Immigration is an asset in the USA, but in Europe, it's just a burden

People criticize immigration, but it is a source of economic growth, said Michael C. Burda, an economics professor at Humboldt University in Berlin.

So, does this mean that we should accept all immigrants trying to come to Finland? And at least keep the eastern border open to grow our economy?

No, because the professor continued his thought by noting that people coming to the United States do not receive welfare benefits, it is not possible. It is very difficult to get money for free in the United States.

In other words, immigration alone will not save Europe's economy; in addition, newcomers should be integrated into a productive economy by preventing them from having an alternative lifestyle offered by European social democracy.

And this, precisely this, is the reason why humanitarian immigration is only a burden for Europe and not the asset one would hope for.

* * *

Yesterday's terrorist attack on the Moscow concert hall was exceptionally bloody, claiming 60 lives and injuring a staggering 145. The perpetrator has identified itself as the Islamic ISIS organization, though its motives remain unclear.

It is also unknown whether the perpetrators were born in Russia, had migrated there, or had simply entered the country for the purpose of carrying out the attack. However, US intelligence had prior knowledge that a terrorist attack was imminent in Russia.

In this context, it is important to emphasize that terrorist attacks are never acceptable, and there is no reason to rejoice even when they target the dictatorship led by Putin. Instead, it is concerning to note the resurgence of the ISIS organization, the consequences of which will undoubtedly be felt sooner or later in Western democracies due to the human rights and immigration policies pursued therein.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The EU's 7.4 billion euro aid package is intellectual dishonesty
The Rwanda Law of Britain paves the way for the future of Western Europe
Are we going to allow ISIS women to ride on their children?

The EU's 7.4 billion euro aid package is intellectual dishonesty

Intellectual dishonesty, according to Wikipedia, is dishonesty in thought or communication. This includes advocating for a viewpoint that one knows to be false or misleading, or advocating for something whose veracity one has not bothered to ascertain, or omitting relevant facts that one knows to be essential.

According to the same source, rhetoric is intellectual dishonesty when it is used to reinforce one's own agenda or important beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. This comes to mind repeatedly when I read news related to humanitarian immigration.

Today, it happened when I came across a headline stating, "EU will soon pay Egypt to contain the migration flood – concern over two borders." These borders are the borders with Sudan and Libya, through which people travel through Egypt towards Europe.

Behind this are the human rights treaties signed by European countries, according to which all people in the world have the right to seek asylum if they manage to reach the border. If and when this happens, asylum must be granted whenever there is no evidence of its undesirability.

And that's not all, because after granting asylum, the receiving country must provide various services to the arrivals, from maintenance to healthcare. Instead, they are not obligated to undertake specific duties themselves, such as financing their own lives through work or adopting the language and culture of the receiving country.

In other words, through the international agreements they have signed and their practical measures towards asylum seekers, EU countries have done everything they can to make themselves as attractive as possible to developing country migrants seeking a better standard of living. And at the same time, they intellectually dishonestly spend money to ensure that these people could not present their asylum applications.

Otherwise, this wouldn't matter much, but bribery of transit countries to keep borders closed is costly (in Egypt's case, €7.4 billion by the end of 2027), there are still plenty of arrivals despite the bribery, and they cause exorbitant costs in their destination countries. And most importantly, the intellectually dishonest Union could change its immigration policy by its own decision, so that it would not attract economically motivated migrants who are unable to adapt to society.

Key points here could be 1) transferring the burden of proving the need for asylum to the applicant, 2) limiting positive decisions to those who have personally experienced persecution (and not, for example, due to general chaos in the country of origin), and 3) making maintenance contingent on work, learning the language and culture of the receiving country, and giving up harmful aspects of previous lifestyles. Additionally, it should be ensured that applicants with rejected decisions are either returned to their home country or isolated from the receiving society in other ways.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Strong statement or intellectual dishonesty in COP27?
Most useless organisations of our time
Should forbidden questions be answered or not?

The demands of the vandals

I noticed a small piece of news today stating that activists supporting Palestinians vandalized a historical painting in England, at the University of Cambridge. The painting, dating back to 1914, depicted former British Prime Minister Lord Arthur Balfour, best remembered for the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which Britain announced support for the establishment of a "national home" for Jews in Palestine.

Of course, Lord Balfour is no longer alive, and therefore, he holds no significance in today's politics. Thus, the vandalism by activists has no bearing on the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

However, the destruction of the painting resulted in the loss of an irreplaceable piece of artwork and was therefore a culturally hostile act. Additionally, it demonstrated that the perpetrators were fanatical individuals whose behavior is guided by primitive instincts, similar to that of a toddler throwing a tantrum if they don't get their way.

The analogy is apt in the sense that a rational person does not heed the demands of their child throwing a tantrum on the ground. Similarly, a rational person does not cater to the potential political desires of these fanatical activists but rather dismisses them as childish whims.

The same thought in Finnish: 
Vandaalien vaatimukset

Previous thoughts on the same topic: 
A white family does not represent real Londoners
Finnish journalist called for British Prime Minister´s head to be placed on London bridge to dry
The activists sought excitement and a boost to their self-esteem in the Stockholm Diamond League

The procrastination of Western countries is paid for with the blood of soldiers

Russia has recently achieved success in the ammunition-starved Ukraine. News reports indicating the increasing success of Putin's army day by day suggest that even the rapid collapse of Ukrainian defense is possible.

Three factors have enabled this development. One is the procrastination of the Trumpian House of Representatives in sending new aid packages. Second is the irresponsible defense policy of most EU countries in recent years, resulting in depleted weapon and ammunition stocks. And - as we know - it's hard to make something out of nothing. Additionally, behind it all is the Ukrainian government's inability to mobilize enough men to the front lines.

* * *

Apparently, French President Emmanuel Macron has understood that the situation in Ukraine is currently completely untenable, as he even raised the issue of sending Western troops to assist Zelensky's army. This would undoubtedly mean facing Western casualties and Russian counter-reactions in one way or another.

Western populations are by no means prepared for returning filled coffins. And their home fronts will not withstand large-scale losses. Therefore, Macron's proposal did not receive immediate support from Finland or other Western countries either.

The future commander of the Estonian Defense Forces, on the other hand, suggested granting Ukraine permission to use Western weapons also on Russian soil. This is because Estonians have learned from their history that "when Russia attacks, the war must be taken to its territory. Otherwise, we will lose it. This rule still applies."

Behind both proposals likely lies the idea of not only direct military impact but also of undermining the Russian home front. In other words, the clearer the war is visible to Russians, the more resistance is likely to arise against Putin's administration's war policies. And the more difficult position the country's dictator finds himself in domestically.

* * *

It's quite clear in this situation that Ukraine's army will collapse for sure unless it receives swift material aid from the West. Loss is also certain in the longer term if a vast number of capable Ukrainian men or women are not urgently called up and trained into Zelensky's army.

In this context, it's also worth noting that every recapture of a village surrendered to the aggressor seems to demand a massive human sacrifice in Ukraine, with fallen soldiers. Therefore, the Western countries' incapacity for effective aid to Ukraine will, in the best-case scenario, demand the lives of tens of thousands, or - if the situation persists - even hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

It's justified to say, therefore, that the delay of Western countries will be paid for with the blood of soldiers. First in Ukraine and - if Putin ultimately wins the war - later most likely also in the militarily weaker Russian border states. And eventually, possibly even in Finland.

The original thought in Finnish:
Länsimaiden viivyttely maksetaan sotilaiden verellä

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare
Desperate cry of Russians
Finnish general praised the Ukrainian air strike