Borderlines

Economic Parasites: How cuts to social security for immigrants are justified in Finland

(originally published: December 12, 2025)

Finland’s Aliens Act and several related laws have been significantly amended in recent years. Researchers, jurists, NGOs, and other experts have criticised the changes and warned that they would weaken the rights of immigrants (Yhdenvertaisuusvaltuutettu, 2024; Advokaatti, 2025; Talentia, 2025; Pakolaisneuvonta, 2024).

There are also changes being added to the Citizenship Act now:

  • In the future, a citizenship applicant must not have relied on unemployment benefits or social assistance for more than three months within the last two years.
  • In addition, criminal offences will make obtaining citizenship more difficult than before.
  • Citizenship can also be lost more easily if a person has given false information or otherwise acted fraudulently during the citizenship application process (Maahanmuuttovirasto, 2025).

We examined parliamentary debates relating to the amendment of the Nationality Act (Government Proposal HE 19/2024 vp) as well as comments under related news articles (Ilta-Sanomat, 2025; Helsingin Sanomat, 2025). The most-liked comments (with at least 20% of the likes of the most popular comment) were collected from two widely read Finnish online newspapers that had reported on the reform. Both parliamentary debates on the government proposal were also included as material. The aim was to understand how people who have moved to Finland are spoken about in discussions concerning the Nationality Act.

In the news comments and in parliamentary debates, immigration is presented as an unquestioned burden on Finland’s economy. This way of speaking is typical of Finnish immigration policy, but especially in the rhetoric ofthe Finns Party: economic usefulness is used as a means to alienate certain ethnic groups and to maintain white nationalism (Keskinen, 2016; 2023).

In the comments, people who have immigrated are described as “living off others,” exploiting Finland’s social security system:

“The direction is right now. We’ll get Finland working, without people living off others.”

Well said (320)

Ilta-Sanomat, 2025

“<…> Quite simply, if you can receive several thousand euros in benefits for doing nothing, then of course you’re not interested in applying for work when you get more by doing nothing (this is how people end up settling into the lobby of Kela).”

Well said (219)

(ibid.)

“<…> Things haven’t been called by their real names, and now the costs of immigration and shopping around for social benefits are being revealed in all their horror, as these issues are finally starting to come to light. <…>”

Well said (87)

(ibid.)

Terms like “living off others,” “shopping around for social benefits,” and “milking the system” evoke images of laziness and dishonesty. They appeal to feelings of injustice: it is not fair that you work and pay taxes if someone else “spends the day idling at home” (Government Proposal HE 19/2025 vp, first reading) on your money.

In parliamentary speeches, politicians also invoke such feelings of injustice and respond to them by presenting themselves as defenders of “the Finnish taxpayer”.

In this framing, Finns are depicted as conscientious taxpayers, and immigrants as exploiters who aim—deliberately and even deceitfully—to take advantage of the system.

“The income requirement is fair and necessary. Citizenship can no longer be built on social security. Above all, this is fair to Finnish taxpayers, who keep this country running every single day.” — Jaana Strandman (Finns Party), GP 19/2025, first reading, 7 Oct., 03:19:55

“— (I)s the problem perhaps that one can no longer come across the Mediterranean in a rubber boat, throw their passport into the sea, claim they cannot assist the immigration authorities in determining their identity, and still obtain Finnish citizenship once enough time has passed?” — Miko Bergbom (Finns Party), GP 19/2025, second reading, 14 Oct., 02:28:46

“— People lean on welfare instead of working and aim for Finnish citizens, to pay for their living for their entire life(.)” — Mauri Peltokangas (Finns Party), GP 19/2025, first reading, 7 Oct., 04:07:14

The motif of “throwing the passport into the sea” recurs throughout the discussions, sustaining an image of fraud. These stories also create a distorted understanding of what the journey to Europe can actually be: more than 33,000 people have died or gone missing in the Mediterranean since 2014 (IOM, 2025).

The image of deceit is also reinforced by the idea that unemployment and receiving social security are seen as personal choices: people are described as “aiming for Finnish citizens to pay for your living.” In reality, finding employment in Finland is shaped by significant structural barriers and discrimination (Akhlaq, 2025) — and in fact, the social security received during the initial integration phase makes it easier to find work later on (STM, 2020).

Finland’s poor economic situation is brought up frequently in the discussions. Immigrants are blamed for the country’s economic problems, and immigration is portrayed as something the economy cannot endure:

“A completely necessary decision in Finland’s current economic situation, even though citizenship based on social security should never have been possible in the first place.”

Well argued (840)

Helsingin sanomat, 2025

“This country has been driven to ruin by lax policies that attract newcomers at any cost, while benefits have been handed out beyond our means at the expense of taxpayers.”

Well said (96)

Ilta-Sanomat, 2025

The economic impact of immigration is described in terms of “ruin,” even though wealthy states benefit greatly from, and are dependent on, foreign labour — and on the exploitation of those workers (Teittinen, 2025; see also Borderlines: Immigration and work)

There is also published evidence that in Finland people whose mother tongue is a foreign language pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, and that the net impact of immigration on the public sector is positive (Myrskylä & Kainulainen, 2025; ETLA, 2024). Despite this, the negative economic impact of immigration is treated as self-evident, and legislative changes are therefore seen as a “completely necessary decision.”

In these discussions about immigration’s economic effects, there is also no questioning of the assumption that it’s economic usefulness of a person that should determine their value or their rights.

As the opposite of a “person living off others,” the discussions construct an image of the hard-working immigrant who is “genuinely integrated” and therefore “deserves” Finnish citizenship. In debates on citizenship, immigrants are expected to “earn” their place in Finnish society under almost unreasonable conditions which are defined externally without taking the migrants’ own circumstances into account.

“Finnish citizenship should be earned only through a story of development: eight years of blameless and crime-free life, a livelihood earned through work without alms from society, learning the national language, and adapting to the local customs. To a good candidate for naturalisation I extend my hand, regardless of skin colour or religion.” — Teemu Keskisarja (Finns Party), GP 19/2025, first reading, 7 Oct., 03:49:19

“Citizenship must be based on the applicant genuinely demonstrating their integration into Finnish society, customs, language, laws, culture, and the Finnish way of life, which includes our history, traditions, celebrations, and food.” — Jaana Strandman (Finns Party), GP 19/2025, first reading, 7 Oct., 04:29:05

The discussions offer various definitions of successful integration, but what unites them is the reinforcement of nationalist myths about the Finnish nation-state. Expressions such as “local customs” and “the Finnish way of life” construct an image of Finland as a homogeneous state whose people share a common language, values, and traditions. What remains hidden is that Finland has never had just one culture or language.

Indigenous people, as well as linguistic and cultural minorities, are sidelined in this way of speaking. They do not fit into the idea of “us,” the unified Finnish people — an idea that has been central to the construction of the Finnish nation-state. The myth of a unified nation maintains ethnic and racialised inequalities and hierarchies, for example in determining who is seen as deserving of the welfare state and its social security (Toivanen & Keskinen, 2020).

“The tightening of this government’s immigration policy is now changing the uncontrolled and lax immigration we have had until now. A good thing, because we certainly do not want to head towards Sweden’s situation, where crime and violence, drug-related crime, gang formation, and armed violence are everyday realities.” — Merja Rasinkangas (Finns Party), GP 19/2025, first reading, 7 Oct., 04:46:19

In addition to the economy, security is strongly emphasised, especially in the parliamentary debates. When security is discussed, migrants are portrayed as potential criminals and security threats, and therefore their rights and opportunities must be restricted.

The tightening of immigration policy is presented as necessary for preventing crime. In the parliamentary discussions on the nationality act, speakers even refer to terrorism and serial killers. Such extreme examples evoke fear and insecurity, positioning politicians as protectors of Finland’s safety when they tighten laws:

“We, Finns Party members, spoke a lot before the elections about tightening immigration policy, and this is exactly what we have done and will continue to do, because national security is important to us.” — Anne Rintamäki (Finns Party), GP 19/2025, first reading, 7 Oct., 03:25:25

The connection between immigration and security is presented in the speeches as self-evident. Talking about immigration as a security threat (so-called securitisation) has been a major part of European migration policy over recent decades. It restricts migrants’ movement and lives, but brings both economic and political benefits to European states.

Security is used to justify limiting migrants’ rights, deportations, and larger budgets for border control and the security sector. A profitable industry has grown around the “securitisation” of migration—one that benefits from restricting people’s movement and their conditions of living (Anderson, 2014).

In the era of globalisation, labelling migrants as a threat is also a way for politicians to protect the independence of the nation-state and to divert attention from domestic political problems (Kalir, 2022).

Some actors in Finland have pointed out that it is actually the current government’s cuts to social security and NGO funding that undermine national security (Naisjärjestöjen keskusliitto, 2024; RETS, 2024).

In the discussions related to the Nationality Act that we examined, there are clear assumptions that immigrants may lie, commit crimes, or exploit Finland’s system economically.

Distrust and negative images of migrants are deliberately constructed through terms such as “people living off others” and by evoking emotions like injustice and fear. With these means, Finns Party politicians in particular justify tightening immigration policy, present themselves as protectors of the people, and shift attention away from domestic political issues.

Nämä mielikuvat myös palvelevat niiden poliittisia agendoja, kuten valkoista nationalismia. EThese images also serve their political agendas, such as white nationalism. Although representatives from the Left Alliance and the Greens did voice opposing views, 38 of the 50 speeches in the first and second readings came from the Finns Party. People have also adopted the rhetoric of the Finns Party, as seen in the comment sections of Ilta-Sanomat and Helsingin Sanomat. Stories about “shopping on social security” and “passports thrown into the sea” are told without ever hearing migrants’ own stories.

Most people, regardless of background, want to work and live a good life. Immigration policy and legislation, however, are built on a cynical and unfair image of the very people whose lives they affect the most. After analysing the political rhetoric and comments, we can question the legislative changes that rely on an incorrect, negative, and threat-focused portrayal of immigration.

For the sake of security and Finland’s economy—but especially to prevent structural violence—immigration policy and legislation should be based on trust. By highlighting migrants’ own goals and their significant contribution to society, legislation could further support the realisation of these goals.

How to cite this article (APA style):

Borderlines. (2026, June 2). Economic parasites: How cuts to social security for immigrants are justified in Finland. https://borderlinesfi.blog/en/2026/06/02/economic-parasites-how-cuts-to-social-security-for-immigrants-are-justified-in-finland/ (Accessed: your date)

References

Discover more from Borderlines

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading