Basic Finns would like to stop seeking asylum in certain situations, but the statements in the draft Border Guard Bill expressed the opposite concern.
Government has submitted to Parliament a bill amending the Border Guard Act, which is intended to prepare for state influence at Finland’s borders. There have been fears during the spring, among other things, that Russia could deliberately machine large numbers of asylum seekers at the eastern border.
The amendments to the Border Guard Act concern three issues: the possibility to concentrate the application for international protection at one or more border crossing points, to restrict border crossing traffic and to provide for the obligation to hand over property to the Border Guard in certain situations.
The hottest the paragraph on the centralization of applications for international protection has been added to the proposal. According to the proposal, the government could decide to centralize the application for international protection if it were necessary.
These would be situations in which an exceptionally large number of immigrants would reach the border or it would be necessary to combat a serious threat to public policy, national security or public health posed by the instrumentalisation of migration.
The instrumentalization of migration refers precisely to the situation in which a foreign state deliberately machines migration at its borders to do harm.
“However, the proposed regulation would not prevent anyone from applying for international protection in Finland,” the bill says.
Border Guard Act is only one part of a package that seeks to prepare for the so-called hybrid impact at the border. The means to respond to threats should also be provided for in the Emergency Preparedness Act.
Rapid changes to the stand-by law would require a five-sixths majority in Parliament, but the Basic Finns have taken a cross-cutting approach.
If necessary, basic Finns would like the opportunity to suspend their asylum application completely. The stalemate over amending the stand-by law was therefore sought to be resolved by a parliamentary assembly on Wednesday, which, however, found no solution to the dispute.
Minister of the Interior Krista Mikkonen (Green) stated that, following the completion of the previous draft of the Border Guard Act, feedback on it would be carefully considered. The reason for emphasizing this was that the planned changes related to compliance with international agreements and fundamental rights for all.
In many of the statements on the proposed amendments to the Border Guard Act, the concern about international protection was exactly the opposite of that of the Finns in the emergency law package.
Among other things, it was pointed out that no one should end up in a country where, for example, the death penalty, torture or other ill-treatment could be faced as a result of changes to the Border Guard Act.
The issue was raised, for example, in the statements of the Chancellor of Justice and the Deputy Ombudsman for Parliament.
Among other things, the Center for Human Rights raised very direct concerns that a sufficient number of border crossing points would continue to be available for international protection.
“The Center for Human Rights considers that it is not self-evident that only one available border crossing point would be sufficient to guarantee the right to effective and efficient access to the asylum procedure.”
Based on the feedback from the opinion, the final wording of the bill had been sharpened more than before.
In the previous draft proposal, the idea in connection with the second amendment was also that the Border Guard could also take over buildings in certain situations. However, this possibility for buildings was left out of the final government proposal.
#Borders #Proposal #government #Russia #hosts #asylum #rush #border #application #international #protection #concentrated #border #crossings
