From Burden to Benefit: Reforming Immigration in Finland

The Finnish government led by Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party) submitted no fewer than three legislative proposals to Parliament for approval on Thursday. For this reason, Interior Minister Mari Rantanen (Finns Party), who led their preparation and presented the matter in Parliament, remarked that “we are having a kind of immigration super Thursday.”

The purpose of the legislative proposals is to streamline Finland’s immigration policy by introducing a citizenship test, intensifying the deportation and entry bans of those residing in the country illegally, and making use of the opportunities provided by the EU’s migration and asylum pact.

The aim of the citizenship test is to ensure that Finnish citizenship is not granted without the applicant having familiarity with Finnish society. However, the level of knowledge required to pass the test is not particularly demanding, as passing the multiple-choice exam only requires correctly answering seven out of ten questions.

According to the Interior Minister, the government “expects individuals seeking Finnish citizenship to be proactive in acting in the manner required by law.” For this reason, integration funding will in the future be more precisely directed toward teaching Finland’s national languages—which can only be welcomed.

Regarding deportations, the government aims to ensure that deportation decisions can be carried out more efficiently and quickly than at present. In addition, endangering national security will be added as grounds for an entry ban—this will also apply to individuals seeking to enter Finland from within the EU.

The third change is mainly technical. It implements the EU’s migration and asylum pact, which will in the future make it possible to transfer the asylum process to a country outside the Union. This too is an excellent development—provided the future arrives before it is too late.

* * *

In my view, all of the government’s proposals yesterday are good and necessary—if not outright essential—conditions for transforming immigration from its current burden into something beneficial for Finland. Therefore, it is worth observing how Parliament responds to them.

It is, of course, to be expected that members of Parliament from the far left will react negatively to at least some of the proposals. If and when this happens, it will not change the image already formed of the Left Alliance and the Greens as a “fifth column” marching within our country.

More interesting, however, is to see what happens within the government itself—especially within the parliamentary groups of the Swedish People’s Party (RKP) and the National Coalition Party—as well as within the main opposition parties, the Social Democratic Party and the Centre Party. Will there also be, and if so how many, individuals willing to participate in the activities of a “fifth column”?

* * *

As an aside, and loosely related to the topic: Member of Parliament Joakim Vigelius (Finns Party) made a rather apt remark on social media. He stated that “it is quite a paradox that first low-income people are attracted from around the world to Finland to be low-income, and then people wonder how much low-income status has increased.”

This observation also appears to be shared by Professor Heikki Hiilamo, who stated that immigration is “a significant factor” in the increase in poverty. “There has been a change in the labor market, with more and more immigrants working in low-wage occupations.”

In addition, the professor noted that the situation is also affected by the fact that immigrants largely live in big cities, such as Helsinki, where housing costs are relatively high. What more is there to add, except that public authorities in Finland actively encourage this by offering various non-reciprocal benefits to citizens of other countries as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Perspectives on Immigration Restrictions in Finland and the U.S.
Finland to Cut Off Taxpayer Money for Immigration
Can Europe Learn from Finland´s and Spain’s Contrasting Immigration Policies?

Murder Case Paused Because of Language Barriers – Who Pays the Price?

The Finnish media outlet MTV3 reported that the trial of a relative of an immigrant living in Finland, who had resided in the country for two years, was suspended because, according to the presiding judge, “the interpretation is too inaccurate, so we cannot continue. However, the charges are very serious.”

According to the report, the homicide discussed in court took place in Suurpelto, Espoo, in August 2025, when the accused shot his ex-wife in the back in the stairwell of an apartment building. There are witnesses to the case, as the children of the killer and the victim saw the act, and the suspect himself has not denied taking the woman’s life.

The motive is suspected to be related to the perpetrator’s family honor – or rather the shame allegedly caused to it by the divorce. However, both the accused and the person suspected of assisting him have denied this.

There is essentially nothing unclear about the case: the killer and the murder weapon are known, and the victim is dead. Therefore, instead of determining guilt, the court is considering whether the act constitutes murder or manslaughter.

This is despite the fact that a male relative of the accused, initially suspected of supplying the weapon, denied doing so and instead claimed to have found it in an ordinary cardboard box in the basement of a pizzeria owned by the accused. Furthermore, a Turkish man closely related to the suspect and allegedly involved in the plot is known to have sent messages to the victim referring to a primitive concept of honor and low intelligence.

* * *

This case became the subject of a blog post because a man who has lived in our country for two years has required an interpreter in court and is unable to communicate in Finnish or Swedish, the official languages of the country. Nor is he able to understand the court’s informational needs even through an interpreter.

This inability costs real money, and neither of the previously linked news articles states who pays for it. I therefore asked an AI about this, which informed me that “if an interpreter is needed in court proceedings (for example, if the accused, a witness, or another person does not know Finnish or Swedish), the court will provide one,” and that the costs “are covered by state funds and are not directly payable by the parties.”

* * *

This is not a small matter, as interpreters are widely used in court proceedings. For example, the Helsinki police have reported that a couple of years ago, foreign suspects accounted for about 33 percent of all sexual offenses in the capital, and about 40 percent of rape cases.

I am not, of course, calling for trials to be conducted in a language that the accused do not understand. Instead, I would like to see more common sense in Finnish immigration policy. Above all, there should be strict requirements related to language learning for those immigrants who remain in the country for a longer period.

I am convinced that the costs of language proficiency testing would be offset for society through reduced interpretation expenses and—above all—through better integration of immigrants into society and the resulting higher employment rate. Nor do I see any sustainable reason why improved language skills would not also be beneficial for the immigrants themselves.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Perspectives on Immigration Restrictions in Finland and the U.S.
Finally, Honest Reporting on Immigration and Crime
Two Recent Life-Threatening Crimes in Finland