Working Professionals in Finland - Protest against Finland’s new migration policy

We represent a group of professional workers who have been living in Finland for a large part of our lives. Amongst us are workers in critical sectors, IT professionals, Doctors of Medicine (MD) and Academic Staff, Degree Students at Universities and Universities of Applied Sciences.

The general message

We feel that the proposals in the government programme regarding immigration and citizenship reform are unfairly targeting us. We are integrated contributors to society, providing our skilled work in Finland and paying taxes here and we are being made to wait longer to be considered equals. We have put in substantial efforts to comply with the old rules on income, language and residence requirements for citizenship and/or permanent residency. We have passed up opportunities in other countries in order to settle in Finland based on the old rules. We are on Team Finland and want to contribute to its success. We are all for a safe Finland, removing people convicted of violent crimes from the community and cutting welfare abuse. Tightenings should be targeted at the people who are actually doing those things, not at the honest immigrant population as a whole. We believe that the proposals in the government programme will disincentive skilled labour from moving to and settling in Finland and therefore mean that Finland will become a less internationally competitive and prospering country in the future.

Me edustamme ryhmää asiantuntijoita Suomessa ja olemme asuneet täällä suuren osan elämästämme. Me koemme, että uuden hallitusohjelman ehdottamat muutokset maahanmuuttopolitiikkaan ja kansalaisuuslakiin loukkaavat meitä, ovat epäreiluja ja lisäksi Suomen edun vastaisia. Me olemme kotoutuneita yhteiskunnan jäseniä, me maksamme veroa ja me tarjoamme ammattitaitoa ja koulutuksen kautta hankkimaamme osaamista Suomelle. Nyt meille on kerrottu, että meidän pitäisikin odottaa pidempään tullaksemme yhteiskuntamme täysjäseniksi. Me olemme nähneet paljon vaivaa täyttääksemme edellytykset nykyisessä kansalaisuuslaissa koskien työtä, asumisaikaa ja kielitaitoa. Me olemme luopuneet muista mahdollisuuksista muissa maissa ja olemme viivästyttäneet uraamme täyttääksemme vaatimuksen yhtämittaisesta asumisajasta. Me uskomme, että ehdotettu hallitusohjelma lannistaa koulutettujen ja taitavien työntekijöiden toiveita asumisesta täällä Suomessa, ja siten tämä muutos tekee Suomesta vähemmän kansainvälisesti kilpailukykyisen tulevaisuudessa.

Background

The new government programme published on 16.06.2023 details a number of proposed new changes to employment life and immigration policy. Among those changes:

  • Employers may make an indefinite number of fixed-term employment contracts, which is a change from the current rule that fixed-term employment contracts may only be offered with a special reason and cannot be continuously offered without offering a permanent contract.
  • Residence permits on the basis of employment will be cancelled and the permit holder deported if the permit holder is unemployed for longer than three months. This is a change from the current rule that the permit holder may use the remaining time of the permit to look for a job and live on their own savings.
  • The residence time for permanent residence is being increased from 4 years to 6 years, with an exception for those who have a degree obtained in Finland, earn more than 40,000 euros per year or have “exceptionally good language skills”.
  • The residence time for citizenship is being increased from 5 years to 8 years.
  • The number of permitted absences from Finland before residence time for citizenship is considered “interrupted” will be reduced to an unspecified number.
  • The Government will differentiate the social security system and social benefits of immigrants and permanent residents of Finland from each other

What’s wrong with the proposal?

  • Background:
  • Access to citizenship and permanent residence is an important end goal for permanent migration. It creates the conditions of stability required to make a full commitment to settling in the country, for example, making major investments like buying property and starting a family.
  • Access to citizenship is a realisation of the right to influence society for those who are paying taxes. People who are working in Finland, are integrated, are paying taxes and willing to take on the responsibilities that citizenship entails should have the right to influence society through elections as citizens and have a say in how their tax money is spent.
  • Discriminatory:
  • Changes to the required residence time for both citizenship and permanent residence only delays the realisation of these rights for people who already meet the integration conditions. It does not affect people who haven’t put in the effort to integrate and become contributors to society, since they were already not eligible to apply.
  • The new policy legitimises stereotypes about immigrants without acknowledging any contributions value-add working migrants are making to the country. The state says that they want to make the country attractive for working immigrants to settle in, but then tightens the rules for everyone.
  • It is unclear what problem a longer residence time actually solves. If the concern is that applicants are not sufficiently integrated or self-supporting, these can be tested directly, for example, through the existing general language examination, civics test or providing proof of subsistence.
  • The proposed residence time requirement creates extra bureaucracy due to the amount of additional e.g. working permits required before the citizenship or permanent residence requirement is met. This means more state money spent on immigration bureaucracy and permit renewals.
  • Impacts on working immigrants:
  • Reducing the number of permitted absences during the longer residence time essentially precludes people in careers requiring extensive international collaboration or secondments from being able to access citizenship.
  • The new proposal discriminates between different skill sets and qualifications. It fails to recognize the value and importance of people from diverse professions, such as nurses, who are essential in certain sectors and may not make enough to meet the revised tests for permanent residence after four years. Everyone deserves the opportunity to live in peace and enjoy their rights, regardless of their occupation or educational background.
  • The proposed 3 month grace period to find a new job in case the old job ends while on a continuous residence permit puts professional workers in a very vulnerable position. More details are specified below.
  • It is impossible to get a home loan without permanent residence or citizenship, thus locking immigrants into a secondary "renter class".  Continuing to pay higher rents and unable to accumulate home equity puts them in a financially less stable position, and unable to attain aspirations of home ownership.
  • Opaqueness:
  • Contrary to democratic processes, the unilateral decisions do not provide any information as to the rationale behind the decision, data points and research employed by the Government to arrive at this decision. How will the decision support the sustainability of welfare schemes, pension schemes etc.? What is the general problem that the government is trying to address and how did it arrive at this decision as the best decision for the situation?
  • A country positioning itself at the helm of democracy and equality should have known better and should provide sufficient time for consultations with unions and groups representing affected demographics.
  • Instead of targeting immigrants with policies that have no rationale and research backing, it would be far more valuable for the government to invite various groups and develop a comprehensive policy to address the demographic and financial situation. The process, research, data and decisions should be derived through consultations with civil society, unions and industry groups.
  • The proposals are based on untrue assumptions about working immigrants
  • These proposals have been pushed throughout the election period as a solution to the so-called problem of immigrant work supported by welfare. This characterization doesn’t take into account the reality of many working immigrants. Many earn above the income limits or have wealth above the wealth limit required to qualify for social security assistance. Unemployed immigrants often do not make recourse to social security benefits and instead live off their own savings until new work is found. Unemployed immigrants making use of unemployment insurance are using an insurance plan / programme  which they have already paid into for an extended period in the same way as other citizens or permanent residents. To the extent that immigrant workers are supported by social benefits, this is due to the state supporting their children, who later grow up to become Finnish citizens or residents.
  • The residence time tightening has been based on an assumption that the current residence period is not enough to discover whether the applicant conducts themselves with integrity. This itself is based on an assumption that a person with an immigrant background, regardless of where they came from or their personal circumstances, is more likely to commit crime than any other person. For many working immigrants, such an assumption is both untrue and unjustified.

How this affects particular groups:

  • Those in academic careers or careers requiring international collaboration or mobility: An 8 year residence time with a shorter number of permitted absences means  that anyone in such a career (many academic careers and professional careers requiring extensive international professional development and/or secondments) are either not able to obtain Finnish citizenship under the new rules, or must effectively put their career on hold, or in the worst case, change careers, if they wish to stay in Finland and become a full member of society.
  • Anyone subject to a non-compete agreement longer than 3 months: Cancellation of residence permits after 3 months of unemployment effectively means that anyone working in a skilled occupation subject to a non-compete agreement (which are in widespread use in Finland) are unable to change jobs without leaving the country and breaking their continuous residence in Finland. For these people, they will be effectively tied to their job if they want to continue living in Finland, giving their employer an undue amount of leverage in working conditions, salary negotiation etc.
  • Anyone working in a profession with long interview cycles: Also face similar challenges due to the requirement to find a new job within three months if they are laid off or their employment is terminated. In some sectors, there can be five or six rounds of interviews before an offer is extended, meaning that candidates do not have sufficient time to find a suitable job and properly negotiate their salary and conditions. Particularly within the technology sector, where mass-layoffs are still happening regularly, this puts international workers in a very precarious position.
  • Anyone working in sectors with a labour shortage where the prevailing wage is lower than 40,000 euros per year who do not have a university degree obtained in Finland: For example daycare workers, nurses, aged care workers, tradespeople. This group of people provides critical services integral to the functioning and wellbeing of society. They will be discriminated against under the new proposal by being made to wait longer for permanent residency. In combination with other proposed work-based immigration rules, it means that they need to put up with being in a precarious position for longer.

Why we believe the proposed changes are not in Finland’s interests

Citizenship - The current requirements are already reasonable and require a significant commitment from the point of view of the applicant to Finland.

  • The applicant must be able to comprehensively prove their identity. Citizenship is already not granted to people who cannot prove their identity with reliable documents issued by a competent issuing authority in a state, or who cannot prove their identity based on the passage of time.
  • The applicant must actually live in Finland for an extended period. Only a small number of absences are permitted, up to 3 absences of 2-4 months and one absence of 6-12 months that is not counted towards the residence time.
  • The language requirement of B1 requires persistent study of the language for about 1.5 to 2 years in the average case. In practice, the user of the language must already be able to speak in regular conversation on topics that are familiar to them, write persuasively on various topics of social importance and understand written and spoken Finnish or Swedish (interviews, opinion pieces, information broadcasts, stories, etc). This is already not an easy achievement when working life for professional occupations is often conducted in English and it is nearly impossible to work in a Finnish-language occupation without native-level Finnish.
  • The applicant must be able to demonstrate their source of livelihood throughout the entire residence period. It is already insufficient to be living on social benefits.
  • The applicant must have held a continuous residence permit for at least the last year of the residence time. In practice, this means that the applicant is in employment or running a viable business, or they must be a sponsored family member of such a person or a Finnish/EU Citizen exercising their right of free movement.
  • The applicant must not have committed any crimes. The applicant cannot be a suspect in more than two crimes.
  • The applicant must not have any unpaid debts to state authorities (for example, student loans, unpaid taxes, unpaid fines, etc).

  1. Integrated people are kept in limbo for longer

Increasing the residence time required for citizenship means that people who already meet the existing integration and subsistence requirements (eg, people who are already integrated and already contributors to society) must wait longer, potentially putting their careers on hold due to the continuous residence requirements that will become stricter than they already are. A longer wait also offends the democratic principle that people who live here, are integrated and pay taxes should be able to have a say in how their tax money is spent as equal members.

  1. Reduced attractiveness of Finland as a place for skilled workers in the future.

Part of Finland’s attractiveness for international workers is in the existing stable migration policy environment with reasonable rules for immigration and naturalisation. Permanent residence and citizenship require a reasonable residence time to make ties in the society, a language level that is achievable as an adult language learner and verifiable income that is enough to live on. This stands in contrast with many other countries, where the requirements involve ever-changing points tests (Australia, Canada), exceptionally high language or residence requirements (Denmark, Switzerland) or exceptionally long wait times for processing (USA). The implicit agreement with the skilled worker was clear - settle down, work hard and integrate and you can become a full member of society. Now the policy environment is suddenly changing, such that you must wait even longer.

With a very long wait time and a migration policy environment that doesn’t look stable, Finland looks like a riskier choice. Combined with lower salaries and higher taxation compared to other countries, it means that skilled professionals are less likely to choose a job in Finland if it means that settling down here becomes more difficult in the future.

What we suggest

  • Intent
  • The government must clarify its intent on the policy and clearly address what it hopes to achieve via these policies.
  • The government must make any projections, research, consultations and data points etc. it used to arrive at the decision. These documents must clearly show how the policy supports the government’s intentions outlined above.
  • In fact, this does not have to be limited to skilled groups but clarifications from the government on other labour groups such as nurses etc. will be welcome.
  • Consult and Plan
  • We suggest the government undertakes extensive consultations with various groups before formalising the policy.
  • Proper transition provisions should be put into place. The new policy should recognize the contributions and legitimate expectations of immigrants who arrived and began their period of residence under the old rules.

Freeform commentary - write whatever you want here (personal vents, testimonials, own comments, nuanced thoughts)!

Short translation of the above statement in Finnish. My Finnish is not perfect, please improve this if you notice errors or bad phrasing (this has now been fixed):

Another translation:

  • Edustamme Suomessa asiantuntijatehtävissä työskentelevien ryhmää, jonka jäsenet ovat asuneet täällä suuren osan elämästään. Meidän mielestämme ehdotetut muutokset maahanmuuttopolitiikkaan ja kansalaisuuslakiin uudessa hallitusohjelmassa ovat meitä kohtaan epäreiluja ja lisäksi Suomen edun vastaisia. Olemme kotoutuneita yhteiskunnan jäseniä, maksamme veroa ja tarjoamme Suomelle osaamisemme ja koulutuksemme. Meille on nyt sanottu, että meidän pitäisi odottaa pidempään tullaksemme Suomen yhteiskunnan täysjäseniksi, siitä huolimatta että olemme jo nähneet paljon vaivaa täyttääksemme nykyisiin kansalaisuuden ehtoihin kuuluvat vaatimukset kielitaidosta, asumisajasta ja työnteosta. Olemme hylänneet hyviä mahdollisuuksia muissa maissa ja viivästyttäneet uraamme täyttääksemme kansalaisuuden ehdon yhtämittaisesta asumisajasta. Me uskomme, että uuden hallitusohjelman kohdat maahanmuutosta lannistavat koulutettua ja osaavaa työvoimaa, joka haluaisi asettua pysyvästi Suomeen, ja näin tekevät Suomesta vähemmän kilpailukykyisen tulevaisuudessa.

Hello, can I just say something here. I think the new proposal is unfair also for non-highly educated people. They are also needed in Finland especially in certain sectors. No one has to have higher education to live in peace and enjoy the rights others have. Can we also somehow include them? I mean everyone.

  • For sure! I’m writing a lot of this stuff from the perspective of people who initially started this group, but if you have suggestions on how to improve the language to be more inclusive towards all kinds of workers (everyone is valuable!), please feel free to write them either here or directly in the document.
  • I will move this comment to the “free-form” comment section and we can continue the discussion there. — okay thank you :)

        “The new proposal appears to be unfair, not only for highly educated individuals but also for those with different skill sets and qualifications. It fails to recognize the value and importance of people from diverse professions, such as nurses, who are essential in certain sectors. Everyone deserves the opportunity to live in peace and enjoy their rights, regardless of their occupation or educational background.”

Some other comments, moved down here: A highly skilled doctor, surgeon, structural engineer, IT engineer etc. typically make far more contributions via taxes, spending etc. to the country than an asylum seeker or refugee. The two groups cannot be considered equal. The government’s policies must be flexible enough to attract and reward highly skilled labour force to contribute to the economy and must not view all immigrants through the same lens. In fact, the government must clearly state its position on labour shortages within specific sectors that require skilled (Doctors, Surgeons etc.) or unskilled labour such as nurses. This is assuming the intention of the government is to continue to attract a highly skilled labour force. If that's not the case, then the government must acknowledge it openly.

Information for 18th June demonstration

Please, wear any clothes with your company symbols and attributes. 
Take water, hats and sunscreen, it will be hot

Chants:

We work in Finland, we work FOR Finland

Skilled Migrants - Finland's Well-being

Orpo ruins Finnish IT

Three months - not enough

Losing experts, losing money

What’s the reason for 8 years?

High skills are not appreciated anymore?

You told me I'm valuable and welcome

We’ll have to PAY ELSEWHERE (something like this)

"No discrimination, fair integration!"

“Equal rights, equal pride! Don't let our dreams be denied!”

"New rules, old sacrifices! Give us a chance, break down the biases!"

"Happiest land, let's all lend a hand!"

"No more wait, equality's our right!"

Any more ideas? :)

General plan [just a proposal]:

  1. 30m-1 hour - public speeches, chants, banners
  2. After 1st part - next steps discussions in smaller groups