Reply to Re: Let's talk terrorism
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Especially since they're turning out to be from countries where most of the trouble stirs from. I'd have no problem if they were native British people. Or native Japanese people.
So what you're saying is that you're willing to accept refugees, as long as they don't come from dangerous places? Why exactly would people from Britain or Japan flee their country?
I call it "judging from experience"
Of course I don't know if what you describe is normal in Finland, but if it is, it certainly sounds like there needs to be more focus on integrating them into the society. As I wrote before, they need to adapt, and it should be part of the effort to help them (which is why they are accepted into the country) to make them fit in as well.
"If you move to Finland, you should live by Finland's customs, not by your own country's"
Yes, I think we all agree on that. You're saying that if something is wrong there, they should be kicked out of the country; I say that there should be more effort put into making that part work. These people are traumatized. Of course they will have mental issues. Instead of kicking them out at the first sign of that, they need help with it. But don't get me wrong: such help may not always be welcomed by them, and I think they should be forced to accept it. If they refuse to adapt, they are not welcome. But my experience is that this is not the case for most of them, and suggesting that all refugees are refusing to integrate just encourages hate and violence against them.
Taking our money
By being on welfare, I suppose?
taking our jobs
How do they do that while they are on welfare?
Also, people with jobs help the economy. If they do jobs in Finland, it helps Finland. There isn't a fixed number of jobs that if one person does something, someone else loses their job. If the economy grows, more jobs will be available in total and everyone benefits (if there is a good social system that ensures wages are high enough).
influential people are doing everything they can to paint the refugees in a good light
So how is it possible that they aren't succeeding? I've seen here what influential people can do: in this country most people aren't sure if climate change is real (let alone man made), even though they can see it happen every day. That's because the fossil fuel industry wants to make some money and don't mind destroying the planet for it. If all influential people in Finland were making this up, they would succeed and everyone would believe them.
Instead, it is obvious that some people, who you believe, are saying that every refugee is a problem. That they are on welfare while taking away jobs (that should set off some alarm bells).
What you're saying is that anyone from the middle east is automatically a criminal and there's nothing that can be done about it? So the only defense that you have as a country is to keep them out? If that means sending people back into a war zone, that's what you say should be done? Sending people into a war zone is a crime as far as I'm concerned. You need very strong evidence of your claim before doing that. And generalizing that everyone (or even a majority) from a certain region must be evil is literally unbelievable. That cannot be true. Don't you agree with that? And if you do, what am I misunderstanding about your position?
these "refugees" are practically constantly on TV, bragging about how much money they have, and how they're travelling left and right.
The people who decide what is shown on TV are very influential, don't you agree? How does this fit with your claim that they try to put the refugees in a positive light?
Also, why do you put refugees in quotes? Are the people you talk about not refugees, but just immigrants who have a similar skin color to the current refugees? Because for those people, why wouldn't they be rich? Also, if refugees have been in the country for a while, why wouldn't they be rich? You seem to say that if someone is a refugee, they must always remain poor. Why would that be true?
So what you're saying is that you're willing to accept refugees, as long as they don't come from dangerous places? Why exactly would people from Britain or Japan flee their country?
I call it "judging from experience"
Of course I don't know if what you describe is normal in Finland, but if it is, it certainly sounds like there needs to be more focus on integrating them into the society. As I wrote before, they need to adapt, and it should be part of the effort to help them (which is why they are accepted into the country) to make them fit in as well.
"If you move to Finland, you should live by Finland's customs, not by your own country's"
Yes, I think we all agree on that. You're saying that if something is wrong there, they should be kicked out of the country; I say that there should be more effort put into making that part work. These people are traumatized. Of course they will have mental issues. Instead of kicking them out at the first sign of that, they need help with it. But don't get me wrong: such help may not always be welcomed by them, and I think they should be forced to accept it. If they refuse to adapt, they are not welcome. But my experience is that this is not the case for most of them, and suggesting that all refugees are refusing to integrate just encourages hate and violence against them.
Taking our money
By being on welfare, I suppose?
taking our jobs
How do they do that while they are on welfare?
Also, people with jobs help the economy. If they do jobs in Finland, it helps Finland. There isn't a fixed number of jobs that if one person does something, someone else loses their job. If the economy grows, more jobs will be available in total and everyone benefits (if there is a good social system that ensures wages are high enough).
influential people are doing everything they can to paint the refugees in a good light
So how is it possible that they aren't succeeding? I've seen here what influential people can do: in this country most people aren't sure if climate change is real (let alone man made), even though they can see it happen every day. That's because the fossil fuel industry wants to make some money and don't mind destroying the planet for it. If all influential people in Finland were making this up, they would succeed and everyone would believe them.
Instead, it is obvious that some people, who you believe, are saying that every refugee is a problem. That they are on welfare while taking away jobs (that should set off some alarm bells).
What you're saying is that anyone from the middle east is automatically a criminal and there's nothing that can be done about it? So the only defense that you have as a country is to keep them out? If that means sending people back into a war zone, that's what you say should be done? Sending people into a war zone is a crime as far as I'm concerned. You need very strong evidence of your claim before doing that. And generalizing that everyone (or even a majority) from a certain region must be evil is literally unbelievable. That cannot be true. Don't you agree with that? And if you do, what am I misunderstanding about your position?
these "refugees" are practically constantly on TV, bragging about how much money they have, and how they're travelling left and right.
The people who decide what is shown on TV are very influential, don't you agree? How does this fit with your claim that they try to put the refugees in a positive light?
Also, why do you put refugees in quotes? Are the people you talk about not refugees, but just immigrants who have a similar skin color to the current refugees? Because for those people, why wouldn't they be rich? Also, if refugees have been in the country for a while, why wouldn't they be rich? You seem to say that if someone is a refugee, they must always remain poor. Why would that be true?
