Posted by: bringitup | September 15, 2010

The weak argument: “Finns did also immigrate once…”

The most tiresome argument in the immigration debate is the one that focuses on the Finnish immigration mainly to North America and Sweden.

The difference is huge which the multiculturalists don’t want to admit:

In the immigration to Sweden mainly during the 1950s-70s:

Finns went to Sweden to work – in many cases were  Finns hired through Swedish companies whereafter they moved.

-The cultural problems didn’t exist due to the simple fact that Finns had a Western view of the world.

-Finns weren’t illiterate like many of the third world immigrants that come here.

-Finns didn’t get stuck on welfare, neither did they pull all their relatives to Sweden to have them supported by the Swedish state

-Though not as rich and developed as Sweden, Finland had in 1950 a GDP per capita which was only about 50% less than Sweden had: 4131 $ for Finland and 6738$ for Sweden which put them on 15th and 7th spot in the world respectively – in other words were both nations highly developed at that time.

-Finns assimilated within years, not like now when politicans and multiculturalists hope that the 2nd generation immigrants would assimilate. Neither were Finns rioting in Sweden and although I wouldn’t doubt that Finns were overrepresented in crimes, historical crime-figures from Sweden show that the boom in immigration didn’t have a similar boom in crime as it has today.

-The Finns didn’t turn their areas in to “Finns only”-ghettos where normal Swedes were threattened.

The children that immigrated to Sweden during the Second World War:

-They were finnish children aged 1-14 (!), not like today when young men whose average age is probably closer to 25 but claim that they are 16.

Finnish war-refugee children vs today’s Somali refugee-“children”

-For example the Somalians that come to Finland have already left Somalia behind for a 2nd country, normally Ethiopia and Kenya, which means that they aren’t more threattened by war than the Kenyans or the Ethiopians. The problem is of course that those nations don’t have generous welfare policies.

Finnish immigration to North America:

-These were young men who went to work there, in other words not to live on welfare, especially as such a thing was inexistent. You did in other words have to become a productive citizen or starve.

-The massive cultural differences didn’t exist.

-The Finns assimilated within years and were soon working American citizens.

(And many more points listed above with the Finnish immigration to Sweden)

Despite this the foolish multiculturalists either don’t see the holes in their argument or then they just ignore it because of their own multicultural agenda.

Those who critizise immigration focus on the “humanitarian” (welfare) immigration which has got nothing to do with working immigrants.



  1. “The Finns didn’t turn their areas in to “Finns only”-ghettos where normal Swedes were threattened.”

    the author should read Susanna Alakoski’s “Svinalängorna”, a story of a Finnish ghetto in Sweden.

  2. Looking at the development of violent crimes and destruction of properties and infrastructiure, as well the development of large ethnic enclaves in Sweden, as compared to total immigration during both periods I can safely say that it wasn’t even a fraction of as bad back then as it’s now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: