Statement by Moniheli ry on the Act Amending the Citizenship Act (359/2003) and Related Legislation / VN/28598/2023
Moniheli ry thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the Government proposal that would add a new requirement concerning civic knowledge, along with a related citizenship test, to the conditions for acquiring Finnish citizenship. Moniheli ry is Finland’s largest multicultural network and an expert organisation on integration. Its member organisations encounter migrants in diverse life situations in their daily work.
Moniheli ry examines the proposal particularly from the perspective of the structures of the integration process, equality, and the actual conditions for acquiring Finnish citizenship.
The proposal does not ease the requirements for acquiring Finnish citizenship in any respect. All existing requirements would remain unchanged, and in addition, applicants would be required to fulfil a new civic knowledge requirement. The citizenship test would therefore not replace any of the existing means of demonstrating integration but would constitute a new, independent requirement alongside the others. This raises the overall threshold for acquiring Finnish citizenship and particularly affects groups whose integration pathways are slower or more fragmented due to structural factors.
The Government proposal leaves unclear at what stage of the integration process and through which concrete support structures the civic knowledge required for the citizenship test is intended to be acquired. The explanatory memorandum assumes that such knowledge would develop in a dispersed manner through early-stage integration services, the education system, everyday activities, and long-term residence. At the same time, integration-supporting services are time-limited and apply only to some of those who have moved to Finland.
Under the Integration Act, integration training and multilingual civic orientation are primarily targeted at unemployed jobseekers and integration clients for whom an integration plan is drawn up. However, within the current immigration system, it is typical that a person moves to Finland without receiving any systematic integration training or civic orientation. This particularly concerns highly skilled migrants who move to Finland for work, students, and those who migrate on the basis of family ties. As a rule, employed persons are not provided with an integration plan, nor do they have automatic access to integration training or civic orientation.
The citizenship test would thus target knowledge whose acquisition has not been systematically the responsibility of society. Some migrants may have lived in Finland for years, fulfilled obligations related to working life and family life, and dealt with authorities without ever being offered a structured overview of Finnish society, rights, and responsibilities. Despite this, when applying for Finnish citizenship they would be required to demonstrate civic knowledge specifically in the form of a test.
Moniheli ry considers it problematic that formal support for acquiring the knowledge required for the citizenship test is available only to a limited extent and often only during the initial phase of integration. Finnish citizenship is typically applied for only after 5 to 8 years of residence in the country, at which point many applicants have long since been outside the scope of integration services. The proposal does not include measures to ensure that the knowledge required for the citizenship test would be equally accessible to all applicants, regardless of their background, education, or grounds for migration.
The proposal notes that civic knowledge may, in some cases, also be demonstrated through studies completed in Finland. In practice, however, this option concerns only a limited group of applicants who already have a strong position within the Finnish education system. A large proportion of migrants integrate through work, family life, and everyday participation without completing a degree in Finland, and their civic knowledge would not be recognised other than by passing the citizenship test.
Moniheli ry considers that the proposal emphasises the individual’s responsibility to demonstrate integration in a situation where society has not ensured sufficient and equal opportunities to acquire the required knowledge. This increases inequality between different migrant groups and shifts structural barriers to integration onto the individual. The situation is particularly challenging for persons with limited language skills, weak digital skills, learning difficulties, or traumatic backgrounds who are no longer covered by integration services.
Moniheli ry emphasises that citizenship is not only the end point of integration but also a key instrument of participation and attachment to society. Tightening the requirements for acquiring Finnish citizenship without a corresponding investment in integration-supporting structures weakens the conditions for integration, increases uncertainty, and may in the long term undermine trust in society.
Moniheli ry considers that, before introducing the requirement concerning the citizenship test, it is essential to ensure that all applicants for Finnish citizenship have a genuine and equal opportunity to acquire the required civic knowledge. This requires clearer responsibility and resourcing for supporting civic knowledge also beyond the initial phase of integration and for those groups that currently fall outside the scope of integration services.