Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Could Finland actually suspend asylum?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 сер 2024
- Twitter: / renaissancehor1
Odysee: odysee.com/@Re...
BitChute: www.bitchute.c...
Subscribestar: www.subscribes...
Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Cash App: $renhor
"It's your moral responsibility as a human being to accept these immigrants and refugees."
As a morally responsible citizen, I humbly suggest that our leaders stop creating these refugees in the first place, and then laying a guilt trip on us, for their amoral actions abroad.
Woke moralism, tactic of the K___G++B. bf
They’re no creating all the refugees, the only responsible race on earth and primitive cultures are doing that.Hey gay white man stop caring if people call you racist.
I hope they don’t only apply it to the Russia border and apply it to all people coming in no matter where from.
probably not but a lot of them will have to go trough Denmark or the Balkans and other places that take this seriously so it will be a big improvement
Nah russia is using hybrid tactics in form of using asylum seekers to flood the country.
@@belstar1128 it will be good that’s for sure.
No more guilt tripping whole nations for actions of few!
I legally immigrated from one why t country to another why t country. It was a long and difficult process with lots of submission of information and being a good boy. But our replacements get speed immigrated and placed into our jobs - no questions asked.
I still don’t have German citizenship despite living here over a decade & my father being German. It’s ridiculous. Yet I pay taxes, mandatory health insurance I don’t need or use, VAT etc that funds non-Europeans. 🤬
@@maidende8280 I would say don't give money to people who hate you, but when it is the govt that hates you, you have no choice.
@@bobmcbob4399 Yep they just take the money from your bank account.
How did they all get all that cold weather gear? 🤔
@@jimc.goodfellas NGOs most likely.
@@RenaissanceHorizonare NGOs funded by Russia?
@@BidensTaint not that I know off.
@@BidensTaint yes or Belarus/china
@@RenaissanceHorizon I know Russia was busted backing some of the extremist Greens. Would be interesting if Russia has been involved in the NGO’s this whole time
At least they're admitting that the immigration is warfare.
Seems like asylum based immigration always a weapon dressed up as "good intentions".
Only if it's Russia they're talking about. Sweden is responsible for tens of thousands getting in here, but Sweden is not held accountable for it.
@@Aivottaja Yes i have read that in 2015 sweden packet thousands of migrants into busses and just dropped them at the finnish border. Very scummy behaviour towards your neighbouring people..
They are a sovereign nation, they should be able to do what they want.
We're not sovereign. We're in NATO and EU.
No country in the EU is a sovereign nation. Didn’t they tell you when you agreed for your country to join? They certainly did NOT tell,us, in the UK. When we realised it we voted to leave. Finland should do the same.
A sovereign nation doesn´t allow up to 15 U.S. military bases in their country.
I appreciate the sentiment, but we haven't been a sovereign nation for about 30 years.
@@TheBlackClockOfTimemitä sä selität? 😅
Good explanation of some good news, thanks.
I think for the first time in recent history, 100, 200 years....? We have gangs in the streets in Portugal. And migration just started here.
You always have such a Great View Point and Wonderful way of Expressing it!
Thanks so much for your Time and Effort!
Play us some Music sometime.
Part 2- For the USA
The first immigration act in the USA was written by the founders and only allowed whites to immigrate. It stayed this way for the majority of our country’s history. Is it really unconstitutional to ban non-whites.? (See The Naturalization Act of 1790.) Benjamin Franklin and the Founders also clearly stated that America should be a white country, which is why America’s first immigration act banned all non-white immigration. See also Chinese Exclusion Act.
The 14th amendment was strictly and ONLY about black slaves after the civil war. When written, obviously the people did not intend to allow the 14th amendment to be used in order to grant foreign, illegal, non white people and their kids citizenship. Elk Supreme Court Ruling: “No one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” “All persons.. white or black should be citizens…” Moreover, Indians, after the 14th amendment was passed, didn’t get citizenship although they were born here. So, these illegals, being that there has been NOTHING passed like what happened with Indians, are not citizens.
The constitution only applies to naturalized and natural born citizens. The constitution was written that way because the founders were not born here. So, essentially we the white founders and OUR white descendants. Just because one Supreme Court footnote said that anchor babies are citizens, DOES NOT mean they were right.
The founders used Vattel’s Law of Nation concepts, including those involving citizenship. Not everyone born here is a citizen, especially as illegal immigrants are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. They are invaders who have allegiances to country they left. Their kids are not citizens. “Article V: congress MAY NOT amend the constitution by making laws which REDEFINES terms set forth in the constitution.” For a quick overview, at this time England never had citizens, only subjects to the King. Since our ancestors fought and established their own constitution, they became citizens of the United States on July 4, 1776. The founders used Vattel’s law of nations at the federal convention of 1787.
‘ORIGINAL INTENT of natural born citizen under Article 2, § 1, cl. 5 is one born of parents who are citizens. Illegal kids dont become citizens unless their parents are naturalized. See Naturalization Act of 1790. See also John Jay letter to George Washington on the issue (July 25, 1787.)
Section 212 of Law of Nations. “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is there-fore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Section 213 of Law of Nations. “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society, without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.” You could argue the founders did NOT want “half-foreigners” to become president and wanted only those with “full natural connection with the USA.”
The Fins are practical people , question is why aren't others as practical as they are
well we aren't that many countries who can shout "the Russians are coming " right now you are able to ignore any law if you shout Russians , it's like under covid, laws were also changed and rules made that were not possible before
Because we don't have independence anymore. Like all other EU and Nato countries don't.
im from Finland, this is just common sense, should have been on place since 2016...
Here in Finland, we are worried what Russian might do. Our president also warn that Russia might send quicly thousands of people to the border, we have more than 1000 kilometers of landborder with Russia, mostly wilderness but still. Not to mention if war in Ukraine gets worse and spread to the Baltics or in Finland
Finland will become like Paris if immigration isnt stopped.
It won't, stop fear mongering.
Why would the war “spread”?
@@loniousmonk Because the media said so and western leaders are mind readers.
how long has finland been around an they still can not border there border's ??
Dude, you are way too good for this world. Watch or rewatch Starfleet, particularly the exploding planet episode. Love you, brother.
👍👍👍👍👍👍💪💪💪💪💪💪
posts being deleted again.
Of course, YT won't let you discuss this issue with all why t countries.
Always especially on based channels.
Yep.. mine was too 2 sec ago...
Copy your post before entering it, and repaste it if it disappears. This post was added 5 times.
@@sincerely-b I tried that, all posts being deleted. Woke Left have full control, time for other measures.
Tämän vuoksi rajat on keksitty
det är därför gränser uppfanns
C'est pour cela que les frontières ont été inventées
por eso se inventaron las fronteras
inilah mengapa perbatasan diciptakan
だから国境が生まれた
이것이 바로 국경이 발명된 이유입니다.
Deshalb wurden die Grenzen erfunden.
Dlatego właśnie wynaleziono granice
É por isso que as fronteiras foram inventadas
Вот почему были придуманы границы
Sınırlar bu yüzden icat edildi.
è per questo che sono stati inventati i confini
It's not really asylum though is it.
You said it wrong. This law is permanent, so the government may apply to use it if needed.
It is expires in one year and they would need to pass it again.
@@RenaissanceHorizon No, there is not that kind of statement (law only valid for one year), in news etc in Finland and in Finnish media. Notice, I am a native finn living in Helsinki. This is a permanet law and it needed 5/6 of the votes in Parliament to be a permanet law and in effect immediatly. If they had only 2/3 votes, then it had to be renewed again after the next election. 5/6 is needed to pass a law that is considered an exemtion to the constitution. THIS law is NOW PERMANENT. Do not believe in leftest english written/spoken media on this matter. We finns know better our own laws!
@@aanomad can you post a link from the Finnish media about it?
@@RenaissanceHorizon Been posting here several links, but UA-cam deletes them every time??
It's true, the law expires in one year. It says so if you look up the law at Finlex. It has been mentioned many times in Finnish media as well. However, it has been ignored in public discourse altogether so I believe vast majority of people here in Finland are unaware of it.
Should there be any hints of further operations by Russia, extension of the law should easily pass next year, though. Now that it has been done once.
Answer to the question in the video title, NOPE!!