High Rewards in Humanitarian Immigration Attract People to Illegal Businesses

The attempt by people from developing countries to enter the EU by lying about their situation is in itself illegal and thus condemnable. However, the biggest beneficiaries of this activity are the networks of smugglers, who profit large sums from those seeking a better life.

An example of this was provided by a news report stating that the German federal police arrested five Syrian nationals, aged 26–37, who, according to the prosecutor, were involved in at least 40 human smuggling operations, transporting up to 480 people in a single day via the so-called Balkan route.

For these journeys, the criminals charged an average of €2,500–€4,500 per person, depending on the route and risks, and earned at least €1.4 million between 2022 and 2025. According to the prosecutor, the total could even exceed €10 million.

It’s no wonder, then, that so-called humanitarian immigration attracts people to illegal business. After all, the risk of getting caught appears to be quite low, while the rewards are astronomical compared to, for example, the average salary for honest work in Syria.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Eviction of Inhabitants for Incoming Immigrants Sparks Controversy
Finland to Cut Off Taxpayer Money for Immigration
Western Countries Have Neither a Reason Nor a Need to Accept Asylum Seekers from Syria or Gaza

Can Europe Learn from Finland´s and Spain’s Contrasting Immigration Policies?

The immigration issue in Finland became a normal political process when the government programme of Petteri Orpo's (NCP) cabinet was agreed upon — or at the latest, when those decisions started being implemented into legislation.

In Spain, by contrast, power is held by a socialist government that pays no attention to the problems of immigration. Instead, it is planning to grant residence and work permits to a large number of migrants who have entered the country illegally. In other words, the government led by Pedro Sánchez has decided to ignore the elephant in the room.

Naturally, this failure to address the problems has led to a backlash. A serious sign of this was seen in the municipality of Torre-Pacheco, where a 68-year-old man was attacked by three North African men.

This prompted frustrated Spaniards to take matters into their own hands and engage in outright illegal actions — namely, physically attacking immigrants. Reportedly, no one has died in these incidents, but five people have been injured.

It remains to be seen what the consequences of this unrest will be, as those who have taken justice into their own hands — described as far-right individuals — are to be arrested and prosecuted. All this is taking place in a municipality where as much as one third of the population has an immigrant background.

* * *

The developments I described above should prompt reflection all across Europe. In particular, it would be worthwhile to compare the immigration policies of Spain and Finland. And to examine what they have led to — and what they are likely to lead to in the coming years.

For my part, I believe — in the spirit of former president Paasikivi — that the recognition of facts is the beginning of wisdom. But how on earth can this simple truth be understood by Sánchez's government? Or by the Finnish green-left?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Left Wants to Grill a Swedish Minister Over His Son’s Past – What’s Really Behind It? 
EU Citizens Don’t Want More Migrants – But How Can the Flow of Asylum Seekers Be Slowed?
EU Commission Should Take Migration and Related Crime Seriously

NATO Sounds the Alarm on Illegal Immigration

Last week at the Hague summit, NATO signaled de facto that illegal immigration is a significant threat to national security. This decision included a provision that allows member states to count border security-related expenses toward the five percent defense spending target.

This marks a substantial shift from the situation and attitudes that prevailed among European political leaders ten years ago, when people from developing countries streamed into the continent without asking for permission, seeking better livelihoods. However, it remains to be seen what kind of measures different member states will actually take.

A crucial factor in this context is the nature of the government in power in each member state. For example, in Finland, almost all politicians condemn Russia’s instrumentalized migration. However, those who arrive independently tend to receive sympathy—especially from the green-left, but also from the liberal right. Thus, Finland's currently tightening immigration policy would change significantly if the public were to elect a government that includes the political left.

The same largely applies to other European countries. And the unfortunate reality is that effective immigration control requires participation from all nations, because under the spirit of the Schengen Agreement, immigrants entering the EU can move quite freely within the area and apply for asylum in whichever country they believe offers them the best advantages.

It is also essential to note that EU countries still lack both a plan and a practical mechanism for how to remove large numbers of people from developing countries from the Union’s territory, should such a need arise—for example, due to an economic recession. And I don’t believe such a plan will emerge for a long time—certainly not on a Union-wide scale.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Expert Statement Highlights Russian Hybrid Threat Over Migration Across the Mediterranean
Human Rights Judge Pauliine Koskelo Questions Asylum Interpretation That Ignores the Threat of Hybrid Warfare
Friedrich Merz Needs the AfD – A Precedent from Finland

Friedrich Merz Needs the AfD – A Precedent from Finland

Germany's likely future chancellor, Friedrich Merz (CDU), has promised to implement significant changes to the country's immigration and asylum policies on his very first day in office. From that moment on, entry to Germany will be prohibited for anyone who does not possess valid travel documents or the European freedom of movement—this includes those seeking asylum.

According to Merz, "The state must utilize old barracks and container villages located on isolated properties to house individuals designated for deportation. Deportations of those who entered illegally must be carried out daily. The powers of the federal police responsible for border control will be expanded."

This stance comes in the wake of recent terrorist acts in Germany, the latest of which involved an Afghan illegal immigrant who killed two children with a knife. This individual had been ordered to leave Germany long ago. Merz stated that these knife attacks are a direct consequence of asylum and immigration policies pursued in Germany over the past ten years.

* * *

It remains to be seen, however, whether Merz will follow through on these promises. First, he must win the upcoming elections, and second, he must find a coalition partner. In practice, this would mean that—if Merz sticks to his current promises—the AfD (Alternative for Germany) would need to be brought into the government. This would not be possible unless the two parties secure a majority in the national parliament, as none of the other parties would accept collaboration with the AfD.

At the moment, however, the situation looks promising for Merz. According to polls, the CDU/CSU is projected to win just over 30% of the vote, while the AfD is expected to gain over 20%. In other words, they could govern Germany together.

* * *

The situation bears some resemblance to Finland, where the government is also based on cooperation between an established conservative party (the National Coalition Party) and a value-conservative party (the Finns Party), which has risen to prominence through its criticism of immigration policies. However, the difference is that Finland's government also includes significantly smaller, traditional right-wing parties (the Christian Democrats and the Swedish People's Party).

It should also be noted that Finns Party, apart from its stance on immigration, is a fairly typical conservative party. For instance, Finance Minister Riikka Purra has even pushed more strongly than other government members to balance the state budget by cutting funding for public services. The party was also the first in Finland to clearly recognize the threat posed by Putin's Russia and, as a result, began strongly supporting Ukraine long ago.

By contrast, there are greater differences between the AfD and Germany's Christian Democrats, particularly regarding Russia. The former seems entirely naïve about the threat posed by Russia. Cooperation in government could also be complicated by some AfD members' negative attitude toward Jews, and the AfD's social-populist policies might not resonate well with the Christian Democrats.

The fact remains, however, that in both Finland and Germany, political parties have their differences, but despite these, they must be able to form a common government program. If the CDU/CSU and AfD succeed in doing so, they could govern Germany together in the coming years—and in doing so, they could set an example for the rest of Europe, particularly in rationalizing immigration and asylum policies.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges
Why It’s Crucial for Germans to Vote Wisely

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

Finland Suspends Development Cooperation with Somalia

Finland is suspending its development cooperation with Somalia. The decision follows the Finnish government’s policy that development aid will only be provided to countries that accept the return of their nationals whose asylum applications have been deemed unfounded. Somalia has not fulfilled this requirement.

According to Finland's Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade Ville Tavio (Finns Party), who announced the decision, “Suspension means that no new funding decisions related to the country program will be made until there is concrete progress in return cooperation with Somalia. I believe it wouldn’t take very long if sufficient will exists.”

He further stated, “Now we are suspending funding for the country program and hope it can resume with minimal disruption. In other words, we hope to move forward through cooperation.” This indicates that Finland views development cooperation with Somalia positively but expects reciprocity on migration issues.

The ball is now in the Somali government’s court, which has two options. The first is to accept both Finland’s development aid and the return of Somali nationals being repatriated from Finland for various reasons. The second option is to refuse to accept deportees and try to manage without Finnish development aid.

It remains to be seen which option Somalia will choose. If the latter, Finland and Finnish taxpayers will save nearly ten million euros annually. If the former, Finland will achieve the removal of illegal immigrants and continue to support Somalia in building a more functional society.

From Finland’s perspective, the first option also has the benefit of potentially serving as a model for development cooperation with other countries that send large numbers of migrants to the EU. This, in turn, could help curb the influx of illegal immigration into Finnish society from elsewhere.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland’s Minister of Finance Believes Not All Cultures Are Equally Good
The attractiveness of Finland to welfare-seeking economic migrants reduces
Information for Asylum Seekers in Finland

Healthcare Services for Undocumented Immigrants are a Pull Factor for Harmful Immigration

The Finnish government's intentions to restrict healthcare services for people living in the country illegally have received harsh criticism. The issue is that the change proposed by the current government would effectively overturn a decision made during the last parliamentary term, which granted undocumented individuals the right to essential non-urgent healthcare services.

In a statement from the Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa (HUS), which is responsible for providing specialized medical care in the region, it was suggested that "the underlying reasons for the proposed legislative amendment are more political than due to observed real problems." It was also stated that "tightening the regulations to approximately previous levels would thus likely increase the resources used for treating patients living illegally in the country."

The South Karelia social and health care district also opposed the legislative amendment, suggesting that "the benefits of the proposed legislation for the state budget and healthcare capacity would be marginal, but the risk of increased human suffering is significant." The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare claimed that "the proposed regulatory solution could lead to an increase in overall healthcare costs instead of achieving savings."

Helsinki Mayor Juhana Vartiainen (National Coalition Party) also commented on the issue, stating that "there is no reason to exclude part of the undocumented population from essential healthcare on the grounds that it would particularly burden the healthcare system." Therefore, the City of Helsinki does not support the legislative amendment.

In my view, each of these statements is foolish, as providing healthcare services to those living illegally in the country is part of the overall system that attracts social welfare-based economic migrants, which causes enormous costs and, on top of that, fosters a breeding ground for sexual and gang-related crime.

For this reason, healthcare services for people living illegally in the country are extremely detrimental to Finnish society and the safety of those legally residing here. Hence, the government's effort to further restrict healthcare for illegal residents is highly commendable, although it is too lenient and insufficient on its own.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Immigration issue
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth
The human rights of immigrant women are not important in Finland