Introduction
Instrumentalized migration as a research subject and political construction is relatively new, although there are indications that migration has long been used as a tool in international politics. Greenhill’s (2010) research indicates that liberal democracies are particularly susceptible to migration‑based coercion due to their strong commitment to the protection of human rights. In recent years in Finland, along with throughout the European Union (EU), the phenomenon has come to be known as instrumentalized migration and is interpreted as one instrument within a broader framework of hybrid influence.
When seeking to respond to hybrid influence as a genuine security threat, it is crucial to recognize the similarities between the objectives of hybrid operations and the consequences of securitization. Hybrid operations aim to weaken internal cohesion, a key aspect of democracy, often by fueling polarization on sensitive issues (Wigell 2019). This paper draws from the idea that practices that diminish internal cohesion are rooted in ‘othering,’ which categorizes certain groups as fundamentally different.
In this article, I examine the securitization of migration in Finnish parliamentary discussions on instrumentalized migration from 2022 to 2024. Securitization refers to the process in which a societal issue is framed as a significant security threat that requires an exceptional state response, which is legitimized by public acceptance (Buzan & Hansen 2009; Buzan, Wæver & de Wilde 1998). During the analyzed period, the events on the eastern border of the EU made instrumentalization a central issue in European and Finnish policymaking. Here, I use the concept of migrants as a general category for immigrants, refugees, and asylum‑seekers.
The Nordic countries have contributed to the securitization of migration, yet the belief in higher Nordic moral standards can obscure recognition of their securitizing practices. This premise includes the belief that one’s own practices in immigration work and border control are guided by a high standard of professional ethics and carried out with the conviction of acting rightly. (Waerp 2025.) Such a mindset of ‘Nordic exceptionalism’ is also evident in Finland, where a strong self‑image as an ethically grounded liberal democracy may limit critical reflection on Finnish migration governance. Moreover, migrant securitization in the EU has intensified, which has resulted in policy changes and shifts in power dynamics (Bello 2022). Critical scholarly engagement is therefore needed to examine the mechanisms through which securitization is enacted in Finland in the context of instrumentalized migration.
The study responds to the call to examine how security arguments justify migration restrictions (Palander & Pellander 2019) and how securitization operates in emerging migration phenomena. As migration remains securitized, understanding how securitization is discursively constructed and intertwined in exclusionary practices is essential for democratic resilience and informed policymaking. Finland offers a particularly illuminating case, as securitization following instrumentalization occurs within a political system long characterized by strong democratic institutions and adherence to the rule of law. Recognizing how migration is portrayed as a security threat contextualizes European responses to geopolitical tensions, hybrid threats, and shifts in migration governance. Additionally, it offers a Nordic perspective on how securitization frames responding to migration and influences the inclusiveness of liberal democratic societies.
I begin this article by outlining the background to the case and continue by exploring the theoretical foundations of securitization and othering, elucidating how perceptions of migration are constructed within discourse. I then introduce the research materials and methodology. Then, I present the empirical findings on key securitizing discourses and continue with an examination of how these discourses contribute to the othering of migrants. I conclude with a discussion of the implications, propose an alternative approach to instrumentalization, and point to areas of further research.
Instrumentalized Migration as a Hybrid Threat
Instrumentalized migration has become a prominent issue in European politics. In 2021, Belarus facilitated the movement of migrants to the borders of Latvia; Lithuania; and, most notably, Poland. Western authorities interpreted this as Belarus’s retaliatory response to the EU sanctions (e.g., Sari 2023). Poland responded with pushback of migrants back to Belarus, while Belarus refused re‑entry, leading to people being trapped in the border zones. In 2021, Poland received 7,800 applications for international protection and prevented approximately 39,700 attempted border crossings, according to its Border Guard.
In late 2023, pressure on the EU’s eastern border continued in Finland, with altogether 1,300 migrants arriving without proper documentation from Russia. Finnish authorities attributed the phenomenon to Russian state actors and framed it as a severe national security threat, leading to the closure of Finland’s eastern border (Ministry of the Interior of Finland 2024). The border remains closed as of the spring of 2026. In response, Finland amended its Border Guard Act in 2022 and, in July 2024, enacted the Act on Temporary Measures to Combat Instrumentalized Migration, which allows authorities to reject asylum applications and remove migrants deemed instrumentalized.
The Council of Europe Commissioners for Human Rights, for example, has criticized these measures, noting that they may endanger the right to seek asylum and violate the principle of non‑refoulement and the prohibition of collective expulsion. They stress that, while instrumentalization is condemnable, national security cannot justify departures from international human rights obligations. Moreover, the nature of the national security threat invoked in Finland has not been defined with sufficient clarity (Mijatović 2023; O’Flaherty 2024). Instrumentalization has also shaped policy developments at the EU level, as reflected in updates to the Schengen Borders Code and the European Pact on Migration and Asylum, which included crisis protocols, strengthening border controls, and enhancing member‑state cooperation.
In Finland, these instrumentalization events have been depicted as part of state‑conducted hybrid operations attacking the EU and its states’ national security. Hybrid operations use tactics like cyberattacks, economic means, or disinformation to harm target countries. The operations exploit societal vulnerabilities that have grown due to globalization and digitalization. Hybrid threats and their perpetrators are often difficult to identify because they can be covert and involve third‑party actors (Nyemann 2021). Conceptualizing national security, in turn, evolves with historical experience, political culture, identity, and the country’s global role and is also influenced by economic and cultural ties (Kolosov & Sebentsov 2021). In Finland, it is, for example, shaped by its tradition of consensus on national security; its geopolitical ties with Russia and, earlier, the Soviet Union; its small‑state identity; and EU and NATO membership (e.g., Kyllönen 2025).
The Finnish political discourse on instrumentalization illustrates how broader discussions on migration tend to be overlooked when migration is perceived as a threat. This was evident when migrants arrived from Russia in northern Finland and Norway in 2015–2016. The situation was framed in Finland as coercively engineered migration, bringing the phenomenon into public and political discussions in Finland for the first time. The emphasis on migration as a threat narrows down the dialogue about the possible solutions as well as migrants’ humanity and their actorness. Moreover, the methods used to address instrumentalization, which have relied on the pushbacks of migrants, can be seen to contribute to illiberal development in European societies. This shows the inconsistency between the argued commitment to liberal norms and values and the factual actions (Virkkunen, Silvan & Piipponen 2024). A hybrid threat narrative can legitimize restrictive responses and weaken the role of international obligations, while obscuring broader structural sources of insecurity (Cielemecka & Laine 2026). Indeed, securitizing not only constructs migrants as threats but also shapes migration policies and societal development.
Othering and its effects on societal fragmentation, which can be intensified through hybrid means, have been acknowledged in the Nordic countries. For instance, a Norwegian study indicates that othering is implemented through discourse that naturalizes exclusion and dehumanizes the other, which in turn reinforces unequal and dehumanizing policies (Hilden & Stålsett 2012). In Sweden, information influence and societal polarization have become major concerns (Wagnsson 2020), with the far right and Russia using Sweden as a negative example to fuel anti‑immigrant sentiments (Havlicek et al. 2018). Finland, as part of the Nordic political and informational landscape, shows similar vulnerabilities to external attempts to exploit societal divisions.
The Discursive Construction of Migration—Securitization and Othering
Security and the sense of security are constructed in a complex social atmosphere influenced by the discourses and policies practiced by various actors (Prokkola 2018). Securitization affects not only migrants but also the majority population’s sense of security. Emphasizing threats and crises creates an atmosphere of insecurity, which can lead people to view the world and everyday interactions through a lens of division, categorizing others, for example, as either trustworthy Finns or untrustworthy foreigners (Välimäki 2024). This underlines the analytical premise that perceptions of security and migration are socially produced and sustained through discourse.
According to the Copenhagen School’s securitization theory, security is a discursive and political construct rather than an objective condition (Buzan & Hansen 2009). The theory of securitization explains how issues become security threats through discourse. In this process, an actor, typically political leaders, governments, or bureaucracies, presents something as a serious threat and proposes exceptional measures to counter it. If accepted by the public, the issue moves from political debate to the security sphere, justifying actions that might otherwise be unacceptable, such as restricting civil rights (Buzan, Wæver & de Wilde 1998). The analysis applies securitization theory to examine how migration is framed as a threat in the context of instrumentalization.
The portrayal of migration as a security threat has been critically examined, for instance, in the context of the EU’s migration and asylum policies (e.g., Bello 2022; Guild 2009). Much of the existing research has focused on border politics in the Mediterranean (e.g., Mainwaring 2019; Moreno‑Lax 2018), while the policies concerning the EU’s eastern border have received significantly less attention. Migration in Finland has historically been securitized in ways that reflect prevailing foreign policy concerns, legislative changes, and political developments (Välimäki 2024). This study demonstrates how instrumentalization, which has moved to the center of security and foreign policy through the events examined here, constructs contemporary migrant securitization.
Securitization has also faced critical interventions, and scholars disagree, for example, on the securitization of migration at the EU level (Baele & Sterck 2015). Securitization theory’s analytical emphasis on discourse has been criticized for diverting attention from concrete practices and material actions. Critical debates also question the role of political actors in constructing threat perceptions. Könönen (2025) shows that security authorities, such as the National Police Board and the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service, have long participated in the securitization of migration, often providing the initial threat assessments. These interpretations are then reinforced, legitimized, and made visible through political debate, making parliamentary debates a particularly relevant object of analysis.
This paper provides an empirical contribution to the literature on migration securitization. It highlights how security was used in Finnish political discourse to justify exceptional measures, especially the limitation of possibilities to apply for international protection in response to perceived threats. While the notion of hybrid operations can refer both to a discursive framing and to an actual security threat, the analytical focus of this study is on the former: how political actors invoke the idea of hybrid operations to construct migration itself as a security issue.
Securitization of migration stems from its problematization. Since the 1980s, migration has been framed as a challenge to the welfare state, public order, and national identity. This perspective has placed migration within the domain of security authorities, reinforcing its institutional securitization. Consequently, migration is fundamentally approached through a security lens. It differs, for example, from policies emphasizing related human rights questions and advancing instruments to ensure migrants’ rights. Such a securitizing approach exacerbates destabilization and hinders migrant inclusion, as well as impacts solidarity and public order (Huysmans 2000).
Given this historical context, securitization reflects broader dynamics of othering. Migration is increasingly framed primarily as a security threat in Finland, which shapes policy more through restriction than protection (Palander & Pellander 2019). The attempts to restrict protection are reflected in assessments of refugees’ deservingness and distinctions made between different migrant groups (Heikkilä & Kmak 2025). Moreover, discourses can be used as tools to execute power by problematizing minority groups to justify decisions and processes that limit their rights or otherwise exclude them (Wodak 2011). These features highlight the need to understand the migrant securitization in contemporary migration phenomena and the underlying mechanisms that shape migration policies.
The Western migration‑as‑crisis narrative reinforces securitization and othering by depicting migrants as threats to national security, overshadowing the dangers they flee. The narrative can also fuel polarization, as shown by the mobilization of white nationalist movements in many Western countries (Durrani & Shankar 2022; see also Reddy & Thiollet 2023). Securitization is linked to othering, as security threats are often framed as risks to a shared identity, dividing populations into insiders and outsiders (Buzan, Wæver & de Wilde 1998). As securitization and othering are intertwined, this paper approaches the analysis of migrant securitization through the lens of othering. Drawing on a perspective that examines how othering, exclusion, and xenophobia are constructed (Delanty, Jones & Wodak 2011), the study highlights the social mechanisms through which migrants are positioned as outsiders.
This combined theoretical approach enables an analysis of securitization as embedded within broader societal dynamics and group relations. The perspective is relevant, as the normalization of divisive and discriminatory policies, together with the threatening framing of ‘the other,’ has gained traction in European migration policies and discussions. It is especially evident in border politics. This is undermining inclusive visions rooted in solidarity, equal well‑being, and cultural exchange (Wodak 2015) and gives rise to more widespread divisive practices, which, in the Nordic countries. has become evident in ‘everyday bordering’ (Tervonen, Pellander & Yuval‑Davis 2018). Literature shows that securitization can contribute to othering, feelings of insecurity, and racism (d’Appollonia 2015; Jones & Krzyżanowski 2011; Saeed 2016). This study extends existing research by showing how the instrumentalization of migration produces similar dynamics in Finland.
Research Material and Methods
For this study, I reviewed the parliamentary debates concerning instrumentalization by Finnish politicians between 2022 and 2024. Limiting the scope to instrumentalized migration in 2022–2024 ensures a focused analysis of securitization within contemporary policymaking and includes a shared understanding of instrumentalization within broader European security narratives. The most comprehensive discussion on the topic within the analyzed period occurred during plenary sessions in July 2022 and July 2024, when the parliament debated the government’s proposal for legislative changes addressing instrumentalization. The primary data consist of four plenary debates, each lasting approximately 3.5–7 hours.1
To ensure comprehensive coverage, relevant materials were systematically identified through searches in the Finnish Parliament’s database (Parliament of Finland n.d.). The material was identified using the following keywords: instrumentalized migration (‘välineellistetty maahanmuutto’), instrumentalized entry (‘välineellistetty maahantulo’), and instrumentalization (‘välineellistäminen’). Additional searches were conducted using related terms, such as hybrid operation (‘hybridioperaatio’), hybrid threat (‘hybridiuhka’), and hybrid influence (‘hybridivaikuttaminen’). The four plenary debates were selected because they provide the most extensive and explicit parliamentary discussions on instrumentalized migration in 2022–2024, including competing interpretations of the phenomenon in relation to security. The focus on these extended debates allows the analysis to capture recurring discursive themes articulated across parliamentary exchanges, rather than isolated individual interventions. The study focuses on parliamentary debate, as it shapes and challenges understandings of values, identities, and relations that guide collective decision‑making, as well as influences the framing of societal issues and reveals party political agendas, particularly in times of change and polarization (Ilie 2018).
During the analyzed period, the Finnish government changed, which enables an analysis not confined to a specific coalition. First, in 2019–2023, Finland was governed by a center‑left five‑party coalition that included the Social Democratic Party (SDP), the Centre Party (KESK), the Greens (VIHR), the Left Alliance (VAS), and the Swedish People’s Party of Finland (RKP/SFP). Following the parliamentary elections, the current right‑wing coalition government was formed in the summer of 2023. The coalition consists of the National Coalition Party (NCP), the Finns Party (PS), the Christian Democrats (KD), and the Swedish People’s Party. The parties in the former coalition leaned more towards liberal and pro‑migration positions. The latter coalition is characterized by a more restrictive approach to migration, although party lines are not entirely uniform, and RKP/SFP has maintained a more moderate stance.
I used predication analysis, which is derived from the principles of discourse analysis, to examine how security discourses on migration and migrants were constructed in Finnish political discussions. The analysis focuses on language and how it produces specific understandings of reality rather than merely reflecting it (Dunn & Neumann 2016). Predication analysis examines how subjects are constructed through attributes such as verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, as well as through presuppositions and subject positions that reveal the standpoint from which interpretations are articulated (Doty 1993). Through these presuppositions, discourses naturalize specific worldviews, often presenting them as self‑evident or classifying phenomena into seemingly obvious categories (Doty 1996). This approach is especially relevant for migration securitization, where threats are not self‑evident but discursively constructed within underlying power relations.
In the first stage of the analysis, I identified the attributes, presuppositions, and subject positions attached to instrumentalized migration and migrants through close reading. Statements were coded based on the identification of recurring descriptive patterns in the data. The material was systematically reviewed to extract repeated verbs, adjectives, adverbs, metaphors, and problem definitions related to migration and security. These descriptive elements were then categorized according to their primary underlying logic or motivation in the argument (state‑centric sovereignty, responsibility and value‑protection, threat personalization, and external constraint and security‑based derogation logic), rather than their surface‑level wording, to identify the ways in which members of parliament construct meanings in their speech.
For example, recurring references to national security, security policy, and explicit distinctions between security and migration policy were grouped under the sovereignty discourse. Descriptions emphasizing protection, obligation, and values such as independence, democracy, and the rule of law were categorized within the protector discourse. Statements in which migrants were ascribed characteristics at either the individual or collective level, through descriptions such as ‘criminals,’ ‘weapons,’ or ‘masses,’ were coded as part of the dangerous migrants discourse. Finally, problematizing references to the EU, international agreements or obligations, hybrid operations or influence, and the international asylum system were grouped under the transnational insecurities discourse.
These categorizations provided an analytically consistent framework for examining how instrumentalized migration was constructed as a security issue across the debates. While the discourses are analytically distinct, they may co‑occur within the same speech, reflecting the layered nature of parliamentary securitization. Together, the four discourses capture the dominant securitization logics and add analytical relevance to existing research on migration securitization by demonstrating how instrumentalization shapes the framing of migrants. In the second stage, I examined mechanisms of othering in securitization discourses. Exclusionary narratives are often embedded in discourse rather than explicitly stated (Wodak 2011), which makes discourse analysis a useful tool for identifying the practices of securitization and othering.
Empirical Analysis of Migrant Securitization
Migration was constructed as a threat through four interrelated securitizing discourses in the Finnish parliamentary discussions on instrumentalization. The empirical chapters begin by outlining the discourses presented in Table 1. The subsequent chapter examines how these securitizing discourses align with the process of othering and considers their broader societal impacts. The analysis uses selected examples that highlight the main recurring themes and broader discursive patterns in the material.
Table 1
Securitization of migrants in political discourse on instrumentalized migration.
Sovereignty discourse
Throughout the discussions, national security was a central theme and lay at the core of the sovereignty discourse, in which Members of Parlement (MPs) framed instrumentalized migration explicitly as a security issue that threatens Finland’s territorial integrity. In its simplicity, the parties advocating the legislative changes, which included the right‑wing parties PS, NCP, and KD, along with the more centrist KESK and a leftward‑oriented SDP, stated that the legislative changes that are done to address the instrumentalization, including limiting the possibilities to apply for international protection, are done to ensure the security of Finland and the Finnish people. To support this argument, they stated that having effective means to address instrumentalization is a matter of safeguarding ‘territorial integrity, public order, security, and national security’ (Parliament of Finland 2024a, at 12:12).
National security as a priority and a common interest was generally used as a self‑explanatory argument, making it a moral imperative to make legislative changes. Mainly, the Greens and Left Alliance were exceptions, questioning the legislative changes, voting against the 2024 proposal, and emphasizing the need to consider human rights. However, MPs of these parties also acknowledged that the discussion involved national security. The Swedish People’s Party supported the 2024 legislative proposal, but with few interventions and without references to national security. The 2022 amendments to the Border Guard Act were adopted by Parliament with broad consensus. However, the division between parties in terms of the securitizing nature of their statements was similar in the debates of both years.
In the discussion in 2024, it was repeated several times by MPs from various parties, beyond government‑opposition divisions, that instrumentalization and the proposed legislative changes to address it are not migration policy but security policy. A Finns Party MP stated: ‘This law, it is not migration policy, this is security, security, and security’ (Parliament of Finland 2024a, at 15:14). This statement exemplifies a recurring theme that was particularly emphasized by SDP MPs as well as by Minister of Interior Mari Rantanen of the Finns Party. The same rhetoric was used at the European level when Finnish EU commissioner Henna Virkkunen stated that addressing instrumentalization is about security, not migration (European Union 2024). Instead, in the 2022 discussion, the only time it was referred to as security policy was when MP Riikka Purra mentioned in her introduction statement that Finland being able to respond to instrumentalized migration and hybrid operation is crucial from a security policy point of view (Parliament of Finland 2022b).
Notably, as an opposition to the view of policies presented in 2024, in 2022, a response to instrumentalization was still referred to as migration policy by an MP from the Finns Party. NCP was described as joining their party’s migration policy by supporting the proposed legislation: ‘You haven’t always been so friendly about our migration policy, but welcome’ (Parliament of Finland 2022b, at 15:22). Although a rare statement, it reveals that the proposed actions align with the restrictive migration policies of the right‑wing Finns Party. From their point of view, emergency measures are implemented to advance their migration agenda. As this view could provoke resistance from other parties, migration restrictions were instead justified as serving the common good of national security.
National protector discourse
National protector discourse focuses on the position of Finnish political authorities in relation to the threat articulated in sovereignty discourse. In this framing, they were presented as protectors of Finland, the Finnish people, and Finnish values. National security and the security of Finnish people were given priority over those seeking international protection. A common theme was the justification of measures as self‑evident, grounded in common values and the nation’s security. A Finns Party MP framed addressing instrumentalized migration as ‘our’ duty to honor the forefathers who fought for ‘our’ freedom, emphasizing the necessity to protect independence and liberty (Parliament of Finland 2022b, at 16:26).
The justification for the emergency action was constructed by portraying MPs as obligated to implement the proposed measures. Obligation (velvollisuus) or responsibility (vastuu) were invoked as justificatory arguments 19 times in the 2022 debates and 43 times in the 2024 debates. The growing emphasis on obligation and responsibility indicates an attempt to distance the measures from partisan or ideological motivations and instead frame them as necessary responses to an exceptionally grave situation. This strengthens the securitized logic enabling extraordinary action.
The actions proposed and the argumentation used to justify them were, in some respects, inconsistent with each other. For example, an MP of NCP stated in the introduction statement: ‘It is about defending a democratic rule of law against hostile influence, coercion, and hybrid attacks by a foreign state that pose a serious threat to self‑determination and national security’ (Parliament of Finland 2024a, at 12:12). Hence, the rule of law is used as a justification to make changes that compromise binding legislation. Derogation from the most binding rules sets a precedent for future actions both in Finland and internationally, as Finland demonstrates that international obligations can be disregarded to pursue national interests.
Some MPs who supported the legislative amendments used security authorities’ assessments to support the MPs’ self‑presentation as national protectors. The MPs referred mostly in general to assessments by ‘security authorities,’ which included institutions such as the National Police Board, the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service, and the National Bureau of Investigation. By appealing to institutions that enjoy high public trust in Finland, they reinforced the constructed security framing, justified their political stance, and emphasized the necessity of protective action. Conversely, expert statements emphasizing the unlawfulness of the proposed legislative amendments were referred to, for example, as ‘opinions.’ These experts were positioned in contrast to MPs acting in Finland’s national interest (Parliament of Finland 2024a). Security authorities and the assessments they provided were thus elevated above other forms of expert knowledge as more relevant and authoritative, thereby increasing the role of security authorities in the securitization process.
Dangerous migrants discourse
Whereas the sovereignty discourse focuses on the scale of the security issue as a national security concern and the national protector discourse emphasizes state authority and MPs’ role in addressing the threat, the dangerous migrants discourse locates the threat itself in people on the move. The dangerous migrants discourse promotes the idea that instrumentalization poses a threat because migrants in Finland are diminishing the nation’s security. It was portrayed, for example, by an MP of the Finns Party: ‘When enough people are pushed here, we would eventually reach a point where these masses would have to be left to drift freely in our country. That would be a catastrophe for national security’ (Parliament of Finland 2024a, at 13:10). With this discourse, also evident in European‑level political debates, Finnish political actors portray migrants as passive objects and as a severe threat to security through their mere presence in the country.
A similar picture was also painted by an MP of the Centre Party:
‘Masses of people are used as a tool of hybrid warfare. A hostile state may attempt to direct large groups of people into a neighboring country with the goal of destabilizing conditions in the receiving nation (tavoitteenaan pistää vastaanottavan maan olot sekaisin). To prevent Finland from facing an uncontrollable situation caused by such a mass influx (ihmisvyöryn aiheuttamaan hallitsemattomaan tilanteeseen), our legislation must be adapted accordingly’ (Parliament of Finland 2022a, at 14:47; at 17:22).
These statements exemplify the broader discursive theme in which the threat of a hybrid operation functions as a constructed component of securitization, with threat images centered on migrants and hypothetical scenarios around them. As an opposition to this view, for instance, an MP of the Left Alliance stated that a large number of incoming migrants does not, by itself, constitute a serious threat to national security (Parliament of Finland 2022a).
Transnational insecurities discourse
Members of Parliament extend the threat narrative beyond the national level by embedding it within an international security framework. Many MPs argued that EU regulations and international agreements do not adequately address this type of novel situation, as they were created long ago to address circumstances fundamentally different from current conditions. In the discussions, NCP MPs argued: ‘Finland has no obligation to sacrifice the security, or even the very existence of the entire nation on the altar of outdated international agreements (ajastaan jääneiden kansainvälisten sopimusten alttarilla)’ (Parliament of Finland 2024a, at 18:16), and ‘Finland can and must prioritize its national security and the safety of those residing within its borders over the right to seek asylum’ (Parliament of Finland 2022b, at 16:43).
The quotations illustrate a broad pattern in which international commitments were downplayed, as such agreements were presented as unsuitable or outdated. This rhetoric justified extraordinary measures through the previously introduced national protector discourse. Political actors argued that adhering to these agreements would compromise security and even the Finnish nation itself, which presented a departure from international agreements as necessary.
Representatives of the parties most actively defending the legislative amendments presented their situational assessments as straightforward facts. In the 2022 discussions, the situation was described as a hybrid attack aimed at exerting pressure on the EU. The asylum system was portrayed as broken and being exploited (Parliament of Finland 2022a). Similarly, in 2024, Russia was described as having launched a hybrid attack against Finland, and a Finns Party MP stated that ‘with this direct attack (tämän suoran hyökkäyksen myötä), Russia has therefore also attacked the EU’s and NATO’s external border.’ While the articulated threat was, on the one hand, widely described as already having materialized in a serious manner at Finland’s border, another Finns Party MP framed the threat as potentially materializing in the future, noting that there had now been ‘a small foretaste’ (pientä esimakua) of that (Parliament of Finland 2024a, at 12:59; at 16:19). Thus, while representatives held partially differing views on the situation and the nature and immediacy of the threat, their objectives regarding restrictions on entry were the same.
In the debates, particularly representatives of the Greens and the Left Alliance, along with some MPs from the SDP and the RKP/SFP, articulated counterarguments concerning international obligations. The interventions emphasized the broader significance of the rules‑based international order and its importance from Finland’s perspective. Those MPs cited expert statements to Parliament that found the proposal incompatible with the Constitution, EU law, and international human rights obligations. Legal constraints on political decision‑making were framed as an intentional and necessary feature of the legal system (Parliament of Finland 2024a; 2024b).
The counter‑interventions largely invoked the protection of democracy and the rule of law, the same principles that were used in securitizing speeches to justify exceptional measures. The difference lay in how international obligations were framed: in securitizing interventions, they were depicted as part of the security problem, whereas, in the counterarguments, they were presented as contributing to the provision of security.
Empirical Insights on Othering Migrants as a Threat
The political discourse on instrumentalization was centralized around the idea of security, and migration was seen to pose a threat to Finland and the Finnish people. This creates an idea of ‘us’ Finns and ‘other’ migrants. When the proposed threat is linked to migrants, the formed idea of insecurity gains additional dimensions. This makes it relevant to examine the securitization of migration in relation to the othering of migrants. Othering was primarily constructed through the dangerous migrants discourse, which systematically reinforced suspicion toward migrants and positioned them as threatening others.
In the discussions, the motives of asylum‑seekers and their genuine need for protection were repeatedly questioned, fueling distrust of migrants. This, together with the previously outlined threatening view of migration, leaves room for shifting the stance on asylum‑seekers from sympathy to insecurity. An SDP MP made the questioning evident by stating that the instrumentalization is not about seeking asylum, nor necessarily about people fearing for their lives, but instead about destabilizing Europe. A Finns Party MP articulated the need to close the border if Russia is instrumentalizing migrants and using them in a hybrid attack, so that migrants, ‘even if they are called asylum‑seekers,’ would not be let into the country (Parliament of Finland 2022b, at 17:09; at 15:45).
There was an appeal to common sense when questioning the need for individuals to seek asylum within a crowd of thousands of people. This was accompanied by doubts about the existence of genuine asylum‑seekers in Russia, implied, for instance, through the wording ‘if there were people who needed to seek asylum in Russia’ (Parliament of Finland 2022b, at 16:10). Appealing to common sense can serve as a rhetorical strategy to justify questionable or even criminal actions such as racialized violence (Houdek 2018). Presenting actions as self‑evidently right obscures their complexity, legitimizes controversial measures, and discourages critical scrutiny.
One of the securitizing meanings attached to migrants, which reinforced othering, was the description of migrants as potential criminal actors. An MP of the Finns Party stated:
‘The instrumentalized pushing of people into the country is not merely a way to bring refugees to Finland but a means to influence Finnish society in a way that weakens security. Those entering the country may have engaged in criminal activities in Russia or been trained in Africa to serve Russia’s interests; they can be of any kind (ihan mitä laatua tahansa)’ (Parliament of Finland 2024a, at 19:01).
While promoting the idea of migrants as active criminal actors, this statement at the same time includes the perception of migrants as passive objects being pushed to Finland, diminishing migrants’ actorness. This kind of portrayal of migrants establishes a foundation for a divisive understanding of ‘us Finns’ as being in danger because of the threatening migrants.
A sense of insecurity was also associated with migrants through their militarization. This was done, for example, by the right‑wing parties using militarized terminology instead of a neutral tone. They used terms such as ‘instrumentalized invasion’ (välineellistetty maahantunkeutuminen) (Parliament of Finland 2024a), ‘asylum‑seeker weapon’ (turvapaikanhakija‑ase), and ‘migrant weapon’ (siirtolaisase) (Parliament of Finland 2022b). Several MPs from right‑wing parties and the SDP described people—specifically migrants, asylum‑seekers, or third‑country nationals—as being used as weapons against ‘us’ or against Finland. Migrants were directly referred to as weapons on 21 occasions across the four debates, with similar frequencies of mention observed in both years. Such characterizations were primarily articulated by representatives of the NCP and the PS, with single instances also voiced by MPs from the SDP and the KD.
Beyond such recurring expressions, migrants were militarized through more varied and discursively inventive framings. For example, a militarized view of migrants was also presented by a KD MP, who stated: ‘They can come in battalions as long as they simply declare, “I am seeking asylum”’ (Parliament of Finland 2024a). Together, the discourses formed a strong image of migrants as threatening others.
Concluding Discussion
This article has explored how migrants were presented as a security issue in Finnish parliamentary discourse on instrumentalized migration and how this construction reinforces othering. The study identifies four primary securitizing discourses prevalent in political discussions: sovereignty, national protector, dangerous migrants, and transnational insecurities. The common thread among these discourses was national security. Securitizing descriptions of migration were primarily used by MPs from right‑wing parties, with the exception of the Swedish People’s Party. Similar language was also used by representatives of the Social Democratic Party and the Centre Party. In contrast, MPs from the Left Alliance and the Greens emphasized the importance of international obligations and partly appealed to the same values invoked in the securitizing statements.
Previous research has identified a pattern in which migrants are portrayed as criminals or terrorists. In the discourses on instrumentalization, securitization took a more militarized form, with migrants largely depicted as weapon‑ or soldier‑like figures within a hybrid operation. The discourses identified in this study also reinforce a broader theme in migrant securitization, where the actors seek to distance themselves and the issue from binding international obligations (Moreno‑Lax 2018). By categorizing instrumentalized migration and migrants themselves as a security issue, migration policies, including migrants’ rights, were disconnected from the issue. MPs were framed as obligated to depart from standard practices and international obligations to protect Finland and its citizens. Thus, the study demonstrates how illiberal practices observed in Europe in response to instrumentalization (Virkkunen, Silvan & Piipponen 2024) were legitimized through the securitizing discourse. This political approach undermines the EU’s aspiration to act consistently as a value‑based community committed to human rights and may thus provide external actors with opportunities to weaken the Union’s unity (Tuominen 2024).
The findings on securitization in the case of instrumentalization partly align with earlier securitization research, which shows that migration is typically securitized within a national security framework. To ground arguments in national security is silencing rhetoric that authorities use to benefit from proposed threats, and portraying the issue as an existential threat to the country or community reinforces societal insecurity rooted in collective identity (Buzan, Wæver & de Wilde 1998). Scholarly literature suggests that the sense of security is linked to the nation‑state and its capabilities. At the same time, the lack of nation‑based solidarities contributes to maintaining divisive attitudes toward migrants (Delanty, Jones & Wodak 2011). Therefore, framing instrumentalized migration primarily as a national security issue, while overlooking its human aspects, may further advance exclusionary practices.
The broad agreement reached on instrumentalization as a national security issue should be considered within a wider context recognized in Finland. It is influenced by the long‑standing security approach to migration, border securitization tied with geohistory and identity construction (Prokkola 2020), and understanding of Russia as a ruthless enemy, which has deepened following Russia’s war in Ukraine. However, my findings indicate that the discourse on instrumentalization is not confined to a national security perspective but also reflects concerns about transnational insecurities. With that, the cross‑border nature of the perceived threat and the call for broader responses were rationalized.
The purpose of this study is not to argue that no security threats should be associated with instrumentalization. Instead, the paper highlights how insecurity is attached to migration and migrants, and how this is enhancing othering and exclusion of the group. Political discourse that presents migrants as a threat contributes to the production of negative perceptions of migrants in Finnish public debate. When a hybrid operation is addressed as an actual security threat to which political actions claim to respond, these actions appear to serve its objectives to undermine internal cohesion. While securitizing discourses may reflect broader social logic, they are not necessarily shared across society. Acknowledging the study’s limitations, the analysis avoids deterministic claims about their wider impact. In parliamentary discussions, instrumentalized migration was framed as a security threat, but this framing can be challenged and replaced by interpretations that do not primarily rest on viewing migrants as a threat.
The ‘us versus them’ rhetoric in discussions of instrumentalization lies at the core of othering. Combined with a militarized view of migrants, it legitimizes insecurity associated with migrants through fueling prejudice and distrust. Such discourse builds on existing fears of the other and reinforces anti‑immigration sentiment and social division (Delanty, Jones & Wodak 2011; Wodak 2011). The analysis concludes that the migrant securitization in discussions on instrumentalized migration normalizes othering narratives of migrants. How threats of instrumentalization are portrayed, the solutions suggested, and their justification collectively construct a strong understanding of migrants as a threat.
Based on this study, exclusionary rhetoric that reflects right‑wing populist strategies, which Wodak (2015) defines as micro‑politics of fear, has become mainstream in Finnish political discourse on instrumentalization, with a consensus formed beyond government coalitions. The securitizing discourse, together with the pushback approach adopted by countries directly affected by instrumentalization, normalizes this perspective more broadly (Forti 2023). Finland’s response reinforces it within European migration and security policies and further positions migrants as external in both discourse and practice.
The findings indicate that, to mitigate the negative impacts identified in this study, a paradigm shift in understanding and addressing instrumentalization is needed. To strengthen a united European response, avoid polarization, and thereby reduce the effectiveness of hybrid operations and build democratic resilience, it is essential to address the issue without deepening societal divisions. The concept of ‘us’ could serve as an integrative rhetorical tool, though this potential remains largely untapped. ‘Us’ could be understood to include all those affected by instrumentalization, both the people of the targeted country and the migrants being instrumentalized.
The analysis supports Wigell’s (2019) claim that hybrid defense efforts should approach security from a broader perspective, one that enhances societal security, welfare, and internal cohesion. While external forces may seek to weaken cohesion, it is often undermined from within, through policies and, as demonstrated in this paper, through discourses that frame certain groups as security threats and reinforce divisions between groups. Political discourse that frames the presence of the migrant population negatively undermines cohesion by diminishing the belonging of migrants. Othering discourses affect the aspects of belonging by denying migrants as an integral and coherent part of Finnish society. This, in turn, can affect their willingness to become part of the community. Thereby, as the level of national cohesion can also be considered a component of security (Buzan & Hansen 2009; Saukkonen 2020), responses to instrumentalized migration that produce othering, securitization, and an atmosphere of insecurity may paradoxically weaken the very security they aim to protect.
Drawing on these results, further research is needed to explore whether similar securitizing patterns can be found mainstreaming in other national and European‑level political discourses. Additionally, when migration‑related fears contribute to the dehumanization of people on the move, it is important to highlight the connection between anti‑migrant rhetoric and migration policies. Expanding future research to include migrants’ own experiences of securitization would allow for a more nuanced analysis of securitization’s societal effects.
Note
Additional Information
Ethics approval was not required for this study.
Competing Interests
The author has no competing interests to declare.