By Enrique Tessieri

The opportunity to make political capital out of immigrants, refugees and asylum-seeker has proven irresistible to some politicians ranging from the True Finns to Social Democrats. Certainly on this list you will find politicians from all of Finland’s major and minor parties.

It’s pretty clear that the election in April will be dominated by immigration and refugees. The answer is simple: immigrants and refugees are easy targets and they awaken voters’ passions even if 2.9% of the population in Finland are foreigners.

A recent review of Milla Hannula’s book, Maassa maan tavalla, by Helsingin Sanomat blasts her arguments to pieces and with it the central argument of the so-called “immigration critics.” The daily states, correctly, that being an “immigration critic” is only a word hiding anti-immigration sentiment attempting to make xenophobia acceptable.

We at Migrant Tales had spotted the red herring of the “immigration critics” a long time ago.

It is sad but never in the history of Finland have so many politicians jumped on the “immigration critic” bandwagon and appealed to the worst in Finns: blatant racism and hatred of people in need.

When the True Finns’ bubble bursts there will be a lot of angry voters because they will have noted that they have been taken for a ride.

It will be the day when these so-called “immigration critics” will lose face among the voters for good.

By Enrique Tessieri

Pekka Siikala is a blogger of the Green Party who writes stinging commentary about anti-immigration groups in Finland.  In his latest blog on Uusi Suomi, Three type of immigration critics (Kolmen sortin maahanmuuttokriitikoita), is no exception.

(I personally don’t use the term “immigration critic” because it is a red herring that hides the true nature of the beast: anti-immigration and Islamophobia in the most extreme cases. Click here to get a better explanation in Finnish.)

The most visible of the three groups cited by Siikala are the ones that see religion as the key issue. This groups, led by Jussi Halla-aho and James Hirvisaari, hate Islam and in practice Somalis. He considers this group to be the most dangerous to Finland because it is made up of religious fanatics.

The second group comprises of those that simply fear foreigners. Their main argument hinges on skin color and dress. Like the first group, this one is also highly suspicious of Muslims and Somalis. Their favorite motto is “conform to our country or leave.”

The third group is worried about the chances of immigrants adapting to Finland. They are critical about immigrants moving to our country because they believe that we  do not have the resources to integrate them in our society. This group is less visible and the smallest of the three mentioned by Siikala.

In my opinion, there are two big groups concerning those that take part in the immigration debate: those who see immigration as beneficial/positive and those that see it as a threat/negative.  The arguments that ensue from these two views are only “background information” supporting the former or latter group’s stance directly or indirectly.

Do you agree?