Why Anti-Migrant Pushback Laws are On the Rise in Europe

On Monday, Finland implemented new migration laws that allows them to turn away migrants crossing the their border with Russia. So in this video, we'll explain these increasingly popular "pushback" laws, their controversy and the EU's stance on them.

Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.

TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!

//////////////////////

[backslay]

i'm so glad people are finally realizing that we can't just let everyone in

[hofimastah]

Migration laws we have haven't been designed for the current situation of mass migration and weaponising migrants.

[miguellopes]

It's hard to work within international law when your unfriendly neighbors don't

[DreadnoughtDave]

Each country has the right to protect their borders and country. The whole of Europe should follow suite.

[B_men_apo]

The whole world can’t all live in Europe.

[ludwighaugg]

If following "international Law" means literally giving up on you countrys security and control, it obviusly needs to be changed/ abandoned. It is nothing sacred it is just paper signed by people who couldn`t imagine the current situation.

[vincent_hall]

Turning away people you don't want from entering your country is a core right of any nation.
To deny that is to deny the concept of a country.

[BoredomIncarnate]

International law is effectively meaningless, there's no punishment for breaking it and no enforcement measures.

[GD-jcwx]

Let the Human Rights groups cry about it.

[azahel]

Look, people have been "rescuing" migrants on the coast of Libya and taking them all the way to Italy. At some point, people realize it's getting ridiculous.

[cirno]

like an alcoholic realising that beer was destroying his liver in his mid 50s

[bassetts]

Finland is not in an easy position, Russia poses a real risk and they have an enormous border.

[XY-uctw]

Someone who crosses the border without a visa is not a migrant, but an illegal border crosser!
It's very disrespectful to call these people as migrant because, there are some real legal migrants, who settled with legal work and live permission.

[meshuga]

Hybrid warfare participants from Middle East coming from Belarus are not refugees - they have Belarusian tourist visa and can apply for refugee status there if they wish for. Same apply for people coming from Russia.

[hydoffdhagaweyne]

As a Somali, I support these Finnish procedures for handling economic migrants. I think it's pretty self-explanatory that Europeans are sick and tired of uncontrolled immigration

[m.tayyab]

Some things to consider:
(1) The vast majority of migrants coming in are not legitimate refugees but economic migrants. Its basic common sense to not take refugee claims on face value.
(2) In the case of the small number of legitimate refugees, it's worth considering whether it's good for both the host country and the refugee if the individual doesn't have compatible values to live in the West, thereby inhibiting integration and assimilation.

[armandsgulbis]

They are not refugees, they are Syrian Afghan ETC tourists in Belarus! they are invited there as tourists- with tourist visas! next - there is no war in Belarus so they can seek asylum there.

[eykan_ow]

Sweden needed this law so many decades ago...

[cheshirekat]

We mustn't forget that the current migration laws were all born of the 1984 Ethiopian Famine and other humanitarian crisis of the 80's and 90's. They were never updated to take into consideration the weaponization of migrants, changes in absorption capacity of welcoming nations or the commercialization of illegal migration by criminal organizations.

[MiSt]

Laws dictating the treatment of refugees were designed in the 1950s right after WW2. 75 years later the world is DIFFERENT, and back then nobody weaponised migrants and people didn't migrate to rich countries on such a scale. This means we must change these laws, and protect the borders, and ensure swift deportation procedures for those who come here illegally, or get their visa rejected. What's the point of the entire visa system if after being rejected the migrants / undesirable people can just cross the border on foot and be granted 'asylum', which basically means we are providing housing and food free of charge for those people? This is absolutely ridiculous.