expectations by the majority population.

 

  1. Sasu

    Jatkuvaa jankkaamista integroitumisesta ihan, kuin seisoisimme paikalla. Suommessa on jo ihan mukavan kokoinen maahanmuuttaja yhteisö joka on sopeutunut. Suomen hallitus voisi antaa näille integroiduille resursit joilla sopeuttavat uudet maahanmuuttajat.

  2. Blandaupp

    Some members of our society definitely need integration courses on how to live on planet earth in a Globalised world in 2012.

    • Migrant Tales

      –Some members of our society definitely need integration courses on how to live on planet earth in a Globalised world in 2012.

      Blandaupp, totally agree. The government should launch a campaign or gatherings for such people. Maybe an integration program would do them a lot of good.

  3. Seppo

    Good point, Enrique and BlandaUpp.

    Unfortunately it is not only a joke or a witty remark. Many of the PS voters are indeed syrjäytynyt (what could it be in English?) meaning that they have for one reason or another ended up outside the mainstream society and are in need of (re)integration.

    Voting for the PS is also for many a cry for help in a way – they are blaming the “old parties” for their current situation and are thus very open for the populist rhetoric of Soini & co.

  4. D4R

    With the way things are going immigrants will never integrate, im affraid ghettos will form soon if nothing is done about. Other major factor is natives, they need to realy consider what is best for this country and rethink of their behaviour towards immigrants. I believe natives attaitude to immigrants is a big factor of why many immigrants feel socialy excluded.

    • Migrant Tales

      Well said, D4R. Even in the ongoing debate on integration, we forget that some Finns need to integrate into our society. I am not speaking of those that are marginalized but anti-immigration groups and persons that want newcomers and Finns with international backgrounds to get the short end of the stick.

  5. Sasu

    D4R Onko ghetto nyt oikeasti niin paha asia. Minusta ghettoutuminen on kaksi piikkinen miekka. Huonot ghettot ovat usein rikollisuuden pesiä, mutta toisaalta ghetto voi olla taloudellisen omavaraisuuden lähde. Yhdysvalloissa olevat ghettot eivät aina olleet köyhiä. Monet afroamerikkalaisten ghettoissa olivat taloudellisesti erittäin voimakkaita.

    Ghettoutuminen on silti harvemmin ihmisten oma valinta. Useimmiten ghettot syntyvät pakon sanelemana. Näin syntyneet ghettot voivat olla vahvoja yhteisöllisyyden lähteitä.

    Meille on tullut Natsi-Saksan juutaalais ghettojen kautta negatiivinen mielikuva ghettoista. Ghetton laatu riippuu ihmisistä jotka sitä asuttavat.

  6. D4R

    D4R Onko ghetto nyt oikeasti niin paha asia. Minusta ghettoutuminen on kaksi piikkinen miekka. Huonot ghettot ovat usein rikollisuuden pesiä, mutta toisaalta ghetto voi olla taloudellisen omavaraisuuden lähde. Yhdysvalloissa olevat ghettot eivät aina olleet köyhiä. Monet afroamerikkalaisten ghettoissa olivat taloudellisesti erittäin voimakkaita.

    Ghettoutuminen on silti harvemmin ihmisten oma valinta. Useimmiten ghettot syntyvät pakon sanelemana. Näin syntyneet ghettot voivat olla vahvoja yhteisöllisyyden lähteitä.

    Meille on tullut Natsi-Saksan juutaalais ghettojen kautta negatiivinen mielikuva ghettoista. Ghetton laatu riippuu ihmisistä jotka sitä asuttavat

    Sasu..ghettoutumisella tarkoitin lähinnä sitä, alueita missä pesii työttömyys mikä aiheuttaa rikolisuutta, sen sijaan että meillä olisi syrjäytyneitä maahanmuuttajia on järkevää päättäjien ja kanta suomalaisten tehdeä enemmän töitä sen eteen, että maahan muuttajat tuntisivat olonsa tervetulleiksi ja siten heile olisi helpompaa integroitua ja olla osa tämän yhteiskunnan hedelmä.

  7. Seppo

    “ghettot voivat olla vahvoja yhteisöllisyyden lähteitä.”

    Tämä on kai ainoa positiivinen asia, mikä voidaan liittää ghettoutumiseen. Moderneissa yhteiskunnista segregoituneista alueista tulee useammin eräänlaisia vankiloita, joista on todella vaikea ponnistaa eteenpäin ja ylöspäin kohti muita yhteiskunnan tasoja. Näillä alueilla koulut ovat huonompia, tulevaisuudenusko vähäisempää, huono-osaisuus yleisempää. Helposti luovuttaa ja ajattelee, että “ei täältä mihinkään pääse”. Tämä koskee kaikkia syrjäytyneiden alueiden asukkaita, mutta ehkä jollain tavalla erityisesti maahanmuuttajia, joilla ei ole muutenkaan samanlaisia resursseja päästä osaksi ympäröivää yhteiskuntaa.

    Joskus segregoituneet alueet ovat ponnahduslautoja, joiden kautta uudet tulokkaat pääsevät eteenpäin, mutta yleensä ne ovat kuoppia, joihin jäädän jumiin.

    “on järkevää päättäjien ja kanta suomalaisten tehdeä enemmän töitä sen eteen, että maahan muuttajat tuntisivat olonsa tervetulleiksi ja siten heile olisi helpompaa integroitua ja olla osa tämän yhteiskunnan hedelmä.”

    Ehdottomasti.

  8. Farang

    Nothing in Finland is preventing immigrants from integrating. When people like Migrant Tales and D4R claim that it’s the fault of Finns when some immigrants have problems, they are just slagging Finns and Finland without any facts. These same people also constantly blame Finns as racists, which is untrue.

    It is all up to immigrants themselves. Everything Finland is already made ready for immigrants to integrate, if they want to. And that is the key element here: IF THEY WANT TO. In every case, where immigrant has problems in integrating, it’s only his/her own fault, Nobody here can prove otherwise, because that is the truth,

    Always when someone claims otherwise, they can’t provide any facts to support their claims. And when proof is asked they are just squirming around the question avoiding to answer it, because that would prove that they are lying.

    People like Migrant Tales and D4R are exactly those people that causes negative attitudes against immigrants.

  9. Mark

    Seppo

    Unfortunately it is not only a joke or a witty remark. Many of the PS voters are indeed syrjäytynyt (what could it be in English?) meaning that they have for one reason or another ended up outside the mainstream society and are in need of (re)integration.

    Very perceptive. As PS draw a lot of support from young, rural unemployed men who do not want to go to the cities to find work, then their self-esteem is vulnerable and one way to compensate is to become keyboard warriors on behalf of Finland’s national identity – i.e. bash a few immigrants and feel better about doing something useful for Finland. Jokers!!

    Farang

    Nothing in Finland is preventing immigrants from integrating… It is all up to immigrants themselves. Everything Finland is already made ready for immigrants to integrate, if they want to.

    Still trying to turn your abject ignorance into political slogans, I see.

    Something very clearly missing is comprehensive, flexible (to home mothers, part time workers etc.) Finnish language learning facilities. Even the Board of Education recognise this and are working hard to produce a new website due to come online next year.

    People like Migrant Tales and D4R are exactly those people that causes negative attitudes against immigrants.

    No, idiots like you are part of the problem, who imagine that they can see with an ABSOLUTELY serious face that ALL THE PROBLEMS OF INTEGRATION are caused by immigrants. lololol. What an idiotic statement.

  10. Asian (Realy I am Chinese so I know my own reality)

    “Nothing in Finland is preventing immigrants from integrating. When people like Migrant Tales and D4R claim that it’s the fault of Finns when some immigrants have problems, they are just slagging Finns and Finland without any facts. These same people also constantly blame Finns as racists, which is untrue.

    It is all up to immigrants themselves. Everything Finland is already made ready for immigrants to integrate, if they want to. And that is the key element here: IF THEY WANT TO. In every case, where immigrant has problems in integrating, it’s only his/her own fault, Nobody here can prove otherwise, because that is the truth,

    Always when someone claims otherwise, they can’t provide any facts to support their claims. And when proof is asked they are just squirming around the question avoiding to answer it, because that would prove that they are lying.

    People like Migrant Tales and D4R are exactly those people that causes negative attitudes against immigrants.” Farang

    Kommasin yhteen toiseen paikkaan näin ja se on kantani sinunlaisten kanssa.
    En ala väitellä erimiellisten ihmisten kanssa.
    Sensijaan asetan kysymyksen kaikille liberaaleille valkoisille. Tämä koskee myös tämän sivun ylläpitäjään myös.

    Onko Hetero paras henkilö kertomaan mikä on olla seksualivähemmistöä.
    Onko Mies oikea kertomaan mikä on olla nainen.
    onko enemmistö oikea kertomaan mikä on olla vähemmistö.
    Onko etuoikeutettu oikea kertamaan mikä on olla vähäosainen.
    Jos olet tähän asti viellä mukana, siirrymme kiistanalaisempaan.
    Onko valkoinen mie oikea kertomaan mikä on olla värillinen ja onko rasismia, jo sinä valkoinen olet lähes sokea asialle ja viellä hyödyt rasismista. Onko valkoisen miehen paikka kritisoida, miten värilliset aikovat reagoida rasismiin.

    http://www.ankhesen-mie.net/2010/09/for-poc-with-tim-wise-issues.html

    Kuka sinä olet kertoomaan mikä on todellista.

    “Sasu..ghettoutumisella tarkoitin lähinnä sitä, alueita missä pesii työttömyys mikä aiheuttaa rikolisuutta, sen sijaan että meillä olisi syrjäytyneitä maahanmuuttajia on järkevää päättäjien ja kanta suomalaisten tehdeä enemmän töitä sen eteen, että maahan muuttajat tuntisivat olonsa tervetulleiksi ja siten heile olisi helpompaa integroitua ja olla osa tämän yhteiskunnan hedelmä.” D4R

    Se varmaan riippuu siitä miten, me määritämme integroitumisen. Minusta ghetto voi olla integroitunut. Tolsa Oklahomas ja Harlem Renaissance ovat todisteta että ghetton ei tarvikse aina tarkoittaa köyhyyttä vaan myös menetystä, omavararaisuusta ja kulttuurista kukoistusta.

    Ghetto sana on italiaa ja tarkoittaa valimoa. Ensimmäinen ghetto muodostui Venetsian valimo aluelle. Se oli tavallaan juutalaisten oma kaupunkivaltio venetsian sisällä. Ghetto tarkoittaa homogeenistä asuin aluetta ei köyhyystä tai rikollisuusta.

  11. Native Finnish Woman

    Seppo’s first comment about the PS electorate is insightful. I think one of the main reasons PS became so popular was that they were able to gather a lot of people who felt like their (perhaps sometimes rather simplistic and unrefined) opinions and attitudes didn’t have an outlet in the traditional political arena. They probably felt like the world had moved on without them. I feel when I listen to PS that most of the time they are talking about turning back the clock, going back in time. But it doesn’t work like that.

  12. D4R

    Farang: Nothing in Finland is preventing immigrants from integrating. When people like Migrant Tales and D4R claim that it’s the fault of Finns when some immigrants have problems, they are just slagging Finns and Finland without any facts. These same people also constantly blame Finns as racists, which is untrue.

    When have a claimed such a thing that it’s “it’s the fault of Finns when some immigrants have problems” ? did you pull that out of your imagination? nobody is slagging Finns or Finland, i’m just saying that, more is need to be done for these helpless new comers so that all can benefit.

    ´Farang: It is all up to immigrants themselves. Everything Finland is already made ready for immigrants to integrate, if they want to. And that is the key element here: IF THEY WANT TO. In every case, where immigrant has problems in integrating, it’s only his/her own fault, Nobody here can prove otherwise, because that is the truth,

    Well my thinking is this, if natives will not accept the new comers as part of them, then it will be difficult for the new comers to integrate, they will for sure alienate themselves not matter what you prepare ready for them.

    Farang: People like Migrant Tales and D4R are exactly those people that causes negative attitudes against immigrants.

    Exactly how are we causing negative attitudes against immigrants? i didnt get this last statement of yours.

    • Migrant Tales

      –Farang: People like Migrant Tales and D4R are exactly those people that causes negative attitudes against immigrants.

      Is it because we question what you say? Even if you want two set of rules for immigrants and natives, there is nothing to stop us from airing our opinions. Isn’t this a democracy? Or are you suggesting that we cannot use such channels to express ourselves?

  13. D4R

    Asian: Se varmaan riippuu siitä miten, me määritämme integroitumisen. Minusta ghetto voi olla integroitunut. Tolsa Oklahomas ja Harlem Renaissance ovat todisteta että ghetton ei tarvikse aina tarkoittaa köyhyyttä vaan myös menetystä, omavararaisuusta ja kulttuurista kukoistusta.

    Ghetto sana on italiaa ja tarkoittaa valimoa. Ensimmäinen ghetto muodostui Venetsian valimo aluelle. Se oli tavallaan juutalaisten oma kaupunkivaltio venetsian sisällä. Ghetto tarkoittaa homogeenistä asuin aluetta ei köyhyystä tai rikollisuusta.

    Olen samaa mieltä, Kiitän myös tarkemmasta määritelmästä mikä on ghetto.

  14. gloaming

    We have a extensive body retrospective data on integration success and integration costs in the Western countries. That data should be used to in the planning of immigration policies, i.e. to create policies that minimize the immigration of those with poor integration prognosis and high integration costs. This essentially means minimizing immigration from the third world.

    The whole concept of integration requiring extensive public interventions etc. only appeared when these difficult to integrate groups that form the bulk of the recent south-to-north immigration appeared. In the earlier migration waves this was not an issue as the educational, income and cultural gap between the migrants and the natives were not as gaping.

  15. justicedemon

    gloaming

    Well, let’s see. Finland was very much a third world country when most of the Finnish-speaking immigrants arrived in the USA and Canada as elintasopakolaisia. These were the openly acknowledged principal ancestors of well over half a million people living in the USA today.

    What would your arrogant integration prognosis have been when this flood of uneducated subarctic Mongoloids began arriving in 1860?

  16. Farang

    Migrant and D4R, you are causing negative attitudes against immigrants by constantly slagging Finns and Finland. Nobody likes a person who comes from outside and starts to dictate how things should be done and constantly keep saying how bad we are.

    • Migrant Tales

      Farang, whether the attitude is “negative” or not is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe people at Hommaforum don’t like us but we can live with that. But let me correct you: we are not outsiders. Looking at your knowledge and interpretation of our laws and society, I’d say you are the outsider (or in need of one of those integration courses for Finns to bring you up to date about our society).

      If you want to set a better example, get off your high ethnocentric horse.

  17. gloaming

    justicedemon, that would be a first world country populating the second world.

    Would you enlighten me, how many dollars those people received in welfare etc. in the U.S.? What was the “integration program” like those days and how much did it receive funding? What was the percentage of unemployment among those Finns two months after their arrival? Could you please compare the general level of education in the U.S. and in Finland those days?

    • Migrant Tales

      –Would you enlighten me, how many dollars those people received in welfare etc. in the U.S.?

      Nice try but no cigar.

      You show us how immigration has drained Finland’s social welfare system dry as you would like to suggest. Immigration brings in money; it creates jobs and services.

  18. Seppo

    “Onko valkoinen mies oikea kertomaan mikä on olla värillinen ja onko rasismia, jo sinä valkoinen olet lähes sokea asialle ja viellä hyödyt rasismista. Onko valkoisen miehen paikka kritisoida, miten värilliset aikovat reagoida rasismiin.”

    No ei tietenkään. Olen sitä mieltä, että henkilö, johon ei itse kohdistu rasismia, ei oikeastaan voi todenmukaisesti arvioida rasismin määrää ja laatua Suomessa tai missään muuallakaan.

    Mutta jos niin sanottu valkoinen mies haluaa tehdä tästä maasta paremman paikan ja parantaa maahanmuuttajataustaisten asemaa, ei häneen tule suhtautua skeptisesti vain siksi, että hän on valkoinen.

  19. Peter of Finland

    “I feel when I listen to PS that most of the time they are talking about turning back the clock, going back in time. But it doesn’t work like that.”

    Native Finnish Woman I am in 100% agreement with you. We live in a global world where the isolationist nationalism of our past has no place. Mr Soini and other political opportunists are exploiting those who have been ‘left behind’ and feel threatened by perceived others.

    When it comes to talking of integration, there are no either or scenarios (i.e., who needs integration either the ‘immigrants’ or the ‘natives’?). This reifies the dichotomy that we wish to move beyond. We must forget arguing over which ‘groups’ needs integration and focus upon all those at the margins of our society.

    Nobody should be ever exiled to a peripheral existence at the margins of our society.

    • Migrant Tales

      Peter of Finland, you have such an eloquent way of putting things. I too like what Native Finnish women said. When the PS and other groups in Finland and Europe talk about returning back to you-know-where, alarm bells should start ringing in all of us. If we looked at things like an immigrant, we could state that in the future the grass is greener on the other side of the hill to coin the old phrase. However, there is no way we can turn that around and state: Let’s go back in time when things were better.

      If you ask me, things were pretty bad back then, much worse than today. Those who want us to go back in time, flirt with far-right ideologies have never been nor lived under such autocratic regimes never mind endured the wars such governments incited.

  20. gloaming

    Enrique: “You show us how immigration has drained Finland’s social welfare system dry as you would like to suggest. Immigration brings in money; it creates jobs and services.”

    Just highlighting the idiocy of justicedemon’s comparison. The current third world immigration to the Nordic countries has little to do with supply and demand of labor and everything to do with the state funded welfare system and comparable benefits provided by the tax payer. If you took these away, I guarantee the number of migrants would plummet.

    The Danes calculated last year the balance sheet of third world immigration up to the 2nd generation for the public finances. As expected from every piece of economic and quantitative sociological theoretical knowledge, the balance is substantially negative.

    • Migrant Tales

      For starters, immigrants (irrespective of where they come from) need services. Those services they are given are provided by people who have jobs. Without immigrants the United States and many others countries like Sweden next door would have never prospered economically. I know the Danish “study” about the cost of immigration. The anti-immigration/Islamophobic DPP had its sticky fingers in that report.

      Why not go to the big leagues and stop hanging around countries who have xenophobic issues? Certainly Britain can offer good examples of how much money immigration brought to the economy. As a person who has researched immigration to Argentina, I know for a fact that immigration played a crucial role in developing Argentina.

  21. gloaming

    That report was issued by the Danish government and prepared by an external agency.

    There is another report from Britain dating to the turn of the millennium with similar results. These are to my knowledge the only large scale reports that have studies the economic impact of recent immigration from the third world to the West.

    As regards DPP, they managed to cut down the third world immigration to Denmark by 80%. It is not a force of nature, as you et al. suggest in this blog. It is a choice.

    • Migrant Tales

      gloaming, that report was made by a government to justify their draconian immigration policies spearheaded by an anti-immigration and xenophobic Danish People’s Party. The report was published by the integration ministry under anti-immigration hardliner, Søren Pind. After ten years of this nonsense, the Danes finally said no.

      One of the reason they gave the thumbs down to the DPP and the government was because of what happened in Norway on July 22, remember? That had a big impact on anti-immigration parties. We wrote about this in September on Migrant Tales.

      Again, why do you return to Denmark, which is a very poor example no country should ever follow unless it wants to fuel xenophobia. Get out of there and give us better examples. You do agree that the FT is a reliable source. Here is a link about the benefits of immigration.

      Now, here is the question that I will throw in your court: If a country like Finland, where there are relatively few immigrants, why is it that we are talking about raising the retirement age? Certainly NOT replenishing the population with skilled young workers is one factor. Chalk up a few more years before you retire and lower your living standard because we will/are suffering from a labor shortage.

      Seeing people as groups is wrong because people are individuals. Think of immigration, or immigrants, by the the skills they bring to the country NOT by where they come from (outside or inside the EU).

  22. justicedemon

    gloaming

    1) Finland was severely underdeveloped in 1860, especially in the rural areas that were substantially depopulated by emigration: thus very much a “third world country”. In the main these Finns were economic refugees, although in some cases they were also draft dodgers or they left for other reasons that were not always strictly honourable.

    2) The Ellis Island clearing programme was a significant industry in its own right, seeking to place immigrants in employment according to their skills, and otherwise helping to connect them to existing communities of similar immigrants already settled in the country (you would call these communities ghettos), for example in the Upper Michigan peninsula. It was common enough to find such immigrants sleeping ten to a room and enduring considerable hardship, but this was still preferable to their lives in Finland (or at least not so unendurable as to result in return or further migration on a large scale).

    3) Unemployment and severely irregular employment was a very significant problem for new arrivals from Finland, even in a broadly growing economy. Survival frequently depended on the charity of others and exploitation was rife. Largely in response to the experiences of their parents, subsequent generations of Finnish immigrants became the backbone of the US trade union movement for certain industries.

    4) A very large proportion of first generation Finnish immigrants failed to learn more than the bare minimum language and other skills that were needed for survival and insecure employment in manual occupations. These immigrants tended to remain in Finnish-speaking enclaves where they ordered their lives in ways that were highly reminiscent of rural Finland.

    5) It is particularly telling that mass immigration from Finland stopped abruptly in 1921 when the USA introduced immigration quota controls for unskilled workers, thereby stemming the flood of wretched refuse – a term that roughly translates as Slussenin sissit, n’est-ce pas?

    This history has been meticulously documented, but I am not surprised that you are ignorant of it.

  23. Farang

    Asian

    “Onko Hetero paras henkilö kertomaan mikä on olla seksualivähemmistöä.
    Onko Mies oikea kertomaan mikä on olla nainen.
    onko enemmistö oikea kertomaan mikä on olla vähemmistö.

    Kuka sinä olet kertoomaan mikä on todellista.”

    Ja mitenkähän tämäkään liittyy yhtään mihinkään? Nyt on kyse siitä, että tämä maa on Suomi. Suomalaiset päättävät miten Suomessa ollaan. Jos ulkopuolinen haluaa tulla suomalaiseksi Suomeen, niin hän on tervetullut, kunhan käyttäytyy niinkuin täällä käyttäydytään.

    Sama asia kuin sinun kodissasi sinä ja perheesi määrää säännöt. Vieraat saavat käydä, mutta heillä ei ole mitään asiaa tulla sanelemaan miten sinun ja perheesi tulee kodissasi käyttäytyä.

  24. justicedemon

    gloaming

    Finland was entirely unpopulated 30,000 years ago, so this is a good starting point to determine the absolute costs and benefits of immigration. If the net cost of immigration was always negative, then Finland would have no economy whatsoever, and would never have had any economy at any point in its settled history (a bit like Antarctica).

    If you wish to choose a shorter time scale, then you will need to justify that time scale. Three minutes? Three days? Three years?

    Why not choose a time scale that compares with the time that it takes for a Finnish child to become economically productive and pay off the debt owed to others for economic support up to that date. Three decades seems fair to me. At this point a Finnish child has reached a balance of zero. How does this compare with the balance reached by an adult immigrant after thirty years?

    Of course I realise that fair comparisons of like with like will get you beaten up by your epähiket hommaforum buddies, but I won’t tell them if you don’t.

  25. gloaming

    justicedemon, I am aware of those anecdotes. And since the history has been “meticulously documented”, you should be able to supply the figures I requested for comparison. I guess that is not forthcoming, not even in a form of crude approximate.

    Do you have any additional anecdotes to share with me? Oh yes, “slussenin sissit”, of course. Can you fill me in, how many of “slussenin sissit” were there?

    The world as a whole was underdeveloped in the 19th century.

  26. Farang

    Migrant Tales

    “Immigration brings in money; it creates jobs and services.”

    😀 Are you serious? Just take examples from Finland and Sweden. In both those countries immigration causes more costs than it brings money.

    And about creating jobs, that’s insane. If immigration creates jobs, which wouldn’t even be needed without the immigration, that causes only costs to the society. Could you stop for one second and think this example:
    – 10 Somalis move to Finland, they live on welfare -> causes costs, do you agree?
    – 1 of those somalis learn Finnish and is employed as translator to help other Somalis -> causes costs, as he needs to be paid for his services
    – Would that job (translator) even be needed if there were no Somalis?
    – Now please answer me, where is the money that it brings?

    But I already know, you are not going to answer any of the above. You just say “red herring” and by that you avoid the proper discussion. You’re style to discuss is to only discuss things which are for your own opinion and agenda. All things which opposes your agenda, you just dismiss. That is not honest discussion.

    • Migrant Tales

      –Are you serious? Just take examples from Finland and Sweden. In both those countries immigration causes more costs than it brings money.

      You said it: Finns are bums and did nothing in Sweden except to sit on their behinds! Why? Because they are immigrants.

      Your lack of knowledge of immigrants and immigration shows that you never moved out of Finland. You are probably a rarity: A Finn whose family has never emigrated anywhere.

      People who come from war-torn areas need help. Did it ever dawn on you that they need services? Who provides that to them?

  27. justicedemon

    gloaming

    All history is anecdotal, as are your absurd generalisations about immigrants.

    The world as a whole was underdeveloped in the 19th century.

    Indeed, and viewed from the moon, there was no difference in development between, say, Manchester and Tampere. Much as there is no difference in expertise between hommaforum and UNHCR if the audience is dumb enough.

  28. gloaming

    Well, in the Danish report mentioned above immigration from the developed countries had positive impact to the public finances immediately in the first generation.

    I would imagine all reasonably settleable land has already been conquered, so a comparison to the initial settling process does not work that well. Actually, it is another one in a string of meaningless comparisons you have presented in this thread.

    Obviously any society (parent) has the interest to invest in their offspring. That is one of the reasons for the continuing existence and improvement of a society, if not the sole most important reason.

  29. gloaming

    At least I make an effort to try to discern different subgroups of immigrants where as you and Enrique take every effort to pool them tightly together.

    Oh yes, the average working class hero was doing just fabulously in the Manchester of the 19th century.

    As regards UNHCR and hommaforum, neither has any expertise I would be prepared to pay for.

    Any more anecdotes to share?

  30. Seppo

    Farang

    “- 10 Somalis move to Finland, they live on welfare -> causes costs, do you agree?”

    And alongside these Somalis, 100 Russians, Estonians, Poles etc move to Finland, most of them work and pay taxes to Finland -> brings money, do you agree?

    I wish someone would count the overall costs related to immigration to Finland and compare it to what we gain economically – in taxes and otherwise – from immigration. I’m almost 100 % sure that immigration brings in more money than it takes. Especially here in Finland where a great majority of immigrants are not refugees nor their family members.

  31. gloaming

    Seppo, if you add an economic unit to the system, say an asylum seeker, theoretically you always increase the total economic output, regardless of the actual contribution of that individual. But you may decrease the output per capita.

  32. justicedemon

    Seppo

    As gloaming has evidently dodged this fundamental question concerning the time scale for any such cost/benefit analysis, what would be your recommended time frame and why?

    All too often such “analysis” boils down to “there are costs here so it must be bad”. If you went shopping on this basis, then you would never buy anything, and you would certainly never invest in any long-term undertaking such as education (all that work and expense just for a degree certificate!).

    I would argue that 30 years is an appropriate period, on the grounds that this is roughly the economic break-even point for people who have lived in a modern society for their entire lives.

  33. gloaming

    justicedemon, it is you who is dodging the obvious: There is an enormous difference in the burden incurred to the public finances between immigrants from the developed world and the third world (and there are huge differences between different parts of the third world in this sense, but that is another story).

    The Danish study extended to the 2nd generation, so 30 years is definitely not enough. And there are no guarantees later, either (I challenge you to produce the pertinent data in the context of the south-to-north migration of the previous half century, if you suggest otherwise).

    Traditionally if you invest in something (say education), you expect return on your investment. In gambling and speculative investing you take the risk not seeing any return, but you expect more to be returned if the risk is not realized. Risk assessment is the key. And that is exactly what is being done here.

    And indeed, these are analyses that have actual scientific relevance as opposed to for example qualitative research.

  34. Farang

    Migrant Tales:

    “People who come from war-torn areas need help. Did it ever dawn on you that they need services? Who provides that to them?”

    Finland provides the service. But you just awhile ago said they bring money. If they need service, that COSTS money. So try to make up your mind: Do they bring money, or do they need service, which costs money?

    “Seeing people as groups is wrong because people are individuals.”

    Do you mean this in a same way as you always remember to group every f*ing idiot under Persussuomalaiset -group?

  35. Farang

    Seppo:

    “And alongside these Somalis, 100 Russians, Estonians, Poles etc move to Finland, most of them work and pay taxes to Finland -> brings money, do you agree?”

    So they pay taxes, let’s say X euros. For them to be able to pay taxes, they need salary, let’s say Y euros. Now you don’t need to be Einstein to realise that X < Y. So, let's ask: Where does that Y euros come from?

    X – Y equals negative sum of money, so let's think again: Does it really bring money? For your statement to be true, Y must come from outside Finland. In some rare cases that is actually true, but when we look at the whole picture, we are long way from being above the zero level where it comes from immigration bringing in more money than it costs.

  36. gloaming

    Enrique, DPP wasn’t even in the government.

    Denmark is consistently in the top three of the happiness index charts and is one of the richest countries in the world, so apparently they are doing something right. It is difficult to say what effect Breivik had in the Danish elections. The leftist media had a field day, of course, although there was no connection between Breivik and Denmark. Eventually DPP lost only three seats. The change in the governing coalition was due to the actual governing parties losing ground.

    I’m not registered to the FT with this machine and don’t want to start another account so you have to wait until tomorrow or later this week.

    With the current labor reserve, especially the unemployment rate among young adults, and the pace of offshoring of manufacturing jobs and the technological advances we won’t be seeing labor shortages, excluding maybe some niche fields. Definitely we are not and will not be in need of foreign unskilled labor.

    Raising retirement age is only fair the future generations since the life expectancy continues to climb. You can’t expect to work for 35 years and draw pension the following 35 years.

    Well Enrique, I am actually trying to propagate the idea of judging people by their skills in the form of assessing their potential to independently provide for themselves and their family in this society. And there is nothing “wrong” or “unjustified” in identifying and analyzing properties in groups when it comes to forging general policies. Quite the opposite, that is absolutely necessary in planning as the system as a whole sees the average and the median. And interestingly, there seems to be no problem if the policies in question involve the care of elderly, children and the infirm, or the educational system etc. This approach, or point of view, is suggested to be problematic only when the third world immigration is debated.

    • Migrant Tales

      –Enrique, DPP wasn’t even in the government.

      The DPP gave its support to the minority government in return that they would tighten immigration policy.

  37. Mark

    Gloaming

    That report was issued by the Danish government and prepared by an external agency.

    Yep, the agency team were called the DREAM team, because they used the Danish Rational Economic Agents Model (DREAM) team. This was the same team of researchers that actually distanced themselves from government because they didn’t share the government’s interpretation. Marianne Frank Hansen led the team and she said this about the government’s massaging of the final interpretations:

    The numbers do not accurately represent the reality of the situation.

    Funny how you forgot to mention that one gloaming, eh!?

    “The Danish study extended to the 2nd generation, so 30 years is definitely not enough.

    This was the same report criticised by Jørn Neergaard Larsen. He said Denmark needed immigration and that it does not matter what origin the immigrants have. But what does he know, he’s only CEO of Confederation of Danish Employers.

    Even those that thought the report offered some insights thought that response was wholly inappropriate: it was considered as an opportunity to improve immigration resources, not an excuse to close the door on immigrants, which will hurt the Danish economy in the long run (Erik Bonnerup, from the Copenhagen Business School, and Mads Lundby Hansen, from the Danish Centre for Political Studies).

    It’s funny how different your interpretation is when you are corralling votes on the back of a racist bandwagon, isn’t it!

    The Danish government rejected thousands of asylum applications, couldn’t return the people to their countries of origin because of war and the threat of persecution, wouldn’t allow them to work and so were left in limbo, housed in asylum centres up and down the country: no job, no life, unable to marry, unable to integrate.

    So, what did they ask the team to do? To extrapolate those costs they had incurred but multiply them based on the projected size of the immigrant population had they not closed the doors to immigration virtually in the 2000s! Talk about politicising immigration, bleeding it dry of resources and flexibility and then feeding off its decaying carcass and then having the fucking cheek to blame the immigrants because it’s half fucking dead after ten years! Makes my blood boil.

    It’s been all stick and no carrot in Denmark. The whole institutional response to immigrants has been to treat them as objects of welfare, not as active agents capable of governing their own lives. Rather, they have been the objects of draconian state controls that have deprived them of agency, rights and subjectivity.

    But hey, there’s a new government back in town, and they do understand the last 50 of human rights history! So fuck off gloaming!

  38. gloaming

    Mark, so that is what Google(tm) informed you. I tend to presume that the Marks of the world can use Google(tm).

    Obviously you did not read the report as it is in Danish and only the executive summary in offered in English. If you don’t speak Danish but have sufficient skills in Swedish, you should be able to read it with moderate trouble. However, judging by your “analysis” of the Putnam paper some days ago where you could not get a single point right especially concerning the statistical methods used and the study setup, I doubt reading the report will do any good as you obviously do not have even the basic competence needed in the evaluation of this kind of material. So keep on googling, m8!

    The agency did not “distance itself” from the report. Regardless of the grievances Ms. Hansen, who did not lead the group btw., methodologically there nothing wrong with the study, not even in the allocation of fixed costs as she suggested.

    Mr. Larsen, Mr. Bonnerup and Mr. Hansen are entitled to their opinions about immigration in general and immigration of low skilled labor force specifically. In some points I agree with them. None of them represents any outstanding scientific authority to me in this field.

    I actually agree with you that some of the Danish policies especially involving applying for citizenship are too strict. However, the measures that were used the curb the third world (almost exclusively asylum system based in the case of Denmark) immigration were by and large sound and very effective. The criteria for actual asylum were not changed in any way. The policies concerning the secondary protection and the related family migration became more restrictive. This is the policy that is slowly being adopted also in Finland. The problems of asylum system based migration and integration were obviously there in the 1990’s, otherwise there would have been no room for DPP.

    If the new government disassembles the policies in larger scale (this has not happened), it will only end up in DPP coming back stronger than before.

    There is no global government or welfare. Or let’s skip “global” and replace it with a more realistic term: There is no Euro-Afro-Iraqi-Afghan common welfare system provided by the European tax payer. Such a setup is the “human” or any other sort of “right” of no-one.

  39. Seppo

    Farang

    Unlike gloaming you seem to have no idea of how economy works. Now I’m in the humanities but I still get the basics.

    “we are long way from being above the zero level where it comes from immigration bringing in more money than it costs.”

    Which are these costs? They are the costs of the public sector caused by immigration, right? And taxes payed into the public sector by immigrants – directly, indirectly, through the firms and companies they own – would be the counterpart of these costs, right?

    Now what I’m arguing is that the increase in public spending caused by immigration is much smaller than the increase in public incomes thanks to immigration.

    You should also know, that when a company hires a person, immigrant or not, it makes the economy and tax revenues grow no matter where the money with which the company pays the salary comes from. In many cases, if there hadn’t been an immigrant to hire no-one would have been hired at all.

    Add here that raising a Finnish taxpayer from birth to university degree costs the society tens if not hundreds of thousands of euros. In immigrants we get labour force for free. If it takes a few years for the immigrant to find steady employment and during this time he lives on social money that is a small investment compared to the one made on children born here.

    JD: “I would argue that 30 years is an appropriate period, on the grounds that this is roughly the economic break-even point for people who have lived in a modern society for their entire lives.”

    Yea that sounds reasonable.

  40. Mark

    Obviously you did not read the report as it is in Danish and only the executive summary in offered in English. If you don’t speak Danish but have sufficient skills in Swedish, you should be able to read it with moderate trouble.

    No, but I can read. In the Danish newspaper Information, they published their position on the report thus:

    The economists deny this interpretation of their report, explaining that it cannot be known how non-Western immigrants affect the economy of the kingdom. While the figures are correct, the economists explain, they do not capture the cost of immigrants. For example, their study does not distinguish between refugees and immigrants whose situations and journey to Denmark differ. And as the proportion of children and youth is higher among immigrants than in Danish society in general, immigrants do currently contribute far less than others in society through taxes, but that will probably change over time. That is why, says Marianne Frank Hansen, one of the leaders of the group of economists behind the report, calling for tougher immigration law “is a somewhat exaggerated conclusion to be drawn from the report.”

    So, it’s the age old problem of not comparing like with like and interpreting statistics produced for one purpose to try to justify a totally different research question, i.e. not applying proper weighting to the statistics. But, hey, you were convinced!!

    Hansen IS one of the leaders of the group, as reported in this story and elsewhere.

    However, judging by your “analysis” of the Putnam paper some days ago where you could not get a single point right especially concerning the statistical methods used and the study setup.

    Gloaming, care to share some ACTUAL argument? Are you claiming that it wasn’t a survey, or that it was able to show cause and effect relationships? Elven claimed that ‘diversity caused hunkering down. I refuted that claim on the basis of the methodology used.

    The evidence comes from a large nationwide survey, the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, carried out in 2000, with a total sample size of roughly 30,000

    The basic limitation of all surveys is that they are:

    descriptive, not explanatory, and, therefore, cannot offer any insights into cause-and-effect relationships.

    I correctly conceded that the diversity of the survey participants and range of distinct sites for the survey provide it with some robustness, but still nothing can be said definitively about the mechanisms that underlie the observations. Or do you wish to make a different claim?

    What exactly is it you didnt’ like, Gloaming?

    So far you have made several ad hominem attacks on me and have made no effort whatsoever to actually provide any supporting argumentation. That’s easy. I have listed my competences. A good part of my job is science editing, that and communications consultancy in the field of health and welfare. That’s my job. I’ve never claimed to be a statistician or a researcher, but I DO understand these fields enough to support the claims that I make. What is your competence? What your is argumentation? You have provided NONE.

    None of them represents any outstanding scientific authority to me in this field.

    And you have provided none of your own. So, you disagree with some of Denmark’s top economists, though because they are not scientists you dismiss them, you appear to disagree with the report’s authors, but you nevertheless accept the validity of their science, even while they are explaining quite explicitly why the methodology is NOT adequate to support the kinds of interpretations that were made of the report.

    However, the measures that were used the curb the third world (almost exclusively asylum system based in the case of Denmark) immigration were by and large sound and very effective.

    Yes, if you want to keep thousands of people locked up, with no hope of work, no hope of a proper social existence, fear about the eventual outcome (the EU has so far blocked several attempts to return asylum seekers to war zones) and absolutely no rights. Yep, very sensible!

    The policies concerning the secondary protection and the related family migration became more restrictive.

    That’s one hell of an understatement. Denmark is nowadays replete with story upon story of second and third generation immigrants who cannot marry why they want in the same way that native Danes can because of the draconian restrictions placed on them. These restrictions are considered by the UN Human Rights Council to be violations of basic human rights, as does the EU Commission. But you know better, I suppose!

    This is the policy that is slowly being adopted also in Finland. The problems of asylum system based migration and integration were obviously there in the 1990′s, otherwise there would have been no room for DPP.

    The problems were there, and the DPP offered a knee-jerk, grievance driven response. Funny how you offer the rise of the DPP as about the only evidential fact to support this policy.

    There is no Euro-Afro-Iraqi-Afghan common welfare system provided by the European tax payer. Such a setup is the “human” or any other sort of “right” of no-one.

    Many migrants are not economic migrants. In fact, economic migrants generally do much better. But that makes sense. What you are saying is that humanitarian immigration is not sustainable or justifiable as a human right. The only problem is that 60 decades of political history in the West fundamentally disagrees with you.

  41. Farang

    Seppo

    “Now what I’m arguing is that the increase in public spending caused by immigration is much smaller than the increase in public incomes thanks to immigration.

    You should also know, that when a company hires a person, immigrant or not, it makes the economy and tax revenues grow no matter where the money with which the company pays the salary comes from. In many cases, if there hadn’t been an immigrant to hire no-one would have been hired at all.”

    You can’t reason it like that. First of all your first sentence up here is incorrect. Public spending caused by immigration is much higher than the increase in public incomes. In Sweden (from where Finland copies everything) it’s even worse. 22 % of the whole tax incomes are spent on immigration. And because of immigration the burden of taxation has increased 5 %-units. So how can you keep the poker face and tell us that immigration is bringing more money, while that is an arrogant lie?

    To be fair, we should divide immigrants in two groups: One group are those who move to Finland to work, they already have job when they come here. Other group is those who come as refugees, asylum seekers, etc.

    We can clearly see that the first group would not be a burden to our country, but the second group clearly is. That’s the reason why immigration politics are criticized by those who you falsely call anti-immigration people.

    One basic thing is always forgotten from people like you: The money spent on hiring immigrants, keeping them in welfare, keeping up the services immigrants use, etc is always away from something else. The money doesn’t come out from a magic wall, like some people tend to think.

    Good example is that one guy in MTV3 news who said that “hey, taking refugees brings the city money, as state will pay us (city)” Doh, they can’t even understand that the money will anyway come from Finnish tax payers.

  42. Mark

    Farang

    One basic thing is always forgotten from people like you: The money spent on hiring immigrants, keeping them in welfare, keeping up the services immigrants use, etc is always away from something else. The money doesn’t come out from a magic wall, like some people tend to think.

    Yep, and the other side of the coin is people who come here with an education and expertise developed and paid for already, from which, Finland immediately benefits through taxation and through the economic benefits of applying that expertise.

    Now you can try to go shopping for the ‘best’ immigrants, and treat the whole immigration system as just another extension of the economic model. However, another element of immigration, which requires a much much longer perspective, is humanitarian. We provide sanctuary and opportunity. In the longer term, it is projected that our economies need this extra level of immigration to support declining population replacement rates.

    Likewise, if a study on immigration costs discovers that in the short term, there are higher costs than with native populations, then that is no surprise if an immigrant is compared to another adult of the same age. On the contrary, immigrants should be compared to children in the sense of that we make a long-term investment in children’s health, upbringing and education that will not benefit the wider society for almost 3 decades. Even then, not all native citizens end up being productive or even paying back what they pay.

    Higher costs in the short term may mean that a) the higher costs are not outweighed by net productivity further down the line, and b) that there are not greater efficiencies to be found in the integration system, or that c) living in poverty generally means means poorer outcomes, which means lower life expectancy, which means less costs to the taxpayer compared to healthier citizens who live longer and are a greater drain on resources at the end of their life.

    However, the conclusion that anti-immigrationists ALWAYS draw is nevertheless that third-world immigrants are unsustainable, as if it was just intrinsic, no argument. The difference is that anti-immigrationists have typically arrived at this conclusion already before they have looked at any data or interpreted a result, and also, rather than improve the system or seek solutions, their response is to close the doors, even if this will bring longer term economic decline for the country as a whole.

    Not only that, but immigration is not purely an economic issue. There are situations where we should ‘pay’ something to offer sanctuary. The benefits that Western countries accrue from exploiting the cheaper labour markets and goods of the developing world far outweigh anything else that we pay to support humanitarian immigration. I don’t see that benefit being discussed! How about the profits from arms sales to African countries by European countries? Yes, not so much, Finland, I know, but on a European wide scale, it needs to be considered. Consider this too, feeding arms into these volatile regions in a way that undermines security that leads to humanitarian crises that lead to massive suffering and also additional expense is in no way challenged by you anti-immigrationists. Or do you wish to acknowledge the point and lobby for a drastic cut in arms to unstable regions of the world?

    There are so many factors. And some individuals will benefit society and some will not. But that is no different to the native population. If you want an economic picture, then it really must be very very broad and it must seek to compare like with like. And it is not a foregone conclusion that negative results are an excuse to close the door. Why not look for greater efficiencies in the system? Surely that is the principle that’s applied in normal government activity?

  43. Seppo

    “Public spending caused by immigration is much higher than the increase in public incomes.”

    Please prove this to me. I bet you cannot.

    Sweden cannot be by any means compared to Finland. a) they have many times more immigrants than we, and b) a larger share of their immigrants are refugees. In Finland the majority of immigrants are non-refugees.

    I repeat: I hope that the costs of immigration are counted and compared to the increase in incomes brought by immigration. My guess is that the latter one is clearly bigger.

    I can see how you reason that an immigrant employed as an interpreter of Somali language is also a cost for the tax payer. That is true. But you should know that a great majority of immigrants are employed in the private sector, contributing to our economy as a whole and also to the public side by paying taxes from their salaries as well as from their spending (välilliset verot).

    If you understand Finnish as I think you do, you should read what Juhana Vartiainen writes about economy. He believes that the best way to make to economy to grow is to encrease työn tarjonta, the supply of work and workers. Immigrants are an important element in this.

  44. Mark

    Seppo

    can see how you reason that an immigrant employed as an interpreter of Somali language is also a cost for the tax payer.

    If an interpreter helps an recently arrived immigrant to feel already part of society, supported and properly INFORMED, then the outcome for that immigrant is likely to be much better. That is the point of services that have developed within the immigration community, they better support integration as a whole, and so the net benefit increases. So while you have to pay for the interpret service, the wider benefit of that service is likely to be less cost, not more. That is absolutely the bottom line here – invest properly in the immigrants and you will see returns. Scrimp and save and complain about every single cost and the overall system will cost more.

    The money spent on hiring immigrants, keeping them in welfare, keeping up the services immigrants use, etc is always away from something else.

    Yes, but universal benefit rights mean that giving welfare support to an immigrant does NOT deny a native person that same support. That’s the most important thing to consider.

    Will it come out of your taxes? Maybe. Will the greater part of your welfare based taxes go to also pay for support for a far greater number of Finns who are likewise stuck in unemployment or on some kind of welfare dependency? Yes. So the question is why do you decide to get political over immigration? If it IS purely an economic argument, then you are wasting your time on the immigrants, they are only a small part of the problem. Why don’t you go after unemployed rural youth of Finland, with stands at 1 in 4! Why don’t you start complaining about them and their cost to society? Tell me, Farang? Why not? Do you go on Finnish forums to complain about young out of work Finns in rural areas of Finland? Do you? Then it’s much more than an economic argument – you just don’t like foreigners.

    Fine, but don’t dress your racism and xenophobia up in the clothes of respectability and expect me to swallow your crap!

  45. Mark

    Gloaming

    However, judging by your “analysis” of the Putnam paper some days ago where you could not get a single point right especially concerning the statistical methods used and the study setup, I doubt reading the report will do any good as you obviously do not have even the basic competence needed in the evaluation of this kind of material. So keep on googling, m8!

    You know, this has really pissed me off, gloaming. If you spot something that I got wrong in the technical side of things, I’d happily stand corrected, even if it meant I had to re-evaluate my arguments or accept I have simply made a bad argument. I am completely sincere about that. I always check and double check my assertions. But of course, I could be wrong.

    But for you to just stand on the sidelines and smear my competences and sincerity without giving any indication whatsoever as to what it was specifically that was incorrect really pisses me off.

    Fucking arsehole!

  46. Laputis

    Blandupp:

    “Some members of our society definitely need integration courses on how to live on planet earth in a Globalised world in 2012.”

    Fuck globalisation, at least it´s exaggerated forms.

  47. Mark

    Laputis

    Globalisation = global movement of capital = countries competing on a global playing field = absolutely no way of ignoring it! Yes, it has its excesses, but it’s the only game in town at the moment.

  48. Seppo

    Farang

    Read carefully what Mark wrote. If you are brave enough to use your own brain you realize it all makes sense.

    You did not comment on what I wrote earlier: “Add here that raising a Finnish taxpayer from birth to university degree costs the society tens if not hundreds of thousands of euros. In immigrants we get labour force for free. If it takes a few years for the immigrant to find steady employment and during this time he lives on social money that is a small investment compared to the one made on children born here.”

    I believe it’s because you cannot deny that this is true.

  49. Farang

    Seppo, it’s insane to compare a child who is born here to an immigrant. You are not the first one who tries to play that card. Why not take that opinion of your to the extreme. Let’s just sterilize all the Finns and only bring immigrants here 🙂

  50. Seppo

    Farang, you don’t want to address the point because you know you are wrong.

    The bottom line is that immigration is economically beneficial to the receiving society. Immigration has, of course, other sides as well out which all are not positive.

    But trying to defend xenophobia by referring to economic factors just doesn’t work and this conversation has been an example of it.

  51. justicedemon

    Farang

    it’s insane to compare a child who is born here to an immigrant.

    Seppo is right. You only call this insane because you are unable to think of any objection that would continue to conceal your racist agenda. Children are OK, at any price, because they are Finnish. Immigrants are not OK, even at a lower price, because they are foreigners. That’s all you have to offer on this subject, so you shuffle uncomfortably and try to avoid the question by claiming some alleged insanity.

    What is your non-racist response to this very obvious point? Off you go now to hommaforum and ask the Master. Perhaps you will get some kind of anti-Kantian response in terms of human välinearvo. We shall be watching with amusement.

  52. Farang

    Justicedemon, you are pathetic liar. I have never said that I have something against immigrant. You are putting those racist words in my mouth. What the hell is wrong with you?

    Any what comes to the point, I don’t really have an answer. Sure, it takes 18 years for a newborn to become a tax payer. Some people never become tax payers. But same is with immigrants. Some immigrants become tax payers immediately when they move in, some in few years, some never.

    But what has this got to do anything with immigration politics? Absolutely nothing. Reason for immigration is not to have workers here in Finland. We don’t even need more workers, we have lots of unemployed people already.

  53. justicedemon

    Farang

    The key point is the break-even period in terms of investment and returns. Children born in Finland reach this point after about thirty years. Adult immigrants reach this point much more rapidly – indeed many will make both a net contribution and a proportional contribution that far outweighs the average for people born in Finland, simply because there was almost no initial investment stage. Even adults who are disadvantaged on arrival tend to become net contributors more quickly than children born in Finland.

    I am quite willing to stop calling your attention to this, and I promise to do so right after you stop bullshitting about the alleged costs of immigration without making a fair comparison with the costs of the only other way to introduce productive adults into the national economy.

  54. Farang

    Justicedemon, do you really see people, human beings, as instruments of economy?

    By the way, did it ever occur to you that immigrants will have children aswell?

  55. Seppo

    Farang,

    By stating that “Just take examples from Finland and Sweden. In both those countries immigration causes more costs than it brings money.” it was mostly you who brought up the issue of costs/incomes related to immigration.

    Now what happened was that we proved you wrong.

    The point is not that children are somehow unwanted or it costs too much to make them tax-payers. Children are lovely and very much needed. It’s just that in this narrow economic sense adult immigrants become tax-payers quicker and cheaper – a fact that you cannot deny and instead try to steer the conversation towards something else.

    Obviously immigration as any other phenomenon having to do with human beings has more sides to it than just the economic one. I’m sure none of us sees human beings just as instruments of economy.

    By the way, you say that “I have never said that I have something against immigrants.”

    However you have written things like “If immigrant is not a citizen, then he should not have any more rights than a tourist” and “tämä maa on Suomi. Suomalaiset päättävät miten Suomessa ollaan. Jos ulkopuolinen haluaa tulla suomalaiseksi Suomeen, niin hän on tervetullut, kunhan käyttäytyy niinkuin täällä käyttäydytään.”

    Your opinions hardly qualify for a positive attitude towards immigrants.

  56. Farang

    Seppo, you didn’t prove me wrong. Even if some immigrants become tax payers quite fast, there are still much more immigrants who are on welfare. The money that those working immigrants bring to the system is less than what is consumed to those others. So economically it’s net loss.

    That’s the reason why it’s insane to even start comparing to Finnish children… Somehow I see it extremely stupid to try to use this comparison to claim false as truth.

    Why don’t you make some calculations and compare how much benefits adult immigrant gets and compare that to what a Finnish child gets? The difference is huge. So even it takes long time to make a child to a tax payer, the money consumed in a long run is not so much, Do the math, if you can.

  57. Rocker

    Differentiation/discrepancies of data in unemployment, education, violence, discrimination/hate speech, poverty would lead to the course.

    The overwhelming violence conducted by Somalis, Iraqees, Turks and Vietnamese presented on the other Migrant Tales-link (”Finnish police confirm…”) automatically leads to those four whole ethnic population taking that course.

    All unemployed individuals of an ethnic group who exceed the national unemployment rate have to participate in this course.

    All individuals who don’t have at least a secondary level diploma or other proof (sufficient work experience) of professional skills.

    Every individual who qualifies as poor and has worked less than 5 years for the past ten years or less than 2 years for the past 5 years.

    Every individual 40+ who has never worked

    As foreigners are convicted 10 times more frequently for discrimination/hate speech than Finns (in the link already presented), any member of an ethnic group exceeding the national level should have to take that course.

    MY GUESS IS 70-90% OF FOREIGNERS AND 0,2-0,4 % OF NATIVE FINNS NEED integration suggested

  58. justicedemon

    Farang

    Obviously you don’t even have to accept modus ponens as a rule of inference, but it’s useful for Migrant Tales to have this nonsense out in the open where it can be debunked in its purest form, and for that we need you to play the stooge. Here is what you said:

    Even if some immigrants become tax payers quite fast, there are still much more immigrants who are on welfare. The money that those working immigrants bring to the system is less than what is consumed to those others. So economically it’s net loss.

    That’s the reason why it’s insane to even start comparing to Finnish children… Somehow I see it extremely stupid to try to use this comparison to claim false as truth.

    What’s your time scale here? Ten years? OK – what is the economic return on an average child born in Finland up to the age of ten years? With the negligible exception of child actors, that’s easily calculated at zero. What are the economic costs of a child over the first ten years? That’s not so easy to estimate, but we will have to include not only the costs of feeding, clothing and sheltering the child, but also the losses incurred in full-time individual care up to the age of at least one year (effectively removing one adult from the labour market) plus the cost of nursery school services and school education, the cost of specialist health care services that actually begin some months before the child is even born, and a host of other ancillary costs that you would know about if you were a parent.

    Even if every adult immigrant remained unemployed for ten years (= zero economic return), the per capita cost would not even begin to approach the level of investment involved in raising a child born in Finland over the corresponding decade. That should be obvious to everyone who is not blinded by racist bigotry.

    You have now called this fair comparison of like with like insane and stupid, but you invited this very comparison in seeking to discuss immigration solely in terms of alleged costs. I realise that fair comparisons are anathema to the bigots at hommaforum, but nobody is forcing you to pursue the idea that immigration is somehow a more costly way of introducing productive adults into Finland than baby making. The fact that this discomforts you in your bigotry does not make it insane or stupid.

    By the way, did it ever occur to you that immigrants will have children aswell?

    Those children will either not be immigrants at all in the relevant sense (i.e. they will be born in Finland), or their associated costs will have been defrayed elsewhere up to the time when they come to Finland. In either case the costs associated with making an immigrant economically productive will be lower than the corresponding costs involved in achieving the same outcome for a child born in Finland.

    Have you ever heard of the expression brain drain? This is simply the converse phenomenon.

  59. makeadifference

    I read a few things in the ‘Are you a target of racism in Finland?’

    One guy from Iran had been in Finland for 15 years and after a long complicated story he ended up in Sweden and he said it as much better there to be an immigrant. There was another guy from South-America who spent some years in Finland working and studying but he said one day it was enough and he left because of the verbal maltreatment by the Finnish citizens. He went to another country in west and said it was nothing alike to Finland.This kind of stories have validity, because they see things from different views.

    Secondly when people say ”if you don’t like it in Finland, leave’, it is actually true. One should perhaps say it differently. If an immigrant for some reason don’t like it in Finland or in any other country, he can’t accept the society and spends his days complaining he is making a favour to himself if he tries somethings else.

    • Migrant Tales

      Hi makeadifference and welcome to Migrant Tales! You are absolutely right. Building a home in a new country requires opportunity (a chance to live a better life). Those who leave may be the lucky ones. Those who cannot have to bear their situation. But, as you your name suggests, we can make a difference if we want to.

      This may be difficult for some since their experiences are negative because they feel and are effectively excluded from society. New and old countries and societies where you live or move to can bring out the best or worst in you. For some Finns that settled the subtropical jungles of Argentina it brought out the worst in them (alcoholism, isolation and maladaption).

  60. Farang

    Seppo, you just don’t understand, do you?

    Your statements would be true only in one scenario: If immigrants would stop coming here, then eventually the immigrants already would be emloyed etc and they would benefit more than what the costs are. So I get it you mean exactly this scneratio when you talk about longer time scale.

    But this is not the reality. Immigration is not stopping, so there are always a big part of those immigrants that are causing costs and bringing down the balance. It feels like it’s futile to try to make you understand this.

  61. justicedemon

    Farang

    Always the good stooge.

    The direct comparison of like with like is that people stop having children in Finland. Then eventually everyone born in Finland would be employed etc. etc….

    It’s up to you to specify the time scale, Farang. Then we make a fair comparison of the costs and benefits of adult population replacement by immigration of adults as opposed to adult population replacement by raising children. Over any time scale whatsoever, the former will always provide better returns when like is compared with like.

    Immigration is not stopping, so there are always a big part of those immigrants that are causing costs and bringing down the balance. It feels like it’s futile to try to make you understand this.

    Births in Finland are not stopping, so there are always 100 per cent of those children that are causing costs and bringing down the balance. It feels like it’s futile to try to make you understand this.

    But of course you don’t even have to accept modus ponens as a rule of inference. The point of a stooge is not to be persuaded, but to assist in illustrating the soundness of a reasoning position by persistently trying to defend its opposite. You have excelled at this, Farang.

  62. makeadifference

    for many Finns Spain is already too far away from home. Many or a large number of Finns in the forrest moved away from there either back to Finland or elsewhere.

  63. Farang

    Justicedemon

    It’s absurd to define a time scale, because we don’t have knowledge anout the future. If you could see in future and tell us when the immigration stops, then we could calculate when immigrants would not be causing a net loss anymore. But as long as immigration policy is like it is now, nothing will change.

    Looking your comments about replacing adults with immigrants makes me sick. Is it really so that you see immigration as a tool to replace people in Finland?

    And why are you so obsessed about Finnish children? We don’t have a valid option where we would stop giving birth to children and just take in immigrants. No matter how much immigrants would come to Finland, Finnish people would still reproduce. So the costs from the children is there in any case, we can’t replace that.

    This shows that you have absolutely no economic understanding. Let’s think of this as a business example. In a business you would need to think how to control your costs. There are solid costs A, which you can’t influence, and some changeable costs B, which you can influence. Now, if you need to cut costs, you can’t cut from A, because those costs are solid. So you need to concentrate on B. There is absolutely no sense to compare costs B with costs A, since they have no relation. No change that is done in B or anything else would change A.

    Now, if you are clever, you notice that costs of Finnish children are like A in my example and immigration costs are B.

  64. Farang

    Noticed one common thing here:

    1) When talking about crimes committed by immigrants, for example rapes, some people tend to use the argument like: “Well, Finns rape too” and by this argument they try to say that we can’t complain about immigrants raping women, because Finns are doing that too.

    Now, same kind of people are now commenting

    2) We can’t complain about costs caused by immigrants, because Finnish children causes costs too

    Sick, isn’t it 🙂

  65. Farang

    Where do I need to make a difference? And just to be clear to everyone: Even if I’m here claiming that there are costs from immigration policy, that doesn’t mean I am against immigrants. So be clear, I have nothing against immigrants or immigration. Even if it causes costs, I don’t oppose it.

    I just believe in open discussion and when someone points out facts, you can’t what the person’s opinion is just by the fact he is pointing. I can for example say a fact like: Women who give birth causes costs for her employee. That is a fact. But when I say it our loud, that doesn’t mean that I have anything against women or mothers or children.

    It’s the closeminded people who make conclusions about people’s opinion based on the facts they discuss. That’s not intelligent. That just causes misunderstandings, like when someone says that “African guy raped a white woman”, then these closeminded unintellectual people thinks that the person who said that is a racist.

  66. Seppo

    “I have nothing against immigrants or immigration.”

    OK. Even though some of your comments lean towards something else, I believe you.

    “Even if some immigrants become tax payers quite fast, there are still much more immigrants who are on welfare. The money that those working immigrants bring to the system is less than what is consumed to those others. So economically it’s net loss.”

    Now that is, however, simply a lie. Most immigrants living in Finland are working. Even though I’m aware that there are some groups where more people are unemployed or otherwise outside the labour force you should know that there are also groups among which unemployment rate is lower than among native Finns.

    You should remember that many if not most immigrants in Finland are highly educated and come from countries like Russia, Estonia, China, India, Poland. In case they don’t have a job already when arriving to Finland they usually find themselves one quite quickly.

    I know personally many immigrants. Apart from a few exceptions, who are students, they are all working. Maybe your experiences are different.

    You should go and visit the headquarters of companies like Nokia and Kone – full of immigrants.

    We can disregard the immigrants-children comparison which is of speculative nature. This still does not take away the fact that immigration is economically beneficial for Finland. Yes, I know that there are costs, mostly related to the so called humanitarian immigration, but incomes are higher than those costs.

    Also, Finnish social security is not something you are automatically entitled to. Most immigrants don’t basically cost the Finnish tax-payer a euro.

    If you, Farang, cannot acknowledge these simple facts, which are not opinions but exactly – facts, then I’m not sure if there is any point in continuing this conversation.

  67. justicedemon

    Farang

    It is amusing to see you thrashing around trying to avoid the simple conclusion to a debate that you initiated, as you have clearly now seen that it proves the precise opposite of what you intended and none of your hommaforum buddies has the nous to save you.

    In any investment-returns model you must always specify a time scale. Calling this absurd does not negate this. You introduced this discussion by saying:

    Just take examples from Finland and Sweden. In both those countries immigration causes more costs than it brings money.

    The costs and income that you refer to here are realised over a time scale.

    You said:

    If you could see in future and tell us when the immigration stops, then we could calculate when immigrants would not be causing a net loss anymore.

    There is no such requirement to stop any process in order to determine its costs for the purposes of comparison. We are in any case interested only in making a per capita comparison, and I showed you how to do this above for an arbitrary period of ten years. The average child born in Finland is very considerably more expensive than the average immigrant over the first ten years after arriving in Finland. That should be obvious.

    Where did I say anything about replacing adults with immigrants? I referred to:

    a fair comparison of the costs and benefits of adult population replacement by immigration of adults as opposed to adult population replacement by raising children.

    Adults die all the time, and there are only two ways to replace them in any country You can either have children and raise them to adulthood or you can admit adult immigrants. The former option is more costly in economic terms over any time frame that you care to mention. You describe this as something that makes you sick, but again you have not refuted the point. Surely this cannot be beyond the ability of your ingenious buddies at hommaforum?

    Then you come out with this very obvious red herring:

    No matter how much immigrants would come to Finland, Finnish people would still reproduce. So the costs from the children is there in any case, we can’t replace that.

    How is this relevant to the comparison of costs between integrating adult immigrants and raising children from birth to productive adulthood?

    Where you said above that immigration causes more costs than it brings money, you must admit that raising children is even more costly. However, I don’t see you complaining about these much higher costs, even though there is nothing any more inevitable about having children than there is about receiving immigrants. You could remove all child support, make all education fee-paying and otherwise put an end to all of the other subsidies (“bribes”) that government provides, thereby making individuals entirely liable for the economic cost of raising families. This would immediately force the Finnish middle classes to strike a new balance between family size and living standards, making the third child a luxury that most cannot afford.

    You could also promote birth control and small family sizes through public information campaigns and, perhaps by publicly ostracising Laestadians and others who have large families. Indeed even without such measures we have seen a falling birth rate in much of the country, with associated upheavals in the school education system. Perhaps even more crucially, you could stop issuing passports to citizens, thereby ensuring that the investment in child raising and education is not lost to emigration, as it has been massively over the past two centuries. Of course in doing so, you will have transformed Finland into Die Deutsche Demokratische Republik, but at least there will be low immigration.

  68. Rocker

    Farang

    ”When talking about crimes committed by immigrants, for example rapes, some people tend to use the argument like: Well, Finns rape too.”

    Sure, every country rape. In all countries where the Sharia-law was implemented there was only 60 reported rapes in 1400 years.

    Strange though that the potential countries with their citizen candidating for Sharia who emmigrated to Finland come up to nearly the same figure annually calculated the ratio between one Finn and the predators. The difference is only that the ratio 1 Finnish rape per 55 for another ethnic group confirmed on the other side by Tuija Brax is that the Finnish rapes are actually rapes that happened not only reported.

    Should may be Finland also implement Sharia? Since it reduces so drastically the rapes?

  69. Farang

    Rocker, I’m sure you are being sarcastic, but just in case you are not: In those countries where Sharia is used, the rapes simply are not reported or they are not considered rapes, thus the rape figures are low

    Justicedemon, you just continue that. First of all, I have zero (0) hommaforum buddies. I don’t even have an account to hommaforum. Secondly, you talk about investments. For god’s sake, you are saying that immigrants are investments. What a load of crap. Go and tell some refugee who have escaped from was etc that “hey, you are an investment”. Don’t you realize that immigration politics is not about investments?

    Seppo, I know there are lots of immigrants working in big companies, but they are still minority there. I personally know lots of immigrants who are working. Actually every single immigrant in Finland that I personally know, are working here. For apparents reasons I don’t know any humanitarian immigrants. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any. There are several thousands coming in every year.

  70. Farang

    Justicedemon

    “How is this relevant to the comparison of costs between integrating adult immigrants and raising children from birth to productive adulthood?”

    I don’t know and why should I? I’m not the one who are comparing these costs. It was someone else who started to compare these. And I already commented that it’s insane to compare these.

  71. Farang

    Justicedemon

    “Where did I say anything about replacing adults with immigrants?”

    Sorry, my mistake. I misunderstood what you meant by replacing.

    “Where you said above that immigration causes more costs than it brings money, you must admit that raising children is even more costly. However, I don’t see you complaining about these much higher costs, even though there is nothing any more inevitable about having children than there is about receiving immigrants.”

    Why should I complain about costs of raising children? I already mentioned earlier that it’s an inevitable cost. And that’s why we pay taxes, so we can have education systems and stuff. That’s how it works in Finland. It’s insane to complain about the costs caused by children. There wouldn’t be any humans for long if we wouldn’t reproduce.

  72. Seppo

    “Seppo, I know there are lots of immigrants working in big companies, but they are still minority there. I personally know lots of immigrants who are working. Actually every single immigrant in Finland that I personally know, are working here.”

    Good, you got my point.

    Since only about 20-30 % of immigrants in Finland are so called humanitarian immigrants it would not matter if most of them were unemployed since the great majority of immigrants, like those that you know, are working, paying their taxes and contributing to the Finnish economy. So in the end we’re on plus.

  73. justicedemon

    Farang

    I explained how the costs of child raising are no more inevitable than the costs of immigrant integration. Both are susceptible to public policy measures. However, the point is that immigration is a much cheaper way to introduce productive adults into the national economy. Countries such as the USA, Canada and Australia have benefited massively from this at various times in their history, and the countries of origin of their migrants concerned have suffered corresponding losses called brain drain, skills drain or simply labour drain.

    The costs of a phenomenon must be balanced against its benefits over a realistic time scale. Personally, I think that 30 years is a reasonable break-even period when balancing the strictly economic costs and benefits of introducing the average adult to society via childbirth. The average outlays involved in adult immigrant reception are much smaller and the returns come much sooner than with children. The outlays for migrant workers are very minimal indeed at least until they reach the age of institutional care of the elderly. Indeed, the economically ideal adult is a university graduate immigrant worker who arrives with enough work experience to demonstrate practical competence, begins work immediately in Finland, continues working for 40+ years, and then drops dead one day after retirement. Nobody born in Finland can ever match that contribution.

    Current immigrant integration policy in Finland is based on the idea that initially unemployed immigrants might be expected to reach a break-even point within no more than 4 to 6 years on average.

    The most difficult cases are probably torture victims, and very elderly and disabled immigrants (think Irina Antonova and Evelyn Fadayel), where the break-even point may never be reached and the Master would be most keen to talk about välinearvo (or maybe not). I’m sure that your hommaforum chums would happily have such people shot on arrival, but as noted here before, their elected heroes tend to get wet pants when the time comes to volunteer for the firing squad. Just think of how they responded to the cases of Irina Antonova and Eveline Fadayel (Freddy Van Wonterghem) or the Vietnamese family in Kauhajoki (James Hirvisaari). Halla-Aho may not believe in human dignity, but he has been very careful not to parade this view too publicly in recent years.

  74. Rocker

    Lauri Ihalainen this morning on MTV3, aamutv or is it huomenta suomi.

    ”The unemployment amoung foreigners is 3 times higher than with Finns.”

    I met a girl from Tanzania living in my house, she had lived there for a year and during this time she had attended Finnish classes. My evaluation is that she could already get a job with her level of Finnish.

    It was discussed here earler that foreigners should not loose benefits if they don’t speak the Fnnish language. With a fraction of this woman’s positive attitude most of the foreigners with Finnish language problems would be at work.

  75. Rocker

    Farang

    ”Rocker, I’m sure you are being sarcastic, but just in case you are not: In those countries where Sharia is used, the rapes simply are not reported or they are not considered rapes, thus the rape figures are low”

    Well, the law is the law huh? To be precise. 60 reported rapes only 10% would lead (10 % leads in Finland) to prosecution which means 6 actual rapes. Not sure, but to guess something I say that muslims rape either 6 per hour, 6 per 6 hours or 6 per 24 hours in the western world. May the world be ruled by sharia.

  76. Farang

    Justicedemon, maybe we just think differently about people. I don’t consider humans as objects for economy. Economy should be for people, not vice versa.

    You still continue to accuse with those hommaforum bullshit, even when I specifically told you I have nothing to do with them. You also implicate that people like would like to shot people on border, so I don’t think you deserve any more of my time.

  77. makeadifference

    Farang

    26 times did Justice Demon use word ‘homma’ on one topic (if my calculation was good).

    It certainly belongs to his active vocabulary, may be he sleeps with a homma t-shirt?

    • Migrant Tales

      –26 times did Justice Demon use word ‘homma’ on one topic (if my calculation was good).

      So? Big deal?

      Be warned: many come from Hommaforum and run back to Hommaforum.

  78. makeadifference

    ”Be warned: many come from Hommaforum and run back to Hommaforum.”

    what about those who don’t come from homma, never been there and never intend to go there?

  79. Farang

    Looks like Justicedemon, Migrant Tales can’t think of anything else than this: Either ýou agree with them, or you are from homma.

  80. justicedemon

    Farang

    I don’t consider humans as objects for economy. Economy should be for people, not vice versa.

    I agree, but now you must remind us again who wrote this above:

    Just take examples from Finland and Sweden. In both those countries immigration causes more costs than it brings money.

    Has somebody stolen your username, or is this just another bout of epähikke amnesia? Wouldn’t it be easier to admit that you were spouting hommaforum BS and not really thinking about what you wrote?

    Thanks for playing the stooge, anyway.

    • Migrant Tales

      –Just take examples from Finland and Sweden. In both those countries immigration causes more costs than it brings money.

      Farang, there is no other blog in Finland where you will be pointed to the right direction to get the facts. Making this statement IS Hommaforum BS, or PhD (piling it high and deep). The fact is that without immigrants Sweden would not have enjoyed the economic growth it had in the past. Or are you suggesting that immigration works in the Americas but for some strange reason it works differently in Finland and Sweden?

      If you are, you are piling it high and deep.

  81. gloaming

    Mark: “I have listed my competences. A good part of my job is science editing, that and communications consultancy in the field of health and welfare. That’s my job. I’ve never claimed to be a statistician or a researcher, but I DO understand these fields enough to support the claims that I make.”

    It remains elusive how this makes you competent in the evaluation of statistical analyses or study setups. This becomes even more evident in remarks like

    Mark: “As I pointed out to you, the data do not ‘predict’ that diversity creates a lack of trust, because that kind of conclusion cannot be made from cross-sectional data.”

    This is an odd remark coming from someone supposedly competent in these methods since based on the data and analyses presented in the Putnam paper, the main finding is that diversity predicts decreased trust in neighbors. And not only that, diversity is an independent predictor of decreased trust when controlled for multiple potentially confounding factors.

    Obviously a direct experiment or a randomized controlled trial is not forthcoming in this setting, maybe a prospective cohort study at best. Your demands for conclusively demonstrating a cause-effect -relationship are not only unreasonable but do absolutely nothing to devalue the findings of Putnam’s large cross-sectional study. Based on the study we have good reason to assume that there is an underlying cause-effect relation between diversity and decreased trust.

    Mark: “What is your competence?”

    A significant number of publications in peer reviewed, well respected journals. I also act as a reviewer for some of these journals.

    Mark: “The economists deny this interpretation of their report, explaining that it cannot be known how non-Western immigrants affect the economy of the kingdom.”

    Well, this should be obvious as the study addressed public finances. The study demonstrates that third world immigrants have a negative impact to the public economy whereas western immigrants have a positive contribution.

    “For example, their study does not distinguish between refugees and immigrants whose situations and journey to Denmark differ.”

    I would imagine no-one has any objections to subgroup analyses and increased resolution. That would give us even better insight how to focus the legislative measures aiming at restricting the immigration of migrants of poor integration prognosis.

    “And as the proportion of children and youth is higher among immigrants than in Danish society in general, immigrants do currently contribute far less than others in society through taxes, but that will probably change over time.”

    Interestingly, now you consider this a valid argument while you (or justicedemon) suggest that in the case Finnish children and youth it is not. You cannot have it both ways, time to decide.

    Mark: “So, it’s the age old problem of not comparing like with like and interpreting statistics produced for one purpose to try to justify a totally different research question, i.e. not applying proper weighting to the statistics.”

    Oh really? Could you please demonstrate me item by item, referring to the original communication, what exactly do you find questionable in the methodology of that study. I can provide you with this document if you cannot find it by yourself.

    Mark: “So, you disagree with some of Denmark’s top economists, though because they are not scientists you dismiss them, you appear to disagree with the report’s authors, but you nevertheless accept the validity of their science, even while they are explaining quite explicitly why the methodology is NOT adequate to support the kinds of interpretations that were made of the report.”

    As these “top economist” (what do you actually know about who is top and who is not in the Danish field of economics) provide no actual data to support their opinion, it is just an opinion, not a scientific statement. It is easy to accept the validity since you, Ms. Hansen or these gentlemen have provided nothing that would invalidate the findings. The hypothesis is sound, the mechanisms previously demonstrated and there is no significant problem with the methodology. What these people and Ms. Hansen (who is an author, not “authors”) actually have a problem with is the political conclusions as they evidently feel that we as westerners have some sort of a moral obligation to the third world migrants. This has nothing to do with valid inference or science.

    Mark: “Denmark is nowadays replete with story upon story of second and third generation immigrants who cannot marry why they want in the same way that native Danes can because of the draconian restrictions placed on them. These restrictions are considered by the UN Human Rights Council to be violations of basic human rights, as does the EU Commission.”

    They are free to marry in the same way as Danes if the spouse is in Denmark. Restrictions apply to importing a bride, usually an arranged one, from their native country at young age. This makes a lot of sense and should be implemented immediately in Finland, too.

    I think you mean the Council of Europe, not the Commission. Denmark has wisely enough maintained much of its sovereignty as regards immigration policies so EU has limited say. Other external third world advocates can express their ideologically driven outcries as they see fit, with no real jurisdiction and/or no way or will of enforcing anything that is inconsequential.

    Mark: “Yes, if you want to keep thousands of people locked up, with no hope of work, no hope of a proper social existence, fear about the eventual outcome (the EU has so far blocked several attempts to return asylum seekers to war zones) and absolutely no rights.”

    I won’t bother to check whether this “thousands of people locked up” has any truth in it, but if you do not have legitimate grounds (eg. international protection) to stay in Denmark, then you are to leave the country.

    Mark: “What you are saying is that humanitarian immigration is not sustainable or justifiable as a human right. The only problem is that 60 decades of political history in the West fundamentally disagrees with you.”

    I do not see any epic wars or ideologically driven, industrial scale genocides taking place in the world at the moment. There are some weak or failing states and societal instability, both phenomena bound to be seen in underdeveloped countries anyways. What is happening is an increasing socioeconomic, educational etc. gap between the third world and the developed world combined with massive population growth in the third world and easier access to large distance travelling.

    As regards the “right” to some level of material affluence, you have a right to the level of affluence you can afford. Usually this capability is obtained by working.

  82. justicedemon

    gloaming

    A significant number of publications in peer reviewed, well respected journals. I also act as a reviewer for some of these journals.

    But you remain unable to use the blockquote tag. Amazing!

    LoL Stop bullshitting. If course you will say that you don’t care, but this is your ridiculous assertion and I simply don’t believe you. Prove it to us. Which well respected journals? American Renaissance?

    Anyway, Mr peer reviewed, well respected journals, your claim to any relevant expertise on Denmark was entirely refuted by this remark:

    I won’t bother to check whether this “thousands of people locked up” has any truth in it

    Anyone who knows the first thing about Danish immigration policy is aware of this systematic indefinite exclusion of thousands of human beings. All you had to do was Google sandholm refugee.

    To fix another lacuna in your peer reviewed, well respected expertise, Mark was indeed referring to the views of the European Commission, not the Council of Europe.

  83. gloaming

    Mark: “Yep, and the other side of the coin is people who come here with an education and expertise developed and paid for already, from which, Finland immediately benefits through taxation and through the economic benefits of applying that expertise.”

    Indeed. And even better for the public finances, when they retire, they often return to their countries of origin. This is actually the group of people where the benefits are as justicedemon suggests. The education, healthcare etc. have been paid by someone up to the point of migration. However, if you received no education and professional skills worth anything in your country of origin, the fiscal setup is practically equal to a native child born yesterday or probably worse because you are not a native speaker and naturally acculturated to the society.

    Mark: “Now you can try to go shopping for the ‘best’ immigrants, and treat the whole immigration system as just another extension of the economic model. However, another element of immigration, which requires a much much longer perspective, is humanitarian. We provide sanctuary and opportunity. In the longer term, it is projected that our economies need this extra level of immigration to support declining population replacement rates.”

    The age structure of the population of Finland will automatically transform into a more favorable one in the 2030s as the (rest of the) baby boomers eventually end up in graves. If immigration is considered one of the measures to alleviate the declining dependency ratio (and it should be), only immigration of people with sufficient education and professional skills can offer a potential partial solution. If these conditions are not met, the effect is negative.

    If there is a holocaust being executed somewhere, then yes, not only should we provide sanctuary but also intervention. However, the bulk of the third world population cannot be entitled to sanctuary just because they lead typical third world lives with typical third world hardship and life spans. Opportunity without your own financial risk is something you are offered only if there is some sort of reasonable probability of success.

    Mark: “On the contrary, immigrants should be compared to children in the sense of that we make a long-term investment in children’s health, upbringing and education that will not benefit the wider society for almost 3 decades. Even then, not all native citizens end up being productive or even paying back what they pay.”

    Nor do the immigrants, quite the opposite; the rate of marginalization is even worse. In general, if you can choose between different investment options, you take the one that has the optimal risk-return ratio.

    Mark: “If it IS purely an economic argument, then you are wasting your time on the immigrants, they are only a small part of the problem. Why don’t you go after unemployed rural youth of Finland, with stands at 1 in 4! Why don’t you start complaining about them and their cost to society?”

    It is pure idiocy to argue that since we already have people that are in some way socially challenged in the country, it follows that we have to accept even more of these from abroad. If you have some efficient, proven way to mitigate the rural youth unemployment etc., please come forward with your ideas, no-one will complain and you will be celebrated. We obviously do not know how to effective manage these social problems even with the native population and massive public spending. This is an argument against socially motivated immigration, not for it.

    Mark: “Not only that, but immigration is not purely an economic issue. There are situations where we should ‘pay’ something to offer sanctuary. The benefits that Western countries accrue from exploiting the cheaper labour markets and goods of the developing world far outweigh anything else that we pay to support humanitarian immigration. I don’t see that benefit being discussed! How about the profits from arms sales to African countries by European countries? Yes, not so much, Finland, I know, but on a European wide scale, it needs to be considered. Consider this too, feeding arms into these volatile regions in a way that undermines security that leads to humanitarian crises that lead to massive suffering and also additional expense is in no way challenged by you anti-immigrationists. Or do you wish to acknowledge the point and lobby for a drastic cut in arms to unstable regions of the world?”

    Ah, the collective guilt nonsense (or is “global responsibility” more fashionable these days?). Labor has its price that is defined in the market. Africa is such a small part of the world economy that it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that any significant part of western affluence is provided by Africa. However, this fairy tale is an integral part of the leftist, oppression based world view. Manufacturing has been offshored to Asia, not Africa. The last time I visited China, it did not look like a developing country at all. The bulk of the economic output in Africa is raw materials and agricultural products. 99.99% of the people in the developed world do not hold shares in companies that manufacture military equipment. And so what if 99.99% did.

  84. gloaming

    Prove it to us. Which well respected journals? American Renaissance?

    Heavens no, I am a scientist; I do not practice social “sciences”. “Well respected” (by the researchers of the fields) is just a phrase that is used to indicate that the journal IF belongs to the top quadrant in the field. And no, not all social sciences are of poor quality and have negligible scientific relevance. Maybe just 90% are Politics and (Migrant) Tales. However, this seems to be remedied to some extent with the planned university budget cuts hitting the humanities the hardest. If the Kone Foundation does not come to rescue, in may be largely curtains for gender studies, postcolonial studies and the like in the next five years.

    All you had to do was Google sandholm refugee.

    The first two links were to Youtube videos with some lefties demonstrating. The first link that made more sense was to an Al Jazeera article explaining about mister Nabil whose application and appeals for a political asylum had been rejected. There are almost daily flights from Malmö to Suleimania, Erbil and Baghdad. It is just across the bridge from Copenhagen.

    Mark was indeed referring to the views of the European Commission, not the Council of Europe.

    Fair enough, makes really no difference. And that document is related to “violations of basic human rights” in this context in Denmark in exactly what way?

  85. justicedemon

    gloaming

    Heavens no, I am a scientist; I do not practice social “sciences”.

    So your claim of competence is the purest form of argumentum ad verecundiam.

    Mark made the perfectly valid point that Denmark has been holding thousands of individuals in legal limbo for several years, and that this inevitably distorts any analysis of the costs involved in immigration. Given your sneering attitude to social “science”, it is no wonder that you are unable to appreciate this point of economics.

    You remember economics, don’t you? It’s the social “science” that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Now please tell us which of your “real” scientific instruments can measure economic value. On the same score, which scientific instrument do you use to measure human dignity, i.e. the core value that defines the meaning of human rights?

    The term philistine springs irresistibly to mind. Look it up.

  86. Rocker

    Migrant Tales

    First, what a fantastic topic. You did not pay much attention to your own words in the discussion there was about introduction/integration and language courses for immigrants.

    those who are in a desperate need of integration are the people committing violence on other people. THEY ARE A DANGER FOR THE SOCIETY. Overrepresented by Somalis, Iraqees, Turks and Vietnamese. All citizens from these ethnic groups go on the course, since you condemn all sort of violence as you said earler.

    Then education job. The same stuff applies to above introduced. As it was presented, disable people work, then immigrants work.

    If they fail to comply with the rules, out they go if they commit violence. Now they go, nobody can say they have not been warned. If they fail to find a job they will be retrained till they find a job.

    What about outcast Finns, what do you sincerely should be done to Finns who don’t integrate. Sent to Sweden since they do so well there as you declaired? Or simply accept that they are here no matter how you try to dirten their reputation.

    If you would ask ”Who needs integration: immigrants or natives?” in Germany, France, The Netherlands or UK, do you think you would add value to the conversation or devalue the conversation of integration?

  87. gloaming

    So your claim of competence is the purest form of argumentum ad verecundiam.

    I did not “claim” or “argue” anything in this context, just answered a question (or more like a demand). Btw, it is considered wise to refrain from using words and concepts that one does not comprehend like you and “argumentum ad verecundiam”, and Mark and “(argumentum) ad hominem” above. The basic premise of using anything starting with “argumentum ad” is that there is a fallacy. Now that there is not one, it only makes you look an idiot.

    Mark made the perfectly valid point that Denmark has been holding thousands of individuals in legal limbo for several years, and that this inevitably distorts any analysis of the costs involved in immigration.

    Only those with a long term permit of residence or citizenship were included in the analysis, not ones whose application or appeal was still being processed. Obviously the Danish officials have no objections for Mr. Nabil et al. leaving for Kirkuk, Hargeisa, Kandahar etc. immediately. And oh yes, the Turkish airlines fly regularly to Mogadishu nowadays.

    You remember economics, don’t you? It’s the social “science” that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Now please tell us which of your “real” scientific instruments can measure economic value.

    As I wrote, not all disciplines of social sciences are largely unscientific, not even the whole of sociology, the discipline most seriously perverted by the fifties-sixties ideologies and philosophies.

    On the same score, which scientific instrument do you use to measure human dignity, i.e. the core value that defines the meaning of human rights?

    There is usually no reason to measure an abstract concept like human dignity. However, if you insist that the European taxpayer should provide a western standard of living for a third world immigrant because of “human dignity”, then “human dignity” is evaluated with a surrogate measure coded as “EUR”.

    The term philistine springs irresistibly to mind. Look it up.

    I cannot see what appreciation of arts has to do with this. As regards for example sociology, the abstract entities (to call them “theories” is usually exaggeration at least in strictly scientific context) can have (subjective) aesthetic or moral value and sometimes they can be considered even intellectually pleasing, but this does not mean they have scientific value or prestige or should receive funding as science.

    Here is a study from the wonderland of multiculturalism, Canada, published three days ago. I haven’t had the time to read it yet so I’ll just quote an interesting part of the summary:

    Grubel and Grady also reject arguments that immigrants are needed to meet labour shortages, that they bring productivity-increasing economies of scale, and that their children will repay the fiscal burden. New evidence does not provide any grounds for optimism that the children of recent immigrants are going to be able to earn enough to compensate current and future generations of Canadians for the fiscal transfers made to their parents by existing Canadians

    The authors compare the fiscal effects of the recent (post-1986) migration wave that has third world migrants as majority to those of the previous one where the migrants were mostly from Europe and the US.

  88. eyeopener

    Hi gloaming.

    I hope you have a wider competence in the field of trust and diversity than Putnam. As you are a science-editor I strikes me that you are so shallow!!

    Maybe a visit to: http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org will give you some deeper insights!! Also the works of Florida. Also Karlsson, Asheim and Cooke would be interesting contributors on the topic of diversity facilitating a deeper competence in this field.

    Putnam’s Bowling Alone is just one contribution. As an editor your argumentation is disappointing.

    Can you do better!!

  89. eyeopener

    Continue:

    Lane and Bachman, Akbar Zaheer, Sztompka, Huotari etc. Far more better than your narrow trial to disorient the discussion.

    From a editor point of view you are the “lousiest” I have met. Or better “the laziest”, the most prejudiced”.

    Save us from these guys, please!!

  90. gloaming

    Hello ‘eyeopener’,

    1) I did not bring Putnam into the discussion nor did I try to compose a comprehensive review of the field. I merely commented the methodology of that single study based on a previous thread.

    2) I do not serve in the editorial board of any journal.

    3) Since you have knowledge of other, perhaps more significant contributions to the field, you are at the liberty to present them. The weight of scientific findings is judged by the level of evidence, not by political correctness, the ideals of multiculturalism, third worldism, socialism etc.

  91. Mark

    Gloaming

    It remains elusive how this makes you competent in the evaluation of statistical analyses or study setups.

    I have a first class degree in biological sciences, I have worked 2 years as a biologist and then 10 years as a science editor in the field of social and health sciences. Of course, I could have been sucking my thumb the whole time, in which case you are right to think my competence in the field remains elusive.

    This is an odd remark coming from someone supposedly competent in these methods since based on the data and analyses presented in the Putnam paper, the main finding is that diversity predicts decreased trust in neighbors.

    My main complaint was not that an association wasn’t shown, but that it was causal. Even the word ‘predict’ is extremely misleading here, and you know it. If we find that all the swans in the world that we see are white, we can predict for example that swans cause whiteness. As long as we carry on finding white swans then the data will predict 100% an association between swans and whiteness. However, a single black swan breaks the underlying premise.

    In that sense, while diversity is strongly associated with mistrust, it tells us nothing about the dynamic, or especially, why some communities would buck the trend. It is not causal. Elven jumped on the study in exactly the wrong way, trying to suggest it was causal and therefore that Putnam’s efforts to study the dynamics were irrelevant.

    Obviously a direct experiment or a randomized controlled trial is not forthcoming in this setting, maybe a prospective cohort study at best.

    I guess this is the closest you come to saying, yes, you were right, it was cannot demonstrate causality.

    Your demands for conclusively demonstrating a cause-effect -relationship are not only unreasonable but do absolutely nothing to devalue the findings of Putnam’s large cross-sectional study.

    What demands? I made no such demand. I simply refuted Elven’s claim that this study showed a ‘causal’ relationship. In fact, if you read my thoughts, I have not devalued Putnam’s study in any way. It simply remains to be seen what more we can learn about the dynamics of this phenomena. It is a descriptive study. As Putnam stated, it shows that Americans on the whole distrust diversity. The question of course is WHY! It’s not related to education, age, or poverty. But then racism isn’t on the whole, is it!

    A significant number of publications in peer reviewed, well respected journals. I also act as a reviewer for some of these journals.

    Which means you could either be a senior researcher with 30 years or experience, or you could equally be something of a novice who recently completed their PhD, but was lucky enough to work with a research team produced some useful results in their field.

    So, after your rather snide sneer at my competences, you still didn’t actually produce anything to contradict anything I’d written. In fact, the opposite seems to have been the case, as you acknowledged that it WOULD require a different methodology to prove causality.

    Why was it an important point for me to make, gloaming? Because idiots like Elven take a study like that and assume that yes, diversity causes bad stuff, and look, here’s the proof. And they would be wrong. Funny how you went after me and not him, and yet you claim that you are on the side of science! Yeah, right!

    I’ll come back to your other points about the Danish stuff later.

  92. justicedemon

    gloaming

    Your claim to expertise in relation to this topic of discussion was based on expertise in an entirely different field. That is specifically the fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam. The relevance of describing me as an idiot for pointing this out is something that, as they say in Finland, voidaan jättää omaan arvoonsa.

  93. gloaming

    Your claim to expertise in relation to this topic of discussion was based on expertise in an entirely different field. That is specifically the fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam. The relevance of describing me as an idiot for pointing this out is something that, as they say in Finland, voidaan jättää omaan arvoonsa.

    The topic of the discussion where the competence issue came up is research setups and statistical methods. And yes, I do have proven expertise and experience in that field. And no, I do not need to point that out to make my points.

    It is becoming more and more obvious that your contribution to this discussion has run its course. It is time you returned to Kaikukatu to draft some more appeals for Abdi. Maybe you will get lucky this time and Abdi gets his kasvattilapset to the promised land of the West. And even if you do not get lucky, hey, it is only taxpayer money and you got human dignity to look after!

  94. gloaming

    Of course, I could have been sucking my thumb the whole time, in which case you are right to think my competence in the field remains elusive.

    Unless you have actually designed studies, done the statistical analyses and published something, the yes, it remains elusive. But I’ll happily give you the benefit of the doubt as this line of the argument hardly is of interest to anyone.

    My main complaint was not that an association wasn’t shown, but that it was causal. Even the word ‘predict’ is extremely misleading here, and you know it.

    There is nothing misleading in using the word “predict” in this context. In fact, that very word it is routinely used when reporting the results of a multivariate analysis like in the case of Putnam’s paper. The formal meaning is that there is increased probability/odds of some outcome (described by the dependent variable) when the value of some covariate increases. It is of particular interest if this covariate remains a statistically significant part of the model in the presence of potential or known confounders. If it does, this is usual expressed as the covariate being an independent predictor of the outcome.

    If we find that all the swans in the world that we see are white, we can predict for example that swans cause whiteness. As long as we carry on finding white swans then the data will predict 100% an association between swans and whiteness. However, a single black swan breaks the underlying premise.

    We were talking about statistical inference, not first-order predicate logic.

    In that sense, while diversity is strongly associated with mistrust, it tells us nothing about the dynamic, or especially, why some communities would buck the trend. It is not causal.

    If you had some sort of a working knowledge about how scientific knowledge is built in the context of statistical analyses, based on Putnam’s paper you most definitely would not assert that the relationship is not causal. Quite the opposite, you would assert that based on the data presented in that paper, a causal relationship is likely.

    Elven jumped on the study in exactly the wrong way, trying to suggest it was causal and therefore that Putnam’s efforts to study the dynamics were irrelevant.

    I did not read the whole 250+ -post thread. If he/she claimed that based on the data a causal relationship is formally demonstrated, then he/she is obviously wrong. Often the verb “to cause” is just used informally in nonscientific discussions like this one. Doing a time series or a prospective cohort naturally provides more information about the relation between the predictor and the outcome variables. However, it is theoretically and in practice extremely unlikely that the main result would reversed if you have a predictor with p < 0.001 in an extensively controlled cross-sectional model.

    Which means you could either be a senior researcher with 30 years or experience, or you could equally be something of a novice who recently completed their PhD, but was lucky enough to work with a research team produced some useful results in their field.

    Did you hear that? That was the sound of goalposts moving. Everybody is a young PhD student at some point. To satisfy your curiosity, that point in time was at the turn of the millennium.

  95. Mark

    Gloaming

    They are free to marry in the same way as Danes if the spouse is in Denmark. Restrictions apply to importing a bride, usually an arranged one, from their native country at young age. This makes a lot of sense and should be implemented immediately in Finland, too.

    You have this knack with presenting information, Gloaming. you present something extraordinary as if it was completely ordinary.

    These restrictions placed on Danes marrying people from other countries and enjoying the basic rights of citizenship and to work are horrendous. As an example, the Japanese wife of a Dane learnt Danish, has an accredited qualification and relevant work experience, but her application has been repeatedly turned down because her husband had a period of injury in the previous couple of years that meant he had claimed social aid during a short period of rehabilitation. That’s just plain insane!

    Do you consider 23 to be a young age? I don’t. Maybe 12 or even 16, that would be
    young age’. But not 23. Unless you are 24 years old, you cannot have your marriage legally recognised.

    In addition, DKK 55,000 in self-support money, and the couple’s connection to Denmark must be greater than to the foreign spouse’s land in terms of total years and/or family members.

    The connection to Denmark can be questioned simply on the grounds that someone has spent a number of years living and working abroad.

    I take it you’ve heard of ‘Love Bridge’, where 1200 couples every day cross the bridge from Sweden to work in Denmark?!

    Well, this should be obvious as the study addressed public finances. The study demonstrates that third world immigrants have a negative impact to the public economy whereas western immigrants have a positive contribution.

    I will critique the methodology in a separate post. I have been reading in detail about the DREAM agency’s models and I already have several misgivings, in spite of their attempts to construct what they call a ‘full economic model’.

    Interestingly, now you consider this [immigrants currently contribute far less than others in society through taxes because more of them are children and therefore not working] a valid argument while you (or justicedemon) suggest that in the case Finnish children and youth it is not. You cannot have it both ways, time to decide.

    Care to enlighten me as to your point!

    Oh really? Could you please demonstrate me item by item, referring to the original communication, what exactly do you find questionable in the methodology of that study. I can provide you with this document if you cannot find it by yourself.

    In due course.

    As these “top economist” (what do you actually know about who is top and who is not in the Danish field of economics) provide no actual data to support their opinion, it is just an opinion, not a scientific statement.

    I still think it’s rather odd that you would dismiss with no trace of argument or evidence of your own the thoughts of the CEO of the Confederation of Danish Employers.

    To date, you have provided absolutely zero data to support your opinions.

    I would imagine no-one has any objections to subgroup analyses and increased resolution. That would give us even better insight how to focus the legislative measures aiming at restricting the immigration of migrants of poor integration prognosis.

    What I find interesting is how you use the results to justify a political stance while making no effort to explore an improvement in the system of integration. If sick people are not getting better because hospital services are not functioning well, do you suggest that this sick people should be sent abroad to live?

    What exactly do you find questionable in the methodology of that study. I can provide you with this document if you cannot find it by yourself.

    In due course. I have several documents, some in Danish, some in English related to the DREAM model. However, if there is a specific study that you are referring to, by all means link to it, and then at least I’ll know we are talking about the same study.

    The hypothesis is sound, the mechanisms previously demonstrated and there is no significant problem with the methodology.

    I think that is a matter of opinion. There are several very serious limitations in their methodology. But later.

    What these people and Ms. Hansen (who is an author, not “authors”) actually have a problem with is the political conclusions as they evidently feel that we as westerners have some sort of a moral obligation to the third world migrants. This has nothing to do with valid inference or science.

    I think you are putting words into their mouths and dismissing the validity of their concerns. I think that Ms Hansen made a valid point about the economic impact given that the ‘public finances’ element is only one part of the economy and also that the economic cycles through which money returns to the public purse extent well beyond tax payments. However, I want to save a separate post to deal with these issues.

    They are free to marry in the same way as Danes if the spouse is in Denmark. Restrictions apply to importing a bride, usually an arranged one, from their native country at young age. This makes a lot of sense and should be implemented immediately in Finland, too.

    I know the justifications, gloaming. However, I would say that 23 is not a ‘young age’. I also think that a blanket ban on ‘arranged’ marriages is an unjustifiable violation of cultural rights. If someone is free to choose to marry at the age of 18, they are also free to choose to be part of an arranged marriage. Just because the custom is alien to the West doesn’t make it bad. Yes, some marriages are a disaster, but with a divorce rate of 50% for all marriages, it’s hardly the case that the West has invented a better system, is it! There is a difference between an arranged marriage and a forced marriage, though I understand that sometimes the difference can be blurred. Likewise, one could also argue that marrying due to pregnancy or marrying of wealthy families into other wealthy families is likewise a practice that borders on ‘forced’ and ‘arranged’.

    I do not see any epic wars or ideologically driven, industrial scale genocides taking place in the world at the moment.

    Industrial scale?! And I suppose that you would in principle therefore also object to refugees coming to Finland from Syria? Or Tibet? Your reasoning on this topic quite frankly horrifies me!

    As regards the “right” to some level of material affluence, you have a right to the level of affluence you can afford. Usually this capability is obtained by working.

    By this reasoning, a slave or low-wage earner has no rights, simply because they are not earning enough to justify them. Is this really what you are saying?

    Indeed. And even better for the public finances, when they retire, they often return to their countries of origin. This is actually the group of people where the benefits are as justicedemon suggests. The education, healthcare etc. have been paid by someone up to the point of migration. However, if you received no education and professional skills worth anything in your country of origin, the fiscal setup is practically equal to a native child born yesterday or probably worse because you are not a native speaker and naturally acculturated to the society.

    Okay, your turn to back up your statements with evidence. I want to see clear evidence that relates to the entire estimated costs of bringing a native into the world and supporting their growth and development up until the break even point, and then a similar cost comparison with training an immigrant to the point where they likewise reach a ‘break-even’ point.

    The age structure of the population of Finland will automatically transform into a more favorable one in the 2030s as the (rest of the) baby boomers eventually end up in graves.

    Bullshit! Care to share some evidence? Every projection I’ve, and I’ve seen dozens, say that the problems will be very much compounded by the time 2030 comes.

    If immigration is considered one of the measures to alleviate the declining dependency ratio (and it should be), only immigration of people with sufficient education and professional skills can offer a potential partial solution. If these conditions are not met, the effect is negative.

    Of course, and this is because Finland’s education and skills training is so crap that it cannot make the adjustment to meet the extra or special demand? What nonsense! And talk about wanting something for nothing!

    If there is a holocaust being executed somewhere, then yes, not only should we provide sanctuary but also intervention.

    I see, and how will you know a holocaust is being executed? Will you wait until the 10,000 lives, the 100,000 lives or the 1,000,000 lives before we provide sanctuary? Unbelievable!

    However, the bulk of the third world population cannot be entitled to sanctuary just because they lead typical third world lives with typical third world hardship and life spans.

    Do you know how many Somalis are currently living in refugee camps in Kenya and Ethiopia? What part of their lives is ‘typically third world’ and what element of it has been propagated by Western interference in this ‘typical third wolrd’, and by that, I mean the sale of arms?

    Nor do the immigrants, quite the opposite; the rate of marginalization is even worse. In general, if you can choose between different investment options, you take the one that has the optimal risk-return ratio.

    This is just hot air, gloaming. A rate of marginalisation is just that, a rate, meaning that a percentage of people succeed perfectly well, from all immigrant groups. Some succeed and some don’t. But rather than try to find out what helps an immigrant succeed, your answer is to try to do some ad hoc, big brush analysis that identifies the right ‘group’ that should be allowed in.

    You know, the other point is that for many people given political asylum, the justification was never meant to be economic. It is a decision that is made on the basis humanitarian concerns, because we in the West enjoy a ‘wealth’ of peace, prosperity and freedom such that we can offer that sanctuary, even if it costs some money, at least in the short term.

    It is pure idiocy to argue that since we already have people that are in some way socially challenged in the country, it follows that we have to accept even more of these from abroad.

    Well, wouldn’t it be convenient for you then if that WAS the argument. As it is, that is not the argument. First, the argument is that there is an even greater problem in terms of sheer numbers and drain on resources on Finnish taxpayers in terms of young native unemployed Finns living in the rural areas. As this is quite evidently the greater problem, why is the public debate so focused on immigrants when they comprise only a small part of this problem? That is the argument!

    Second, it appears that your alternative to this ‘idiocy’ of accepting this risk of further marginalised youth is to say ‘no’ to a foreigner coming to Finland, not because he isn’t qualified or doesn’t appear to have an aptitude to train, work and obtain the Finnish language, but because ‘well, a few of your fellows have not been doing too well’!

    Third, your response to problems is infantile. You attempt simply to ‘remove’ the problem, and not for one second to LOOK at the problem and do something about it. Marginalisation is not a permanent phenomenon, but something that may affect people for a period of time in their life. The focus should and is put on activation of these people, not stigmatisation.

    If you have some efficient, proven way to mitigate the rural youth unemployment etc., please come forward with your ideas, no-one will complain and you will be celebrated.

    Oh wow, really smart comments, gloaming!

    Some failures have been down to the ‘individualisation’ of the problem, assuming that if you have an activation policy, then the jobs are there for the young people to go into. That simply is not the case in the rural economy. Activation policies must be accompanied by investment in developing the rural economy to create new jobs. Some excellent examples of how this can work are provided by Kajaani, following the paper mill closure. Some €30 million was spent in redevelopment and incentives, and the result has been a new business park.

    Another part of the problem is that there are jobs available in the economy, but they are in the cities. This is a double bind for policy planners because if the young people move to the cities to find work, then this further undermines the local economy. The biggest problem the government faces now is somehow regionalising the economy.

    We do not know how to effective manage these social problems even with the native population and massive public spending.

    Yep, and you still prefer to spend your time bashing immigrants! 🙂

    This is an argument against socially motivated immigration, not for it.

    Well, not really. The reasons for marginalisation in the immigrant population are reasonably well-known and could be affected by a number of changes, some by government, some by native citizens. First, integration services are too short-term, underfunded and poorly targeted and poorly tailored. Go talk to anyone who actually deals with integration, and you will hear exactly this. Can this be remedied? Yes, and attempts are being done exactly to that end. But that also means spending more. But if the starting point for the public debate is that immigrants already cost too much, then justification for spending more is going to fall on deaf ears, isn’t it!

    Second, even if immigrants, as individuals, make great strides in learning Finnish and gaining good qualifications or accreditation, then there is a very real chance that they still cannot find employment in the field for which they are qualified simply because ‘they do not fit in’. Employers in Finland have stated in surveys that they refuse jobs to immigrants because they do not feel like they would fit in as well as a native! As unemployment is fairly high, there will always be natives applying for the jobs too. That is ‘institutional’ racism and the individual immigrant is not responsible. However, they will be made responsible when employment statistics reveal that ‘for some reason’, certain groups of people are not getting jobs. Now let’s see, who shall we blame?

    Third, if the immigrant, who is desperate for work, then decides to take a cleaning job or other such low-skilled work, then they will have lower wages, pay less tax and subsequently be unable to ‘repay’ the overall cost of immigration to taxpayers. Now isn’t that ironic. It is exactly this kind of phenomenon that underlies much of the Danish DREAM model in regard to salary levels for next generation immigrants.

    Ah, the collective guilt nonsense (or is “global responsibility” more fashionable these days?).

    You know, for a so-called scientist, you are not averse to playing the ‘risky shift’, are you? So, the work of decades to build a framework of human rights in the West, being one of the key factors that makes the West an attractive destination to those from elsewhere, is all just ‘guilt nonsense’, eh! Okay, well let’s just get rid of our human rights framework, or rethink it completely so that ‘rights’ are no longer universal, but only apply to citizens of the West. Good, that’s the Convention Relating the Status of Refugees dumped on the bonfire of history!

    Labor has its price that is defined in the market. Africa is such a small part of the world economy that it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that any significant part of western affluence is provided by Africa.

    Yep, just a £1 billion pounds a year going into the UK economy alone from African arms sales. Africa produces 50% of the world’s diamonds, amounting to about $25 billion a year! $100 million in illegal diamond trades with Western companies that fuel and fund many local conflicts. Africa contributes about 12% of the world’s oil and 6.5% of the world’s gas production. Now, I wonder how much of the revenue from this is going to ordinary Africans and how much of the prophet leaves Africa or is in the control of white Africans?

    However, this fairy tale is an integral part of the leftist, oppression based world view.

    Hmm…sounds like you are taking an ideological line here, assuming immigration debate is a leftist conspiracy. Your science cloak is slipping all the time gloaming!

    And no, not all social sciences are of poor quality and have negligible scientific relevance. Maybe just 90% are Politics and (Migrant) Tales.

    For a scientist who likes evidence and complains about the lack of evidence of social scientists, you pull figures out your arse like Paul Daniels pulls flowers out of his sleeve! So, where is your evidence that 90% of social science is ‘scientifically irrelevant’?

  96. Mark

    Gloaming

    Unless you have actually designed studies, done the statistical analyses and published something, the yes, it remains elusive. But I’ll happily give you the benefit of the doubt as this line of the argument hardly is of interest to anyone.

    And yet you pretty much started your arguments against me with it! You know, this statement of yours is about as crass as I’ve ever heard. You are saying that unless you have personally carried out the study, done the analysis and published it, you cannot understand it or have form an intelligent opinion on it? Now you really are testing the bounds of credibility here! Thousand upon thousands, no, millions upon millions of decision-makers (in both the public and private sector) the world over rely upon assessments and summaries from scientific research as a basis for their decision-making. On the strength of your argument, they have absolutely no competence. I shake my head…..!

    And yes, I do have proven expertise and experience in that field. And no, I do not need to point that out to make my points.

    Actually, I think JD’s point is relevant because you have not provided any evidence or studies whatsoever to back up the many claims that you have made. Not ONE! Not only that, but you have not been able to concretely contradict a single statement I have made in regard to Putman’s study. On the contrary, you performed the wonderful dance of agreeing, while appearing to disagree, even going so far as to offer types of study methodology that could actually prove causality. The one valid point that you made about the validity or demand for this kind of study in relation to this topic was entirely a straw man argument. I had not demanded those kinds of studies. Nevertheless, I did talk about the relevance of studies that would look at the dynamics behind the finding, and I’m very happy if you dismiss that as revealing my incompetence, as it happens to be the current direction of Putnam’s research team. I guess they are incompetent too!

  97. Mark

    I did not read the whole 250+ -post thread. If he/she claimed that based on the data a causal relationship is formally demonstrated, then he/she is obviously wrong.

    Good, glad to see that we agree.

    There is nothing misleading in using the word “predict” in this context.

    Well, it is if that taken out of the context of statistics and used to suggest something like ‘diversity causes mistrust’, then yes, it is misleading. I don’t have a problem with ‘predict’. I even used it in my quotes of Putnam’s conclusions. My problem is when this ‘predict’ is taken to mean cause. We can be nitpicky about the strength of statistical inference, but at the end of the day, the strongest work you can use is ‘likely’. And while this is useful, it is not ‘causality’. As this was fundamentally my point, I think you were simply wrong to attack my on it and especially to somehow represent that as unscientific. On the contrary, it’s was being very specific.

    The task after demonstrating an association naturally moves onto showing what the likely mechanism is and how it operates. In this case, we are talking about very subjective elements. This was not a study on the relationship of smoking to cancer.

    This was done with ‘community’ as the unit of analysis. In other words, no effort was made to see what kind of neighbour people actually had that they did not ‘completely trust’. Again, ‘completely trust’ is a exceptionally high benchmark to put on social cohesion. Is it realistic to expect high levels of ‘complete trust’ in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods? What account should be taken of history? The idea that the ‘conclusion’ that mistrust is linked to diversity is far from being unambiguous – the nature of that link remains to be understood and could be due to several possible factors, both cultural or biological. We simply don’t know at this stage. But hey, please feel free to jump the gun and say that racial mixing is just bad for everyone.

    Maybe humans do find dealing with diversity difficult. Why? Perhaps because social cohesion is built on a sense of common bonds. America suffered long and painful divisions along racial and ethnic lines that still run deep and are still very much alive. It is perhaps no surprise therefore that Putnam found the association that he did. And while racial diversity might be difficult to deal with, that in no way says that it SHOULDN’T be dealt with, that we should simply segregate our societies.

    But hey, don’t discuss the report with me or its implications, just slag off my competence.

    were talking about statistical inference, not first-order predicate logic.

    Yes, and my point is that some people will interpret the results exactly as if was predicate logic! They see ‘diversity predicts mistrust’ and they will read it as ‘diversity ALWAYS CAUSES mistrust’. In one sense they will be right, in that it will always cause SOME mistrust, but each example of this will be taken as further proof that diversity ALWAYS CAUSES mistrust’. I guess you would abhor this kind of reasoning as much as I do. And yet you still thought it necessary to attack my competence rather than object to exactly this kind of thinking!

    If you had some sort of a working knowledge about how scientific knowledge is built in the context of statistical analyses, based on Putnam’s paper you most definitely would not assert that the relationship is not causal. Quite the opposite, you would assert that based on the data presented in that paper, a causal relationship is likely.

    And still you carry on playing the man and not the ball. Actually, I asserted that it’s not causal because it’s not causal. And ‘likely’ still does not make it causal, even if it was 99.99% likely. You know this, and I know this. So again, you are agreeing while appearing to disagree. Fuck you!

    You know, living in Finland as a foreigner, one of the things that cannot escape your notice is that conversation typically centers around you being a foreigner, even while you have been here many years. A single point of difference in origin can become an axis for the entire relationship with professional colleagues, even close friends. Conversations can be restricted to talking incessantly about Finland and the UK as if these were homogenous holes, simply because of the idenfification of ourselves as members of those groups. And this continues even after being in Finland for a decade. From this I can quite clearly see that contact can reinforce existing notions of difference to the point where it is almost impossible to have a ‘normal’ contact.

    The implications of Putnam’s study are far from straightforward, and if you are suggesting they are, then really, you should stick to your own field of study.

    Doing a time series or a prospective cohort naturally provides more information about the relation between the predictor and the outcome variables.

    Actually, I understand that Putnam is trying to look at before and after scenarios for levels of social cohesion following targeted campaigns towards increasing civic participation, with the hypothesis that higher participation will increase levels of trust. He offers ‘civic participation’ as a necessary response to the strong tendency to ‘hunker down’. His approach really should enlighten you as to how to ‘interpret’ studies like this. You, like many, seem to think that the response to ‘negative’ news about immigration or diversity is to simply reject it; his view is that something should be done to counter it. I think his view is not poisoned by the kind of cultural pessimism that seems to inform your view. But then again, he’s a social scientist and you are not.

    However, it is theoretically and in practice extremely unlikely that the main result would reversed if you have a predictor with p < 0.001 in an extensively controlled cross-sectional model.

    Yep, ‘extremely unlikely’, but not certain. Yep, agreeing while appearing to disagree. Nowhere in this attempt to create the illusion of certainty will you find a space to reject my first and only claim on the methodology, which is that in a cross-sectional model, you cannot claim causality.

    And really, that isn’t the point. A relationship is clearly there. I have not denied and I do not seek to deny it. It is interesting. However, it is only a tiny piece of knowledge in regard to the whole phenomenon of racial interactions.

    Did you hear that? That was the sound of goalposts moving. Everybody is a young PhD student at some point. To satisfy your curiosity, that point in time was at the turn of the millennium.

    No goalposts moving. I accept your competence. I would have happily accepted your more precise and formal presentations on the nature of statistical inference, though I would still point out that nothing I stated has been shown to be wrong. For all the strength of likelihood you wish to assign to statistical inference, it is not a demonstration of a causal relationship. That was and is my point and you are in agreement with that. And yet in the course of revealing that agreement, you nevertheless saw fit to completely undermine my credibility to make any comment.

    Maybe you will actually come around to discussing Putnam rather than arguing that your expertise is greater than mine. I don’t doubt that it is. However, I do not think that I strayed beyond the bounds of my expertise in making the claims that I did to counter Elven’s assertions. On the contrary, you have agreed while doing your very utmost to appear to disagree. That in itself is disingenuous.

    At some point, when you get off your high horse, we can perhaps actually discuss the implications of Putnam.

  98. RacistReport.org (@RacistReport)

    Well, I am a Finnish citizen with foreign background, most of my education and professional career was in Finland. But there is no linear growth in professional career for immigrants in Finland no matter how much educated you are. This is based on facts, of all the people I knew in Finland over 20 years ago with immigrant background, most of them have moved away from Finland, I can count over 20 of them. It is also worth mentioning that most of these guys obtained their PhD’s in Finland and speaks fluent Finnish. Some of them with PhD’s were cleaners in Finland. Other half were Masters degree holders from Finnish top Universities, Helsinki University of Technology and Helsinki Universities….(with cleaning jobs in Finland) Simply could not do anything with their degrees in Finland. So, when people ask of facts and their isn’t any, It is because not many reseach have been funded in these area by the Finnish government.

    • Migrant Tales

      Hi RacistReport.org and we’re happy you found our blog, Migrant Tales.

      It’s sad what you report and we’ve seen it so many times happen in this country. Would you like to tell us more about your site and what its purpose is? I am certain that many of us, especially I, would be very interesting in hearing about racistreport.org.

  99. RacistReport.org (@RacistReport)

    Hi Migrant Tales, glad to meet you here: http://www.Racistreport.org is a mass movement for fight against racism, founded by Leonard Chijioke Raphael in August 2011.

    RacistReport.org is a citizens journalist approach on racist events in the World and a frontline movement that fights against racism from across the World. The site allows victims of racism across the World to report cases of racism, get legal aid, chat with other victims and get advice from our team of professionals around the World.

    With our computed racism analytics, we are able to acquire and monitor real time data on racism from across the World for statistics.

    Together we can uncover the true impact of racism on humanity and push for legislative changes around the World.

    Racistreport.org

    Email: info@racistreport.org

Leave a Reply