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

Hope For a Better Life Is Not an Acceptable Basis for Asylum

Nigerian Mary told Finnish media that she left Nigeria for Italy at the age of 18 in hopes of a better life. She was promised a good job, but upon arrival, she was forced into street prostitution. Behind this were Nigerian criminal organizations that profit from human trafficking.

In Italy, Mary married a Nigerian man who, according to her, was extremely violent. To escape this situation, she traveled to Finland with her two children a little over a year ago.

However, her asylum application was rejected because Mary had already been granted a residence permit based on asylum in Italy and had not disclosed in her initial application that she was a victim of human trafficking. After the rejection, Mary then revealed her story of forced prostitution.

This did not help, as a month ago, the Finnish Administrative Court decided that Mary could be deported. Following this decision, the immigration police took her and her children from the reception center and transported them to another part of Finland.

Hopefully, Mary's story reaches as many people from developing countries as possible, so they understand that coming to the EU solely in search of a "better life" is not advisable, nor is it wise to leave the country that granted asylum to seek new opportunities in another member state. Instead, in the country that granted asylum – in Mary's case, Italy – victims of crime should contact the local police, whose duty is to apprehend criminals.

Acting as Mary did will only lead to marginalization, where one is at best labeled an asylum shopper, whom no EU country wishes to accept. In Mary’s case, Italy, for some reason, made an exception, even though it is clear that the hope for a better life is not an acceptable basis for asylum.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland to Tighten Citizenship Requirements Further
Statistics on Sexual Crimes Committed by Immigrants in Finland
Immigration-Specific Violent Crime Increases as Humanitarian Immigration Continues

Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?

In 2012, Finland joined the Ottawa Treaty, effectively prohibiting itself from using anti-personnel mines in the event of a Russian attack. The treaty was championed at the time by socialist president Tarja Halonen, who justified the decision by citing accidents caused by landmines, particularly in developing countries.

However, the irresponsible use of mines has never applied to the Finnish military, which has always ensured that civilians are kept away from minefields.

Perhaps for this reason, the Finnish far-left jurist Martin Scheinin came up with the claim that mines could pose a danger to migrants brought into Finland as hybrid warfare tools by Russia. This comment has mostly sparked amusement, as by the same logic, Russian tanks transporting asylum seekers should also be allowed to cross the border without resistance.

The discussion about the security risks caused by the Ottawa Treaty began in Finland about a month ago, when the Commander of the Finnish Defence Forces, Janne Jaakkola, stated that Finland's security environment has changed since 2012. Many ordinary citizens had already been contemplating the same issue since the start of the war in Ukraine.

Thus, on Finland’s Independence Day, December 6, a campaign was launched to gather supporters for a citizens' initiative calling for Finland to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines. The initiative quickly gathered the required 50,000 signatures and was submitted to the Parliament's office today.

It remains to be seen whether Parliament will approve the initiative or ignore the will of the Defence Forces Commander and the people, thereby discarding one of the most effective means of defending the country’s 1,300-kilometer border with Russia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's useful idiots in Finland
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
Finland after the Russian war in Ukraine