Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (NCP) and Minister of the Interior Mari Rantanen (PS) delivered a press conference after lawmakers had narrowly passed the controversial border security act on Friday, 12 July 2024. They both argued that passing the bill sends the signal that Finland is capable of taking action to secure its borders against instrumentalised migration. (Mikko Stig – Lehtikuva)
- Next Article YLE: Summer to bring 1.8 million foreign visitors to Finland
PRIME MINISTER Petteri Orpo (NCP) on Friday insisted that Finland remains a rule-of-law state despite the passing of a controversial border security bill that, according to scores of legal scholars, stands in violation of the constitution, EU law and international commitments.
“Finland remains, even after this vote, one of the strongest rule-of-law states in the world,” he argued at a news conference in the Parliament House.
“This law doesn’t violate the constitution. It’s an emergency act that has twice passed the evaluation of the Constitutional Law Committee,” he added. “A rule-of-law state has the right and obligation to defend itself, its security, the security of citizens.”
The bill enables the government, in consultation with the president, to suspend the reception of asylum applications at or in the vicinity of national borders in response to influence operations by foreign states that weaponise migrants. Border guards will in such circumstances be able to turn away asylum applicants who, according to their summary assessment, are not especially vulnerable.
The migrants who are turned away will have no opportunity to appeal against the decision to a court of law.
“This is a strong message to Russia and its allies that Finland looks after its own security, after the security of EU borders,” viewed Orpo.
“This law is about preparedness, about preparedness for a situation where Finland, once again, is subjected to hybrid influence through instrumentalised asylum seeking, migration. I hope that we never need to use this law, but we’re prepared.”
Minister of the Interior Mari Rantanen (PS) similarly estimated that passing the bill makes it clear that the country is capable of making decisions about its own borders.
“We won’t tolerate also these kind of pressure tactics. We make decisions about our issues and about our own borders independently. And that’s also what today’s passing of the law signifies,” she commented.
Rantanen stated that the enactment will not automatically signal the re-opening of border-crossing points on the border between Finland and Russia. A decision on whether or not to re-open the points, she told, will be made separately based on the evaluation of security authorities.
“We’re constantly evaluating the situation when it comes to opening border-crossing points, based on the assessments of security authorities,” she said.
Members of the Finnish Parliament on Friday voted 167 for and 31 against declaring the bill as urgent, exceeding the necessary five-sixths threshold by only two votes. The bill was passed in a subsequent vote by the same margin.
“We once again showed that security issues – national security, border security – are issues that unite us Finns, things that we’re able to find solutions to,” said Orpo.
Both the Green League and Left Alliance voted collectively against the bill, with another six nay votes coming from the Social Democrats and one from the Swedish People’s Party.
The bill caused public tensions within the Social Democrats. The opposition group decided, after reportedly some strong-arm tactics, that its members can deviate from the party line if they request the right to vote against the bill. Such permissions were granted on Friday to Elisa Gebhard, Timo Harakka, Krista Kiuru, Johan Kvarnström, Matias Mäkynen and Nasima Razmyar.
Information obtained by Helsingin Sanomat indicates that on Tuesday nine members of the parliamentary group had announced their intention to deviate from the party line, a number that would have sufficed to at least delay the enactment. Tytti Tuppurainen, the chairperson of the parliamentary group, outlined though that the members have to justify their opposition to the bill in writing and informed that she would have a personal discussion with each of the members before the vote on Friday.
Mäkynen on Sunday told Helsingin Sanomat that the party should now demonstrate its desire to strengthen rule of law and commitment to international and EU law.
“SDP members are expecting strong demonstrations that the party is firmly for human and basic rights,” he commented. “We have to move forward and make sure that the threshold for applying the act is high.”
He also viewed that the vote will not leave permanent scars within the party.
Gebhard gauged that the act will deliver more problems than solutions. “I consider it problematic that parliament can approve an act that legal experts nearly unanimously think can’t be applied in the first place,” she said. “Passing the law also creates the precedent that international human rights aren’t as inviolable as they were thought to be for Finland.”
The Swedish People’s Party, meanwhile, had decided to treat the bill as a conscience vote. Eva Biaudet was ultimately its only member to vote against the bill.
The passing of the border security act was also recognised abroad, including by Dagens Nyhetern in Sweden, Le Monde in France, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in Germany, Al Jazeera in Qatar and the New York Times in the US.
Amnesty International on Friday lamented the decision, warning that the act will “gravely” undermine access to asylum and protection from non-refoulement in Finland.
“It not only endangers the rights of people seeking safety, but it will also lead to arbitrariness and violence at the border,” stated Dinushika Dissanayake, the regional director for Europe at Amnesty International.
Erkki Hirvonsalo, the chairperson of the Border Security Union, on Saturday said the union was supportive of the bill, despite questions about how effectively it will curb migrant flows to Finland.
“It remains to be seen whether the law will have the desired effect. If you aren’t receiving asylum applications, it’ll jam up cross-border traffic. There are also asylum seekers among the normal traffic,” he stated to Helsingin Sanomat.
Hirvonsalo added that he is not terribly worried about the implications for ordinary border guards. The Constitutional Law Committee, he reminded, ruled that border guards will not be criminally liable for turning away migrants under the act.
There are questions about the assessments border guards are expected to make in such circumstances, he acknowledged. The act states that exceptions should be made for disabled, elderly, underage and other particularly vulnerable migrants.
“The debates didn’t define the degree of disability that’d enable you to submit an asylum claim – probably because it’s such a difficult situation to define,” said Hirvonsalo. “I believe ad hope border guards won’t have to define the degree of disability.”
He also revealed that he is under the impression that border guards would not have to make the assessments immediately upon encountering a migrant in the terrain, but that they would be able to escort them to border checkpoints, which “in a way have better expertise” to make the assessment.
“It remains to be seen if Russia will engage in hybrid influence. I think it’s better that the law was enacted than that it wasn’t enacted,” concluded Hirvonsalo.
Aleksi Teivainen – HT
- Next Article YLE: Summer to bring 1.8 million foreign visitors to Finland
Source: www.helsinkitimes.fi
