Proposed tightening of law on immigration generates mixed feelings in Parliament

Some MPs consider amendment too tight, others argue it is too lenient

print this

The Finnish government’s attempt to tighten the country’s immigration legislation was received with mixed emotions when Parliament started its proceedings on the amendment on Tuesday.
      The opposition attacked the proposal, but for differing reasons.
      Some considered the government bill too strict, others saw it as too lenient. Two sorts of voices were heard also from the ranks of the government party, the National Coalition conservatives.
     
The most questions were raised by two issues: the six-month waiting period for working for those who arrive in the country without appropriate papers, and the underage so-called "anchor children", who enable entire families to immigrate into Finland.
      Kari Rajamäki (SDP) was of the opinion that the waiting periods for working are too short, and that the government is using them to create an immigrant-based market of cheap labour.
      Merja Kyllönen (Left Alliance), in turn, considered the six-month waiting period too long, and reckoned that this would result in a grey labour market of workers without proper documents.
     
Kyllönen insisted that the newcomers must be allowed to work to support themselves. Otherwise prejudices against foreigners will only increase.
      Minister of Migration and European Affairs Astrid Thors (Swed. People’s Party), answering for matters related to immigration, was criticised heavily for the increasing number of asylum-seekers and the anchor children in particular.
      Raimo Vistbacka (True Finns) was astonished at the fact that between 2007 and 2008 the number of unaccompanied underage asylum-seeker children had grown from fewer than a hundred to nearly 700.
      Minister Thors, in turn, gave an assurance that this year the figure would decrease.
      Ben Zyskowicz, who has assumed the role of the immigration critic within the National Coalition Party, presented his own solution to the anchor child problem: the reunification of families should be carried out in Somalia by sending the children back to their parents there.
      Zyskowicz wondered if the proposed tightening of the law on immigration was sufficient. His party colleague Arto Satonen, in turn, welcomed the government proposal as successful.
     
The idea behind the amendment is to change the immigration legislation in such a way that it will reduce Finland’s appeal to asylum-seekers.
      The rules applied to the reunification of families will be tightened.
      For example, a family member’s residence permit may be revoked if it appears that the issuer of the application has submitted false information.
     
A residence permit based on family ties will only be granted if the child is still underage at the time when the ruling is made.
      The law will include a provision for medico-legal age testing in order to ensure that the arrived “underage” asylum-seeker really is underage.
      An asylum-seeker’s waiting period for working will be extended from three months to six months, if he or she arrives in Finland without a passport.


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Age testing of asylum seekers to be included in law (13.11.2009)
  Up to a third of “underage” asylum seekers prove to be older (5.5.2009)

See also:
  Helsinki finds housing of large Somali families challenging (17.11.2009)

Helsingin Sanomat