This article argues that authorisation and moral evaluation are the dominant legitimation strategies used in asylum decisions by the Finnish Immigration Service (Migri). After the migration events of 2015, the percentage of accepted asylum claims dropped dramatically in Finland, causing concern about the legal rights of asylum seekers. Drawing on theoretical literature concerning asylum decisions, borders and language, this article is based on a systematic analysis of 77 asylum decisions. It aims to answer the following questions: What strategies of legitimation does Migri use to support their negative asylum decisions? How are these strategies used? The study reports that the reasons behind negative asylum decisions are often not openly provided. Instead, the decisions largely rely on authorisation and implicit moral evaluation; the decision is so ‘because Migri says so’. This lack of transparency has adverse consequences for the due process of asylum seekers, and these consequences can be life changing.

中文翻译：

---

“因为米格里这么说”：

本文认为，授权和道德评估是芬兰移民局（Migri）在庇护决定中使用的主要合法化策略。在2015年的移民事件之后，芬兰接受的庇护申请的百分比急剧下降，引起了对寻求庇护者合法权利的关注。本文基于有关庇护决定，边界和语言的理论文献，基于对77项庇护决定的系统分析。它旨在回答以下问题：Migri使用哪些合法化策略来支持他们的避难决定？这些策略如何使用？该研究报告指出，庇护做出负面决定的原因通常没有公开。相反，决策很大程度上取决于授权和隐含的道德评估；这个决定是如此“因为米格里这样说”。缺乏透明度对寻求庇护者的正当程序产生了不利影响，这些后果可能会改变生活。