Administrative Committee, Tuesday 14.05.2024 / HE 27/2024 vp / Expert Opinion Statement / Moniheli ry
Moniheli ry would like to thank you for the invitation to an expert consultation on the Government's proposal to Parliament for an Act amending the Citizenship Act. Moniheli is the largest multicultural network in Finland, which includes about 150 NGOs. Moniheli is also an expert organisation on integration and multiculturalism. We comment on the government's proposal, especially from the perspective of the integration process and the synergies between integration and immigration legislation.
Providing conditions for smooth entry and integration has been shown to have a positive impact on social stability and security. Extensive data on this is provided by the Migrant Integration Policy Index (Mipex), which collects data on integration policies in more than 50 countries across a range of integration dimensions. Mipex clearly demonstrates the correlation between overall integration and equality of opportunity, as well as social stability and immigrant engagement. Successful integration of immigrants from different backgrounds is essential for Finland's internal security. However, an entry in the government programme has been made that undermines this security, which has also led to a move to amend the law on acquiring citizenship.
Moniheli ry appreciates in the government's proposal that the reform does not significantly change the conditions for obtaining citizenship for immigrants who learn Finnish quickly. In practice, the only change is the earliest possible moment to apply for citizenship, which is postponed from four to five years. The eight-year residence requirement will ultimately apply to the part of the immigrants who have not learned the Finnish language to the extent necessary to obtain citizenship after five years of residence. This means that the majority of migrants will continue to obtain citizenship within the current timeframe.
However, in the light of the previous argument, we question the need for the whole process of law reform. It seems that the purpose of the reform of the Citizenship Act is mainly to send a message outside Finland that the possibility of settling here permanently is uncertain. We therefore question how this serves the government's aims of increasing labour immigration and making the integration process more efficient and faster. Finland is currently at the forefront of integration. Why do we want to scrap this good development and settle for a Nordic standard that has clearly created immigration challenges in other Nordic countries?
The most alarming aspect of the government's proposal, from the point of view of Moniheli, is the decision not to count the time spent in the country as part of the asylum application process towards the period of residence required to obtain citizenship. We believe that the speeding up of the Finnish Immigration Service's processing times mentioned in the Bill is not sufficiently safeguarded to ensure that the timeframe is met. Furthermore, the reform of the Citizenship Act combined with the reform of the Integration Act will lead to a situation where a person struggling with insufficient language skills after eight years of residence will have been excluded from integration legislation for years.
The Government is currently implementing several legislative projects related to immigration and integration. Several civil society and expert actors have expressed concerns about the lack of preparation, short processing times and negative synergies. For example, the Equality Ombudsman's opinion states:
"The residence period for citizenship is to be extended, while residence permits, for example for international protection, will be made temporary and much shorter. In addition, the government programme also envisages changing the conditions for permanent residence permits to require a longer period of residence, while social security is to be differentiated so that only permanent residents have an equal right to social security. Overall, the combined effects are significant. They make residence and integration more precarious, less secure and financially challenging, and increase inequality between people residing in Finland, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution."
On paper, the consequences of the change in the Citizenship Act may seem small. However, the proposed changes will make people more passive and increase stress, fear, insecurity, distrust of society, exclusion and suffering. All of the above will have a negative impact on the individual's ability to learn new things and to feel part of Finnish society. Finland cannot afford the negative consequences of changes in immigration legislation.
Finally, we want to ask: what is the end state that these reforms are intended to achieve? Why, at the same time, are we striving for a common Nordic line and saying that we certainly do not want to end up on the path taken by Sweden? Experts on integration, immigration and refugees have repeatedly shown that the current reforms are making the situation of vulnerable immigrants worse. These people are not leaving Finland, they are staying here, but are worse off than before. In the worst case, the changes will lead to the failure of integration for more and more individuals, and thus to a threat to the stability of society. We seriously call for Finland not to be taken to the point that populist rhetoric already makes it look like.
The Administrative Committee hearing was attended by Moniheli, the Finnish Security Intelligence Service, the National Bureau of Investigation, Aalto University and the Ombudsman for Children.