Immigration is one of the defining societal issues of our time. It touches on the economy, labor markets, demographics, security, and values. Precisely because of this, the conversation around it tends to be emotionally charged, but for that same reason, it should also be as clear and honest as possible.
Too often, the immigration debate is reduced to two extremes. On one side, idealists see immigration as an almost automatic solution to labor shortages and public finance challenges. On the other, it is viewed primarily through the lens of problems. Most people, however, fall somewhere in between. They simply want to understand what immigration actually means for our society, both its benefits and its challenges.
One of the central problems is that realistic and critical discussion is too easily mischaracterized. When someone raises concerns about integration difficulties, employment outcomes, or public costs, the conversation can quickly shut down as criticism is dismissed as being driven by the wrong motives. Labels like “woke” or “racist” are applied far too readily. Yet these are precisely the issues we should be able to discuss openly. Acknowledging problems is not about creating division – it is a prerequisite for finding solutions.
Immigration is not a single, uniform phenomenon. There is labor-based immigration, student immigration, and humanitarian immigration. Each has different starting points and different impacts. Likewise, immigrants’ backgrounds vary widely: culture, education, language skills, and prior work experience all influence how quickly someone can find their place in a new country.
These differences have also been highlighted in international discussions. For example, Simon Hankinson wrote in The Telegraph on March 21, 2026, about Finland’s situation, referencing a study by the Finnish think tank Suomen Perusta. According to the study, the economic impact of different immigrant groups varies significantly. In his example, the average annual net contribution of a native-born Finn to public finances is about +€3,400, while there are large differences between groups: for example, Somali-origin immigrants show a clearly negative impact of about –€7,900 per year, whereas German-origin immigrants show a positive impact of about +€5,100 per year.
The idea that all immigration is the same does not hold up under this kind of analysis. At the same time, it is important to approach individual studies with caution. The Suomen Perusta estimates are based largely on registry data from the 1990s to the 2010s and on calculations reflecting 2011 conditions, and the figures are presented relative to the native population, which serves as a baseline.
Reality is often more complex. No single study or article can capture the full picture, even if it raises important questions about different aspects of immigration. On average, the net impact of all foreign-born individuals is close to zero, but the variation between groups is substantial. This raises a key question: why is immigration so often discussed as if all migrants were the same?
When viewed through the “rose-colored glasses” of idealism, it is easy to assume that immigration will automatically solve labor shortages and strengthen public finances. In reality, this only happens under certain conditions. If newcomers integrate quickly into the labor market and their skills match economic needs, the impact can be clearly positive. If employment is delayed or fails to materialize, the effect can be the opposite.
This does not make immigration inherently good or bad. It makes it a phenomenon that needs to be managed and guided. There is a clear difference between immigration designed to address labor shortages and humanitarian immigration driven by the need for protection. Both are justified, but for different reasons, and they should not be conflated.
Ultimately, the question is not whether immigration should be increased or reduced. The real question is what kind of immigration works for Finland’s long-term well-being. What kind of immigration does the economy and society actually need, and what can it sustainably support? Where is the line between benefits and costs, and how can it be assessed honestly? At the same time, we must consider how Finland can meet its humanitarian responsibilities in a way that is both humane and sustainable.
The greatest service we can do for the immigration debate is honesty. No exaggeration, no fearmongering, but also no naïveté or idealism. If we are willing to recognize both the benefits and the challenges, we can build an immigration policy that is both sustainable and fair.