Lessons for EU Citizens from the Ceuta Episode

The events in Ceuta have led Europeans to wake up. Or at least almost all of them, since 22 EU countries – Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden – have signed a letter calling for effective protection of the external borders, action to prevent illegal entry, and support for Spain. Finland’s signatory was Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party).

It is regrettable, of course, that five countries have expressed their desire to see the continuation of the modern-day mass migration by refusing to sign the demand. They are Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal, whose motives are – at least to me – rather difficult to understand, because this is not about immigration in general but specifically about illegal immigration.

* * *

The Finnish Government evidently takes illegal immigration seriously, since Minister of the Interior Mari Rantanen (Finns Party) immediately instructed her ministry’s officials to prepare the measures required for closing Finland’s EU internal borders. According to her, the purpose is to ensure that the “decisions required to close the internal borders can, on the basis of this preparatory work, be made very quickly if the need arises.”

In other words, neither Rantanen nor Finland is unilaterally closing the EU’s internal borders, but rather creating the capability to do so quickly if necessary. This is important because, in the absence of both the necessary legislation – and the political will – the Finnish Government was forced in 2015 to stand by helplessly as large numbers of illegal immigrants poured into our country from the western border.

As a result of the preparations now under way, the steps required to close our country’s EU borders will in future already be prepared in advance, meaning that shutting them can be accomplished with a single order from the Government. And as a result, the internal movement of illegal immigrants into our northern land will come to an end.

* * *

It remains to be seen whether Finland will ever need the legislation currently being prepared. In any case, the events in Ceuta turned out to be a brief episode, possibly caused by organized – perhaps even state-sponsored – crime.

This is because there is no way to get from Ceuta to mainland Europe without border checks. Thus, it was not a route that could have led to a repetition of the events of 2015. Consequently, the Moroccans who had rushed there soon returned to their home country.

In the end, the whole Ceuta episode concluded happily, just like a fairy tale. Instead of the modern-day mass migration taking another step forward, it reminded EU politicians that it is better to prepare in advance than to find themselves searching for illegal immigrants all over the Union.

That is why it is difficult to understand the stupidity demonstrated by the power-holders in Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal by refusing to sign the demand mentioned at the beginning. Perhaps, in their next parliamentary elections, the citizens of those countries will understand that they would be well advised to consider giving their votes to politicians more responsible than their current rulers!

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
From Burden to Benefit: Reforming Immigration in Finland
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?
Why is Somalia unwilling to meet Finland’s conditions for continuing development cooperation?

"Abdul B" Drove Into a Pride Crowd

The German Pride community experienced firsthand what it feels like to live as a sexual minority in an Islamist culture when "Abdul B" drove into their celebration and then went on a rampage with a machete. As a result, one woman was killed and at least 15 people were injured.

Abdul B (picture below) was already known to the authorities as someone with Islamist views. Nevertheless, like many others of his kind, he had been allowed to live freely in Berlin.

* * *

The terrorist attack on the Pride event can, of course, be dismissed as an isolated incident—if one wants to. Or rather: because one wants to.

It could just as well be seen as an inevitable consequence of Germany's immigration policy, in which Islamist extremism has not been adequately taken into account. This interpretation is supported by the fact that this was not a one-off event; Islamists have previously carried out terrorist attacks in Germany as well.

Perhaps the most significant consequence of last night's terrorist attack will be a further increase in support for the immigration-critical AfD party in Germany. According to opinion polls, around 28 percent of Germans currently support the party, making it the country's most popular political party.

Germany also has the left-wing BSW party, which is likewise critical of immigration. However, its support has fallen to around three percent after reaching as high as nine percent a couple of years ago. It remains to be seen whether left-leaning voters who favor its economic policies will return to the party thanks to "Abdul B."

* * *

While reading about the events in Berlin, I could not help thinking how beneficial it has been that Finland's immigration policy has become more pragmatic through the measures introduced by the current government, under the leadership of Minister Mari Rantanen (Finns Party). It remains to be seen, however, whether these reforms will continue under the next government or whether it will begin reversing the progress that has been made.

This is a genuine concern, as opinion polls show that support for Prime Minister Petteri Orpo's (National Coalition Party) government has fallen to 39.1 percent, while the Social Democratic Party (SDP), the largest opposition party, has become by far the country's most popular party. One factor contributing to this has been the party's strong support among foreign-language speakers, which, in the author's view, reinforces what is described as the party's irresponsible immigration policy.

For that reason, it would be worthwhile for Finnish Social Democratic voters to pause for a moment and consider what kind of Finland they wish to leave to future generations. Should it be a state governed by the rule of law, rooted in Finnish culture, where law, order, and equality between people prevail?

Or should it become a multicultural hell in which public disorder is a constant reality and the rights of women and sexual minorities are threatened by extremist Islamist ideas rooted in seventh-century beliefs?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Tomorrow’s Elections in Germany Be a Turning Point?
Will European Culture Collapse Under the Weight of Islamic Immigration?
Afghan's Rampage in Germany Signals the End of the Value-Liberal Era in the EU

From Burden to Benefit: Reforming Immigration in Finland

The Finnish government led by Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party) submitted no fewer than three legislative proposals to Parliament for approval on Thursday. For this reason, Interior Minister Mari Rantanen (Finns Party), who led their preparation and presented the matter in Parliament, remarked that “we are having a kind of immigration super Thursday.”

The purpose of the legislative proposals is to streamline Finland’s immigration policy by introducing a citizenship test, intensifying the deportation and entry bans of those residing in the country illegally, and making use of the opportunities provided by the EU’s migration and asylum pact.

The aim of the citizenship test is to ensure that Finnish citizenship is not granted without the applicant having familiarity with Finnish society. However, the level of knowledge required to pass the test is not particularly demanding, as passing the multiple-choice exam only requires correctly answering seven out of ten questions.

According to the Interior Minister, the government “expects individuals seeking Finnish citizenship to be proactive in acting in the manner required by law.” For this reason, integration funding will in the future be more precisely directed toward teaching Finland’s national languages—which can only be welcomed.

Regarding deportations, the government aims to ensure that deportation decisions can be carried out more efficiently and quickly than at present. In addition, endangering national security will be added as grounds for an entry ban—this will also apply to individuals seeking to enter Finland from within the EU.

The third change is mainly technical. It implements the EU’s migration and asylum pact, which will in the future make it possible to transfer the asylum process to a country outside the Union. This too is an excellent development—provided the future arrives before it is too late.

* * *

In my view, all of the government’s proposals yesterday are good and necessary—if not outright essential—conditions for transforming immigration from its current burden into something beneficial for Finland. Therefore, it is worth observing how Parliament responds to them.

It is, of course, to be expected that members of Parliament from the far left will react negatively to at least some of the proposals. If and when this happens, it will not change the image already formed of the Left Alliance and the Greens as a “fifth column” marching within our country.

More interesting, however, is to see what happens within the government itself—especially within the parliamentary groups of the Swedish People’s Party (RKP) and the National Coalition Party—as well as within the main opposition parties, the Social Democratic Party and the Centre Party. Will there also be, and if so how many, individuals willing to participate in the activities of a “fifth column”?

* * *

As an aside, and loosely related to the topic: Member of Parliament Joakim Vigelius (Finns Party) made a rather apt remark on social media. He stated that “it is quite a paradox that first low-income people are attracted from around the world to Finland to be low-income, and then people wonder how much low-income status has increased.”

This observation also appears to be shared by Professor Heikki Hiilamo, who stated that immigration is “a significant factor” in the increase in poverty. “There has been a change in the labor market, with more and more immigrants working in low-wage occupations.”

In addition, the professor noted that the situation is also affected by the fact that immigrants largely live in big cities, such as Helsinki, where housing costs are relatively high. What more is there to add, except that public authorities in Finland actively encourage this by offering various non-reciprocal benefits to citizens of other countries as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Perspectives on Immigration Restrictions in Finland and the U.S.
Finland to Cut Off Taxpayer Money for Immigration
Can Europe Learn from Finland´s and Spain’s Contrasting Immigration Policies?

Finland Denies Blanket Asylum for Gazans, Confirms Tighter Immigration Policies

A Finnish afternoon newspaper reported yesterday that the Finnish Immigration Service had allegedly decided that all Gazans would be entitled to asylum in Finland. The claim sparked considerable surprise, and among others, the minister responsible, Mari Rantanen (Finns Party), immediately posted on social media that she had not seen any such decision. She also stated that there are “enormous risks related to Gazans because of Hamas terrorists.”

Member of Parliament Pia Kauma (National Coalition Party) likewise said, “I do not accept that we would blindly take anyone from Gaza into Finland. The residents of the area have extensive ties to the terrorist organization Hamas, as Hamas holds significant power in Gaza.”

Today, the Immigration Service corrected the afternoon newspaper’s report, stating that it was a misinterpretation by the journalist who wrote about the matter. In reality, all asylum seekers’ ties to terrorism are investigated before they are granted asylum in Finland. This also applies to residents of Gaza.

It should also be noted that Finland has in fact recently tightened its asylum policy. As a result, both the reception allowance for refugees and the duration of international protection have been reduced to a minimum, and additional grounds have been added for denying asylum. Furthermore, switching one’s residence permit basis from asylum to work-based immigration has been prohibited, family reunification to Finland has been restricted, and the requirements for obtaining citizenship have been tightened.

In this context, it is also worth noting that, in addition to the government, the largest opposition party — the Social Democrats — is also moving toward supporting a ban on wearing face-covering veils in schools. This means that Finnish legislation and practices will in the future be shaped in such a way that immigrants will be required to abandon customs that conflict with the Western way of life and instead integrate more fully into Finnish society and its social norms.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Precedent from France Opens EU Pathway for Gaza Palestinians
NATO Sounds the Alarm on Illegal Immigration
EU Citizens Don’t Want More Migrants – But How Can the Flow of Asylum Seekers Be Slowed?

Finland to Cut Off Taxpayer Money for Immigration

Under the leadership of Finland’s Minister of Finance, Riikka Purra (Finns Party), a budget proposal has been drawn up which would allocate no state-collected tax money next year to the integration of immigrants or the reception of quota refugees. This would be a major change from the current situation, in which a significant share of tax revenue is used precisely for these purposes.

According to Minister Purra, “The integration structures within the public sector, and the ‘private’ integration industry that has grown around them, form one branch of the welfare state that has become enormous. The taxpayer foots the bill. If immigration broadly worked, such structures wouldn’t be needed at all. The government has previously cut integration spending, and in my opinion, it could easily cut more.”

Minister of the Interior Mari Rantanen (Finns Party) commented on the proposed change, stating that “Integration should not be measured by the amount of money spent, and society should have an incentive to push those granted permission straight into work. That would also put an end to all sorts of busywork back home, such as collecting droppings in matchboxes.”

It remains to be seen, however, how the other government parties and Parliament will respond to the Finance Minister’s proposal. It is expected that the ending of support for companies making their living from immigration would face opposition within the government, at least from the Swedish People’s Party, and in Parliament from the entire green-left bloc.

The taxpayer, on the other hand, would welcome it—since once Finland’s chronically deficit-ridden state budget is brought into balance, they might one day have a say over the use of a larger share of their own paycheck.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A New Beginning: Economic Independence in the Hands of Developing Nations
Finnish Branch of Extinction Rebellion Faces Possible Ban
Finland's Stance on NATO Defense Spending Is Linked to the Geopolitical Threat from Russia

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

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

Russian Fake News vs. Reality

Russian scammers have informed people wanting to come to Finland that the border would soon be opened and are offering them transportation services. As a result, people have appeared near the border after being deceived into believing that the border will open shortly.

These individuals have been transported close to the border and then left to fend for themselves, with Russian authorities denying responsibility for the fake news. However, outlets like Komsomolskaya Pravda have falsely claimed that Finland’s Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party) was supposedly seeking ways to negotiate with Russia to open one border crossing point.

Finland’s Minister of the Interior, Mari Rantanen (Finns Party), has reacted to the Russian reporting and stated that “Finland's eastern border remains closed until further notice.” Hopefully, this message is also understood by the Muslims in Russia who are longing to move to Finland.

They should also be aware that, as of the beginning of this year, it is no longer possible to obtain permanent asylum in Finland. Instead, the right to stay in the country ends as soon as the need for asylum ceases. In other words, it is no longer worth coming to Finland under the guise of international protection just to seek a higher standard of living supported by social benefits for the rest of one's life.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare
Getting asylum in Finland becomes significantly more difficult
Duck emphasizing the urgency of the new border law

Getting asylum in Finland becomes significantly more difficult

Finnish Minister of the Interior, Mari Rantanen (PS), announced good news yesterday. According to her, the government intends to extend the residency requirement for obtaining Finnish citizenship from the current five years to eight years, and the calculation of this period will start only after obtaining a residence permit. Additionally, the acceptable period of residence abroad will be shortened from the current standard, and the amount of reception allowance and allowance for asylum seekers will be reduced.

The government also plans to add passing a citizenship test, which will be established, as a requirement for obtaining citizenship. Moreover, asylum will always be intended as temporary and as short as EU legislation allows. And in the future, it will no longer be possible to transition from an asylum seeker to a labor-based immigrant.

Furthermore, the Minister of the Interior emphasized that refugee status or asylum could be denied or revoked in the future if the individual is considered a threat to society, has committed an especially heinous crime, is suspected of or has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, a crime against humanity, or an act contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The asylum process is also planned to be expedited through border procedures, during which asylum seekers are not allowed to leave the vicinity of the reception center assigned to them. Additionally, a fast-track procedure is intended to be included in the Aliens Act, under which applicants who receive a negative decision can be deported more quickly than in the regular asylum process. It is intended to be applied to individuals deemed a threat to national security and to those who have submitted repeat applications.

In addition to these changes, a proposal has been prepared at the Ministry of Justice, led by Leena Meri (PS), to amend the Penal Code regarding the criminalization of female genital mutilation and its preparation. This law is significant not only on the basis of human rights but also because it reduces Finland's attractiveness among asylum seekers who intend to mutilate their daughters' genitals, a practice that constitutes a significant portion of economic migrants arriving in Finland.

Overall, the government parties intend to implement exactly the policies that a large portion of their current voters supported in the last parliamentary elections. When combined with the billion-euro cut in development aid funding, voters finally have reason to be satisfied—provided, of course, that the intentions I've outlined above are realized.

Previous thought on the same topic:
The EU's 7.4 billion euro aid package is intellectual dishonesty
The Finnish forest is life-threatening to asylum-seekers
In Germany, immigration policy changes are being planned