Extending the instrumentalised migration act
Act amending section 7 of the Act on Temporary Measures to Combat Instrumentalised Migration
Finland will extend the validity of the exceptional act that allows restricting the reception of asylum applications at the border where necessary to combat instrumentalised migration. The act will remain in force until the end of 2028 without substantive changes.
- Status
- In progress
- Submitted
- 3 Sep 2026
- Latest event
- 10 Sep 2026
- Votes
- 0
- Speeches
- 30
- Source
- eduskunta.fi ↗
What is proposed
The validity of the fixed-term exceptional act, the Act on Temporary Measures to Combat Instrumentalised Migration, will be extended by two years until 31 December 2028. No changes will be made to the substantive content of the act or to the powers of the authorities.
What it means
The Finnish Border Guard and the Government will retain the preparedness to introduce, as a measure of last resort, powers to prevent entry and remove entrants from the country if a foreign state uses them as an instrument of hybrid influence. The amendment safeguards the preparedness of the authorities and affects the maintenance of border security as well as prospective entrants and asylum seekers in situations where the act is applied. The act is intended to enter into force on 31 December 2026 at the latest.
How Parliament voted
Consideration is ongoing: Parliament has not yet voted on the bill in plenary.
Debate in the chamber
What was argued and where each group stood, followed by MPs' speeches verbatim from the parliamentary record. Speeches are shown in their original language.
30 speeches · 1 debate
Key points of the debate
The debate concerned extending the validity of the exceptional act enacted to combat instrumentalised migration until the end of 2028. The government parties and parts of the opposition considered extending the act necessary due to national security and the threat of Russian hybrid influence. In turn, some opposition members criticised repeatedly extending the exceptional act, as well as its conflict with the Constitution and human rights treaties.
- Is repeatedly extending the exceptional act problematic from the perspective of the Constitution and the rule of law?
- Is the security threat at the eastern border still so high that maintaining exceptional powers is necessary?
- How does the act relate to international human rights treaties and the right to seek asylum?
- National Coalition PartyIn favour
The group supports extending the act because the security environment at the eastern border has not improved and the authorities must have tools of last resort to ensure border security.
”Juuri siksi tämän lain voimassaolon jatkaminen on välttämätöntä.”
— Juha Hänninen - Finns PartyIn favour
The group considers extending the act completely necessary to safeguard the security and sovereignty of Finland and its citizens against Russia's ongoing hybrid threat.
”Tämä on täysin välttämätön tässä turvallisuustilanteessa, jossa me ollaan.”
— Mari Rantanen - Social DemocratsIn favour
The group supports extending the act for reasons of national security and preparedness, but at the same time stresses the need to take fundamental and human rights into account and Parliament's oversight role.
”Sen vuoksi, rouva puhemies, me tuemme tämän rajaturvallisuuslain jatkoa.”
— Tytti Tuppurainen - Centre PartyIn favour
The group stands behind extending the exceptional act because the world situation and the threat perceptions on the eastern border justify keeping preventive legislation in force.
”Keskusta on ainoana oppositiopuolueena ollut tukemassa tätä rajalakia, ja tuemme myös tätä jatkoakin eli seisomme rajalain takana.”
— Hanna Räsänen - GreensAgainst
The group criticises repeatedly renewing the exceptional act in succession and questions the constitutionality of the procedure as well as the consequences of restricting the right to seek asylum.
”Kuinka pitkään poikkeuslaki voi oikein näin jatkua?”
— Oras Tynkkynen - Left AllianceAgainst
The group opposes the proposal as an exceptional act contrary to the Constitution, human rights treaties and EU law, and considers extending it an erosion of the rule of law.
”Käännytyslaki on yksiselitteisesti perustuslain, ihmisoikeussopimusten ja EU-oikeuden vastainen.”
— Jessi Jokelainen
This digest was generated by AI from 30 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record.
Keskustelu päättyi. Asia lähetettiin hallintovaliokuntaan, jolle perustuslakivaliokunnan on annettava lausunto.
Stages of consideration
The bill's path from the preliminary debate to the decision, as recorded by Parliament.
- 3 Sep 2026Eduskuntakäsittelyn vireilletulo · Sisäministeriö
- 8 Sep 2026Lähetekeskustelu · Täysistunto
Decisions by law proposal1
- 1Laki väliaikaisista toimenpiteistä välineellistetyn maahantulon torjumiseksi annetun lain 7 §:n muuttamisesta
Proposed law text
The law proposals in the bill as the Government presented them. The final act may differ after committee consideration.
The law text is shown in Finnish or Swedish from Parliament's official documents; it is not translated into English.
Laki väliaikaisista toimenpiteistä välineellistetyn maahantulon torjumiseksi annetun lain 7 §:n muuttamisesta
Eduskunnan päätöksen mukaisesti, joka on tehty perustuslain 73 §:ssä säädetyllä tavalla, muutetaan väliaikaisista toimenpiteistä välineellistetyn maahantulon torjumiseksi annetun lain (482/2024) 7 §, sellaisena kuin se on laissa 368/2025, seuraavasti:
7 §Voimaantulo
Tämä laki tulee voimaan 22 päivänä heinäkuuta 2024 ja on voimassa 31 päivään joulukuuta 2028.
§
Tämä laki tulee voimaan päivänä kuuta 20 .
Main content of the bill (official)
The summary and title were produced with AI on 13 Sep 2026. They are not official documents – check the details in the original bill. The title and summaries are machine translations of the Finnish AI summaries. Speeches and quotations are always shown in their original language.