Unfortunately this conversation is threatening to become disingenuous to the point of sophistry.
The subject under discussion, however, is the cost that the Finnish society pays for accepting refugees, and the feasibility of accepting them in large numbers. For the purpose of this discussion it makes no difference whatsoever whether they do it because they have a lot of young men, because they are of a lower socioeconomic class, or because of any other factor.
Unless, of course, you are intending to correct those factors. Are you?
Yes. That is the entire point of my objection. Did you miss it?
To sum up, there are problems with the integration of refugees into Finnish society. The way I see it, there are two possible approaches to resolving these problems:
1) stop or limit the immigration of refugees because they cause problems. Crudely speaking, blame the refugees and stop them from coming to Finland.
2) try to fix the political and socioeconomic causes of the problems. Crudely speaking, blame Finnish society and the state, and try to fix them.
I don't know when you missed that I've been constantly trying to argue for option 2, or if you're just trying to score rhetorical points.
In my opinion, the problems associated with refugees are not a "refugee problem" as such but one manifestation of wider problems in Finnish society and politics. Blaming refugees for their problems and seeking a solution in stopping more refugees from coming to Finland not only does nothing to fix existing problems but also makes refugees the scapegoats for much wider problems.
To speak in economic terms, the cost of refugees to society is purely a question of socioeconomic costs and benefits. Currently refugees have problems assimilating to society and becoming productive members, i.e. net benefits to the state as opposed to a cost. In my mind, the only sensible solution is to address the problems that give them difficulty in assimilating.
On the other hand, the "immigration-critical" reply is to treat all refugees irrevocably as "problems" whose impact must be minimized. At best, an "immigration-critical" proposal like your idea of quotas and expulsions can only limit existing problems; it does nothing to fix them. I can't agree with that kind of policy.