Finland’s Immigration Service (Migri) confirmed on 27 February 2026 that it issued 169 deportation orders in 2025 against foreign nationals convicted of crimes—the largest annual total in the country’s history. The figure, first reported by Helsingin Sanomat and picked up by the English-language Helsinki Times, represents a jump of more than 30 percent on the previous year and almost doubles the level seen just five years ago. Officials attribute the surge to two factors.
![Finland Records Highest-Ever Crime-Related Deportations, Signalling Tougher Stance on Immigration]()
VisaHQ, a global visa and immigration services platform, can help employers and assignees stay ahead of these changes. Its Finland portal (https://www.visahq.com/finland/) offers real-time guidance on residence-permit rules, background-check documentation and post-arrival compliance, reducing the chance of costly immigration setbacks.
First, a January 2025 amendment to the Aliens Act lowered the legal threshold for removing non-citizens who hold either a residence permit or international-protection status once they receive a criminal conviction. Second, police have been instructed to submit deportation proposals more proactively; three-quarters of police recommendations in 2025 resulted in removal, up from a long-term average of about 60 percent. Migri’s Olli Koskipirtti, who oversees the removal process, said the agency is now conducting more frequent post-decision reviews to ensure that individuals continue to meet the conditions of stay. The largest nationality groups affected were Iraqi, Estonian and Russian citizens, reflecting Finland’s recent intake patterns. Observers note that the policy shift dovetails with the new government’s broader migration-policy programme, which aims to curb welfare costs and address public concern over security after Finland’s NATO accession. Human-rights NGOs, however, warn that the tougher line risks breaching non-refoulement obligations if removals are ordered to countries with poor security situations. For global-mobility managers the message is clear: compliance failures—and in particular criminal convictions—now carry markedly higher immigration risk than before. Companies employing foreign talent in Finland should review their internal codes of conduct, ensure that employee handbooks spell out the immigration consequences of criminal activity, and be prepared to assist staff who face investigations. Those planning transfers to Finland should also build longer lead times into projects in case background-check questions arise during residence-permit processing. Although the government insists that the change targets only serious offenders, the expanded discretionary powers mean that even relatively minor convictions may now jeopardise long-term residence. Legal counsel should therefore be engaged early if an assignee is charged with an offence. Multinationals that rely on Finland as a Nordic hub will want to monitor forthcoming parliamentary debates on a proposed citizenship-law overhaul, which could extend similar public-order criteria to naturalisation.
VisaHQ, a global visa and immigration services platform, can help employers and assignees stay ahead of these changes. Its Finland portal (https://www.visahq.com/finland/) offers real-time guidance on residence-permit rules, background-check documentation and post-arrival compliance, reducing the chance of costly immigration setbacks.
First, a January 2025 amendment to the Aliens Act lowered the legal threshold for removing non-citizens who hold either a residence permit or international-protection status once they receive a criminal conviction. Second, police have been instructed to submit deportation proposals more proactively; three-quarters of police recommendations in 2025 resulted in removal, up from a long-term average of about 60 percent. Migri’s Olli Koskipirtti, who oversees the removal process, said the agency is now conducting more frequent post-decision reviews to ensure that individuals continue to meet the conditions of stay. The largest nationality groups affected were Iraqi, Estonian and Russian citizens, reflecting Finland’s recent intake patterns. Observers note that the policy shift dovetails with the new government’s broader migration-policy programme, which aims to curb welfare costs and address public concern over security after Finland’s NATO accession. Human-rights NGOs, however, warn that the tougher line risks breaching non-refoulement obligations if removals are ordered to countries with poor security situations. For global-mobility managers the message is clear: compliance failures—and in particular criminal convictions—now carry markedly higher immigration risk than before. Companies employing foreign talent in Finland should review their internal codes of conduct, ensure that employee handbooks spell out the immigration consequences of criminal activity, and be prepared to assist staff who face investigations. Those planning transfers to Finland should also build longer lead times into projects in case background-check questions arise during residence-permit processing. Although the government insists that the change targets only serious offenders, the expanded discretionary powers mean that even relatively minor convictions may now jeopardise long-term residence. Legal counsel should therefore be engaged early if an assignee is charged with an offence. Multinationals that rely on Finland as a Nordic hub will want to monitor forthcoming parliamentary debates on a proposed citizenship-law overhaul, which could extend similar public-order criteria to naturalisation.
