The Perussuomalaiset (PS) party’s municipal election program recommends that municipalities should not accept refugees because the best way to help people fleeing strife is in refugee camps bordering these war-ravaged countries.
This stand by the PS is so extreme that many PS municipal candidates have not endorsed it except for Counterjihadists like PS MP James Hirvisaari (see question 3).
The fact that the PS recommends municipalities not to accept refugees is a clear example of how the party uses opportunistically and shamelessly the immigrant-refugee card to lure votes. Like its anti-EU line, its anti-immigration and anti-Islam stands attract votes.
Dadaab in Kenya is the world’s biggest refugee camp that houses over 400,000 refugees.
Using PS populist election rhetoric about refugees, the question we should ask is if refugee camps are effective and humane places to help people.
Take a look at a video clip of the Dadaab camp to arrive at your own conclusions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlHWHLG_pds
Eritrean refugees in Sudan are another sad reminder of people who have lived in camps for 30-40 years.
Click here to see video clip on the forgotten Eritrean refugees of Sudan.
Well the PS party careless about these poor hungry people, hell, they don’t even care the situation of Somali people living in Finland, they want to get rid of us here too, even though we’ve been living here more than two decades and build lives. Most of PS party members and their voters have no humanity left in them, aslong as they are good and surrounded with wealth than the rest of the word does not matter. This has been seen over and over again, but they really don’t understand that, if other people suffer than suffering is going to catch up on them too, the whole world is connected, if we don’t help these people then it’s going to have effect on our lives and way or another.
D4R
This is absolutely true. The world is increasingly a smaller place, and the West has made a stand in upholding a concept of UNIVERSAL human rights. The idea is simple, everyone has those rights, regardless of where they are born, what race, ethnicity or religion they are born into, and regardless of the what despotic governments might do to violate those rights. It has been ethically and politically massive step forward in the evolution of human societies to establish this human rights framework.
It was on this framework that the rights of refugees and those fleeing persecution were drafted. This doesn’t provide for automatic rights of citizenship, but what it does provide for is humane treatment of refugees and a responsibility to consider the wellbeing of those people that make it into our borders. It is an absolutely underestandable fact that people flee war zones. It is also a fact that if you are going to have to give up your home, you are going to try to make a life for yourself in a country that is stable and developed, as much for your children’s future as anything.
I think that PS are right in recognising the basic principle that bringing peace and development to those parts of the world that have given rise to the highest numbers of refugees is a priority and the long-term solution. The problem is that they only pay lip service to this principle, while in fact opposing any increase in the money given in development aid. Give them rice is about as sophisticated as it seems to get for them when it comes to undertanding the problems of displacement.
Europe needs more manpower, at least in the short- and mid-term, and so an increase in immigration is viewed as one method of achieving economic growth. Most balanced reports show a small but real net benefit economically, while typically not taking account of the economic shortfall of not filling that labour gap with immigrants. So, on the face of it, we can afford and should even welcome an immigration policy that benefits us and benefits refugees/immigrants. Clearly there are limits, and clearly it is the responsibility of governments (and not immigrants) to ensure that the rate of immigrant transfer is managed in such a way that it is affordable and efficient. On the whole, you would say that this works.
The problems of immigration are typically problems of poverty, not problems of ‘multi-‘ culture, but just ‘culture’! That the poorest carry the hightest employment insecurity and social and health risks is not surprising, but it is a reflection of OUR society’s basic values and ethics. If we allow this kind of poverty that affects a great deal more Finns than it does foreigners in terms of actual numbers to exist in exchange for flexible labour markets and economic competitiveness in a de-regulated globalised market, then that’s our choice. But blaming poor people or immigrants for that kind of social structure is totally dishonest. Our policy choices in the last 15-20 years have brought growth, bust and even greater gaps between rich and poor, i.e. greater inequality. The answer on the Far Right is to blame the immigrants!
We can talk all we want about the successes of Finnish society and development, but it’s looking at how we treat the most vulernable members of our society that best reflects our intellectual, emotional, and ethical maturity as a nation.
Clearly the ethics of PS are feeble and immature. Their attitude is defended as ‘charity starts at home’, while effectively denying certain members of the existing Finnish ‘family’ the right to call Finland their home. If that ‘charity that starts at home’ is so utterly dysfunctional, then there is little chance that charity abroad is going to be any more effective.
Well said Mark. Always sharp on making points. I sign to what you said.
We should remember that there are just too many poor and hungry people in the world to help them all. Finland and even all western countries combined, are just too small compared to them and their huge birth rates, that we could provide any meaningful help. And if we allocate some amount of money for helping poor people, we can feed much more poor people in poor countries than bringing them in Finland end feeding them here, where living is much more expensive.
And I don’t feel that Finland has caused their problems. And at the moment Finland pays about 1 billion euros to help poor people in abroad even though Finland has to take almost 10 billion euros of extra loans each year. So we are really paying that support to poor countries by taking loan – and we cannot continue forever living by loaned money which is increasing much faster than GDP. And there seems to be no end to the needs of poor people and our help might even make the problems worse as their help the poor population to grow even bigger.
OK fair enough, you don’t want them more here in Finland, then what about the ones who lived more than two devades and build lives in Finland? why is’t that the party you vote for is so hostile and racist towards them? why is’t that the party you vote for wants to make difficult for the lives of imigrants already living in Finland? why is’t that the party you vote for are full of nazis?
PS Voter
And whose intelligence are you insulting now? Nice to start a discussion with a straw man, always bodes well.
How old are you? 18 years old? This almost doesn’t deserve an answer. Meaningful help comes mostly in the form of development projects, that is providing institutional and administrative expertise to help developing countries establish the political infrastructure that is a prerequisite to economic and social development.
Birth rates. Somalia is listed as second highest birth rate by the World Bank. It also has the world’s highest ranking of under-5 mortality. Please, do some research next time before you come on here spouting your bigoted and naive opinions on developing countries.
Much of that money pays Finnish experts to provide advice to those poor people. Likewise, a portion of the money that Finland borrows is loaned out to other countries at higher interest rates than what we pay to borrow at.
Just a refresher course for you on economic history: Finland has gone from being a rural and fairly backward backwater of Europe into a leading and advanced economy in less than 50 years. How do you think that happened? By making small and yet significant advances in social and economic planning. This is exactly the path that developing nations are on now, except that today, they do it under the full glare of the world’s global media, unlike in Finland’s early days.
Talking through your arse, I’m afraid. Finland actually receives a great deal of money (which pays salaries of Finnish workers) through the European social fund, and 7th Framework program that finances Finland’s consultation work in developing countries. Not only that, but increasing links between Finnish institutions and developing countries invariably lead to greater economic ties between those nations too. In other words, think of it not as a cost, but as an investment.
Your naivety about these matters demonstrates that some voters haven’t a clue about politics and yet still get to vote, a point you were all too eager to make on another thread, while generally belittling the intelligence of Finland’s immigrant community. PS Voter? Yep, you certainly are!
My personal opinion is that they should be treated fairly. I don’t wish to see ghettoes or some other serious social problems developing in Finland which is something that unfair treatment or too rapid immigration will cause.