Illegal immigration in Finland and the European Union

The approval on June 18 by the European Parliament (click on T6-0293) of a common EU policy on illegal immigration is going to fail for a very simple reason — there is a market for these types of immigrants and because they provide bad employers a chance to cheat the system and slash overheads. The EU has an estimated 8 million illegal immigrants.

In sum, the stricter stance adopted by the EU Parliament is nothing more than a red herring, a misleading clue to a very complex problem.

As you know, two more directives are also awaiting approval by the EU Parliament: 1) promote legal skilled immigration through through the so-called “Blue Card” directive; and 2) punish employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Just like some employers are hiring and exploiting illegal immigrants in the EU, politicians in the region are bringing up the issue by promoting ineffective get-tough stances to score political brownie points from their voters. They dare to take such a cowardice stance because those they attack do not have the rights to defend themselves nor do they vote. It is like a giant bullying a crippled midget.

If I were serious about clamping down on illegal immigrants, I’d go after the businesses and the criminal gangs that assist these people. Why don’t politicians get as tough on these big and small businesses? A little bit of investigative journalism could reveal a lot.

The first time I met an illegal immigrant in Finland was in the 1980s. He was a Mexican cook who was brought from his native country to work and be exploited by a popular Helsinki restaurant at the time.

While we should follow laws, what happens if the laws we pass are flawed and create a broken immigration system that permits many companies in the EU to operate with impunity in exploiting undocumented workers? What about if these laws cause human rights violations and encourage countries with questionable immigration policies to lower their standards, as Amnesty International pointed out.

The United States is a good example of how tough immigration laws can create a mess. Here is what an International Herald Tribune editorial wrote about illegal immigration on July 22, 2008:

There is nothing good about America’s merciless campaign of immigration enforcement. But at least there are emerging signs of resistance from one of the most important players in the debate: employers…

…But business has begun pushing back. In some states, business groups have helped to kill tough immigration bills. They argue that they need workers, and that it is too hard to avoid hiring undocumented ones, and that ill-conceived laws go overboard in punishing well-meaning companies and their legal employees…

…If America is every going to emerge from the immigration chaos, it will be because business interests finally joined the fight.

Let’s hope that when they fight, they lobby against abusing immigrants.

EU laws will probably face the same fate as punitive immigration laws in the United States because, like it or not, illegal immigrants offer an economic incentive for the region. While the new EU directive gives police greater detention powers, up to 18 months — it still falls far short from resolving the matter because it does not address the issue effectively.

Where will Finland get foreign workers?

I took part in a very interesting seminar in June on foreigners in Finland. Here are some conclusions from that seminar on what real challenges Finland faces with respect to its aging population and luring foreign workers to the country.

1) It will be VERY difficult for Finland to attract qualified labor from other countries. Remember, there are many countries in Europe that ALSO competing to get foreign workers.

2) The only foreigners that Finland could attract could be from the Ukraine and Belorus.

3) The difficulty of securing foreign workers in FInland IS a threat to its future economic growth.

4) Policy makers who draft Finland’s immigrant policy do not understand the importance of immigration and how it can contribute to Finland’s development.

Present debate on immigration issues in Finland is at the diaper stage. The prevailing attitude appears to tilt towards arguing why it is such a bad matter without grasping the real issues.

A lot of matters will have to change in Finland before greater number of foreigners come to work in the country. The indifference and racism of some Finns does not hurt these foreigners because they can always find work in other countries.

In the end, these attitudes only end up damaging Finland.

Turning naivety on Finland into action

Like many second-generation Finns that lived abroad, I too hoped to move back to live in Finland one day.

While the decision to move back was an easy one, I encountered my first setback when I applied for a residence permit. In the late-1970s, Finland had a pretty draconian view of who was and was not a Finn.

Even though I had a Finnish mother and had spent most of my childhood and adolescent summers in the country with my grandparents, I was treated by the law like a foreigner with no rights. The first residence permit I got was for three months, then it was extended for six and later on for two years.

The treatment I got from the authorities, and those that were enforcing it at the Aliens’ Office, forced my naivety of Finland to vanish rapidly. A woman who worked at the Aliens’ Office once snapped at me, when I protested at the unfair treatment I was getting.

“You’re not a Finn!” she said, adding I had no bonds to the culture!

Certainly I wasn’t a Finn, officially, but that’s not how I felt.

Who is a Finn anyway? Who decides? Is it a passport? Language? What about if you’re deaf? Is it culture? Or does it boil down to a deep-rooted feeling of “where one feels he is from?”

Many challenges await Finland as we race deeper into the 21st century. One of the greatest of these is learning how to accept others from different backgrounds and use their synergies to strengthen and forge our sense of Finnish identity.

There is ample room for people from other national backgrounds to live in Finland and be accepted and encouraged to feel that they are a part of a noble project we call Finland. In this country of the future, Finland will prosper.

Some reasons behind Finland’s strong anti-immigrant stance

Having lived in Finland on and off for 30 years, I have come to some explanations why some Finns feel so strongly about immigration.

I could give you the usual explanations: Finland has had few immigrants, the climate, difficult language, the culture, lack of jobs etc…

These are the most common explanations that make us go around in circles and stop those most critical Finns on immigration to see the other side of the issue.

One of the reasons, which is rarely looked at more deeply, is Finland’s suspicion of Russians. While there are a lot of reasons that justify such a stance, it keeps our view on things very limited. It confines us in a small town were some of us only have the ability to see 50km or 100km from where we live.

Some of us still do not believe the Continuation War (1941-44) ended close to 64 years ago and our “special relationship” with the former Soviet Union finished in the early 1990s.

Let me get to the point:

1) The reason why the number of foreigners dwindled after the Second World War was because of our relationship with the USSR. We did not have a refugee policy because asylum-seekers from the Soviet Union were supposed to be returned to Russian authorities with no respect for their human rights.

2) Finland was in constant threat, and extremely concerned, by the influence and threat the Soviet Union posed. Finland could not become a haven – like Germany – for anti-Soviet propaganda. Accepting refugees from the USSR would have put Finland’s independence in jeopardy.

3) If we look at our stance towards outsiders, I believe it stems a lot from our difficult relationship with the Soviet Union. Some despise Russians so much that we do not even want to buy ceded territories like Karelia because that would imply taking in a large Russian-speaking minority.

4) A good example of this fear and suspicion is that we have scores of contingency plans for thousands, maybe tens of thousands of Russians overrunning Finland. There are many examples of poorer countries living next to richer ones where such fears are not an issue.See Mexico versus the United States, Bolivia versus Argentina, Indonesia versus Australia…

5) Could it be that we are still building a national identity after 1917 that has as its mentors the threats of the last century? Are the police and civil servants responsible for handling immigrant affairs still living in the in the cold war era? Where they junior civil servants back then and now are in senior positions?

Conclusion: We need a totally new way of seeing Finnish culture, where one of its main pillars will be a more open society to outsiders. It will be a culture that does not see the world through myopic eyes but through very open ones. A society were racism has very little space to breed and grow. A country where everyone can grow and live in dignity.

When in Finland do as the Finns do…

I read an interesting post in Svenskfinland titled, “When in Rome, do as the Romans,” and it set me thinking.

The post continues: “…in other words, that integration should mean that migrants to Finland so quickly as possibly forget their own background and take on entirely a Finnish lifestyle – essentially abandoning or replacing their own cultural values and taking on ours completely. This argument comes up in comments to Migrant Tales and in many other online and offline debates on immigration and integration policy.”

While there are many Finns such as Svenskfinland who think differently, I would like to ask those who believe this form of “integration or bust” to tell me how it works. How do you integrate non-Finns to become 100% Finns and throw away their culture(s)?

I wonder what my late father would say about so-called 100% integration? He never learned to speak English well not because he did not want to, but because he did not agree with many US values. Not speaking flawless English was his way of protesting against other values. Have you ever wondered why Blacks, Mexicans, Finns, Italians speak a foreign language differently in a foreign country? Possibly it is a way to identify with a certain national group.

I’m also thinking of the hundreds of thousands of first-generation Finns that moved to the Americas. I remember in my own study on the Finns of Argentina, where there were first- and even second-generation Finns who had lived almost all their lives in Argentina but never learned to speak Spanish like the majority culture.

A question: Why do some think that it is OK for a foreigner to give up his culture but consider it “high treason” if that Finn living abroad threw away his culture? Why hasn’t Finland done away with the Saami, Swedish-speaking Finns and other groups?

The answer: My father grew up in the United States and educated himself by going to university WITHOUT giving up his culture and values. The United States gave him an opportunity and he made the best of it. Southern Californian society was also tolerant enough of people who came from different cultural and national backgrounds.

The argument that foreigners should give up their cultures to become Finns is preposterous. It would never worked and is doomed to failure. It is the answer to a segregated society full of complex rules of exclusion and inclusion.

What IS an effective way of integrating people? In my opinion, you cannot force integrating anyone. But one can inspire others to integrate, if they want.

If a society expresses outright suspicion, hostility and places a bunch of impossible so-called “integration” tests on its new inhabitants, it will have very few people wanting to become a part of it.  Immigrants are people and, like the inhabitants of the host country, work to help create economic growth.

Towards an effective immigration policy in Finland

It is very easy to complain about why Finland should be reticent or more open about foreigners moving to the country to plug the ever-growing labor shortage and arrest the aging process of the Finnish population.

If I could lay the foundations of Finland’s new immigrant policy, I’d make the following recommendations:

1) Decide once and for all that Finland needs foreigners.

2) Accept that foreigners are a POSITIVE matter for Finnish society. Finnish culture — like the cultures the foreigners represent as well — will benefit and grow by living in the same country in a society that has become a beacon of hope for many down-trodden countries. The success — not the marginalization — of a foreigner will benefit Finland.

3) Some Finns’ views that integration is a one-way street is the surest way to create a society of insiders and outsiders. This will undermine Finland. Finnish culture and society has the means to inspire other national groups to take part in it.

4) As a result of the foreigners and especially their children and grandchildren, Finnish culture will enrich itself as a result. It will become stronger.

5) Foreigners, like Finns, have to be given opportunities to grow and develop. Like Martin Luther King said: a person should be weighed by his character NOT by his skin color. Like Finns, foreigners have the ability to bring new ideas. New ideas work if they are effective and successful.

6) Since the above-mentioned factors are in short supply these days — albeit changing slowly — there has to be a totally different view and attitude to the mindset. Without them we will fail miserably.

Finnish immigration policy is lost in time

Every country has a sensitive nerve. Find and touch it and you will hear pain – or outrage. In the US it is Washington’s unilateral approach to foreign policy, accepting that it was a crime against humanity to drop two atom bombs on Japan, in Spain it is the pillaging of Latin America from the 16th century, in France it is accepting that French culture has been relegated to a second-class global status, in Argentina it is being an animal rights advocate and in Germany it is exposing in great detail the crimes committed against the Jews and other nationalities during the Nazi regime.

What is Finland’s vulnerable nerve? In my opinion it is having a totally new look at Russia and immigration in general. Specifically, seeing these two latter matters as an opportunity – not as a gas pump to feed one’s nationalism and an opportunity to exploit to the maximum.

Those who know little about Finland will usually claim that the country has been hardened by its uneasy relationship with its giant eastern neighbor Russia. Three terrible wars (Civil, Winter and Continuation) shaped how some Finns saw the outside world. Basically it was seen as a threat compared with being an opportunity.

If anything, Finnish immigration policy, especially after the Second World War, reflects this attitude. Imagine, if the “white” Russians have caused so much harm to Finland, what kind of a unknown threat would other cultures pose on the country? Finland’s attitude towards outsiders had also been expressed in its antiquated foreign investment laws that prohibited foreigners from owning stakes in key industries such a forestry, own land etc. The law, which came into force in 1939, was only thrown into the trashcan of history after Finland became a EU member in 1995.

Even though I have a lot of hope that matters will eventually change for the better in Finland, I’m not holding my breath. Many of the policy makers who are now drafting Finland’s immigration and multicultural policy grew up during the cold war era, when Finland walked a very thin geopolitical line. Another factor that has kept Finland’s immigration policy lost in time is that it is guided mostly by nationalist emotions. How many foreigners or sons of foreigners wield enough power in Finland to influence such decisions? Very few – if none. The situation is a bit like being a white racially ignorant social worker from Alabama offering advice to Blacks in Harlem. The best people to help such Blacks are the Blacks from Harlem.

To conclude, Finland’s stance and policy on immigration is like the internationalization that Finnish companies underwent in the 1980s. They became “international” companies but had few if any non-Finns working for them.