When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?

Many states have recognized the State of Palestine. In other words, they have recognized something that does not even exist.

Finland is not, at least for the time being, part of this group. But now the entire Finnish green-left – the Social Democratic Party, the Greens, and the Left Alliance – have demanded that Finland’s government recognize the State of Palestine. In other words – I repeat – recognize something that does not even exist.

President of Finland Alexander Stubb has left this matter to the government and parliament, meaning he has promised to sign the recognition if such a proposal is placed on his desk. It has not yet been presented, but according to Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, “the government is still processing the matter, but our main policy, as decided in the foreign and security policy report, is that we promote the two-state solution.”

In practice, the government is unlikely to make such a proposal to the President, since its other main party, the Finns Party, as well as its smallest party, the Christian Democrats, oppose recognition. The President has also acknowledged this, saying: “Somehow I don’t believe I will receive this proposal before the UN meeting next week.

* * *

For my part, I state that if a new independent state is created in Palestine, I am ready to support its recognition immediately. On the other hand, I do not wish under any circumstances to recognize something that does not even exist.

In this, I follow the model set by Western countries over a hundred years ago – including Germany, which was at war with them – who decided after Finland declared independence in 1917 that recognition would not come until Soviet Russia itself recognized the new state. This led the ruling Senate of Finland to turn to Lenin’s Council of People’s Commissars.

After various stages, Lenin then acknowledged the facts as they were and recognized Finland’s independence. After that, Western nations followed suit one by one, and there has been no ambiguity about Finland’s independence since, even though the Soviet Union tried to occupy the country during World War II – on two separate occasions.

This is the same model I am prepared to recommend for the recognition of Palestine. That is, let the Palestinians lay down their arms, make peace with Israel, and agree on the conditions under which an entity made up of the West Bank and Gaza could achieve independence. And let Finland, in that context, acknowledge the reality – and grant recognition to the new state only then.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?
When Should We Recognize the Independence of Palestine?
Palestinian Youth Require More Understanding, Less Aggression

How Extremist Activists Endanger Hunters in Finland

Finland has a very large population of cervids, such as moose and deer. Due to their large numbers, they cause significant damage by destroying young forest plantations and causing traffic accidents. On the other hand, they provide hunters with both a hobby and food.

The balance of this whole system is overseen by the Finnish Wildlife Agency, which grants hunting permits for cervid species in such a way that each population remains viable and healthy. At the same time, attention is also paid to ensuring that predator populations—especially wolves—remain strong and safe for people, so that they do not need to hunt humans moving in nature due to lack of food. Wolves have not generally been hunted in Finland in this millennium, except for individuals that have threatened humans or specialized in attacking livestock.

This equation seems to be too difficult to grasp for those belonging to the Animal Liberation Front. That is why they have made hunting towers used by hunters dangerously unsafe by sawing them.

The police are currently investigating these crimes and searching for the perpetrators. According to Member of Parliament Sanna Antikainen (Finns Party), it would be important that the police and prosecutors treat these acts as endangerment of life rather than mere vandalism. This wish is worth supporting, so that various political activist groups, which are resorting to increasingly harsh measures, would be made to comply with the law and avoid endangering other people.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Demonstration Demonstrated the Selfishness of the Demonstrators
Organized Vandalism in Helsinki, Finland
Greta Thunberg in Search of a Greater Thrill

Eviction of Inhabitants for Incoming Immigrants Sparks Controversy

In Finland, there was news today about a case in which the city of Mikkeli is renting out eighteen terraced houses for use as a reception centre. At the same time, it is evicting the current tenants from their homes. In other words, the Finnish residents of these homes are being replaced by immigrants – something many might associate with the idea — controversial as it is — that some kind of “population replacement” is taking place in Europe.

Right now, it appears that this decision is sparking considerable backlash among Finns. For example, Member of Parliament Jocka Träsbeck (National Coalition Party) commented that “In Mikkeli, the city’s priorities were set using the Tuppurainen method.” By this he was referring to a recent opinion of Tytti Tuppurainen – a Social Democratic politician and chair of her party’s parliamentary group – according to which “putting one’s own people first is harmful".

MP Tere Sammallahti (National Coalition Party) also weighed in on the matter, posing a rhetorical question: “What do you think – will this decision increase or decrease people’s willingness to pay taxes? Or racism?”

It is also worth noting that, in the minds of Finns, Mikkeli carries strong symbolic significance in connection with this change of residents. During the Second World War, the city served as the headquarters of the Finnish army.

It remains to be seen how the situation in Mikkeli will develop in the coming days. Will the social debate flare up into full blaze, or will it remain only a minor episode in the ongoing flow of Finland’s immigration discussion? And if it does flare up, will it lead to any political decisions – especially now, when the country’s leading anti-immigration party, the Finns Party, is part of the government.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland to Cut Off Taxpayer Money for Immigration
Can Europe Learn from Finland´s and Spain’s Contrasting Immigration Policies?
EU Citizens Don’t Want More Migrants – But How Can the Flow of Asylum Seekers Be Slowed?

EU Citizens Don’t Want More Migrants – But How Can the Flow of Asylum Seekers Be Slowed?

As many as seven out of ten citizens of the European Union believe that their country receives too many immigrants. In addition, 85 percent of respondents think that the European Union should do more to combat illegal immigration. In contrast, only 39 percent believe that Europe needs more immigrants.

This reflects the will of the people, but at the same time, part of the political elite—detached from the public—such as the former chairperson of Finland’s Green Party, Maria Ohisalo, would like to open more legal pathways into Europe for migrants.

In this regard, it was interesting to note that Finland’s Minister of the Interior, Mari Rantanen (Finns Party), has proposed a solution in the form of a so-called "three-basket model." In this model, asylum seekers would be categorized into different baskets based on their actual motives.

The first basket would be for international protection and would include people with a genuine need for asylum—something the applicant themselves must demonstrate. The second basket would include those applying for asylum for other reasons, such as studying, working, or generally seeking a better life. The third basket would be for those seeking asylum as part of a hostile state’s hybrid warfare tactics targeting the EU.

Different approaches and regulatory frameworks should be applied to these different baskets, instead of placing all asylum seekers into one and the same category. According to Rantanen, the current one-size-fits-all system has not worked so far and will not work in the future either.

It remains to be seen whether Finland's Minister of the Interior will gain support for her proposal in other EU countries. And of course, whether the system she proposes could actually work in practice.

In my view, a key factor in regulating the number of asylum seekers is the pull factors in EU countries. The better the conditions and benefits offered to newcomers, the more people will try to cross borders for reasons other than a genuine need for asylum. For this reason, it is extremely important that EU politicians stick to offering only the minimum benefits to asylum seekers.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
EU Commission Should Take Migration and Related Crime Seriously
Hope For a Better Life Is Not an Acceptable Basis for Asylum
Finland to Tighten Citizenship Requirements Further

Getting Populists to Govern Responsibly: What the Netherlands and Finland Can Teach Us

The Dutch government collapsed because the Freedom Party (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, withdrew from the coalition. The reason for this was that Prime Minister Dick Schoof's coalition government failed to implement the strict immigration policy outlined in the coalition agreement quickly enough.

In other words, Schoof and the other coalition parties did want the Freedom Party to support their policies, but they were not, in turn, willing to advance the issues that are of utmost importance to the PVV. As a result, new parliamentary elections will be held in the Netherlands on October 29.

This case is interesting from a Finnish perspective, as Finland also has a government that includes an immigration-critical party, the Finns Party. It has supported initiatives important to the other coalition parties, and as a consequence, has lost much of its support and its position in local politics in municipal and regional elections.

Nevertheless, the Finns Party remains strongly committed to the coalition because the government has, at the same time, pursued a much stricter immigration policy in line with the party’s demands—thus advancing issues crucial to itself and its core voter base. As a result, current, or remaining, supporters of the Finns Party are more satisfied with the government's actions than supporters of other parties.

This is something that should be noted in other Western countries as well. In most of them, immigration policy has been at odds with the will of the people, so a change is bound to happen sooner or later.

This means a stricter immigration policy, in exchange for which immigration-critical parties brought into government understand the necessity of supporting parts of the coalition program they may otherwise dislike. At the same time, forming coalition governments becomes easier and the will expressed by citizens in elections is more accurately implemented.

After all, isn't that ultimately the purpose of democracy? To carry out policies that reflect the will of the people as expressed in elections?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Should the Dutch Do Something About the Fact That Immigrants Don't Tolerate Visiting Jews?
A woman's logic, Putin's test, and the Netherlands' change
Attitudes towards immigrants are not becoming more positive in Western countries

Finnish Branch of Extinction Rebellion Faces Possible Ban

Finnish Member of Parliament Kaisa Garedew (Finns Party) considers the citizens' initiative to ban Elokapina a very welcome proposal. She justified her view by stating that Elokapina - the Finnish branch of Extinction Rebellion - has caused all kinds of difficulties and costs to society in recent years: blocking Helsinki's main street, defacing the valuable pillars of the Parliament House, engaging in civil disobedience, and wasting the resources of the judiciary and the police. Additionally, a member of the movement has publicly fantasized about assassinating Minister of Finance Riikka Purra (Finns Party).

Last October, the National Police Board announced that it was considering filing a lawsuit to dissolve Elokapina and was currently gathering evidence for the case. Thus, the citizens' initiative can also be seen as supporting police actions.

MP Garedew also pointed out—at the very least, justifiably—that "if Elokapina were truly more interested in the environment than in spectacles involving illegal actions, it would leave innocent Finns alone and focus its efforts on countries that genuinely destroy nature and whose pollution levels are a real problem."

It remains to be seen whether Elokapina's activities will be banned in Finland. Nevertheless, I am glad that the operations of activist organizations that function by destroying private and public property and disrupting people's lives are now being questioned. Such organizations are unnecessary in a country with a functioning democracy, where all people already have freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Criminal Attack Against Finnish Democracy
Why Were Violent Protests Acceptable for George Floyd but Not for the UK Child Murders?
Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics

Non-Discrimination Ombudsman Attempted to Prohibit the Use of Statistics in Quota Refugee Selection

Finland's Non-Discrimination Ombudsman issued a statement on Thursday, stating that discriminatory guidelines were given in the preparation of the refugee quota led by Minister of the Interior Mari Rantanen (Finns Party). According to the Ombudsman, the political leadership has sought to favor Christian refugees at the expense of those coming from Muslim-majority countries.

Additionally, the Ombudsman’s statement mentioned the objectives of the Finns Party and used the words "open Islamophobia." She argued that the actions of the minister and her special advisor appear consistent with those objectives.

* * *

Official guidelines for Finnish civil servants explicitly state that "since a civil servant exercises public authority in their work, they must strictly follow the law and act impartially, independently, and fairly." Furthermore, they state—again verbatim—that "a civil servant must not abuse their power."

Thus, Minister of Finance and Finns Party leader Riikka Purra did not simply shrug off the statement from the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman, which is a state authority. Instead, she acknowledged that the statement was a serious matter, as "discrimination is a criminal offense." As a result, the Minister of the Interior and her ministry will examine the statement, and the Chancellor of Justice is also expected to provide an opinion on the matter.

However, according to Purra, the decision-making process regarding the refugee quota was conducted normally. She also found it "procedurally quite unusual that the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman is reading political party programs and drawing conclusions for its official processes based on them."

Additionally, she pointed out that "just a few days ago, the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman also commented more broadly on the effects of the government's immigration policy changes, so this is not the first time."

* * *

Many other Finns Party members also weighed in on the matter. Jani Mäkelä, the leader of the party’s parliamentary group, stated that "particularly the term Islamophobia and the fact that the Ombudsman openly attacks the Finns Party as a party in the statement and analyzes our policies—this, in my opinion, is not part of the Ombudsman’s duties at all."

Party secretary Harri Vuorenpää, in turn, remarked that it is "shocking that an authority whose role is specifically to ensure equality is attacking a single political party in such an openly hostile and generalized manner. We find this to be highly inappropriate and something that only deepens divisions in society."

He also questioned why those who speak about issues related to Islam are now being labeled as Islamophobes. He continued by saying that "such methods of silencing opinions are common on social media, but surely an authority responsible for equality should restrain itself... One has to wonder why the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman interprets the Finns Party’s policies so negatively. Is the Ombudsman suffering from Finns Party-phobia?"

* * *

The political left and the Greens naturally held a completely opposite view and demanded a statement from Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party). It remains to be seen what will follow—if anything at all. However, at this stage, the only certainty is that the final decision on the legality of the government's refugee quota policies will be made by the Chancellor of Justice.

As for my own stance, I firmly support selecting quota refugees in a way that ensures those coming to Finland have the best possible conditions for integrating into Western society. Accordingly, I support the government’s policy of considering Christianity as a positive criterion when selecting refugees to be admitted to Finland. 

However, my reasoning is not based—illegally—on religion itself but rather on observed differences over the years in crime statistics and employment rates between different immigrant groups in Finnish society. Ignoring these differences would simply be stupid.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish, Japanese, and Dutch Adults Lead in Literacy, Numeracy, and Problem-Solving Skills
Important Changes Ahead: What You Need to Know About Finland’s Quota Refugee Selection
The Non-Discrimination Ombudsman violates the law on openness

What will post-migration Europe look like in the future?

The German election result was what it was because of the kind of immigration policies that have been pursued in Germany and the EU in general. And these policies have not been beneficial either to the native European population or to immigrants arriving from elsewhere—let alone to their descendants.

Right now, however, it seems that many immigrants want this negative development—especially from the perspective of their own reference group—to continue. As a sign of this, two Afghan men were recently arrested in Germany for planning a terrorist attack on the Swedish parliament.

Fortunately, the plans of these men, who were linked to the ISIS-K organization, were uncovered, and as a result, they received prison sentences of four and a half years. However, one would have to be quite the optimist to believe that this case will improve the behavior of other immigrants who share the convicted men's mindset.

That is why I believe that the shift in support towards genuinely nationalist parties, as seen in the German elections, will continue in future elections across the EU. And this makes the entire European future uncertain because these parties are not really united by much except for their critical stance on immigration policy.

A case in point is Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD), which is socially conservative and at least partially pro-Russian, and Finland’s Finns Party, which has clearly understood the threat posed by Putin’s Russia to Europe and advocates right-wing conservative economic policies. Beyond immigration issues, the only real common ground between these parties seems to be value conservatism.

Thus, the question must be asked: What will post-migration Europe look like in the future? Will it be a united continent capable of competing—economically and in terms of security policy—with the world's other power centers, a fragmented collection of quarrelsome states, or even a collapsed and underdeveloped society? Or even a province of Russia?

I do not have an answer to this question, but I am certain that the decisions influencing it will be made within the next ten years. And that is why Europeans should pull themselves together sooner rather than later.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Tomorrow’s Elections in Germany Be a Turning Point?
The Complete Demilitarization of Gaza: What Would It Mean for the Palestinians?
Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?

Will European Culture Collapse Under the Weight of Islamic Immigration?

The wave of crime in Central Europe continues, as a 23-year-old Syrian terrorist fatally stabbed a 14-year-old boy and injured five others. The perpetrator's motive was Islamic hatred toward Europeans, as police discovered flags of the terrorist organization ISIS in his apartment.

It hasn’t been long since an Afghan terrorist drove into a crowd in Germany. Nor since Sweden experienced over 30 bombings in January. Or when Finland published statistics showing that Syrians commit sexual crimes up to 15 times more frequently than the country's native population.

The strange thing is why we Europeans tolerate such crimes against us without taking measures to prevent them. Of course, many are willing to act, but just as many seem content with the situation.

One way to analyze this is by comparing the support for immigration-critical parties to that of the Greens or far-left parties. In Finland, recent opinion polls indicate that the country’s only immigration-critical party, the Finns Party, has around 15% voter support, while the strongly pro-immigration Greens and Left Alliance have over 17%.

In Germany, which is heading into elections, the immigration-critical AfD and BSW together hold about 26% support, while the Greens and the extremely pro-immigration SPD are favored by as much as 30% of voters.

Austria held elections last year, where the immigration-critical FPÖ received nearly 29% support. However, other parties refuse to cooperate with it in government, meaning Austria will likely continue its previous policies—policies under which incidents like the stabbing mentioned at the beginning of this text occur.

The question remains: What will happen to European culture and its native population in the coming years and decades? Will a new form of European identity emerge, blending with Islamic traditions, or will the followers of Prophet Muhammad continue on the same path that has historically subordinated countless cultures—from Byzantine empire to Berber mountain tribes—under their system?

However, Europe differs in one crucial way from previous Islamic conquests. Every significant European country is far ahead of Islamic nations in terms of civilization, science, economy, and military strength. Yet at the same time, they are so mentally weak that they ultimately submit to those who are cheekier. Isn't this weird?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Statistics on Sexual Crimes Committed by Immigrants in Finland
Afghan's Rampage in Germany Signals the End of the Value-Liberal Era in the EU
The Swedish Immigration Catastrophe – A Cautionary Tale

Why Does the Political Green-Left Lie, and Why Does It Resonate with the People?

Today we saw a textbook example of the rhetoric employed by the political green-left. This concerns the chair of the Green Party, Sofia Virta (Green), who commented on Prime Minister Petteri Orpo's (NCP) statement that the Finnish right wing government will not cut state spending beyond the previously decided nine billion euros.

Virta claimed that "this is purely an election speech" and suggested that the government would resume making spending cuts immediately after the county elections and municipal elections in April. She was supported in this by the chair of the Green Party's parliamentary group, Oras Tynkkynen, who speculated that "if the main government parties go into these elections without revealing everything about the policies they plan to pursue in the coming years, it is problematic for democracy."

Virta also made another odd comment. She claimed that Orpo's statements contradict earlier comments by Minister of Finance Riikka Purra (Finns Party) regarding budget cuts. This was based on a Green Party press release that alleged the Finance Minister had stated in December that further cuts would be needed in the spring budget negotiations.

In reality, however, Purra did not say this. She had earlier noted that additional savings could be made in the spring if necessary but recently added that "this political coalition does not appear to have the capability to identify significantly more savings."

The comments by the Greens and their leaders are an unfortunate example of a phenomenon that has become increasingly common in green-left rhetoric in recent years: outright lying to voters. 

The most striking example of this was seen a few years ago, when the then-chair of the Left Alliance's parliamentary group, Paavo Arhinmäki, told voters that the state never has to repay its debts and emphasized that Finland barely pays any interest on them. The truth, however, is that the Finnish government paid as much as 3 billion euros in interest alone in 2024, meaning that a third of the savings previously made by the state administration was spent solely on that.

However, there’s no need to wonder about the Greens' and the broader green-left's comments, as they have recently helped to boost their support. This is evident in the latest party approval poll, which indicates that the combined support for the governing coalition parties has dropped to 42.4%.

For this reason, rational people should focus less on the green-left’s rhetoric and more on their supporters. In other words, we must try to understand why they allow themselves to be swayed by deceptive rhetoric and, after enlightenment, address the problem one way or another.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Green Movement of Finland is Lost
The stabbing of the 12-year-old led to political revelry among the left in Finland
Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics

Acts of Vandalism Against a Political Party

Societal polarization is increasing around the world. Unfortunately, the same trend can be seen in Finland.

One recent example of this was an act of vandalism targeting the office of a Finnish governing party, the Finns Party, in Finland's fifth-largest city, Turku. The party's local leader reported that "at around 1:30 AM, two individuals dressed in black with hoods over their heads threw rocks and pieces of concrete at the office window dozens of times."

The rocks pierced the newly installed triple-glazed window, but the perpetrators did not gain entry. However, they left a message on the window containing a grammatical error: "rasisti pellet" (racist clowns).

The same party office has been the target of vandalism before. According to the local leader, "almost every month we experience some kind of graffiti or written messages."

He also rightly stated that "all political parties should condemn such actions. This kind of behavior has no place in Finnish society or politics. Regardless of one’s opinion, it should be possible to engage in politics safely."

The Finns Party’s secretary, for his part, stated that "a police report will be filed regarding the incident. For now, we will let the police do their job and hope the perpetrators are caught." This is the third police report concerning acts of vandalism against this particular office in this decade.

I would also add that I personally expect our country's most prominent media outlets—Yleisradio (the Finnish Broadcasting Company) and Helsingin Sanomat—to clearly and unequivocally condemn this act in their editorials. These outlets have often written very negatively about the party now targeted by vandalism, which has likely not discouraged those inclined toward such actions. This is an excellent opportunity to correct that mistake.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Over a Hundred Child Abusers Caught, and the Far-Left's Paavo Arhinmäki Gains Followers in Finland
The demands of the vandals
Is the Finnish left-wing radicalizing?

Immigrants, Gangs, Decisions, and Self-Interest

The Finnish national broadcaster Yle reported unexpectedly yesterday that Pietarsaari is grappling with gang, drug, and violence issues connected to individuals of immigrant backgrounds, as well as ties to the capital city and Sweden. According to the report, 15 percent of the town’s population are immigrants.

This is not entirely new, as already nine and a half years ago, the local police stated that, "The reception center came about six years ago. These days, we almost don’t have a single case where someone with a foreign background isn’t involved."

At that time — in 2015 — the issue came to light because a 17-year-old youth of foreign background had stabbed two other young people. He was caught.

In Yle's recent article, 14-year-old Erdi from Pietarsaari said, "There are a lot of young people here who want to be in a gang… They act a bit like gangsters. They think they’re tough, but they’re not."

A local youth specialist, meanwhile, described young men who came to Pietarsaari through Sweden, following people, issuing threats, and "causing a stir. The youth talk about how they’re not from here. Now they’ve disappeared from the streets."

* * *

Yle’s news report confirmed that the immigration policies practiced in Finland and Sweden have been disastrous for the native population, and their negative consequences are not limited to large cities. For this reason, it would also be prudent for voters in Pietarsaari to remember that the current government, led by the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party, is the first to attempt to address these issues.

In fact, steps have already been taken, with the following immigration-related changes implemented: the introduction of border procedures, amendments to laws to prevent circumvention of entry regulations, a reduction of reception allowances to the minimum allowed by the Constitution and the Reception Directive, and stricter requirements for obtaining citizenship.

Starting next year, international protection will also be redefined as temporary. Additionally, administrative reforms have been initiated to strengthen these efforts.

And that’s not all—the government program includes further planned improvements to immigration policy. If these are implemented, it is likely that the flow of immigrants from developing countries to Finland will slow, and those who do arrive will have a stronger motivation to integrate into our society. That would be in everyone’s best interest.

* * *

It should be noted, however, that if Finns vote in the next parliamentary elections in 2027 to bring the Social Democrats back into government and relegate the Finns Party to the opposition, it is likely that the country will revert to the old immigration policies, which have been causing increasingly severe problems. This appears to be the trajectory based on current party support polls.

There is also a risk that the government could collapse due to internal conflicts and members of parliament prioritizing their own interests. This risk is evident among some MPs from both the Finns Party and the National Coalition Party, who plan to vote against the government’s proposed healthcare cost-saving measures, seemingly without understanding their broader implications.

One can only hope this doesn’t happen and that these MPs might even abstain from voting. However, given their prior high-profile public opposition, it seems likely they are determined to undermine the government’s efforts. In doing so, they may end up aiding the left-green opposition, which seeks the government’s downfall, potentially even by spreading falsehoods.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish, Japanese, and Dutch Adults Lead in Literacy, Numeracy, and Problem-Solving Skills
A Murder in a Well-Known Finnish Immigrant Neighborhood
Immigration Policy Should Be Based on Evidence

Immigration Policy Should Be Based on Evidence

Finland is one of those countries where the native population has, on average, just slightly more than one child per family. As a result, the number of ethnically Finnish people is set to decline rapidly over the coming decades.

This poses a problem for the demographic structure of society, as the number of working-age people decreases while the number of elderly individuals in need of care increases. This fact is often cited as a key reason for the need for immigration to Finland—a position supported by both the liberal right and the green-left political spectrum.

Only the national-conservative Finns Party has clearly disagreed, advocating for stricter controls on humanitarian immigration, particularly from developing countries, as well as on forms of labor-based immigration where wages are insufficient to support the newcomers, leaving taxpayers to cover part of the costs.

This discussion has been further influenced by the immigration minister of Sweden, a country that has pursued even more open immigration policies than Finland. According to the minister, "there is a dramatic difference between receiving 100,000 asylum seekers and 100,000 highly educated labor migrants."

This fact has often been overlooked by Finnish proponents of immigration. For this reason, I hope they will carefully examine Sweden’s experiences with its immigration policies, listen to the relevant Swedish government minister, and draw the correct conclusions from all of this. 

The fact is that even in immigration policy, Finland does not need polarization but rather an acknowledgment of the facts. And after that, decision-making based on evidence.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
10% of Foreign Students in Finland Failed to Meet Residence Requirements
Finland’s Minister of Finance Believes Not All Cultures Are Equally Good
Immigration Policy Must Take Artificial Intelligence and Robots into Account

Criticism from the Left Brought a Small Association’s Independence Day March into the Spotlight

Finland’s green-left politicians have harshly criticized the participation of two Members of Parliament from the government’s Finns Party — Teemu Keskisarja and Sheikki Laakso — in the annual 612 event held on Finland’s Independence Day (December 6). As a result, both MPs will forgo attending the Independence Day reception hosted by the President of the Republic, Alexander Stubb.

Ville Niinistö, a Member of the European Parliament from the Green Party, which is firmly positioned on the political left, commented on X (formerly Twitter) that MPs from governing parties form part of the government’s parliamentary majority. According to Niinistö, "if the government allows its MPs to openly support a far-right event that demeans the Republic’s independence and democracy, it constitutes an international-level scandal". He also called on Prime Minister Petteri "Orpo to take action".

Similarly, Minja Koskela, chairperson of the Left Alliance, wrote on X that she is curious to know what Prime Minister Orpo thinks about the actions of representatives from his coalition partner, especially after all the government’s proclamations against racism. She stated that "when two MPs from the Finns Party choose a far-right-linked march over the liberal President’s reception, it is a serious matter".

* * *

The 612 event has been organized annually since 2014. Initially, it attracted only a few hundred participants, but during the large wave of immigration, attendance surged to thousands before later declining back to a few hundred.

Among the organizers were, at least initially, several actors perceived as far-right. Conversely, far-left groups have, at times, sought to disrupt the event, even resorting to violence.

According to the event’s website, its "sole purpose is to celebrate Finland’s independence and honor the sacrifices made by previous generations. Participants are encouraged to respect the non-political nature of the event by leaving all political and other symbols at home. The organizers emphasize that societal inequality and political polarization have already driven a wedge between Finns. In uncertain times, the greatest strength of a small nation is its unity."

Furthermore, the event is organized by the 612.fi association, and participation is open to all who wish to celebrate Finland’s independence and honor the efforts and sacrifices of past generations. The only permitted emblem, flag, or slogan at the event is the official Finnish flag.

It remains to be seen whether the comments from the green-left bloc will have any impact on the government’s actions. However, one thing is already clear: as a result of these remarks, the 612.fi association and its march have received more publicity than they could have ever hoped to achieve otherwise.

Finally, it is worth noting that Niinistö’s and Koskela’s comments do not appear to align particularly well with the spirit of freedom of speech or freedom of assembly enshrined in Finnish law. However, this is not particularly surprising coming from the political left.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Green Movement is Withering – And That’s Not a Bad Thing
Demonstrations cause trouble in Helsinki and Sweden
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

10% of Foreign Students in Finland Failed to Meet Residence Requirements

A large number of students from developing countries arrive in Finland. Previously, there was little oversight, which led to many individuals arriving as students who lacked the necessary qualifications or preparedness for studies.

To address this, a legislative amendment came into effect at the beginning of last September. Since then, the Finnish Immigration Service has started monitoring whether the criteria for residence permits granted on the basis of studies are being met—in other words, whether these individuals are genuinely studying.

So far, the Finnish Immigration Service has reviewed the residence permits of 5,795 students. This process uncovered as many as 558 cases where there was reason to suspect that the legal grounds for their residence were no longer valid. In other words, nearly ten percent of the students who came to Finland based on study permits were engaged in activities other than studying.

Presumably, these students will be deported unless they can provide an acceptable reason to counter the Immigration Service's determination that they no longer have the right to reside in Finland on the basis of studies. Under the new law, they are also not allowed to change the grounds for their residence, such as switching to a work-based residence permit.

This is an example of how Finland’s current government has rationalized immigration policy. At the same time, it fulfills the election promises made by the Finns Party, which gained significant support in the spring 2023 elections and joined the government. In other words, it demonstrates the functioning of Finnish democracy.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Information for Asylum Seekers in Finland
University of Helsinki gained an anti-Semitic reputation
International Master´s degree is an opportunity to be used

A Major Victory for the Freedom Party in Austria's Regional Elections

The ultra-liberal immigration policies of Europe’s traditional parties are heading for a dead end. One sign of this is the local elections held in Styria, Austria, where the immigration-critical Freedom Party achieved as much as approximately 35% of the vote.

The Styrian conservatives received 26.8% of the vote, and the Social Democrats 21.1%. Thus, these parties have the possibility to form a majority coalition if they ally, for example, with the Greens or the Liberals.

In such a situation, smaller parties would have a disproportionate opportunity to influence policy. However, such a solution would not diminish the policies that 35% of voters opposed. Moreover, forming such an "unholy alliance" against the Freedom Party would intensify societal polarization.

A similar situation applies across Europe. In Finland, democracy has been taken seriously, meaning that the immigration-critical Finns Party has participated in responsible governance as part of a coalition led by the National Coalition Party. As a result, immigration policies have been rationalized in many ways and will continue to be so until the end of the government’s term.

However, it appears that in many European countries, normal democratic practices are being opposed by labeling parties with support from tens of percent of voters as unsuitable for cooperation. This, in turn, continues to polarize society, election after election. I wouldn’t call such an approach either reasonable or constructive.

Previous thoughts on the same topics:
The Fall of Germany’s Government Could Open the EU’s Path to a Better Future
Cancellation of Taylor Swift's Concert in Austria Was a Success for the Terrorists
French Election Results: A Deep Dive into Tactical Voting and Its Implications

Important Changes Ahead: What You Need to Know About Finland’s Quota Refugee Selection

Yesterday, I blogged about how Finland plans to enhance the use of its development aid funds. Additionally, two weeks ago, I wrote that even in the long term, Finns do not benefit from humanitarian immigration from developing countries.

Today, Finland's largest newspaper reported that the second main party in Finland's government, the Finns Party, plans to reduce the proportion of Muslims among the quota refugees. This would mean, for example, that Venezuelans would be prioritized over Afghans when selecting newcomers.

In practice, Finland will take 500 quota refugees next year. This happens in such a way that the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) presents a group of individuals, from which Finnish authorities ultimately select the quota refugees for Finland, based on the government's defined regional allocation.

The decision-making process in Finland proceeds as follows: under the leadership of the responsible minister from the Finns Party, a draft proposal is prepared and will be discussed by the government's Ministerial Committee on Internal Security and Justice at the end of October. Finally, the parliament will decide on the refugee quota based on the government's proposal toward the very end of the year.

One can hope that the Finns Party's proposal goes through, and that fewer individuals with a poor assimilation outlook will arrive in Finland this year. As a result, the societal burden related to quota refugees will hopefully decrease – or even turn into a positive outcome. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Responsible Development Aid and New Priorities: Finland's Development Cooperation Reforms
The attractiveness of Finland to welfare-seeking economic migrants reduces
Humanitarian immigration does not provide a solution to Finland's demographic dependency ratio

The Green Movement of Finland is Lost

As my esteemed reader knows, Finland currently has a right-wing government that came to power a little over a year ago. Its task is to address the economic distress created by the previous center-left government, which scattered taxpayers' money with abandon. While the results are still modest, decisions have been made, and over time they promise to balance the public budget and kickstart economic growth, which has stagnated for a decade and a half.

In this regard, the situation is interesting because the Finnish green-left has been unable to do anything but criticize the government's decisions, without offering any alternatives. The most intriguing case is that of the Green Party, which has over the years drifted to the far left.

Its chairwoman, Sofia Virta, has repeatedly stated that her practically sole goal is to bring down the government. In the same breath, she has addressed issues related to humanitarian immigration, such as street violence, claiming that "the Finns Party doesn’t want to solve these problems. Their support is based on them."

This is strange, because it is precisely the Finns Party that has wanted to limit humanitarian immigration to a level where newcomers can be integrated into Finnish society. They have also criticized the provision of unconditional – and thus demotivating – social benefits to spontaneous immigrants.

Additionally, Virta has claimed that "the prime minister probably doesn’t lose a second of sleep worrying about how to get health centers and public services to function." This is, of course, a blatant lie, as it was the previous government—of which the Greens were a part—that carried out a healthcare reform that led to the collapse of the system. The current government has been particularly focused on correcting the mistakes made earlier.

Each individual can draw their own conclusions about the reasons behind the Green Party chairwoman's rhetoric. Personally, I suspect it is a panicked, primal reaction to the fact that the Greens’ support, which at its peak had one in six Finns behind it, has now dropped to half of that.

Sofia Virta will have no political future if this trend doesn’t reverse during her tenure. And, of course, it’s impossible to imagine that happening with the methods she’s currently employing. This is because, in Finland, smearing political opponents has never been valued; instead, constructive proposals and presenting alternatives are appreciated.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Orpo's Government Restore Finland to Sustainable Economic Growth?
Healthcare Services for Undocumented Immigrants are a Pull Factor for Harmful Immigration
Putin's useful idiots in Finland

Finnish MEPs Saramo and Tynkkynen Engage in Social Media Clash Over Ukraine Support

Fresh Finnish Members of the European Parliament Jussi Saramo (GUE/NGL) and Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR) have found themselves in a war of words on social media. It began when Tynkkynen stated that "yesterday, we voted in the European Parliament on a resolution regarding the need to continue EU support for Ukraine. The purpose was to renew the promise right at the start of the new term that the support will continue this term as well... The Left Group in the European Parliament had a different opinion. The majority of the group's MEPs did not vote in favor of the resolution."

Saramo responded to this with whataboutism, publishing a picture of Tynkkynen in Russia and a text saying, "Many have seen the attached picture of Sebastian Tynkkynen at a Putin propaganda camp in Russia. The picture was taken at a time when only the Finns Party in Finland admired Putin's authoritarian far-right regime."

Then came the surprise, as Tynkkynen admitted that he had indeed attended the camp, but he did so in cooperation with the Finnish Security Intelligence Service (Supo) to update its information on a Russian individual who also attended the camp. According to him, "It was an honor to serve my country in this way. Therefore, it is shameful that the left twists the matter the other way around - as if I had been working for Russia. Russia did not benefit from me in any way. The situation originally went quite the opposite."

It remains to be seen how the sparring between the two Finnish MEPs will continue. And whether the Finnish Security Intelligence Service will comment on Tynkkynen's claim - after all, it is generally known for not shedding much light on its operations to outsiders.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Henna Virkkunen: Opportunist or Unsuitable Commissioner Candidate?
Marxist far-right and bullies
Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics
 

The future of all Europe is at stake

Europe has long been undergoing significant change. Amid their prosperity, the continent's original inhabitants have had fewer children, while at the same time, a diverse array of people have been flooding in from developing countries.

As a result, numerous political parties have emerged in European democracies that are critical of the ongoing changes. These include parties like Finland's Finns Party, Sweden's Sweden Democrats, Germany's Alternative for Germany, and Italy's Brothers of Italy.

Many of these parties performed exceptionally well in the recent EU parliamentary elections. This was also the case in France, where the success of the National Rally prompted President Emmanuel Macron to call for new elections.

The first round of those elections takes place today and could have a significant impact on Europe's future. The latest opinion polls predict that the National Rally could garner as much as 35-37% of the vote, while Macron's forces could come in third with about 20-21%. The united left is positioned in between.

If the election results follow the polls, it would mean significant polarization in French society, where these forces, unwilling to cooperate with each other, would try to find a solution on how to move the country forward.

Thus, it remains to be seen – if the election results match the predictions – how French politics will shape up in the coming years. Will they take examples from countries like Finland, where immigration criticism has been included in the government program by building effective cooperation among the right-wing parties in parliament, especially the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party?

However, France's situation differs from Finland in two ways. Firstly, its Muslim population is significantly larger – around ten percent – and secondly, it has not been customary to seek pragmatic consensus between different political forces.

It is already clear at this stage that the immigration policies practiced in Europe have led to a new political situation in France – and the entire continent – which will ultimately define the kind of world the descendants of the cradle of Western culture will live in the future. Therefore, it can be rightly said that the stakes of the French elections are the future of all of Europe.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Marxist far-right and bullies
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth
Prediction: Sharia law in force in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and France by the year 2044