Comment: Thanks to JusticeDemon’s critical eye he was able spot one of the snow jobs of the True Finns: Their campaign manifesto on immigration policy does not differ from the present law and, as the article below states, not even their refugee policy from the three major parties: Kokoomus, Center Party and Social Democrats.
So what gives?
I believe that their lust for power and the public spotlight are so insatiable that they are ready to turn their backs on voters immediately after April 17. Their campaign manifesto is a very incriminating piece of evidence. It is a prelude to what we will see.
Do you agree?
____________
Perussuomalaisten turvapaikkapolitiikka ei juuri poikkea kokoomuksen, keskustan ja sdp:n ulkomaalaispolitiikasta.
To keep on reading click here.
The Worthless election promise? series in Saturday’s Helsingin Sanomat challenged PS Vice-Chairman Vesa-Matti Saarakkala to explain some of his party’s manifesto “commitments” in this area.
These included the factual assertion that “only a few countries” apply a quota refugee system. In fact a total of 24 countries, including at least ten European countries and the USA, receive refugee quotas through the UNHCR resettlement programme. Saarakkala’s reponse to this was “We weren’t looking for an exact figure. We just wanted to say that a very small proportion of countries have such a system.” [”Ei olla tarkkaa lukua lähdetty siihen hakemaan. Ollaan kuitenkin haluttu viestittää, että hyvin pienellä osalla maista on tällainen järjestelmä.”]
As indicated previously in this blog, the PS manifesto calls for the deportation of immigrants who have committed a serious criminal offence or repeatedly offended. This, however, is already public policy. Saarakkala’s reponse to this was “The practice has been a bit unclear. We wanted to stress that whether this happens or not, that is our opinion. It was our impression that there haven’t been enough [deportations].” [”Se käytäntö on ollut pikkaisen epäselvä. Haluamme korostaa, että tapahtui näin tai ei, näin on meidän mielipide. Meillä on ollut se käsitys, ettei [karkotuksia] ole tapahtunut riittävissä määrin.”]
The PS manifesto idea of cutting income support for former asylum seekers has also been discussed in this blog. HS points out that these permit holders are no longer asylum-seekers but residents of a local authority district with the associated rights and duties. HS then asks whether the PS manifesto proposal conflicts with the Equality Act. Saarakkala’s reponse to this was “It does conflict [with the Act], but then this means that we want to change that legislation. If one is a foreigner and with a residence permit, then that’s a different thing from a proper Finn” [”Se on ristiriidassa, mutta se tarkoittaa silloin sitä, että me halutaan muutoksia sinne lainsäädäntöön. Jos on ulkomaalainen ja oleskeluluvalla, se on eri asia kuin kantasuomalainen.”]
Please feel free to adjust my translations of these responses. It is my perception that PS candidates tend to drop into an unclear vernacular when answering straightforward analytical questions.
The first point as to whether 24 countries (or ten countries in Europe) can be called “a few” or “a very small proportion” is a matter of opinion.
The second point concerning the expulsion of offenders is interesting, as it seeks to capitalise on an alleged distinction between legislation and practice in the context of a parliamentary election. This betrays profound ignorance of the constitutional role of Parliament, as there is no lawful way to change administrative practices without changing the law. Saarakkala seems to imagine that the role of a government minister within a branch of public administration resembles that of the chief warden of a panopticon. Certainly since the constitutional reforms of the 1990s it is no such thing.
Administrative practices concerning deportation emerge through decisions that are based on legislation made by Parliament. It is the job of the administrative courts to ensure adherence to that legislation. Ministers can rant and rave all they like, but illegal deportation decisions will be struck down by the courts until the law is changed, and any extrajudicial conduct ordered by a Minister will see that Minister brought before the High Court of Impeachment.
The last answer from Saarakkala is a plain and open admission of the intention to legalise discrimination in social security provision. This would require Finland to change its constitution and renounce at least two mainstream international human rights instruments.
More generally, I get the very strong impression that these manifesto “commitments” were dreamed up in a suburban spit and sawdust hostelry ten minutes before closing time, and that the authors must be aware that their flight of fantasy will not stand up to serious analysis in the cold sober light of dawn.
Way to go JusticeDemon! I once had the opportunity to sit next to Sarakka on a panel. One of his first comments he made was: “These Muslims come to Finland don’t pay taxes and are demanding that mosques be built for them.” When I asked him if he wanted to change the constitution, because there would be unequal treatment of different religious groups and minorities, only silence answered my question. Moreover, Kari Rajamäki was on the panel and he and Sarakka seemed to belong to the same party even though the former was a Social Democrat and the latter a PS.