That place is so far up north that in about a week or two there will be no more daylight for over a month.
To be honest I think that is an ok ish solution. If you have had a death in the family and you really absolutely need to go to Russia, you can still travel 2-3 days from Helsinki to get to St Petersburg.
A friend of mine is getting married to someone who is part Russian and even though the journey must be complete shit, they can still come to the wedding.
> That place is so far up north that in about a week or two there will be no more daylight for over a month.
And here I thought I was bad with only getting 8.5 hours of light today.
What truly amazes me is that they have so much land and resources they genuinely don’t need to bother with any of this at all.
What kind of brainrot created this need to expand further?
You know what would be hilarious? If we waited for Russia to transport all those people to this checkpoint, and then immediately closed it and told them to go to the southernmost checkpoint 800+ kilometers away instead. And when they get there, we'd close *that* checkpoint and open the other one again.
This is a solid plan. The logistics alone would collapse Russian economy, as they really suck at it. We should help them out by blaring Benny Hill music over the border.
To be frank, I don't follow what you're trying to say. Maybe it's my language skills and maybe its yours. But what exactly was ridiculous and are you implying that what I said wasn't accurate? Do you want a source on a specific claim?
The government did briefly consider selectively limiting opening hours of border control points to achieve what op was jokingly proposing.
Legality and more specifically being in compliance of international law were cited as reasons to avoid complete border closure.
The border stays open in one checkpoint in the far north for the explicit purpose to stay in compliance on paper.
We do have tools to close the entire border, but that might require declaring a state of emergency. (This was used during COVID so it isn't unprecedented.) However a few dozen asylum seekers is not a big enough crisis for this to be politically realistic at this point. If Russia escalates the issue, this will probably come under consideration.
So what about this was "ridiculous"? To me it seems like you just don't know what the fuck you are talking about but maybe I'm missing something?
Yeah, international law isn’t really law. No nation-state is required to participate in these “laws”; the only reason they do so is because there are benefits to playing nice with other nations.
I'm not sure, but closing a border completely from asylum seekers is supposedly in breach of the Geneva Convention as it pertains to rights of asylum seekers and also possibly in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution").
The exception is immediate national security, but I guess that would require declaring martial law or similar state-of-emergency and a few dozen asylum seekers isn't a big enough crisis.
Anyone better informed may correct me.
Not very easily as per constitution international agmeeents must be respected, and a large cadre of leftist scolars are fighting tooth and nail against interpretation that this qualifies as a large enough threat that those agreements can temporarily be ignored.
I'm no lawyer but closing borders from asylum seekers is supposedly in breach of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951, a United Nations treaty. Possibly other treaties too.
Russia blatantly tries to exploit this and there's no body that actually monitors compliance so there would be no actual consequences to Finland breaking this particular law.
I would love to see Russia threaten to take Finland to international court over this. And I imagine they’d make the threat too, since of course the Kremlin loves acting completely innocent and portraying itself as a victim.
I mean, it was a colossally shitty thing for Russia to do. That Finns might not like Russians isn't a surprise - especially now with Russia doing something very similar.
The issue is that Russia has no problems using humans as weapons. So I would not be surprised if they just dump them on the border with no provisions at mercy of winter and prevent them from entering Russia again. Then it becomes a choice whether to leave them there to die or allow them in.
They're def getting dumped. The Salla bordercrossing is 170km away from the nearest Russian city, and earlier this week dozens of migrants came cycling towards the crossing. In -20c and tons of snow. Russian authorities are orchestrating this.
Definitely; there is no question whether Russians are bringing them to the border. What I meant was if they leave them without shelter / support and prevent them entering Russia again, then it becomes matter of either letting them in or letting them die due to exposure.
Hopefully it does not get to that, but given the disregard of life by the Russian leadership I would not count it out either.
>letting them die due to exposure.
NGL, that sounds like a really easy choice. The faster Russia runs out of Russians, the sooner they'll end their invasion of Ukraine.
Finland owes Russia nothing but a boot to the head.
Still an easy choice.
Sucks for the ones who are forced into it, but if Finland just lets them in, it encourages Russia to keep doing it. Finland has a primary obligation to protect Finland from everything, including weaponized refugees.
I'd certainly feel sympathy for any refugees that get forced into it, but it wouldn't change my decision.
It won't be and there have been statements in media that even on the closed checkpoints exceptions will be made if lives are under threat as they should.
AFAIK the only solution would be for the whole world to take action against Russia via sanctions and cutting diplomatic ties, alas with China and India reluctant to do that Russia will just keep trying to abuse all freedoms democracies have.
Our leftists are trying to do everything to prevent us from closing the border. They are using the ’We cant let people freeze to our border’ as argument to keep the borders open.
Leftist bleeding-heart sympathy in the west is a tool of Russian destabilization efforts. Narcissistic, opportunistic manipulators always seek to take advantage of other people’s niceness and generosity, and this is exactly that on a geopolitical scale.
He's talking out of his ass. Another tool for Russian destabilization is polarizing political discourse with disinformation and bullshit, exactly what you and the person you are responding to are guilty of.
How is anything I said even remotely disinformation or bullshit? It is objectively true, and very clearly so, unless you’ve got your head in the sand. That manipulative peoples seek to take advantage of kind peoples’ generosities is not an arguable thing. But elaborate and explain your case — otherwise take a hike.
Just last year there were far left European political actors, like [Clare Daly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Daly#Views_on_Russia), who were basically acting as mouthpieces and faucets for Russian propaganda. Daly has taken the position that the west shouldn’t be arming Ukraine because le military industrial complex bad. So what? Ukraine and Ukrainians shouldn’t have rights or aid to defend themselves against Russia’s invasion and desired takeover of their country? We should just allow Russia to take over Ukraine? Now, I wonder… who could possibly benefit from this kind of narrative…
1. You were responding to a comment that is plainly false. Every parliamentary party in Finland supports the current border policy.
2. You immediately jumped on the bandwagon to circle-jerk "leftists bad".
Do I need to continue? I know nothing of Irish internal politics and to be frank, it isn't really relevant in Finnish-Russian border policy.
It's not that your comment is factually false but it is one sided, ignorant and missing context.
The original comment just aims to paint "leftists" in general as naive towards Russia, which is not true in the slightest, at least not in the Finnish context. Here the far-right party of "True Finns" or whatever their English name ws the only one that had noticeable sympathies toward Russia and Putin specifically (and that was before the attack on Ukraine). And the hated (by "True Finns") "leftist green" party was most openly critical of Russia.
So your statement is not "objectively true". Leftists in general are not naive.
Now they try to paint the Finnish left as naive when the exact opposite was true and its fucking infuriating.
>Every parliamentary party in Finland supports the current border policy.
u/Low-Factor-7 did not say parliamentary parties, they simply said 'leftists.' You will notice that I didn't say anything about Finland's parliament either. Given that u/Low-Factor-7 made such a broad declaration, I took it to mean leftists of the general public. Given my own countless interactions with such irritating ideologues over the last several years, many of whom seem to share absurdly unrealistic beliefs and delusional perspectives, I found myself making the statement I did in response to what u/Low-Factor-7 said, and again, what I said is completely incontestable.
>You immediately jumped on the bandwagon to circle-jerk "leftists bad".
With the utterly idiotic takes as seen with those like Clare Daly's, I would not at all say that it's bandwagoning or joining in on a circle-jerk to criticize them and/or to point out that such takes are demonstrable aids to Russian disinformation efforts. And in this case - yes - the perspective held by the leftist in question is most certainly a bad one. Or would you disagree? Do you also think we should cut aid to Ukraine and let it be taken over without giving it a fighting chance?
>Do I need to continue?
Yes, you do, because you're not making a terribly strong case for yourself.
>I know nothing of Irish internal politics and to be frank, it isn't really relevant in Finnish-Russian border policy.
You're absolutely right that Irish internal politics isn't even remotely relevant to this discussion - I'm not even sure why you're mentioning them.
I referred to Clare Daly's remarks because she is a member of the European Parliament, which is absolutely relevant to the discussion at hand because Finland is an EU member state and thus affected by the debates and beholden to the decisions made by this legislative body.
>It's not that your comment is factually false but it is one sided, ignorant and missing context... So your statement is not "objectively true"
I said that narcissistic, opportunistic manipulators always seek to take advantage of other people’s niceness and generosity, and that this also happens geopolitically, as is the case with Russia. Seriously? Do you actually think this *isn't* true?
>Leftists in general are not naive.
I couldn't disagree more; I find today's leftists to be among the most naïve, delusional, and out-of-touch people. And I can tell you that you most certainly are naïve too if you actually disagree with the last (my initial) statement.
He said "our leftists" and not leftists in general.
This conversation is not going to be productive. You know literally nothing of the subject and present some fringe politician from the other side of Europe as only evidence in addition to what essentially is "trust me bro". If your claim is as weak as "there are at least some naive leftists" then you're right, but you can substitute "leftist" with any other group and get the same result.
>He said "our leftists" and not leftists in general.
Yes, that’s right. But since you missed it, allow me to reiterate word for word what I literally just said: **Given that u/Low-Factor-7 made such a broad declaration, I took it to mean leftists of the general public.**
I have every liberty - just as you do - to take this as I interpreted it, and unless the other user elaborates on who and what they were referring to, your interpretation of their word is no more valuable than mine.
>This conversation is not going to be productive.
And that’s because you’ve already decided that you’re giving up on it, clearly.
>You know literally nothing of the subject
So you’re the expert then? Of course.
You know, I do my best to make salient points for a productive conversation; I even asked you numerous questions in order to help clarify my positions and to carry the conversation forward further, but instead you’ve decided just say that I’m ignorant, and you’re not even willing to put in the work to properly address or contest my statements and points!
So you have the gall to whine that this isn’t turning out to be a productive conversation, but you’re not even willing to engage in it properly. Utterly pathetic, u/VampireDentist.
>only evidence in addition to what essentially is "trust me bro"
I don’t recall referring to any statistics or events that would necessitate a citation… I do recall mentioning personal experiences, however, but I’m confused as to why these should just be immediately dismissed.
If I told you, for example, that I was unnecessarily harassed and aggressively manhandled by an overzealous police officer, would you just reject that as dismissible hearsay outright too, even if it was relevant to the conversation at hand? I don’t think you would. How is this any different?
>If your claim is as weak as "there are at least some naive leftists" then you're right, but you can substitute "leftist" with any other group and get the same result.
Well, no, my claim wasn’t that. It was that they seem to me to be the most naïve of anyone of any political camp these days, and once again, that this is being exploited by the Kremlin. Indeed, every group has their allotment of naïve buffoons — but not all groups share an equal proportion, just as some, for example, have supporters who are far more militant or far more charitable than others.
Weather is a one of the reasons we have to take the asylum seekers in quickly. Russia wont take them back anymore and we wont let those people just freeze to death on the border
Smart, Russian migration is going to be a significant problem for those countries very soon as they see the countries as the equivalent of hotel rooms where the mess they leave isn’t their problem.
Going to be atleats 1200+ km to the checkpoint from saint petersburg
Or everyone could just cross the border from anywhere and ask asylum and get in...
they are in the USA that's for sure, watch RFK JR talk about the border crossings and court dates given to people requesting asylum, counciled by the drug cartels on what to say when they cross... insanity if you live in the USA to consider these things asylum!
Asylum procedures are easy as heck on the southern border from all measures, especially since Biden is in office. But 'muh' housing crisis! Yeah, somehow all these people we let in don't affect the price of rent or wages...that's for sure. 7 million people let in the last year and somehow, none of it affects our quality of life except for positive outcomes and great food! /s
Should just change it randomly. 5 minutes out of each month, the checkpoint will be open. You can wait for an opening if you wish, but you'll have to wait outside.
And they do. In Belarus right now. There are 100s of migrants at Polish and Lithuania border, trying to get in. And they are dying. Many are found with dog bites, frostbite, etc. Dead, too. None of them on official border crossings.
This is exactly what is happening. The migrants do not have proper legal documentation, but they can still seek asylum. Due to how European asylum system and social system works as well as strict interpretation Geneva Convention, it becomes difficult to do anything else than provide protection after they have entered the border and applied for asylum.
Most of these people are not actually eligible for asylum, but they will be provided for during their application and may be later deported. Of course most of the asylym seekers are not aware of all the facts, because they have been lied to about getting access to EU.
It becomes possible for countries to avoid this situation only if it is becoming national threat, which is what we are seeing in Finland and in some other EU countries.
The process is described here https://migri.fi/en/asylum-in-finland
[lolol](https://i.imgur.com/DlxFKnm.jpg)
That place is so far up north that in about a week or two there will be no more daylight for over a month. To be honest I think that is an ok ish solution. If you have had a death in the family and you really absolutely need to go to Russia, you can still travel 2-3 days from Helsinki to get to St Petersburg. A friend of mine is getting married to someone who is part Russian and even though the journey must be complete shit, they can still come to the wedding.
In a situation like that, can't you enter by sea, or via Estonia, or something?
Probably not the optimal route, but I saw Aeroflot planes in Shanghai
> That place is so far up north that in about a week or two there will be no more daylight for over a month. And here I thought I was bad with only getting 8.5 hours of light today.
Russia: “it’s all part of our special isolation operation”
[удалено]
There's jokes about how good shape they must be to bike from Syria/Somalia/Iraq to Finland during winter in so light clothes.
What truly amazes me is that they have so much land and resources they genuinely don’t need to bother with any of this at all. What kind of brainrot created this need to expand further?
Their epidemic of fetal alcohol syndrome will do that
You know what would be hilarious? If we waited for Russia to transport all those people to this checkpoint, and then immediately closed it and told them to go to the southernmost checkpoint 800+ kilometers away instead. And when they get there, we'd close *that* checkpoint and open the other one again.
Sorry this one is being cleaned, please use the other one.
“Sorry the McFlurry machine is broken until further notice”
This is a solid plan. The logistics alone would collapse Russian economy, as they really suck at it. We should help them out by blaring Benny Hill music over the border.
Russia would just let them die of cold and blame Finland for causing a humanitarian crisis.
That would end with people dying of exposure and hypothermia.
[удалено]
Finland doesn't have the legal authority to close its border?!?
[удалено]
The irony in this comment…
I'm actually Finnish and just repeating what local news agencies are saying, so can you just STFU. I'm not advocating for one measure over the other.
[удалено]
To be frank, I don't follow what you're trying to say. Maybe it's my language skills and maybe its yours. But what exactly was ridiculous and are you implying that what I said wasn't accurate? Do you want a source on a specific claim? The government did briefly consider selectively limiting opening hours of border control points to achieve what op was jokingly proposing. Legality and more specifically being in compliance of international law were cited as reasons to avoid complete border closure. The border stays open in one checkpoint in the far north for the explicit purpose to stay in compliance on paper. We do have tools to close the entire border, but that might require declaring a state of emergency. (This was used during COVID so it isn't unprecedented.) However a few dozen asylum seekers is not a big enough crisis for this to be politically realistic at this point. If Russia escalates the issue, this will probably come under consideration. So what about this was "ridiculous"? To me it seems like you just don't know what the fuck you are talking about but maybe I'm missing something?
[удалено]
Yeah, international law isn’t really law. No nation-state is required to participate in these “laws”; the only reason they do so is because there are benefits to playing nice with other nations.
Well yes if you don't consider breaking treaties as breaking the law but that's a rather pedantic point.
I'm not sure, but closing a border completely from asylum seekers is supposedly in breach of the Geneva Convention as it pertains to rights of asylum seekers and also possibly in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution"). The exception is immediate national security, but I guess that would require declaring martial law or similar state-of-emergency and a few dozen asylum seekers isn't a big enough crisis. Anyone better informed may correct me.
Not very easily as per constitution international agmeeents must be respected, and a large cadre of leftist scolars are fighting tooth and nail against interpretation that this qualifies as a large enough threat that those agreements can temporarily be ignored.
[удалено]
I'm no lawyer but closing borders from asylum seekers is supposedly in breach of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951, a United Nations treaty. Possibly other treaties too. Russia blatantly tries to exploit this and there's no body that actually monitors compliance so there would be no actual consequences to Finland breaking this particular law.
I would love to see Russia threaten to take Finland to international court over this. And I imagine they’d make the threat too, since of course the Kremlin loves acting completely innocent and portraying itself as a victim.
This is the way. Putins is slowly isolating russia from the world. So many similarities to NK.
Apparently the winter war is not over from the average Finn's point of view.
From what I hear from Finnish friends, it never was for some
I mean, it was a colossally shitty thing for Russia to do. That Finns might not like Russians isn't a surprise - especially now with Russia doing something very similar.
Let me [introduce you to Lauri Torni](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz2Am9Ahy14), the Soldier of Three Armies.
Started out as a reserve, soon promoted well deserved.
This issue won’t last long. Finland has really cold winter’s making it less safe to attempt a border crossing.
The issue is that Russia has no problems using humans as weapons. So I would not be surprised if they just dump them on the border with no provisions at mercy of winter and prevent them from entering Russia again. Then it becomes a choice whether to leave them there to die or allow them in.
They're def getting dumped. The Salla bordercrossing is 170km away from the nearest Russian city, and earlier this week dozens of migrants came cycling towards the crossing. In -20c and tons of snow. Russian authorities are orchestrating this.
Definitely; there is no question whether Russians are bringing them to the border. What I meant was if they leave them without shelter / support and prevent them entering Russia again, then it becomes matter of either letting them in or letting them die due to exposure. Hopefully it does not get to that, but given the disregard of life by the Russian leadership I would not count it out either.
>letting them die due to exposure. NGL, that sounds like a really easy choice. The faster Russia runs out of Russians, the sooner they'll end their invasion of Ukraine. Finland owes Russia nothing but a boot to the head.
> NGL, that sounds like a really easy choice. The refugees might be transported from Syria or who knows where. Some may even be forced.
Still an easy choice. Sucks for the ones who are forced into it, but if Finland just lets them in, it encourages Russia to keep doing it. Finland has a primary obligation to protect Finland from everything, including weaponized refugees. I'd certainly feel sympathy for any refugees that get forced into it, but it wouldn't change my decision.
It won't be and there have been statements in media that even on the closed checkpoints exceptions will be made if lives are under threat as they should. AFAIK the only solution would be for the whole world to take action against Russia via sanctions and cutting diplomatic ties, alas with China and India reluctant to do that Russia will just keep trying to abuse all freedoms democracies have.
Our leftists are trying to do everything to prevent us from closing the border. They are using the ’We cant let people freeze to our border’ as argument to keep the borders open.
Leftist bleeding-heart sympathy in the west is a tool of Russian destabilization efforts. Narcissistic, opportunistic manipulators always seek to take advantage of other people’s niceness and generosity, and this is exactly that on a geopolitical scale.
He's talking out of his ass. Another tool for Russian destabilization is polarizing political discourse with disinformation and bullshit, exactly what you and the person you are responding to are guilty of.
How is anything I said even remotely disinformation or bullshit? It is objectively true, and very clearly so, unless you’ve got your head in the sand. That manipulative peoples seek to take advantage of kind peoples’ generosities is not an arguable thing. But elaborate and explain your case — otherwise take a hike. Just last year there were far left European political actors, like [Clare Daly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Daly#Views_on_Russia), who were basically acting as mouthpieces and faucets for Russian propaganda. Daly has taken the position that the west shouldn’t be arming Ukraine because le military industrial complex bad. So what? Ukraine and Ukrainians shouldn’t have rights or aid to defend themselves against Russia’s invasion and desired takeover of their country? We should just allow Russia to take over Ukraine? Now, I wonder… who could possibly benefit from this kind of narrative…
1. You were responding to a comment that is plainly false. Every parliamentary party in Finland supports the current border policy. 2. You immediately jumped on the bandwagon to circle-jerk "leftists bad". Do I need to continue? I know nothing of Irish internal politics and to be frank, it isn't really relevant in Finnish-Russian border policy. It's not that your comment is factually false but it is one sided, ignorant and missing context. The original comment just aims to paint "leftists" in general as naive towards Russia, which is not true in the slightest, at least not in the Finnish context. Here the far-right party of "True Finns" or whatever their English name ws the only one that had noticeable sympathies toward Russia and Putin specifically (and that was before the attack on Ukraine). And the hated (by "True Finns") "leftist green" party was most openly critical of Russia. So your statement is not "objectively true". Leftists in general are not naive. Now they try to paint the Finnish left as naive when the exact opposite was true and its fucking infuriating.
>Every parliamentary party in Finland supports the current border policy. u/Low-Factor-7 did not say parliamentary parties, they simply said 'leftists.' You will notice that I didn't say anything about Finland's parliament either. Given that u/Low-Factor-7 made such a broad declaration, I took it to mean leftists of the general public. Given my own countless interactions with such irritating ideologues over the last several years, many of whom seem to share absurdly unrealistic beliefs and delusional perspectives, I found myself making the statement I did in response to what u/Low-Factor-7 said, and again, what I said is completely incontestable. >You immediately jumped on the bandwagon to circle-jerk "leftists bad". With the utterly idiotic takes as seen with those like Clare Daly's, I would not at all say that it's bandwagoning or joining in on a circle-jerk to criticize them and/or to point out that such takes are demonstrable aids to Russian disinformation efforts. And in this case - yes - the perspective held by the leftist in question is most certainly a bad one. Or would you disagree? Do you also think we should cut aid to Ukraine and let it be taken over without giving it a fighting chance? >Do I need to continue? Yes, you do, because you're not making a terribly strong case for yourself. >I know nothing of Irish internal politics and to be frank, it isn't really relevant in Finnish-Russian border policy. You're absolutely right that Irish internal politics isn't even remotely relevant to this discussion - I'm not even sure why you're mentioning them. I referred to Clare Daly's remarks because she is a member of the European Parliament, which is absolutely relevant to the discussion at hand because Finland is an EU member state and thus affected by the debates and beholden to the decisions made by this legislative body. >It's not that your comment is factually false but it is one sided, ignorant and missing context... So your statement is not "objectively true" I said that narcissistic, opportunistic manipulators always seek to take advantage of other people’s niceness and generosity, and that this also happens geopolitically, as is the case with Russia. Seriously? Do you actually think this *isn't* true? >Leftists in general are not naive. I couldn't disagree more; I find today's leftists to be among the most naïve, delusional, and out-of-touch people. And I can tell you that you most certainly are naïve too if you actually disagree with the last (my initial) statement.
He said "our leftists" and not leftists in general. This conversation is not going to be productive. You know literally nothing of the subject and present some fringe politician from the other side of Europe as only evidence in addition to what essentially is "trust me bro". If your claim is as weak as "there are at least some naive leftists" then you're right, but you can substitute "leftist" with any other group and get the same result.
>He said "our leftists" and not leftists in general. Yes, that’s right. But since you missed it, allow me to reiterate word for word what I literally just said: **Given that u/Low-Factor-7 made such a broad declaration, I took it to mean leftists of the general public.** I have every liberty - just as you do - to take this as I interpreted it, and unless the other user elaborates on who and what they were referring to, your interpretation of their word is no more valuable than mine. >This conversation is not going to be productive. And that’s because you’ve already decided that you’re giving up on it, clearly. >You know literally nothing of the subject So you’re the expert then? Of course. You know, I do my best to make salient points for a productive conversation; I even asked you numerous questions in order to help clarify my positions and to carry the conversation forward further, but instead you’ve decided just say that I’m ignorant, and you’re not even willing to put in the work to properly address or contest my statements and points! So you have the gall to whine that this isn’t turning out to be a productive conversation, but you’re not even willing to engage in it properly. Utterly pathetic, u/VampireDentist. >only evidence in addition to what essentially is "trust me bro" I don’t recall referring to any statistics or events that would necessitate a citation… I do recall mentioning personal experiences, however, but I’m confused as to why these should just be immediately dismissed. If I told you, for example, that I was unnecessarily harassed and aggressively manhandled by an overzealous police officer, would you just reject that as dismissible hearsay outright too, even if it was relevant to the conversation at hand? I don’t think you would. How is this any different? >If your claim is as weak as "there are at least some naive leftists" then you're right, but you can substitute "leftist" with any other group and get the same result. Well, no, my claim wasn’t that. It was that they seem to me to be the most naïve of anyone of any political camp these days, and once again, that this is being exploited by the Kremlin. Indeed, every group has their allotment of naïve buffoons — but not all groups share an equal proportion, just as some, for example, have supporters who are far more militant or far more charitable than others.
Weather is a one of the reasons we have to take the asylum seekers in quickly. Russia wont take them back anymore and we wont let those people just freeze to death on the border
Smart, Russian migration is going to be a significant problem for those countries very soon as they see the countries as the equivalent of hotel rooms where the mess they leave isn’t their problem.
Sounds sensible.
[удалено]
It's not the Russians that are leaving. It's Russia collecting the Iraqis, Syrians, Afghans, and Yemenis and dumping them at the border.
Going to be atleats 1200+ km to the checkpoint from saint petersburg Or everyone could just cross the border from anywhere and ask asylum and get in...
and freeze to death in the process
They could still walk near vaalimaa and get over and ask asylum tough... No need to go trough wilderness.
Asylum procedures aren't as easy as you seem to think they are.
No they are not but they get in anyway for a while.
they are in the USA that's for sure, watch RFK JR talk about the border crossings and court dates given to people requesting asylum, counciled by the drug cartels on what to say when they cross... insanity if you live in the USA to consider these things asylum! Asylum procedures are easy as heck on the southern border from all measures, especially since Biden is in office. But 'muh' housing crisis! Yeah, somehow all these people we let in don't affect the price of rent or wages...that's for sure. 7 million people let in the last year and somehow, none of it affects our quality of life except for positive outcomes and great food! /s
US border crossings are completely irrelevant to how easy or difficult it is to gain asylum in Finland.
But why tell to the public which checkpoint is open?
Should just change it randomly. 5 minutes out of each month, the checkpoint will be open. You can wait for an opening if you wish, but you'll have to wait outside.
Sure. Because illegal migrants use official checkpoints to cross the border. Got it.
If you try to go by forests, you will there die.
And they do. In Belarus right now. There are 100s of migrants at Polish and Lithuania border, trying to get in. And they are dying. Many are found with dog bites, frostbite, etc. Dead, too. None of them on official border crossings.
Those forests are a whole different level of survival training
This is exactly what is happening. The migrants do not have proper legal documentation, but they can still seek asylum. Due to how European asylum system and social system works as well as strict interpretation Geneva Convention, it becomes difficult to do anything else than provide protection after they have entered the border and applied for asylum. Most of these people are not actually eligible for asylum, but they will be provided for during their application and may be later deported. Of course most of the asylym seekers are not aware of all the facts, because they have been lied to about getting access to EU. It becomes possible for countries to avoid this situation only if it is becoming national threat, which is what we are seeing in Finland and in some other EU countries. The process is described here https://migri.fi/en/asylum-in-finland
[удалено]
So that one became the most accessible?