So of course the marxists and their lackeys across the aisle will be against it…
Australia has done so and with great effect.
– When we have made stricter laws on immigration, asylum and family reunification, it has been repeatedly said that the Constitution does not allow for it. Now, the Constitution does not seem to be an inescapable obstacle.
Halla-aho: Everyone who has received a negative asylum decision to be held in custody – “islands would suffice”
The Finns believe that (new) intelligence law is not enough.
According to Jussi Halla-aho, chairman of The Finns, the rush of intelligence legislation is not enough for politicians to respond to the Turku events.
– The key problem is a lean immigration policy, poor asylum policy and ineffective return practices, Halla-aho said to Yle in Hyvinkää, the Summer Summit of the Finnish Parliamentary Assembly.
Halla-aho believes that asylum policy needs to be greatly tightened. All those who received a negative asylum decision should, according to him, be “held in custody”.
– These people become a risk factor at the latest when they become illegal, i.e., paperless immigrants in Finland.
According to Halla-aho, detention does not necessarily mean being taken into custody by the police. It could also mean that the return centers are geographically positioned so that they can not be removed.
“For example, the islands of Finland would fit well for this purpose,” Halla-aho said.
Keeping asylum seekers in custody does not seem to be as costly as the current system. It would also reduce the attractiveness of Finland in the eyes of “asylum seekers”, Halla-aho argued.
“The constitution does not seem to be an obstacle”