Fast-Track Asylum Procedures
In Finland, international protection claims that are considered clearly unfounded are processed within a maximum of four weeks. This is made possible by a streamlined, digital system with dedicated resources for handling priority cases. In contrast, in several other European countries, applications may remain unresolved for months or even years, leading to prolonged uncertainty for both applicants and institutions.
The Finnish model, though selective, allows attention to be focused on those truly in need of protection. Implementing a similar approach elsewhere would require legal reforms, staff training, and effective digital tools. However, even moderate acceleration of simpler cases would already be a step forward.
Integration Through Individual Plans
One of the strengths of Finland’s integration strategy is its use of individual integration plans. These include language training, civic orientation, and employment pathways. Each migrant receives a tailored plan developed in cooperation with local authorities, with clear and measurable goals. In other parts of Europe, integration tends to be less structured and varies widely depending on location, with limited personalization.
This often results in slow and fragmented inclusion, and many highly skilled migrants end up in manual or marginal jobs simply due to language limitations. As a consequence, countries may miss out on valuable professional potential. In Finland, however, personalized support can lead to access to skilled positions, including remote roles in areas like digital marketing or European online casinos — or as the Finns call them, eurooppalaiset nettikasinot.
While Finland’s model may require more investment, it delivers better long-term results, particularly in employment. A similar approach, adapted to local conditions elsewhere, could significantly reduce marginalization and improve the effectiveness of integration systems.
More Effective Return Policies
Finland gives priority to both assisted voluntary returns and, when necessary, enforced returns. Authorities actively collaborate with countries of origin to make the process more efficient and less confrontational. In many European nations, however, the number of actual returns is relatively low compared to issued expulsion orders. The lack of bilateral agreements and the fragmented structure of return services often compromise effectiveness.
Adopting Finland’s approach in this area would mean strengthening migration diplomacy, enhancing assisted return programs, and simplifying procedures — all of which contribute to better overall migration governance.
Municipalities in a Leading Role
In Finland, municipalities play a direct and structured role in integration. They coordinate services, courses, internships, and orientation activities for newcomers, offering solutions that are locally grounded and tailored to actual needs. Elsewhere in Europe, responsibilities often remain centralized or are outsourced to NGOs and private entities via public tenders.
This can result in uneven implementation, depending on local political will and available resources. Transferring more responsibility to local authorities, as in Finland, could strengthen the impact and consistency of integration programs. However, this would also require reliable funding and a unified monitoring framework. When well-organized, decentralization makes the system more flexible, humane, and efficient.
Stricter but Transparent Citizenship Requirements
Finland recently increased the minimum residency requirement for citizenship to 8 years (up from 5) and introduced stricter requirements regarding language and integration. The goal is to reward those who have shown clear commitment to Finnish society. In many other European countries, procedures for citizenship remain long, opaque, and often lack measurable integration criteria.
Although the duration required may be similar, the Finnish system stands out for its transparency and merit-based structure. Recognizing language skills, civic participation, and employment history gives citizenship a more meaningful dimension. Adopting clearer and fairer criteria — without making the process overly complicated — could help other countries foster a stronger sense of belonging and improve societal cohesion.
