Controversial Legislation Aims to Strengthen Security Amid Allegations of Russian Interference
Finland passes a contentious law to stop migrants at its Russian border, citing security threats and stirring significant political debate.
In a move that has ignited a storm of controversy, the Finnish Parliament has passed a law allowing border guards to intercept illegal immigrants from Russia. The law, approved by 167 votes to 31 with one abstention, targets migrants from countries such as Somalia, Syria, and Iran, who have been crossing the border in increasing numbers.
Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, whose government introduced the bill, framed the law as a necessary measure to curb what he describes as Russia’s weaponization of migration. According to Orpo, Moscow has been deliberately sending migrants to Finland’s border to exert pressure on the nation and its European Union allies.
“Since the end of last year, we have seen Russia using migrants as an instrument of hybrid influence against our security, against our borders,” Orpo said. “Today, the Parliament has approved the law by a clear majority.”
The 1,340-kilometer border between Finland and Russia has been closed for seven months, with Helsinki citing security concerns and a growing influx of migrants from war-torn and impoverished regions. This law, however, allows for the practice known as pushback, where migrants are returned to a third country without the opportunity to apply for asylum—a method often criticized as illegal under European human rights laws.
European law, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), prohibits returning people to countries where they might face persecution or inhuman treatment. This makes the new Finnish law particularly contentious.
“No one should be worried that Finland will not respect the rule of law in the future and after this vote,” Orpo assured, attempting to ease fears about the country’s commitment to human rights.
Orpo also emphasized the need for a unified European solution and mentioned discussions with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen about maintaining border security. The Commission is currently reviewing the new Finnish bill to ensure it complies with EU law. A spokesperson stated that the EU will not tolerate attempts to use migrants as pawns and will support member states in managing their borders.
The law, described as an “exception law,” is temporary and rare, requiring a five-sixths majority in Parliament to pass. It creates a specific exception to the Finnish Constitution during national emergencies. Vulnerable groups such as children, people with disabilities, and particularly vulnerable individuals are to be protected from being denied entry.
Interior Minister Mari Rantanen of the Finns Party expressed hope that the law would act as a deterrent rather than a necessity. “We hope that this law will never have to be applied, but that it will work as preventive legislation,” she said.
The law’s passage has stirred deep tensions within Finland’s political landscape. Critics argue it betrays Finland’s commitment to human rights and plays into the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin. During the debate, Ben Zyskowicz, spokesman for Orpo’s Coalition Party, urged for civility and rejected accusations against the law’s opponents as traitors or Putin sympathizers.
The opposition Social Democratic Party ultimately voted in favor of the law, despite internal dissent. Meanwhile, the Greens, a vocal opponent, condemned the law’s vague legal implications. Former Green party foreign minister Pekka Haavisto suggested that Finland should seek international collaboration to address illegal immigration rather than unilaterally adopting controversial measures.
Even among the ruling coalition, the law has proven divisive. Eva Biaudet of the Swedish People’s Party questioned the law’s efficacy in improving security at the eastern border and its alignment with international agreements.
As Finland steps into this contentious territory, the eyes of Europe are watching closely. The law, effective for one year and requiring joint approval from the government and the president to be enacted, sets a precedent that challenges the balance between national security and human rights.
