Yeah, took me a while to consider whether I bother responding here.
First of all, call me racist all you want. On the questions on why do I employ black humor to this incident is because that's the most reasonable reaction to the stupidity unfolding. Additionally, making political leaders look laughable is the last thing they want.
What it comes to no-go-zones, you'll find plenty of them in Sweden, Belgium and France. One is forming in Eastern Helsinki too. It's also a first time I'm hearing the argument they would not exist. Do not exist, like really
? Go travel there yourself
then, it should not be a problem. Better yet, go live
there yourself and do not ask other people to tolerate (and pay) things for you. I'm sure you can make a big difference on arbitrating between the local immigrant community and the natives living there.
What it comes to other arguments such as "studies have shown that when the income disparity and socio-economic status are corrected, the refugees and immigrants obey law better than natives", pretty much all I can say is:
I do not understand how this kind of study can first of all satisfy any kind of scientific scrutiny, and how arguments such as those could possibly be accepted in peer-reviewed papers. And I have reviewed some myself so I'm actually aware of the process. No doubt the quality of peer reviewing has gone downhill in the last decade, but then again, self irony is an art in itself.
So what's the logical problem in the study? Well, in Physics you can reduce or remove certain factors from the observed results and can expect the effect to work. This is because a large fraction of things in nature are really deterministic. Unfortunately what I see in the above is a generalization of something like a reference measurement in Physics being applied to something like Social Studies. Unfortunately, it does NOT work like that. What you have a statistical process, and applying similar kind of deterministic reduction is actually not possible there at all. I'm also sort of surprised that I need to explain this, since that should really be self-evident. Then again, the Humanistic Sciences never were that good with Maths or Statistics (neither are Physicists but we know that). You'd actually need a reference to do this, but that reference cannot exist as people are individual and not cloned. In any other scenario, you're faced with a number of variable you cannot possibly control, enter the statistics.
So what you have are really only the statistical facts. The undisputed facts there are that people with Middle Eastern origin (arrived early 2000s) are 20 times more likely to commit violent crimes than the natives. Additionally, they are also like 6 times more likely to hit unemployment (17 % of Iraqis are employed, Finnish average 75 %, topped by Nepalese at 85 %, these being Finnish statistics). These are hard facts. Now what I'm seeing is an attempt to explain that these people would have a potential to be something had they been given a different start. It could, or could not happen, but it doesn't take away the fact that the people are here and now with their actual background.
Additionally, it is disheartening to see the happy integration songs being sung once again when the actual integration results are lacking in the EU. France, Sweden and UK come to mind first. People are really quick to point that the natives in the countries are preventing the happy integration being racistic, yet this applies a double-standard towards the refugees/immigrants. They are apparently incapable of wrong doing, (it is really considered as if they were autistic), like being racistic themselves (which is evidenced by rising Anti-Semitism in Sweden). So is it really so that EVERY European country where a substantial amount of immigrants have flowed is racistic by nature, or is it so that the immigrants do not want to integrate themselves? I don't actually believe EU nations being racistic from what I've seen - there's plenty of people from all over the globe are successful in these countries, so I'm inclined to believe that the implied racism is actually a minor thing, and the far bigger thing are the attitudes of the immigrants themselves.
The next question you'll have to ask is whether there is really a difference on the people arriving to the US and the EU. There is, as demonstrated in the earlier thread by MP-Ryan. North American countries actually employ a much more stringent border control (and yes, felt that personally, I need to travel to the US next week - again). There's no screening in Europe, and what we are actually seeing here are the refugees lying their name, lying their age, lying their education and lying their occupation. Great start in a culture that respects honesty, I've to say - had they said sheep herder I'd value that actually far better. If we were to believe all they said, a substantial amount of Iraqi police force is actually residing in this country. When tested in reality, the results are appalling: 75 % of the immigrants that tried to answer to the questionnaire could not read (study performed in a couple of reception centers), and those who could had substantial difficulty filling out a form in their own NATIVE language. While it could be argued that the sampling is not cohesive of the 30 000 arrived persons (actually 22 000, 8 000 have left, next winter is likely going to halve remainder), the counter argument is that the people arrived randomly and were divided randomly to different reception centers.
Interestingly, it also seems that the number of actually highly educated people is greater in earlier countries in the refugees path. If I didn't know better, I'd expect the EU countries in south have done some cherry picking of the immigrants themselves and then complain to us of not dealing with current bunch properly. So we are faced with a bunch of 30-40 year old illiterate people here who cannot possibly be of any use to Finnish society. Why? We have 600 000 unemployed of our own already. The only way I can see immigrants could possibly contribute is that the legalization was changed, but then you are actually favoring those immigrants over the 600 000 unemployed people who HAVE paid their taxes, making it positive discrimination. Not a good idea, nor is it morally sound. This is actually the root cause of "racism" you'll see in the Nordic Countries. But guess what? The unemployed natives also get flak for living on welfare and not contributing.
This begs the question why is the immigration to the EU countries so much hoped for by the politicians? The only rational answer I can think of is the dwindling birth rates in the EU countries. You could say "because we want to be nice" as a reason, but that doesn't actually hold any water. Whenever we are accepting refugees entering illegally, you are taking away those who were applying through the existing process. That process had a better control over the people coming here. Now that we have had 33 % of the people applying for asylum returning back to where they came from, effectively it means that there was a significant abuse of the asylum practices. Not once have I heard anything being said about this. Instead what I'm hearing is that the Lutheran church is protecting those who get a negative decision on the asylum. "Protecting those who got a NEGATIVE decision on their asylum application", and here I thought the laws should be applied to everybody. And once again Finns are burning the wooden churches, likely pre-emptively (this happened in Easter).
And now to the birth rates issue; statistical fact is that the immigrant population indeed has greater birth-rates than natives. We have also seen that 2 to 3 generations is not ENOUGH to integrate Middle Eastern origin people to the EU countries. So while I've no doubt we could integrate the Middle Eastern population over time, my question is how long does that take? I'm expecting well over hundred years, and the birth rates are higher also due to practices I'd consider really to lie in the gray zone to say the least for those easily offended. So what is not said is that the immigrants will start to affect the EU policies, whether you like it or not. Some of their culture will be integrated to the EU level decision making, and you'll have to deal with it in the future.
Question that I'm asking myself is why do I need to tell you this.