Living the Internalised Border: Lessons for Finland’s updated Integration Act
Image source: Shubhangi Singh, Locus Amoenus(2021, Turku). [1]
Legislated in Finland’s Act on the Promotion of Immigrant Integration, thereafter ‘Integration Act’, the success of a third country national’s integration is defined by their Finnish/Swedish language acquisition and employment in the Finnish labour market. Following the Government Integration Programme for 2024–2027, the scope of ‘integration’ in the new Integration Act is expanded to include immigrants’ “familiarisation with Finnish society and compliance with its rules”.
On the EU level, the integration policy standards are not legally binding. Adopted in 2004, the Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU define integration as “a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States.”[2] The subsequent Action plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027 takes a clearer unidirectional assimilationist approach, driven by EU’s shift towards far-right anti-immigration politics. The scope of the action plan not only covers immigrants, but also extends to “EU citizens with migrant background”.
Moving from a two-way to one-way approach, Finland’s integration policy closely follows the EU’s direction. On 20 June 2023, Finland elected a right-wing government. Led by Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, the governing coalition consists of the National Coalition Party (Kansallinen Kokoomus), Finns Party (Perussuomalaiset), Swedish People’s Party (Svenska folkpartiet i Finland) and the Christian Democrats (Suomen Kristillisdemokraatit). At the time of writing, Finland has been significantly tightening its immigration and border legislations.
Minister of the Interior and politician in the far-right Finns party Mari Rantanen has said, “Immigrants must take greater responsibility for their integration. The Government aims to introduce obligations in the integration system and to strengthen general government finances.” The updated Integration Act [3] that entered into force on 1 January 2025 defines integration as
an individual process of an immigrant that takes place in interaction with society and during which the immigrant's equality and equal treatment in society and participation in working and business life, education, organizational activities or other activities in society deepens and diversifies. (Section 5(1))
In contrast, the previous version defines integration as an
interactive development involving immigrants and society at large, the aim of which is to provide immigrants with the knowledge and skills required in society and working life and to provide them with support, so that they can maintain their culture and language. (Section 3)
This shows an obvious shift in emphasis on who is responsible to integrate. The updated definition emphasises on the individual responsibility of the immigrant while the earlier definition encompasses a two-way interactive process between the immigrant and (host) society. Due to the recent update of the Integration Act, much remains to be seen in terms of what it means for the society “to deepen and diversify equality and equal treatment” towards immigrants.
Included in precarious labour, excluded from social rights
Using border as method, I draw on qualitative data[4] to contextualise the interpretation of the new Finnish Integration Act. Instead of approaching ‘border’ as a physical space which states use to mark territories, block or facilitate crossings by some, like the Mediterranean Sea or the EU’s eastern border, I approach ‘border’ here as internalised. According to Linda Bosniak, an internalised border “functions as a mode of highly repressive and subordinating governance of noncitizens inside the national territory”. The Internalised border includes both elements of inclusion and exclusion. It operates as a mode of differential inclusion, which Stephen Castles has characterised “as a situation in which immigrants are incorporated into certain areas of society (above all the labour market) but denied access to others (such as welfare systems, citizenship and political participation)”. Differential inclusion of immigrants fosters implications that are discriminatory, such as unequal access to public services and socio-economic rights.
In Spring 2023, I interviewed Marta [5] (non-EU citizen, seasonal and platform worker in agricultural and food service industries) and she told me,
“In my heart, humans are humans. But in Finland, I realized that it’s not. (…) I went to ask (a police officer) for some kind of guidance (…) when the Corona start. And the police officer said to me, “you should book a flight and go back home because we don’t know what’s going to happen. And Finland first needs to take care of the Finnish people, then the European ones. And we don’t have like room for extra-communitario people.”
Marta’s experience of seeking guidance from the Finnish authorities during the pandemic depicts how differential inclusion includes her in the essential labour force, while excluding her from certain public services and social rights in Finland. Theorising border as an epistemic framework, Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilson describe differential inclusion as a process whereby “inclusion in a sphere, society, or realm can be subject to varying degrees of subordination, rule, discrimination and segmentation”.
“Here there is obviously racism, but it is like a little bit invisible. They don’t say it in your face, they make you feel it. For example, if you apply for a job, sometimes they eliminate you based on your name, even if you are qualified if you give the interview after crossing so many rounds, then they throw you out.”
In spring 2023, I interviewed Arjun, a Master’s degree graduate from a Finnish university, and he told me that his job-seeking has been unsuccessful. Most of his job applications did not result in an interview. When he was invited for interviews, he was rejected for lacking Finnish proficiency after several rounds of interviews. It seemed absurd since language proficiency as a requirement would have been apparent to employers at initial rounds of selection. Due to Arjun’s persistently unsuccessful and discriminatory job search in Finland, he resorted to working as a platform delivery worker. His inclusion only in the platform industry reflects the labour market segmentation of migrants in Finland. Differential inclusion to the Finnish society is not merely inclusion to any segment of the Finnish labour force, but only in precarious and devalued work. The reality of discrimination in recruitment and labour market segmentation; thus, puts both the previous and current Integration Act to the test: To what extent was integration two-way previously? Moving forward, how will Finnish society “deepen and diversify immigrant’s equality and equal treatment”?
The updated Integration Act (Section 5) defines an “integration customer” as “an immigrant who has a valid integration plan”. An “integration customer” has the obligation to comply with the integration plan (Integration Act Section 24), otherwise there will be consequences for one’s right to unemployment benefits and social assistance. The updated law follows the Orpo Government’s programme which takes a punitive stance on integration. This punitive approach renders immigrants’ rights to social welfare conditional, intensifying the differential inclusion of immigrants.
Nevertheless, the new legislation is not a new reality for immigrants on-the-ground. After all, Layla, whom I interviewed in Spring 2023, told me that when she was dismissed unfairly, her then caseworker from the Employment and Economic Development Office (TE Office) [6] had blocked her from accessing any unemployment benefits and insisted on her attending the planned integration training despite facing homelessness and an expiring residence permit.
“I don’t have a house. I don’t have my (residence) permit. My job fired me. I have an integration program that I didn’t sign up for which I couldn’t drop out because the teacher said it’s not up to me, it’s up to the TE Office (…) All they wanted to do was not give me my unemployment benefit. Not help me (…)””
Reviewing changing life circumstances: Worsening or alleviating differential inclusion?
The updated Integration Act (Section 24) specifies that the “integration customers” have the obligation to comply with the integration plan, including by participating in the preparation and review the integration plan, and notifying the municipality of any significant changes related to their service needs, life situation or other changes that may affect the achievement of the goals agreed in the plan and participation in services.
In addition, the government has proposed a “three-month unemployment rule” (which, if adopted, could enter into force on 1 April 2025) to cancel work-based residence permits of third-country nationals if they remain unemployed for over three months (six months for certain professions). Employers would have the obligation to notify the Finnish Immigration Service when a third-country employee’s employment ends. The implications of this proposed rule for the Integration Act remains unclear.
Helen (a dual national holding Finnish citizenship), whom I interviewed during the same spring, told me that after quitting a restaurant job where she was forced to work overtime and was underpaid by her employer. Her caseworker at the TE office was understanding towards her changing circumstances, and she had access to unemployment benefits.
Unlike Layla, Helen did not face barriers related to integration plan requirements as she had already obtained Finnish citizenship. Rather than punishment, this contrast between Layla and Helen’s experience shows the possibility to review changing life situation and integration needs in ways that could prevent creating further precarity. Instead of implementing sanctions that worsen vulnerabilities of un(der)employed immigrants and immigrants who have experienced labour exploitation, the review of their changing life circumstances could take a human rights-based approach to better protect immigrants’ socio-economic rights and access to justice for those who were exploited.
In conclusion, Finland’s legislative changes, which reflect the increasing normalisation of far-right politics in the EU, poses many uncertainties on the socio-economic rights of immigrants in Finland and the EU. The changes also raise many unanswered questions. How is “deepening and diversifying equality” interpreted by Finnish society and street-level bureaucrats implementing the new legislation? Will Finnish society overcome differential inclusion of immigrants? How does the differential inclusion of immigrants undermine the EU’s founding values (TEU Article 2) of respect for human dignity, equality and human rights, including rights of persons belonging to minorities?
[1] The owner of the image has kindly given permission for the image to be used in this blog post.
[2] I note that scholars have critiqued the extent to which integration policy is actually ‘two-ways’ (e.g. Ameera Masoud, Bridget Anderson, Lea M. Klarenbeek), and some disavowed ‘integration’ altogether (e.g. Adrian Favell, Willen Schinkel).
[3] All references to the updated Integration Act in this blog post are loose translation from Finnish and Swedish to English. English translation of the legislation is not yet available through government mediums. I take responsibility for any possible mistranslation.
[4] This blog post uses data from 15 semi-structured interviews with workers who self-identify as being racially minoritized in Finland, and have worked for a minimum total of one year in the Finnish food systems since 2020.
[5] All interviewees’ name are pseudonyms.
[6] TE Office is a short-form for the Employment and Economic Development Office. The TE Office was responsible for employment of immigrant jobseekers and implementing integration programme until 1 January 2025 when the responsibility was transferred to the municipalities.
Dionysia Kang is a PhD Researcher in Public International Law at the Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University. She currently conducts a sociolegal research to understand how migration law fosters racial structures that underlie exploitative work conditions found in the Finnish food systems. Her prior background lies in Sociology, Gender studies and practice-led research.
The author thanks the reviewers for enriching this blog post.
This blog post is simultaneously published on Tålking Rights.
The opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of EU-VALUES Network.