Mobile lives, immutable facts: family reunification of children in Finland

ABSTRACT

The right to family has been confirmed by myriad human rights covenants and it forms an acknowledged part of migration policies. Yet family reunification has become an increasingly contested issue, something reflected in a recent restrictive turn in migration policies throughout Europe. Policy reforms speak of a growing polarity between, on the one hand, adherence to the ‘best interest of the child’ and family life, and on the other, suspicion of fraud. This article examines these tensions via exploration of family reunification procedures in Finland, particularly applications sponsored by minors, thereby drawing attention to the notion of ‘the anchor child’. Drawing on decisions by the Administrative Court of Helsinki as well as interviews with experts and the people concerned, the writers discuss how these polarities are managed in practice, centring their analysis on a quest for truth that deploys various methods, particularly DNA analysis and oral hearings. Ultimately the article highlights an intrinsic paradox in family reunification policies that incorporates the aspiration to produce facts amounting to ‘immutable mobiles’ (Latour, Bruno. 1986. ‘Visualization and cognition: Thinking with the eyes and hands.’ Knowledge and Society 6 (6): 1–40.) and the evident weight of contingent temporalities.

KEYWORDS:

• Family reunification
• underage sponsors
• DNA
• time
• Finland

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank the following people for their comments: the two anonymous reviewers, Ilpo Helén, Jaana Palander, and a solicitor who prefers to remain anonymous.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Anna-Maria Tapaninen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1484-0775

Notes

1 The term ‘anchor child’ was first introduced by a politician in 2006, and was soon captured as a keyword by the media (Horsti and Pellander 2015). It must be emphasized, however, that it is not used by the migration administration (but see EMN 2009, 2011). In this article, we refer to it to highlight how a single moralising term encapsulates suspicion. Therefore, we will hereafter omit the quotation marks.

2 In Finland’s report on irregular migration (EMN 2011) both anchor children and foster children are singled out as specific problems.

3 This drop testifies to the consequences of the new demands on administrative efficiency. Following the coming into force of the Act on the Promotion of Immigrant Integration (1386/2010), even the filing of applications takes more time and is more expensive and even impossible for many.

4 However, in 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court reinterpreted one case concerning ageing out during the prolonged process and revoked it (KHO: 2015:26), which, as a precedent case, should have consequences for subsequent decisions.

5 The time line of the process can be exemplified by a case of a Somalian girl (03299/3101). She escaped from Somalia in 2009, at the age of thirteen. Her guardians, mother and stepfather, soon had to flee from their home, too. In May 2010, she was granted the status of secondary protection, and in September she filed an application for family reunification to be reunited with her parents. It took another year before she was interviewed by the police, and her parents were not interviewed in the Finnish Embassy of Addis Ababa until May 2012. DNA analysis had verified the tie between the mother and the daughter. The Finnish Immigration Service rejected the applications in December 2012 but the decision was communicated only after four months. The Court rejected the appeal in April 2014. The process as a whole had taken five years, and meanwhile she had turned eighteen. The duration of this process was long but not exceptional.

6 The only exception is made in the above-mentioned Section 52. that is, when children apply for family reunification with their sibling who is an unaccompanied minor with a residence permit on compassionate grounds.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Academy of Finland under grant 135266 and by the Kone Foundation