Posted on 07/13/2004 4:30:13 AM PDT by OldWNewW
REPAIRING YEARS OF ANTI-WESTERN PRACTISE IN NORDIC IMMIGRATION POLICY - THE PREVENTION OF FUTURE CONFLICT
"When they (the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina) opened their borders for immigration from our countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland), they weren't doing us any favours or simply being friendly; they merely acting in their own interest, regardless of how many of use emigrated".
"I have no sign that they (Americans, Canadians, Australians, Argentinos, etc.) are even interested in moving to the Nordic countries"
The comments above are simply a small sample of those received from various politicians and officials spoken with in countries such as Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. They also describe a phenomenon which many Americans are not aware of and which is directly detrimental to anyone in North America wishing to receive the same hospitality offered to Europeans and citizens of the Nordic countries in the New World during the early 1900's and even today!
Since the 1970's and 1980's, the bulk of de-facto immigration to the Nordic countries has been from Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa. Most have arrived under the rubric of refugee, though most of these "refugees" are not covered by the relevant UN conventions. Their costs have been covered by Nordic governments while they have been admitted to schools, social insurance schemes and assisted in finding jobs and housing. Westerners attempting to re-locate to these countries have shown a different type of hospitality ála "either you make it on your own, or your permit will be revoked!".
In the mid 1990's, Mauno Koivisto, President of Finland opened frontiers to "persons of Finnish extraction" wishin to "return" to the country. Most of the "returnees" were Russians from the former Soviet Union with no knowledge whatsoever of the Finnish or Swedish languages or the history or culture of their "homeland". This programme was officially open to people of Finnish extraction even in North America, yet it was kept very quiet in the West and those daring to attempt to utilise the programme in the West were put through a stringent bureaucratic process. The "returnees" from behind the Iron Curtain, came in droves and today number between 40 and 60 thousand (quite an immigration wave for a country of only five million). They make up the bulk of all immigrants to the country (under 2 percent of the population). Significant numbers of this group never integrated into Finnish society. Many even ended up building western outlets to the Russian mafia and otherwise ended up in prison and social care.
The social democrat reality in most of the Nordic countries since the 70's and 80's has been characterised by the 'guilty post-colonial conscience' described in the first chapter of this article. This implied a subtle favouritism towared Africa, Asia and even eastern Europe in the immigration policy of the day. The rubric "flykting/pakolainen/refugee" has proven an effective instrument for the execution of this favouritism- who could criticise these countries for accepting people in need of protection? Thus, the definition of refugees was left very diffuse indeed, so diffuse one can only speculate what type of danger a "refugee" is in when he can spend his vacation each year in the very country he "fled from". Such cases are not at all uncommon today in Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
Yet westerners were given a different treatment. One example of the different concepts of hospitality in the Nordic-North American access is the amnesty phenomenon:
In 1986 literally hundreds of Nordic citizens were found to be "overstayers" in the US. Many had jobs and even property. Most were given leave to stay in the ensuing amnesty issued by the US government. Argentina has also applied this programme once or twice. Only recently a Norwegian citizen convicted of growing cannibis and threatened with deportation from the US was granted leave to stay due to the time she had been in the country. Last year a citizen of Peru, never convicted of any crime, posessing fluency in Swedish and having a job as an elementary school teacher was deported from Sweden after having lived in the country for over nine years. At the moment, it would appear that no such amnesty has ever been granted to westerners in the Nordic countries.
Today, only a handfull of non-EU westerners can immigrate to Europe and in particular the Nordic countries without having to prove descent or "marry in" to these societies. One might ask: were the Norwegians, Swedes, Finns or Danes asked whether they had American ancestors or spouses before they were allowed to immigrate? The problem is not only Nordic. Much could be done in New World to de-bureaucratise intra-west immigration and even encourage it as an alternative to the so-called refugee scheme.
The problem with the Nordic countries is in incipient egotism on the part of countries once assisted, countries now seemingly devoid of any knowledge of historical and cultural facts. The Nordic countries and their politicians appear unwilling to recognise the special relation between these countries and the US, Canada, Australia and other countries to which nearly a million Norwegians, Swedes, Finns and Danes immigrated and made new lives. It would appear that their politicians have been swept way by some sorded political romanticism which favours distant and exotic cultures. The Nordic stance on this issue can be briefly described as follows:
1) They only have a moral responsibility or debt to thenselves, Europe and the poor countries of Africa and Asia
2) They helped the New World by immigrating, yet they do not wished to be "burdened" by western immigrants, unless these have skills of interest to the current government
3) Westerners don't wish to immigrate to the Nordic countries (appears to be wishfull thinking rather than a statement of facts)
4) We have a right to decide our own immigration policy (apparently an argument used when losing a debate, usually without continuing to the next logical step which is: You also must live with the political consequences arising from the manner in which you use your rights)
5) We will treat non-westerners and westerners equally if we open our borders to non-EU immigration (Answer: you already discriminate in favour of non-western immigration de-facto via the "refugee" scheme, while being more than willing to deport non-criminal western overstayers who could support themselves and have lived in the countries for many years).
What is the answer? How should the New World respond?
My personal view is the following:
1) Publicise and discuss the issue in detail, particularly within media and diplomatic circles
2) Draft plausible programmes to alleviate the the anti-western bias in Nordic immigration policy
3) Negotiate the issue at presidential/prime ministerial level with the EU and the Nordic council
4) If this does not succeed, place temporary restrictions on Nordic immigration to the New World
5) If this does not succeed, discontinue the green cards of citizens of these countries present in Canada, US, Australia, etc. and revoke the citizenship of dual citizens who have reclaimed their Nordic citizenship.
The above can only be achieved by active lobbying and good information as to the policy realities on in both the New and Old Worlds!
"I have no sign that they (Americans, Canadians, Australians, Argentinos, etc.) are even interested in moving to the Nordic countries"
That makes two of us.
Hmm. Sounds like some people have been listening to
Art Bell a little too often...
No Art Bell listener here.
I just hate socialists and the cold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.