“Jussi JHalla-aho: The crimes committed by the immigrants are different because their number can be influenced by immigration policy. Immigration to Finland is not a human right. The adverse effects of migration are a political choice, not fate.
Jussi Halla-Aho’s column: Bad immigration is a choice, not fate
I joined the Finns Party just under 13 years ago, in 2006. Throughout this time, the media and other parties have been pestering me and the Finns Party that we are talking way too much about immigration. When the suspicion of rape and exploitation by migrant men in December and January exploded on the scene in Oulu and Helsinki, the media and other parties have not spoken much about anything else but immigration, the Finns Chairman, Jussi Halla-Aho, writes in his column.
The events in Oulu are not the first of its kind in Finland or anywhere else in Europe. Systematic harassment has been reported, for example, from Lahti and Tampere, and not all cases, of course, end up in the public domain.
There also hasn’t been any new reactions that followed the events. The debate resembles a ritual that reproduces mandatory dialogues. The fascination with hypocrisy is why the problem has not been discussed before, even though everyone knows that attempts to speak on this issue have been knocked out by hysterical racist and fascist accusations. Condemning acts as abominable, just as if someone would not know them to be abominable.
It’s been repeated that you can’t come to Finland to commit a crime, although it’s quite clear that you can. There are accusations of “tightened” asylum policies and the frustration they have caused, even though at least some of the perpetrators had been granted asylum or even citizenship.
And of course, the Finns Party are using the tragedy, though it’s the only party with a consistent approach to the problem.
The debate that followed Oulu raises the question of what is actually populism. Is it keeping your position, even when it’s not fashionable, or sniffing public opinion accompanied by political flip-flops?
Why talk about immigrants and not about everything else?
It is also a compulsory ritual to repeat that Finnish men rape as well. Why should I talk specifically about the rape by immigrants or Muslims? For the sake of comparison, let’s ask a few other questions:
Why should we specifically talk about violence against women in relationships, when there is also violence against men in intimate relationships?
Why should we talk about the risks of smoking, when non-smokers are also diagnosed with lung cancer?
Why should I talk about drunk driving, when even sober-driven accidents?
Men are over-represented as perpetrators of violence in the relationships, smokers in lung cancer patients, and drunk drivers in driving accidents. They are risk groups. It is therefore advisable to target these measures first and foremost. In the same way, migrants are overrepresented in sex offenders. They too are a risk group.
The crimes committed by immigrants are also different because they can be influenced by immigration policy. Moving to Finland is not a human right but a privilege. The adverse effects of immigration are a political choice.
The crimes committed by asylum-seekers are, in a moral context, different, because these people have appealed to the Finnish people’s goodwill and willingness to help them. The only thing they can ask of them is respect for those who have offered them protection – in addition to all the material welfare.
All immigration should not be labeled
Many are justifiably worried that a small number of rotten eggs will label all immigrants as rapers. This is, however, effectively preventable by informing the public openly of what immigrant groups are overrepresented.
The majority of foreigners residing in Finland are Estonian and Russian, and the proportion of these groups in sex statistics is not distinguishable from that of the population. Nor the Chinese. The figures distort the fact that the Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis, Turks, and Syrians have a staggering over-representation.
The Swedes are also on the rise in sex crime statistics
An interesting detail is that Swedish citizens are the only European group in Finnish sex crime statistics of people from developing countries. The probable explanation is that they are mainly Iraqi people, Afghans, Somalis, Turks and Syrians who have got Swedish citizenship, who are living here in Finland with their relatives or acquaintances.
Reality is even more terrible because statistics only include foreign citizens as foreigners. Due to Finland’s alien citizenship policy, about a thousand Iraqis and Somalia become “Finns” a year. The consequence of this is that their making in the statistics becomes the work of Finns.
If you want to solve a problem, the first step is to identify and recognize the problem. From the point of view of crime and security, the problem is not immigration as a whole, but immigration from backward Islamic countries, mainly composed of young men.
This is also the part of immigration that is particularly detrimental to Finland’s public finances because the groups involved are very poorly employed. The employment rate of Iraqis, Somalis, and Afghans is between 10 and 20 percent from one year to the next, despite the scarce resources for integration.
How short is the voter’s memory?
In view of the proximity of the elections, politicians are panicking and throwing more ferocious proposals to eradicate sexual crime and solve the problems of immigration.
In November 2015, when the asylum seeker avalanche was at its peak, I went to report to the Finns parliamentary group what is happening in Europe and what solutions the other EU Member States have taken or implemented, and I made proposals what the Finns could demand, as a government party.
It is descriptive that none of our later-naïve ministers even bothered to show up. The then chairman of the group sent his representative to shoot down all the tightening proposals as being in violation of the Constitution or international treaties.
Now that there are a few months to the elections, we are suddenly prepared to change the constitution and break away from international agreements, at least in speeches. The parties, of course, understand that, when Parliament has two months of effective time left, nothing really can be done. The acts remain the responsibility of the next government and Parliament. It is therefore important who sits in the next parliament.
The problem did not arise by itself
The government parties, and partly the red-green opposition, rely on the bad memory of the voters. It is worth reminding them of the words, deeds, and omissions during the entire spring.
The problem is not born by itself. It is the result of a naive policy that disregarded their own citizens. Over 30,000 Arabs, Afghans and Somalia were left unhindered to march from Sweden across the border in autumn 2015.
Prime Minister Sipilä presented an open invitation to the entrants by promising them a house in Kempele . The then in-house minister Orpo said that no one can be stopped or returned, and that questioning the motives of the newcomers was racism . The Secretary of State for the Interior, Nerg, assured us that the backgrounds of each entrant are known.
Ironically, Kempele was the first to taste a new normal when two asylum seekers raped a 14-year-old girl this autumn . Since then, many have experienced the same fate. Or even killed as for example, in Kajaani , Pori, and inTurku.
It is also worth remembering that although the situation escalated in 2015, it was not born in 2015. Humanitarian immigration policy had sprouted and spread since the early 1990s, when the first Somalis arrived in Finland from the Soviet Union. Problems have accumulated and worsened over the years with the blessing of both bourgeois and leftist governments.
Change is possible but requires actions and no declarations
The good news is that you don’t have to. This development can be stopped and translated. But not with the populist declarations by which late-hosts now meet the airspace in their trouble, but with consistent, rational reforms. The basic Finns have presented them before the events in Oulu and offer them even after the events in Oulu:
Sweden is a safe country. People who come through it should not receive asylum applications, or when they are se´´deemed to be basically unfounded.
Many say that the right to seek asylum is a human right. In principle, this is the case, but the European and international system of agreements has collapsed at a time when immigrants crossing the Mediterranean have been uncontrolled, unregistered and in violation of the Dublin Regulation and the Schengen Borders Code to continue their travels from Italy and Greece towards the north. The right to seek protection cannot mean the right to asylum.
Finland grants a residence permit on the basis of subsidiary protection for four years at a time, while in most other countries it is issued for one year at a time. Finland must tighten its policy at least to the level of other European states.
Residence permits issued on the basis of protection must be consistently withdrawn if there is no longer any need for protection. The need for protection must also be re-examined whenever a temporary residence permit is renewed. It is a mockery for Finns that immigrants are traveling and vacationing in countries where they have fled in fear of their lives.
Citizenship criteria need to be tightened up. Citizenship must be made conditional on ten years of residence and the ability of the comer to support himself. It is blatantly contradictory that Finnish citizenship is so easy, even though the Finnish passport is only one of the strongest documents in the world as a travel document. Citizenship can also be canceled for serious crimes.
Finland should not provide interpreting services to people who have lived in the country for years. Such services maintain and promote the marginalization and bursting of immigrants, especially immigrant women at home.
People who are illegally staying in the country should not be offered public services such as Helsinki does. They attract undesirable immigration here.
The spiral appeal should be cut off
Those who have been denied a residence permit must be detained if they are not removed from the country, and refuse to leave. Detention is not about punishment or the desire to bully people. It is a question that if one can freely linger in Finland to cheat and take full advantage despite a negative asylum decision, it will attract the exploitation of the asylum system.
The appeal spiral must be cut off. It is ridiculous for a person to wait two years for his / her asylum application to be processed by the Immigration Service and administrative courts and, after a valid negative decision, to declare that he or she has turned into a homosexual or a Christian, when the drum starts.
Finland must engage in ambitious economic and regulatory cooperation with key countries of origin, such as Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan, so that as many people from these countries as possible can be returned to their homes in a controlled and dignified manner.
It is by no means desirable, natural or wonderful that there are large, growing and marginalized communities from distant countries in Finland. Return migration can be implemented to the benefit of all parties.
These are examples of measures that can be taken and the implementation of which the Finns intend to promote with the full assurance that we get from the voters in April.
More importantly, however, is the desire to do something. The desire to end harmful immigration. It still does not find enough in our political field. When the dust descends from Oulu and the elections are over, the old song begins again about the beauty of multiculturalism, the necessity of immigration and the pernicious nature of intolerance.