Finnish parliament approves law to block ayslum seekers at Russian border | DW News
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 07. 2024
- Finland's Parliament on Friday voted in favor of legislation that would permit border guards to turn away asylum-seekers at its eastern border under certain circumstances.
The new law comes following a dramatic increase in the number of asylum-seekers from countries such as Somalia and Syria arriving in Finland via its 1,340-kilometre (830-mile) border with Russia in the past year.
Helsinki claims that the surge was orchestrated by Moscow, which it accuses of "weaponizing migration" as part of "hybrid attacks" in response to Finland's accession to NATO. The Kremlin denies the suggestions.
Subscribe: czcams.com/users/deutsche...
For more news go to: www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: / deutschewellenews
►Twitter: / dwnews
►Instagram: / dwnews
►Twitch: / dwnews_hangout
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: / dwdeutsch
#finland #border #migrants
Good job Finland. If this is against EU law then EU law needs to be changed.
Suspicious how the rest of EU countries outside nordic can't do the same.
@@peterp4037 Denmark has an opt-out from EU migration politics.
@@MemovoxDenmark always has an opt-out as long as it's not adventourous to opt-in.
@@Kartoffelsuppe_m_Wursteinlage -Which makes Denmark one of the most successful countries in the history of mankind.
@@Memovox@Memovox giving up law principles lead to humanitarian crimes. Finland harmed it's own constitution.
Full support! Cheers from Poland!
Cheers from Finland
Well then we should change the law...Europe can not be the home of the world...
What if european colonialists disagreed?
@@kinofchaos9085 Not every country in EU has a colonial history. Just keep that in mind
You cant be upset when the empires subjects move to the capital
IMO it is not about "home for..." this is about weaponization of the asylum process
@@kinofchaos9085 please tell me when Finland colonized something.
Russia is using migration as a hybrid warfare tactic. Finland needs to react to this aggression. Blocking asyloum is a solution.
But when it happens in southern countries it's not that and the EU does not allow them do the same right?.
@@peterp4037 they are capable to make their own laws as independent nations, aren't they?
@@peterp4037 They can make their own laws, no one stopped them except for the electorate.
@@dallysinghson5569they get blackmailed by the EU
No, it's completely inhumane. If people are on the run from the regime, we can't turn them back to Putin - that's what he wants us to do.
Thank you ❤️ Finland protecting Europe
Here in Finland, about 90% of Finn's support this law. Not only politicians. Only socialists protest about it. We have right to decide, who comes here. Russia or anyone else should not have right to decide that. Only us. Europe: you all need to do the same. We need to safe Europe.
I am a conservative and I am against the law. It is an exeption of the constitution and as such can only be passed for a limited time, but still it is a violation of human rights. I would rather keep the border closed as it is now.
@@sampohonkala4195 With this law it's much easier to shut the border and keep it closed. So if you truly want safe borders then you'd be rooting for this law we passed.
For a conservative person you would be an exception if you actually are against this law but I'd argue that you're realistically for the law based on your view about wanting to protect our eastern border.
You also need to ask yourself is it truly a violation of human rights in the bigger picture if we can reduce human trafficking through Russia with this law? I'd argue this law helps protecting human rights.
Thank you Finland for standing up again illegal migration !
It is not illegal to cross a border and apply for asylum.
@@Kartoffelsuppe_m_Wursteinlage it is, if you leave land that is safe, and to my knowledge northern russia is safe... they should seek asylum there
@@ht8602Do,western countries not always tell Russia is an evil dictatorship?
@@claus-not-santanot always, and definitely not before Feb 22. I wonder why?
This Finnish retired professor was useless : just wait for EU to fix it was his genius advice.
Excellent law by Finns.
The professor was talking only about what the law says. There was no personal opinion from him. He just stated what the constitution and EU laws says about this. And that is his job. So don't blame him for doing his job. Of course Finland has a right to stop the weaponized immigration from Russia but the Professor was thinking about a big picture.
"Excellent law by Finns."
Bro is highfiving himself.
Professor had objective view on laws. He's only worried about the bigger picture on how we view constitution and international laws. But at the same time you need to understand that times are different now versus the time when constitution was made, and you need to prioritize between constitution/international laws and protecting your border/your own society. Luckily our government decided to prioritize our society's safety and passed the law.
“156 vs 31 voted for the change of the law… showing how divisive it is.”
Divisive? That’s kinda clear cut as far as I can figure. Sometimes these comments from these news anchors are so off par.
Just saying
The division has been kept up by the press and loud politicians (mostly leftist and green ones). As far as I know, most Finns support the law.
it wasnt divisive. it needed 5/6 members to vote for the law. normally its 50/50
@@t6pix I agree totally… I’m quoting the commentary of the news anchor
For divisive you've only got to look at the Brexit vote, 52/48%.
@@sheadford indeed… that’s divisive for sure! My point above was the fact that the reporter called the 156/31 vote divisive.
As a Finn i absolutely love this. the votes were like 167 in favour. But ofc they take the minority for the interview to talk about how "bad" this is.
This is an extreme left media
That is why
You're mad we are able to hear both sides? You want any political and social ideas you don't agree with silenced? I think it's important to hear from the losing side also. You might not agree with them, but they have their reasons. What you seem to want is totalitarianism.
@@Omit1tulliportin when did i say that? how am i mad? im literally saying i love this decision and you cant accept my opinion. so is your comment talking about yourself?
This law is against democratic values but considering that democracy is under threat, that's only way. Dictators are not gonna protect democracy unless we do. Protect Finland!!!!
That law dictates that you have to fill a request for Asylum, not straight cross the border and enter whatever nation you like to go. Since they are in Russia, outside of immediate danger of war or persecution, they could ask for Asylum there, but they probably think going to Finland gives them more opportunities (money and benefits).
Sweden used this same principle. Take a look how much of a success it was for them.
@@mutkaluikkunen3926 Sweden doesn't have landborder with Russia.
@@Leptospirosi Or Russia could use human traffickers to flood Finland and EU with people from all over the world and perhaps include some radicals in the mix to cause sabotage/terrorism in Finland or in other parts of Europe. We are a small nation and can handle only so many asylum seekers at the time. Hybrid warfare is today's warfare and Russia is trying to exploit/perfect it by having naive neighbours.
Well done Finland. Rest of Europeans should learn
Well done Finland, the citizens of the rest of EU supports you!
Speak for yourself. This law is a disgrace. Deportation is Stalins tool box.
Speak for yourself, this is a disgrace.
I don't support this.
@@Kartoffelsuppe_m_Wursteinlage The leftist's cry is downright music to my ears
@@ansgarm.cordie9659 Well the rest of europe does, youre welcome to migrate to russia if you dont like it here..
But i got a feeling youre already living there
Good for them, there is a reason it's called border
You mean a "real border" like the one the DDR (communist "German Democratic Republic") had?
that will become a permanent EU-law in near future
What would your advice be to the government to tackle this issue?
- "Well there are a couple of ways within the EU. Use the treatise, to persuade the commission, to propose to the council, that special measures be taken."
You just described the very problem... And why countries can't wait around for you to kind go through 20 proposal stages, while a crisis is raging on. It's easy to sit in Brussels, Paris or Berlin and making decisions on the high ground, while border countries have to deal with reality.
Yes indeed it's about the border countries and most of the are fairly small regarding the population. For Finland 5.5 mil and for Estonia less than 1.3 mil.
Glad to see Finland has some balls and not as naive as most of the EU.
They have lived with their terrorist neighbour for a long time and thank goodness consider historic events in times like this.
@@johnsvensson6540Strange, before it was not a terrorist neighbor.
@@claus-not-santa has allways been
@@jaripukki267 So Finland‘s biggest customer was a terrorist!?
@@claus-not-santa Sure it was. We just never said it out loud.
When you're enemies use your laws against you somthing has to change
Thankfully that professor is not governing Finland! Unfortunately his advice is what most governments in Europe listen to and obey!!!!!!!
Very one sided news piece. Should Finland let Moscow dictate their immigration? If not, this law was necessary. Furthermore, Finnish constitution allows to pass exception laws at 5/6 majority. This law reached this hurdle in the parliament. This was not as controversial as the Green party and the Left wing alliance (the parties opposed) made it out to be.
No discussion whether these EU (or international agreements) needs amendments to combat hybrid operations by hostile autocracies. DW, you can do better.
Excellent!!!
Keep taking the lead Finland! Great job! Decision like that must be taken, to preserve national security/sovereignty!
Are you living in the 1930s? Sounds that way.
Why can't the US do the same at the Mexican border?
Cartels
@@luciferjohnson8495 biden 🤡
Leftist's, that's why
Finland doesn't have a constitutional court. Finland has a constitutional commitee that is filled with members of parliament. Constitutional commitee already stated this law is NOT against the constitution, so there won't be any legal problems coming from Finland. And because this is a martial law, I doesn't matters what the EU constitution or court says. Martial law will go above it. They can cry all they wan't, or give fines, but the law will stay none the less.
Actually there is EU law that everyone has forgotten, that allows this law of ours. It is EU law for exceptional situations, basically it says that all EU laws hindering nations capability to secure it self when situation needs it doesn't apply.
Up next: "Does the immune system break EU law by denying cancer cells the chance to ask for asylum in uninfected part of body?"
Cool how you are comparing people to cancer. I wonder where I've heard this before.
@@timothymattnew Because the Russian troops in Ukraine are just "alternative Ukrainian citizens" or something, right? And Ukraine should probably "compromise" some of its territory and people away, right? And then in a few years when Russia intervenes in Finland to "protect the ethnic Russians living there," that will also be justified, right? Because people coming from Russia could not possibly ever be a bad thing, right?
@@timothymattnew well where?
Every country in Europe needs similar law!
Wise up… unregulated migration is not sustainable, if countries need to impose regulations to protect their sovereign integrity then that is what needs to be done. These academics simply do not live in the real world and do not reflect the views of the majority of ordinary decent hardworking people.
"Common sense" above human rights? There was a time when this was called "das gesunde Volksempfinden".
Its a special border operation.
Outstanding
Bem feito filandia
Belarus playing the Same game!!
Interview with a professor who opposed the law, and comments from Schultz, who clearly is against it and cannot keep her bias out of her expressions and words. Nothing from the majority of Finns, represented in a 5/6 vote, who supported the law: great reporting, DW!
In the case of Russia, that situation could escalate there at the border, and Russia will stage itself as a victim. There are historical examples.
Russia is always portraying itself as the victim. It's nothing out of the ordinary.
Yes, Europe should follow the laws not the commonsense.
Why is DW News so concerned about how other nations deal with the issue of migration? Who funds them?
It’s a firmly established principle of law that abuse of rights will not enjoy protection of the law. This applies to international law as well so pleading to the right for asylum protection (not migration as wrongly referred here all the time) under international agreements when one state (Russia) is clearly using it in bad faith against another state should be rejected without a doubt. The fact that these organised and often misled asylum seekers may have needs for humanitarian help do not presumptively stem from needs for asylum protection but from intentional abuse of their status by a state actor who should be held responsible for it (in case of Russia they of course claim the opposite as usual).
Why can finland close their border but then southern countries and other EU countries simply can't?.
Finland, Poland and Hungary CAN! Cause they got governments that REALLY WANT TO DO what's necessary! Greece, Italy and Spain got governments that care about how much money they will get from the Brussels, and not much about anything else. Which is sad as Greece and Italy got right wingers in power.
Just do it. It's Your border isn't it?
Finland is a far north country, easier for it to do this.
Land border is usually easier for patrol and there is a whole fence, but it is impossible on the sea. Furthermore, it is also easier to turn away people walking, compared with those ships nearly shrinking
This law is a measure against orchestrated, weaponized migration. I'm quite sure if we get another kind of migration wave, then our policies will be as terminally woke as ever 🤷🏻♂️
Furthermore, each country can vote for their own policies on the matter of migration. This has been an Finnish domestic vote, so Finland hasn't gotten any external, international or EU "approval" or "permission" for the law.
This means that at some point this law, if activated, may have to be evaluated by some EU institutions, or courts (whatever they are called).
I hope the EU doesn't ruin this great piece of legislation we managed to achieve!
I still dont understand why Europeans let the eu rule their countries.
Okay, you "don't understand". You don't understand the conceptof international human rights and the peace keeping role of the European Union during the last 74 years
@@ansgarm.cordie9659Has EU been founded 74 years ago? I did not know that...............
Not all Europeans are ruled by EU! There still are some free and independent countries in Europe!
@@claus-not-santa These countries have either close ties to the EU like Norway and Switzerland or homegrown economic problems like the UK after Brexit.
@@claus-not-santa Römische Verträge 1950 was the starting point.
The folks in Brussels won't be happy 😅
EU legislation does not take in to count some party using immigration as a mean of a weapon.. this is a law to counter to that if necessary
im not even watching the video. comments > video
Not saying that the law is good or bad, but I find something lacking in the reporting:
As it has been acknowledged in Finland that the act goes against the Constitution and international treaties, it had to be approved by 5/6th of the Finnish Parliament. Thus, the act has been approved in the way laid down in the Constitution.
Therefore, there can't really be any legal challenges against the act in Finland. Another thing entirely is whether the ECJ will take it up if something is brought to it. Not too sure about the role of the ECHR in this connection.
Do you know the term "Ermächtigungsgesetz"?
@@ansgarm.cordie9659 Ich spreche deutsch ziemlich gut, habe zwei Jahre in Berlin gewohnt und kenne die deutsche Kultur ganz gut, aber dat habe ich nicht von früher gekannt. So, ich danke dir!
Dieser Gesetz ist doch überhaupt nicht wie dein "Beispiel". Es ist ein Gesetz nur für besondere Situationen, was du auch weisst. In Finnland ist es unmöglich die Demokratie zu auslösen durch demokratishe Methoden.
@@toinenosoite3173 Du verstehst aber, warum ich besorgt bin, wenn irgendwo die Verfassung und die Bürgerrechte eingeschränkt werden.
@@ansgarm.cordie9659 Stimmt, ich verstehe dich gut.
Wie ich gesagt habe, ich weiss nicht, ob dieser Gesetz gut oder schlecht ist, aber es sollte eine Ausnahme sein und er gilt nur für die Grenze nach dem Osten, das heisst Russland.
Und wenn ich es korrekt verstanden habe, ausserdem nur in besonderen Fällen. Nichts passiert automatisch, hoffe ich mindestens.
@@toinenosoite3173 Dankeschön. Wir werden sehen, wie die Dinge sich entwickeln.
** asylum
What law? Can someone define under which laws we are operating? We are functioning with policies, not by laws. There are no laws which contradict someone's interests. No one on the planet makes or obeys rules which is not beneficial to that one. Here we are speaking about unlawful migration which has no political points scoring for us or for the EU. The same individuals were flooding when the West was destroying Iraq, and Syria in the spread of democracy.
The guest has outsourced all his thinking capacity to the books on the shelf behind him.
Rule of law must be a foreign concept to you.
@@peabase Rules are meant to serve the people and should be disregarded when they don't.
@@zinjanthropus322 Laws are made by a legislature, meaning democractically elected representatives of the people. Is that news to you? It would appear so.
@@peabase Don't be naive. Voters and their representatives don't write laws, bureaucrats do. Lots of elected legislators don't even read the stuff they sign and couldn't even understand it properly even if they did.
@@peabase Don't be naive. Voters and their representatives don't write laws, bureaucrats do. A lot of legislators don't even read the stuff they sign and couldn't even understand it properly even if they did.
👍🙂
EU needs to be held accountable for everybody and everyone in EU and they just don't want to.
Experts ! What a joke
Better than any vodka loving expert in Russia. Trisomy-21 is a big problem.
@@vectorfox4782 my expert nerve has worn thin because children are being murdered women raped civillians murdered in there beds because EXPERTS deem it not ok to defend yourself
@@vectorfox4782 our experts wont let Ukraine defend itself from being raped & murdered.. our experts say immigration has more rights than a born & bred local no common sense no more it's the right thing to do
@@vectorfox4782You know some?
@@claus-not-santa literally all of Eastern Europe
167❤ 🇫🇮 31😡🇫🇮
Finlamd was all for Human Rights when it did not negativly affect them! Then when it did they were against it. All countries/groups/tribes would do the same. Human nature.
and it is against common cense that immigrants have better benefits than sick, elderly and unemployed
Finland is still for human rights, but against weaponised migration which I'd argue is the party weaponising migration taking advantage of people already suffering. Such acts should be discouraged and that's what this law aims to do.
Why Finland should accept asylum seekers from Russia ? they can apply for asylum in Russia
It's time for all of us to defend our constitutions and the humanist values against the threat from right wing parties. The French center and left has shown us how to fight the rising fascism.
Good speech, wrong place.
By all accounts you should have never heard of Finland. Well, not since Matti Nykaenen, anyway.
Goes to show that pushing military alliances right next to each other does not "make us stronger", "show resolve", "unite us", but just racks up the tensions and puts us all in danger (Finns included).
Now this, fairly logical consequence could not have escaped the old wise heads, but does in fact offer a silver lining in increased arms spending. I guess it's worth it to then.
So in your opinion Finland should stay out of alliances? We should be a "Buffer zone" and to be counted into the Russian "sphere of influence"? Why would you want us Finns not to have our freedom of associating with other countries, and why would you not grant us the same kind of security than other similar countries?
In my opinion military alliances are quite unnecessary if they can be participated only by those, who have little worry of ever needing to be in one.
It was always clear that it would increase tensions at the border.
However Russia has made it pretty clear what happens to its neighbours that aren't protected by an alliance
@@FINNSTIGAT0R Buffer zone is to be out of spheres.
And yes, redundant military alliances are quite beneficial to peace.
To be a march or mark or krajina (Ukraina) if you are Slavic, does not in any give you security. In fact it gives you financial or other, mostly religious or language benefits in exchange for your willingness to fight for the crown. You have now opted to become a march, where you were a buffer before.
From personal POV, I gain nothing, but the danger increases, if nothing else just because it makes things more nervy.
For your sake I hope you've gotten something tangible out of the deal and not some fairytale promises of democracy and freedom. If the latter, you've traded Manhattan for a dozen shinny mirrors.
@@Lin.Do.n No, Russia's made it pretty clear what happens to its neighbours that flirt with an alliance.
@@urbansenicar81
I didn't understand anything from your comment, try to be more clear.
So we here in Finland should just trust Russia, who has the tendency of doing unprovoked invasions against it neighbors.
No thanks, we already got one of those unprovoked invasions when the USSR invaded us 1939, while we were neutral and non-allied, and as a consequence we had to fight completely without any help from any foreign powers, which allowed the USSR to steal 11% of our territory.
We'll rather take our chances as part of NATO this time. Only a fool doesn't try to secure himself, and just childishly trusts on the nice words and assurances of much stronger neighbors, who are fundamentally aggressive and terminally imperialistic.
Bye bye Europe
I hope you mean EU!?
🇫🇮🔨🇷🇺
Shame no human rights 😔 Finland should be prosecuted in united nations
Why? For putting our own interests before those of Russia's?
I agree. It would be interesting.
Personally I would have voted against - yet it is not possible to give an easy solution.
Crime against humanity
Aw. Were you planning on migrating to Finland?
@@peabase not me but my friends from middle east and africa
@@wumaobotmiddle east Africa supports Russian, you should go there, not to Europe, the system you are against.
@@80-80. Gazans may qualify, unless they take the Russian route at the behest of the Russians. Sudanese, same.
Say, why don't you take in your friends? You did refer to them as friends, so be friendly.
Says a profile holder whos all publications are in Z-yuotube 🤣
Well done Finland 🇫🇮 unfortunately here in the uk 🇬🇧 it's too late for us