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?

History of Finland XI: Finnish democracy and gender equality for women

This is the eleventh part of a blog post series where I go through the significant phases of Finnish history. In the tenth entry, I described how the Finnish nationalism led to the formation of a unified, yet bilingual Finnish identity.

However, the next change occurred when the development of the Russian society progressed to a level where the country could dream of standardizing the administration of the empire. As a result, Tsar Nicholas II decided to end Finland's autonomous status as a part of the empire - in other words, the first period of oppression began in our country, which lasted from 1899 to 1905.

The beginning of the period of oppression heavily politicized our country, causing the political struggle, which had previously been focused on language issues, to shift to new fronts. The Old Finns party, primarily relying on the peasantry, adopted a conciliatory policy with the aim of combining the interests of the Finns and the Tsar, while the Young Finns party of the educated and industrial circles, the Old Estates, and the Swedish-speaking industrialists formed a constitutional front that held onto autonomy as it had been known.

The first period of oppression ended when Russia stumbled in the war with Japan in 1904-05, resulting in Tsar losing his autocracy, and a parliament, called the Duma, was established in the empire. At the same time, the Tsar's grip on Finland loosened, and the people went on a general strike demanding the restoration of autonomy and their own parliament.

After a lengthy struggle, the country finally obtained a unicameral parliament that maximized democracy, and women, along with the working-class, were granted the right to vote and, gradually, an equal position with men.

It may interest my esteemed reader that the Swedish-speaking minority in our country, supported by some Young Finns, vehemently opposed women's access to positions of power. This opposition was sometimes expressed in quite interesting turns of phrase.

One of my ancient colleagues opposed women's eligibility for elections on the grounds that "women, as emotional beings, might easily sway towards too extreme positions" - expressing incontrovertibly that the opposition to gender equality was not so much ethical or political, but rather stemmed primarily from a fear of democracy. In other words, women's ability to make sound political decisions was not trusted.

The original blog post in Finnish:

Suomalainen demokratia ja naisten tasa-arvo

All the blog posts in this series:
History of Finland I: How did Finland become culturally part of the West?
History of Finland II: From a hinterland of the Union into a modern state
History of Finland III: The legal and economic weakening of the position of the people
History of Finland IV: The bleakest time in Finnish history
History of Finland V: The pursuit of economic profit saved the country
History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility
History of Finland VII: The dictator of the era of Enlightenment promoted capitalist economy
History of Finland VIII: Joining of Finland to Russia led to an increase in crime
History of Finland IX: Enlightended dictator initiated economic growth
History of Finland X: The birth of Finnish identity
History of Finland XI: Finnish democracy and gender equality for women
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
History of Finland XIII: The far-right's rebellion
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
History of Finland XV: Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine
History of Finland XVI: Through rise and fall to a new kind of future