Category: All categories

Father is ur flower

Posted on by Dana

Father has root in your memories. Father has contact with you, in your

genes. He is there as a gift for you, for always, for he loves you and wants to be with you forever. So you are never alone, even when he dies.

                                               Family is best, Father is dearest.
Father is the way you were brought to this world. You were nothing. You could not come by yourself, NO!, but, Father thought about you, wished for you. God heard, and one day you opened your eyes in this world. Father gave you this chance to be alive and to taste life. Don’t forget it-Don’t.

Now he is waiting for your kindness. He needs your hug, your kisses on his cheeks. Don’t lose this beautiful time. He is your father. He is yourself. Father is holy word. Holy gift for you. Be aware before it is too late.

Love u Baba for always

 

 

 

Dear Finland, as the heat of summer draws…

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Dear Finland,

As the heat of summer draws attention to your ever-changing sub-arctic beauty, you may have wondered why Migrant Tales has become a voice of the immigrant and visible minority community in Finland. We are always humbled by your presence on our blog. In truth, we are nothing more than a new confident image of a culturally and ethnically diverse Finland.     

We are not the enemy because we speak out for more acceptance and respect between different groups living in this country. Your real enemies are those who claim with poker faces the contrary and tell you that prejudice and racism are good weapons to exclude others socially.

This cart resting in the heart of the rural Lakelands region of eastern Finland reads in Spanish: “To the woman of my life.”  For some, that woman could be Finland. 

Finland never belonged to anyone, especially to the racists and white Finnish supremacists, those very people who mock and make fun of your diversity. History proves as well that Finland didn’t even belong to the Swedes, the Russians, or even those that call themselves Finns today.

Our identity is a great awakening, ever-changing,  powerful:

Awaken me from eternal sleep

The shadow of those that hate me 

Carry me from these unacceptant lands

 past the midnight summer sun

where rain is so deadly 

that it punctures through skin.

Turning into a guitar

a daring escape occurred to me:

Thrum! Another thrum!

A great leap forward

falling down as a loud thud.

In scattered bits and pieces of me

I will find the way to blast through those nets

that society maliciously weaves.  

There are many examples of those “malicious nets” standing right under our noses today.  Take for example Eino Jutikkala’s and Kauko Pirinen’s “A History of Finland” published in 1974, which claims we Finns belonged to two “races.” Yes, such a preposterous claim was made in this country only 38 years ago!

Jutikkala and Pirinen state: “The Finns and the Hungarians are not blood relatives not to any appreciable degree, at least – whereas the Finns and the Estonians are quite closely related. Both of the later belong to the so-called East Baltic race, which is relatively short-skulled and of medium height. However, among the Finns, especially among the inhabitants of western Finland there are many representatives of the ‘Nordic’ racial type, which is characterized by a long skull and tall stature.” [1]

Another school textbook published in 1942, adds that a person who belonged to the Nordic race was “tall, slim, blue-eyed, had blond hair and red cheeks.” [2]

Apart from teaching racist myths about ourselves, how can our school textbooks  forget to mention that over 1.2 million Finns emigrated and mixed ethnically and culturally with other people in faraway lands?

In many respects, the tens of thousands of visible minorities in Finland today are like Rachel, the main character of Heidi Durrow’s novel, “The Girl Who Fell From the Sky.” Rachel is society’s idea of race, class, and beauty.

Durrow’s father is a black USAmerican and her mother is Danish.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ2__1b15gY&feature=related

Durrow describes Rachel to be the following person: I think her greatest wish was to be one thing. She wanted to be understood and she wanted to be as complex as she was, and so she goes around trying to do and be one thing, which is a good student. And she becomes a big reader and the world kind of opens up to her in this way. And she thinks that if I am excellent, then definitely I will be understood and this whole race thing won’t matter. 

I think that’s still true today that if you strive for excellence then ultimately, maybe, you can maybe get beyond the shadow of race, maybe you can transcend the ways in which people may limit you because of your background, whether it be your racial background or your educational background or your economic background in many ways.

[1] Eino Jutikkala and Kauko Pirinen: A History of Finland. Praeger Publishers, New York, 1974. p. 7.

[2] J.E. Aro, J.E. Rosberg and L. Arvi P. Poijärvi; Koulun maantieto. Otava, Helsinki 1942. pp. 31-32.

Migrants’ Rights Network: Attitudes to immigration, polarisation or convergence?

Posted on by Migrant Tales
Research published last month shows that attitudes to immigration in Britain are more polarised than in other countries, with older, poorer, and less educated people tending to have much more negative views than younger, well educated, financially secure and ethnically mixed people. Will a generational shift bring about more positive attitudes to migration or will growing inequality lead to marked divides in attitudes?

High levels of concern in the UK over immigration expressed by public opinion through polling have been taken as a cue by political leaders, sections of the media and those opposing immigration to favour a tougher approach to immigration policy. The strong sentiment that migration must be reduced has been interpreted by the current government as a  ‘mandate’ for their policy of reducing net-immigration.

Recent studies have attempted to look more closely at the question of public attitudes to immigration, yielding a much more nuanced picture. Rob Ford’s recent report, Parochial and Cosmopolitan Britain is a welcome addition to our knowledge of attitudes on migration. It highlights differences in attitudes according to the socio-economic profile of respondents published that hint to some optimism but also alerts to challenges about public opinion on immigration in the future.

We already know that opinion on immigration is not monolithic once you start asking about different types of migrants. Last year’s report by the Migration Observatory’s on understanding public opinion found that, when given the chance to differentiate between different types of migrants and routes where they would like to see reductions in levels of immigration, people tend to state a preference for reduction in low skilled workers, extended family and asylum seekers and much less appetite for reductions in students and high skilled workers. The paradox is that the government has strong policy levers for the latter but limited options on family, asylum seekers and low-skilled European workers so they are forced to make the largest cuts amongst those groups that public opinion actually do not see as a problem.

Rob Ford’s analysis is innovative in looking into the differences in attitudes between different population groups. His data, from the Transatlantic Trends annual survey on attitudes to migration across Europe and in North America, confirms that larger proportions of respondents in the UK have negative views on immigration than in most other countries. However, he also found that British respondents were also more divided in their views along generational and socio-economic lines. Young respondents, those that are better educated and financially well-off and the children of migrants tend to have more positive views than those who are older, less educated and poorer.

These factors often overlap, giving rise to distinct groups with varying attitudes to immigration:

‘The cumulative effects of these overlapping differences lead to a strong social polarization in immigration attitudes. At one pole are “parochial pensioners” who grew up in an immobile, mono-ethnic society where university education was a preserve of the elite, and contact with someone from another country was a rarity. At the other pole are the “cosmopolitan young”: highly educated, economically secure, and used to effortless travel across borders and regular mixing with people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds.’

Ford suggests that in the future, as the young, cosmopolitan and educated replaces the older generation, tough policies towards immigration could alienate them as voters opening up a political space for more positive approaches on the part of political parties. On the other hand, older voters are much more likely to vote and political parties will be wary of losing their vote on this issue in the short term.

These conclusions could be tempered in two ways. The first, with regards to the older generation, is that more work needs to be done to find creative ways to reach older people who often find the changes brought about by migration more challenging. There are already examples of projects that try to bring this generation closer to new migrants to develop more personal relations with the newcomers and get a better understanding of who they are and why they are here.  One example is the failte-isteach initiative in Ireland where older volunteers teach English to new migrants. This type of initiative builds on the fact that the elderly are often involved in community activities in their areas to bring them in contact with newcomers who can also benefit from their support.

The second issue is related to inequality. Britain is amongst the most unequal countries in the West and inequality seems to be increasing. Education and economic well-being, two factors identified by Ford, are important in this increase.  Inequality is a big issue for migrants generally: they are often over-represented amongst those in low paid jobs and with poor housing and health outcomes. But Ford’s findings add another layer of concern about inequality to those direct effects: that higher inequality could bring harsher views on immigration amongst those who are at on the lower rungs. Perhaps it’s not the top concern when thinking about inequality but it is a further issue to think ahead, whether its permanence and growth mean an even more polarised debate on immigration rather than a convergence of views and attitudes.

Read original story here.

This piece was reprinted by Migrant Tales with permission.

 

Onko suomalaisen työn suosiminen syrjintää: kyllä!

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Onko perussuomalaiset koskaan kuulleet yhdenvertaisuuslaista? Todennäköisesti ette ole.

Säästän teille kallista aikaa:

Yhdenvertaisuuslaki
2 §
Soveltamisala
Tätä lakia sovelletaan sekä julkisessa että yksityisessä toiminnassa, kun kysymys on:

2) työhönottoperusteista, työoloista tai työehdoista, henkilöstökoulutuksesta taikka uralla etenemisestä;

Tässä on linkki.

Kysymys kansanedustaja Anssi Joutsenlahdelle: Miksi perussuomalaiset haluavat erityskohtelua ja miksi ette kunnioita lakeija vaikka vaaditte samaa maahanmuuttajilta?

Eli vastaus kysymyksenne: Onko suomalaisen työn suosiminen syrjintää: kyllä!

Who are the PS’ powerbrokers: Suomen Sisu or Timo Soini?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Perussuomalaiset (PS) party chairperson Timo Soini’s silence after the Supreme Court announced that it would fine PS MP Jussi Halla-aho for defaming a religion and inciting ethnic hatred, speaks volumes about the power struggles in the right-wing populist party.  

Who are the PS’ powerbrokers today: the extremist Suomen Sisu wing led by Halla-aho, or its chairman Timo Soini?

The answer to that question will be revealed tomorrow when the PS announces its replacement for Halla-aho as chairman of the administration committee.

If the PS names Juho Eerola, it will be a clear indication that Soini has lost his grip on the party.

Eerola is a close ideological ally of Halla-aho who resigned his membership from Suomen Sisu last week.

PS MP Tom Packalén, a policeman, is Eerola’s challenger.

 

Uusi Suomi: Länsimaiset arvot uhattuina

Posted on by Migrant Tales

by Husein Muhammed* 

Kansanedustaja ja Eduskunnan hallintovaliokunnan puheenjohtajan Jussi Halla-ahon (ps) mielestä korkeimman oikeuden antama tuomio uskonrauhan rikkomisesta ja kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan on väärä ja epäoikeudenmukainen. Hän pitää medialle lähettämässään tiedotteessa Suomen korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisua “muutaman ihmisen henkilökohtaiseena tulkinta”, ei “minään taivaallisena totuutena”.

Tähän asti Halla-aho on esiintynyt “maahanmuuttajien rikollisuudesta” huolestuneena kansalaisena ja poliitikkona. Nyt hän itse halveksii Suomen voimassa olevan lain mukaan annettua tuomiota “joidenkin henkilökohtaisina mielipiteinä”. Kansanedustaja vertautuu tässä suorastaan taparikollisiin: he eivät koskaan ymmärrä tehneensä mitään väärin.

Halla-aho on kansanedustaja. Jos hänen mielestään esimerkiksi uskonrauhan rikkominen tulisi dekriminalisoida eli tehdä lailliseksi, hänellä – jos kellään – on mahdollisuus ryhtyä ajamaan lainuudistusta. Mutta Halla-aho ei ole suinkaan vaatinut lainmuutosta, ainoastaan heittäytynyt uhriksi sekä nyt sitten myös halveksuu Suomen korkeinta oikeutta. Jos KKO on tosiaan vain muutama henkilö henkilökohtaisine mielipiteineen, miksi siis kenenkään pitäisi noudattaa lakia ja oikeuden päätöksiä? Minä kun luulin persujen vaativan oikeutta ja järjestystä – ilmeisesti ajavat niitä vain muille.

Nyt alan sisäistämään, mitä perussuomalaiset ajavat takaa, kun vaativat maahanmuuuttajia noudattamaan nimenomaan maan tapaa, eivätkä (toisin kuin esimerkiksi allekirjoittanut) maan lakia. He eivät siis itse kunnioita Suomen lakia/oikeusjärjestystä.

Tähän asti äärioikeistoa on pidetty uhkana lähinnä erinäisille vähemmistöille.Heitä on pahimmassa tapauksessa esitetty ikään kuin anarkistien, äärivasemmiston tai muuten vaan hörhöjen vastakohtana. Tältä osin olemme menneet pahasti metsään. Kuten tuomitun halveksivasta suhtautumisesta korkeimman oikeuden tuomioon on pääteltävissä, äärioikeistosta ei suinkaan ole vaaraa lähinnä erinäisille vähemmistöille. Suurin uhka kohdistuu nimenomaan demokratiaan, oikeusvaltioon ja länsimaisiin arvoihin, joita äärioikeisto on puolustavinaan.

Ihan samalla tavalla ääri-islamistien suurin uhka ei suinkaan kohdistu länsimaihin, vaan muslimeihin ja islamin rauhaa ja oikeudenmukaisuutta korostaviin periaatteisiin, joita äärimuslimit ovat puolustavinaan.

Äärioikeisto ja äärimuslimit ovat siis vastustavinaan toisiaan. Tosi asiassa niillä on yhteinen epäpyhä allianssi: molemmat inhoavat ja halveksivat syvästi demokratiaa, vapautta ja tasa-arvoa. Kukin niistä on nimenomaan suureksi vaaraksi omalle kulttuurille: ääri-islamistit islamille, äärioikeisto länsimaille.

*Kirjoittaja on kirjailija ja lakimies.

Alkuperäisen blogikirjoituksen voi lukea tästä.

Tämä blogikirjoitus julkaistiin Migrant Talesissä luvalla.

Migrant Tales December 30, 2011: Timo Soini and the beast behind the sugar-coated words

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: It shouldn’t have come as any surprise that after the Supreme Court ruling to fine Perussuomalaiset (PS) MP Jussi Halla-aho for defaming a religion and incitement against an ethnic group, PS chairman Timo Soini would end up eating his words. Soini said in 2009 that if Halla-aho was criminally convicted of racism, he’d be sacked from the party.

The blog entry below, written in December, attempts to show what Soini really thinks about an important matter like immigration and cultural diversity. Why is he attracted to people like Toni Halme, Halla-aho, James Hirvisaari and a long list of others who are challenged when it comes to social graces? 

If you look closely at his views, one matter becomes clear: They don’t differ much from Halla-aho’s. The difference is how he always sugar-coats his words and his role as the PS’ good cop. 

A good example of this good-cop-bad-cop image is the following quote concerning the Supreme Court sentence and why the PS will not take any action against Halla-aho: “…Now that I have followed this process for four years I feel that on the basis of the experience I am not up to throwing the biggest stone. This punishment is enough for me,” Soini is quoted as saying on Helsingin Sanomat.

In other words, “punishment is enough for me” and that he has nothing against the Supreme Court sentence are the monkey wrenches that confuse you about what he really thinks on the issue.  

If I drew a cartoon about bad-cop-good-cop Soini, I’d picture him in a Nazi concentration camp with SS officers, his followers. Soini and the SS staff would be speaking to Jews and telling them with a poker face: I am against concentration camps and how you’re being treated. 

This would allow Soini to eat one’s cake and have it too. 

_________

What does Perussuomalaiset (PS) party presidential hopeful, Timo Soini, really think about immigration and cultural diversity? A column he wrote in the Suomen Soini Presidentiksi  [Soini for president of Finland] publication exposes what the leader of the PS really thinks about such important issues. 

It’s clear while reading Soini’s views on the topic that he is in favor of one-way integration, or assimilation. He  praises in the column, headlined Maahanmuutto, demokraatia ja perussuomalaiset [Immigration, democracy and the Perussuomalaiset],  those immigrants that are ready to accept Finnish culture and traditions.

I am certain if we asked the PS leader to define Finnish culture, his response would be deficient and leave us with more questions than answers.

The same “conservative and Christian” views that Soini speaks so highly of in his column has, in my opinion, been at the center of the problem. It has retarded and hindered the acceptance of hundreds of thousands of expat Finns,  immigrants and their children from our society and threatens to exclude many others in the future.

If the PS and Soini haven’t already noticed, these so-called bicultural multi- or polycultural Finns have taken that giant step to integrate but many still suffer from acceptance by society.  High unemployment levels, institutional racism, prejudice, antiquated views of what culture is and even the rise of an anti-immigration party like the PS, show that more acceptance is needed by our society.

Soini’s and the PS’ total disregard for mutual acceptance and that integration is atwo-way street show well the biggest flaws in their stance and why it is correct to call them an anti-immigration party.

Even though Soini does not mention the word multiculturalism once in his column, his definition of it is not too far from Jussi Halla-aho’s and that of other far-right anti-immigration groups in Europe like the Danish People’s Party.

The PS chairman writes that he is not against immigrants but opposes our immigration policy. This affirmation, that the problem lies in our immigration policy, is one of the favorite deceptive arguments used by far right and anti-immigration groups. When Soini uses such an argument he really means that Europe and Finland allow too many Muslims and Africans to live here.

Another important matter is revealed by Soini’s column:  Despite his conservative-populist political views, he can deliver his opinions in a diplomatic  sugar-coated fashion compared with too many in his party members who can’t and whom he rightfully criticizes.

Soini is the good cop of the PS but at the end of the day he is a cop like the rest of the members of his party.

One key paragraph in particular exposes to the tee the PS leader’s view on immigration and cultural diversity:  ”I also hope that more and more native Finns could tolerate those who embrace Finnish culture, our customs and traditions; those [immigrants]who want to stick to conservative and Christian values??, and even those who have decided to vote for the Perussuomalaiset [party]. We live together side by side in this beautiful and wonderful country, and in a affluent society that is fair.”*

In other words, Soini and the PS are ready to accept you as members of society as long as you resign your culture, identity and rightful and democratic right as  equal members of this society. Acceptance only happens on their terms and with conditions.

What does the PS leader think about those Finns who don’t share his conservative and Christian views?

*Toivon myös, että yhä useammat kantasuomalaiset voisivat suvaita niitä,  jotka vaalivat suomalaista kulttuuria, meidän tapojamme ja perinteitämme; niitä, jotka haluavat pitäytyä konservatiivisissa ja kristillisissä arvoissa, ja jopa niitä, joka ovat päättäneet äänestää perussuomalaisia. Me asumme yhdessä rinnatusten tässäkauniissa ja upeassa maassa ja reilussa hyvinvointiyhteiskunnassa.

Eino Parkkulainen’s home in Argentina becomes a community library

Posted on by Migrant Tales

The late Eino Parkkulainen, a Finn who moved to Argentina in 1924 from Kitee, would be proud to see part of his former home  in the hamlet of San Martín being used as a library. Built in the mid-1930s, his home is probably the last one in existence built by the Finns that colonized Misiones province in northeastern Argentina.

Parkkulainen was a very enterprising man. One of the many things he accomplished during his lifetime was write a Finnish-Spanish dictionary. Unfortunately, the dictionary no longer exists.

Colonia Finlandesa was founded in 1906 by Arthur Thesleff.

Patricia Ocampo and Daniela Paola Friedl are spearheading a project to build numerous community libraries throughout Misiones. The first ones to open their doors to the public are the libraries of  San Martín and Puerto Leoni. Check out this video (in Spanish) of the inauguration of the San Martín Library on May 24.

The first picture I took of Pakkulainen’s home was in 1978.

Parkkulainen’s home in 2007.

One of the books on the shelves of the San Martín library is Lejana tierra mía authored by yours truly.

If you ever visit Misiones province and visit Colonia Finlandesa, you’ll probably pass by Parkkulainen’s former home.

In 1984, when I was taking pictures of the house, a fifty-year-old woman came out and asked me what I was doing. Everything was fine after I told her that I was  doing research on the Finns of Misiones.

“Send don Parkkulainen many regards when you see him,” she said. “Tell him that the house isn’t in such good shape. In a few years it may not be standing any longer.”

If you continue walking about 70 meters from the house you’ll soon hear the sound of rushing water of the Mártires River. If you stand on the wooden bridge that crosses it built by Artturi Heino about fifty years ago (in 1984), you’ll conclude that it too won’t last long.

After crossing the bridge you’ll be in Colonia Finlandesa.*

*Enrique Tessieri: Kaukainen maani. WSOY. Juva 1986. p. 33.

 

 

Maailman Kuvalehti: Kuka tahansa presidentiksi?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Husein Muhammed*

Toukokuussa Euroopan turvallisuus- ja yhteistyöjärjestön (ETYJ) vaalitarkkailijat luovuttivat vuoden 2011 eduskuntavaaleja koskevan raporttinsa ja suosituksensa oikeusministeriölle. Samalla järjestettiin kuulemistilaisuus, johon osallistui eri puolueiden, ministeriöiden ja kansalaisjärjestöjen edustajia. ETYJ:n edustajat esittivät myös presidentinvaaleja koskevan suosituksen, joka ei kuitenkaan tilaisuudessa juurikaan herättänyt keskustelua.

ETYJ piti valitettavana sitä, että Suomen perustuslain mukaan tasavallan presidentiksi voidaan valita ainoastaan syntyperäinen Suomen kansalainen. Syntyperäisyydellä tarkoitetaan perustuslaissa sitä, että henkilön on täytynyt syntyessään saada Suomen kansalaisuus. Presidentiksi ei siis voisi päästä henkilö, joka on syntynyt muun maan kansalaiseksi mutta myöhemmin saanut Suomen kansalaisuuden. ETYJ suosittelee, että perustuslakia tältä osin muutettaisiin.

Vaatimus presidentin syntyperästä on historiallinen jäänne, jolla ei ole hyväksyttäviä perusteita. Sama vaatimus ei koske esimerkiksi pääministeriä, muita ministereitä, eduskunnan puhemiestä eikä muutakaan valtakunnan ylintä johtoa. Ylipäätään Suomen oikeusjärjestelmä ei tee eroa syntyperäisten suomalaisten ja Suomen kansalaisuuden myöhemmin saaneiden välillä muuten kuin presidentin kohdalla.

Syntyperäisyyden vaatimus estää Suomen kansaa valitsemasta itselleen presidentiksi muuta kuin syntyperäistä suomalaista, vaikka enemmistö suomalaisista äänestäjistä niin haluaisi. Presidenttiä paljon vaikutusvaltaisemmaksi pääministeriksi voi ainakin teoriassa päästä, vaikka ei olisi edes koskaan ollut missään vaaleissa ehdolla. Käytännössäkin riittää suurimman puolueen puheenjohtajuus, vaikka suurinkin puolue saa yleensä vain vajaan neljäsosan kaikista äänistä. Eikä näitä kaikkia ääniä ole suinkaan annettu puheenjohtajalle vaan kaikille puolueen ehdokkaille yhteensä.

Kysymys ulkomaalaissyntyisestä presidentistä on tietysti varsin teoreettinen. Tällä hetkellä Suomessa ei ole edes ainuttakaan maahanmuuttajataustaista kansanedustajaa, ellei sellaisena pidetä Ahvenanmaan edustajaa, joka on syntynyt Ruotsissa. Myös kunnallispoliittisessa päätöksenteossa ulkomaalaissyntyiset ovat reippaasti aliedustettuina.

Käytännön tasolla kyse ei olekaan siitä, pääseekö maahanmuuttajataustainen presidentiksi vaan siitä, onko heillä oikeus asettua ehdolle presidentinvaaleissa. Vaaleissa ainoa tärkeä asia ei nimittäin ole se, kuka tulee valituksi. Vaaleissa myös keskustellaan tärkeistä yhteiskunnallisista asioista ja arvoista. Nykyinen vaatimus syntyperästä suomalaisuudesta estää satojatuhansia suomalaisia asettumasta ehdolle presidentinvaaleissa, vaikka heillä olisi huomattavaa kannatusta kansan keskuudessa.

Syntyperävaatimus ei vain estä muita kuin syntyperäisiä suomalaisia asettumasta ehdolle presidentinvaaleissa. Se kaventaa kaikkien suomalaisten äänestäjien mahdollisuutta löytää itselleen sopivin ehdokas.

Seuraaviin presidentinvaaleihin on vielä yli viisi vuotta. On siis hyvin aikaa siihen mennessä muuttaa perustuslakia palvelemaan paremmin suomalaisia – olivatpa he syntyperäisiä tai uussuomalaisia.

*Kirjoittaja on kirjailija ja lakimies.

Alkuperäisen blogikirjoituksen voi lukea tästä.

Tämä blogikirjoitus julkaistiin Migrant Talesissä luvalla.

An email from a woman immigrant: Jungle law in Finland

Posted on by Dana

Some foreigners and immigrants give birth to babies near-constantly and therefore are unemployed. After 15, 10 or 7 years they enroll in a Finnish-language course and complain that they don’t learn a thing. They claim that Finnish is too difficult to learn.

Some Finns are more than happy to hear that their langauge is too difficult to learn. Only intelligent people can speak such a difficult langauge, right?  Another matter that makes them happy is that you’ll be unemployed since your knowledge of Finland is still elementary. You won’t be competing anytime soon for the same jobs as them.

Somebody like me appears and wants to improve her life but can’t change anything. It’s how jungle law functions in Finland:

  • The government and system loathe you. They think we are all doing the same thing (living off welfare) and we’re all the same;
  • That’s why some are so hostile to immigrants, especially if you try to find work or try to learn more Finnish;
  • In the meantime, while you live off welfare, you’re supposed to work for peanuts. Your daily wages amount to 9 euros and you work from 8am to 4-5pm;
  • There are immigrants who stay at home and complain near-constantly that they are sick, have a headache, have to take care of their baby or make up some other excuse to not go to work or class to learn more Finnish;
  •  Since they live frugally they have a lot of money in the bank and don’t really need to work at all. Why should they?
  • These types of immigrants abuse the law and system. Those like me, who don’t want to play this game, are singled out by the government, social workers, courts and police for standing up for our rights;
  • Those immigrants that never complain to anyone would never touch Migrant Tales with a ten-foot pole;
  • They just say everything is fine in Finland. It’s the best country in the world and everything is fine because they can take a long rest and do nothing;
  • To conclude, the social welfare system awards those that lie and punishes those that are honest.

Finns have a right to be angry at lazy people on welfare. I agree with them but they attack me and others who want to change matters. I would love to work and stop depending on social welfare.

There are two enemies out there: Immigrants and the social welfare system.

The solution? Change is only possible if I am accepted by society. Secondly, I must change my life completely. I need to get a job or establish a business so I can attain the Finnish immigrant dream: have my own apartment, raise a family, and bring my parents to this country.

All this requires money. Getting a real job or establishing a business. In other words: money.