Category: All categories

Karjalainen: ”Ei sovi värivikaisille”-ilmoituksesta 645 euron sakot

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: Remember the hotdog company in Joensuu that placed an electronic ad on mol.fi stating that people with the wrong skin color should not apply? Well the police slapped him with a 645-euro fine, according to Karjalainen.

Pekka Haukka still denies that he has done anything wrong: “How could I have been accused of discrimination in the workplace? I was looking for an independent entrepreneur not an employee. Nobody responded to the ad and nobody was hired.”

Do you agree?

Eight years ago it was possible to read this story in Karjalainen. Today, you cannot find it because it has been removed. Accessed on July 29, 2019.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Na?ytto?kuva-2019-7-29-kello-13.00.58.png

__________

Writes Karjalainen:

Työvoimahallinnon nettisivustolle rasistiseksi katsotun työpaikkailmoituksen lähettänyt joensuulaisyrittäjä on saanut sakot työsyrjinnästä. Poliisi kirjoitti 44-vuotiaalle miehelle tämän mol.fi-sivustolle lähettämästä ”ei sovi värivikaisille” -työpaikkailmoituksesta 15 päiväsakkoa. Kun yhden päiväsakon arvo miehen nettotuloilla on 43 euroa, kertyi maksettavaa 645 euroa.

Yrittäjä Pekka Haukka ihmettelee sakon perustetta.

– Miten olen voinut syyllistyä työsyrjintään? Minähän hain itsenäistä yrittäjää, enkä työntekijää ja toisekseen kukaan ei ilmoitukseen vastannut eikä sen perusteella ole palkattu ketään, sanoo Haukka.

Pekka Haukka lähetti lokakuun alussa työvoimahallinnolle mol.fi-sivustolla julkaistavaksi työpaikkailmoituksen, jossa haki yrityksensä omistajana yrittäjää hot dog -myyntivaunulle.

Ilmoituksessaan hän kirjoitti hakevansa yrittäjäksi henkilöä, joka on muun muassa ”ulospäin suuntautuva, huumorintajuinen ja näppärä käsistään”. Sen lisäksi valittavalla tuli olla ”hyvä suomen kielen taito”, jota Haukka vielä korosti suluissa olleella ilmaisulla: ei sovi värivikaiselle.

Haukka puolustautui jo heti ilmoituksesta nousseen kohun jälkeen sillä, että uskoi Joensuun työvoimatoimiston stilisoivan ilmoitusta ja poistavan siitä kaikki sopimattomat ilmaukset. Työvoimatoimisto myönsikin, että näin yleensä tehdään, mutta tässä tapauksessa ilmoitus pääsi inhimillisen virheen seurauksena sivustolle siivoamatta.

Haukka on nyt vaatinut, että työvoimahallinto maksaisi hänen saamansa sakot, koska kyse on sen virheestä. Joensuun seudun työvoima- ja elinkeinotoimisto on kuitenkin kieltäytynyt sakkoja maksamasta, koska se on jo saanut huomautuksen tekemästään virheestä ja sakko taas kohdistuu Haukan toimintaan asiassa.

– Tässä tapauksessa oikeuskäytännön mukaan kumpikin osapuoli vastaa omista seuraamuksistaan, perustelee työvoimatoimisto kantaansa Haukalle lähettämässään vastauksessa.

YLE: Suomen valtio selvittelee anteeksipyynnön esittämistä saamelaisille

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: Here is an interesting story by YLE on the treatment of the Saami minority in Finland after the war. The documentary, which will be aired on YLE TV 1 on February 6, shows how Saami children were acculturated by force into Finnish culture. The ministry of justice is studying the possibility of issuing an apology to the Saami for what happened.  Similar apologies have been given by the governments of Australia and Canada  for the unjust treatment of  their indigenous people.

My first field work as an anthropology student was with the Saami of Utsjoki, or Ohcejohka.  Even though the majority of the town’s inhabitants were Saami, it did not show anywhere. The traditional dresses and Made-in-Honk-Kong souvenirs were meant for the gullible tourists. The older people I interviewed remembered the folktales especially about Stallo and his trusty dog.

I asked a Finnish friend before my trip to Ohcejohka why he disliked the Saami. “Why do you (USAmerica) dislike blacks?” he asked. “Then it must be racism,” I responded. “Right.”

Do you think that the government should apologize to the Saami for its forced acculturation practices after the war?

____________________

Uusi dokumenttielokuva paljastaa, miten saamelaisia suomalaistettiin kouluissa sotien jälkeen. Ohjaaja Anja Aholan elokuva on herättänyt keskustelua siitä, pitäisikö valtion pyytää anteeksi saamelaisten kohtelua. Oikeusministeriö tutkii asiaa parhaillaan.

Suomi tuli Saamenmaahan -dokumenttielokuvassa tarinansa kertoo viisi saamelaista. Sodan jälkeen alkaneesta ja 70-luvulle jatkuneesta asuntola-ajasta ja suomalaistamisesta puhutaan vihdoin julkisesti.

– Painostava tuntuhan siinä oli koko ajan, jokainen saamelainen oppilashan varmasti koki samalla lailla, että ei ole hyvä olla saamelainen, tai saamenkielinen, kertoo eräs saamelainen kokemuksistaan.

– Suomessa on ihmetelty sitä, että miten Kanadassa tai Australiassa lapsia voidaan riistetään vanhemmiltaan kouluihin, mutta ei olla huomattu, että kotikonnuilla on tapahtunut ihan samanlaista, muistuttaa Skábmagovat-elokuvafestivaalin taiteellinen johtaja Jorma Lehtola.

– Meitä suomalaistaneet suomalaiset eivät arvosta meidän juttuja, sitä meidän tapaa elää, jos he haluavat että me ollaan samanlaisia kuin he, saamelaiset kuvaavat tuntojaan dokumentissa.

– Ehkä meidän lasten on helpompi ymmärtää meitä, kun me voimme vapaasti puhua niistä kokemuksistamme ilman vähättelyä, että eihän nuo nyt mitään, onhan sitä pahempaakin nähty, arvelee Giellagas-instituutin johtaja Anni-Siiri Länsman.

Saamelaisia talloi aikanaan myös evankelisluterilainen kirkko. Ensi vuonna se järjestää sovitusseminaarin eräänlaisena anteeksipyyntönä saamelaisille. Norjassa valtiokin on pyytänyt anteeksi. Sen mahdollisuutta pohditaan myös Suomessa.

– En ole vielä ollenkaan varma siitä, onko anteeksipyyntö luonteva suomalainen traditio, vai onko luontevampaa hakea totuus, että mitä kaikkea tehtiin väärin, ja julkistaa se, pohdiskelee oikeusministeri Tuija Brax (vihr.).

Saamelaistenkaan keskuudessa ei vallitse yksimielisyyttä anteeksipyynnön tarpeesta.

– Mitä se hyödyttää? Mutta jos ajatellaan vähän pidemmälle, niin sillä tavalla päästäisiin ikään kuin puhtaalle pöydälle, Anni-Siiri Länsman arvelee.

Aiheesta lisää illan A-Studiossa.

YLE Uutiset

Success stories of immigrants in Finland

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Migrant Tales would be interested in publishing cases of immigrants and refugees that have succeeded and adapted well to Finland. There are many cases out there and we’d like to hear your story. Why? Because your example would take steam off anti-immigrant parties like the True Finns, which are responsible for giving immigrants and refugees a bad name.

Your story can be published anonymously or with your name.  One of my friends that comes to mind is a restaurant owner who works 15 hours a day seven days a week!  When some Finns unfairly accuse immigrants of being lazy, I would like them to hear this person’s story and the long hours he works.

Please send your story to [email protected]. Please specify if you want to appear anonymously or with your name.

 

Svenska YLE: Utvisningen av albanska familjen skjuts upp – igen

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: This story published in Svenska YLE tells about an administrative court ruling that stopped the deportation of an Albanian family in Turku.  The European Union’s asylum policy is already on shaky ground especially after it was given a blow yesterday by the European Court of Human Rights decision, which ruled that an Afghan refugee could not be sent to Greece.  Are some courts and institutions like the church taking action against inaction?

Greece and other countries like Italy and Malta are examples of how little the European Union and governments want to deal with the ever-growing number of asylum-seekers.

Do you agree?

_________________

Utvisningen av en albansk familj som har sökt asyl i Finland skjuts upp. Familjen skulle utvisas idag, tisdag, men förvaltningsdomstolen ansåg att fallet måste utredas ytterligare.

Utredningen pågår i minst ett halvt år.

Familjen bor i Åbo och har sökt hjälp av Mikaels församling, som anser att familjen utsätts för livsfara om de utvisas tillbaka till Albanien.

Fadern i familjen jobbade som polischef i sitt hemland och bekämpade bland annat människohandel och narkotikasmuggling. Han sades ändå upp från tjänsten då han vägrade ta emot mutor.

Hela familjen har utsatts för hot och mordförsök, men enligt Migrationsverket är hoten ändå ingen grund för att ge uppehållstillstånd för familjen.

Migrants’ Rights Network: Human Rights Court rules that asylum seekers cannot be sent to Greece

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: The European Court of Human Rights ruled that an Afghan translator could not be sent from Belgium to Greece due to the lack of human rights of refugees. The ruling has already had an impact on Finland. The Finnish Immigration Service announced today that they will not longer send asylum-seekers to Greece anymore under the Dublin Convention,  which requires refugees to apply for asylum in the first EU country they arrive in.

According to the ruling, Belgium and Greece violated the European Union Convention on Human Rights. Migrant Tales published in December on whether the Dublin Convention should be spiked.

Below is an interesting story written about the landmark ruling on Migrants’ Rights Network.

Do you think the ruling will help asylum-seekers?


______________________

The European Court of Human Rights ruled last week in the case of M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece. It found that the Belgian authorities had violated the rights of asylum seeker M.S.S., and an Afghan national by sending him to Greece using the Dublin II regulation. This in effect means that asylum seekers from the UK cannot be returned to Greece under the Dublin regulation.

The Dublin II regualtion established a procedure which allows EU country governments to send asylum seekers to the country deemed tobe responsible for determining an application for protection under the terms of the Refugee Convention and other humanitarian instruments.

The Dublin regulation presumes that the country to which the asylum seeker is to be returned will itself support the individual’s human rights and will determine the application for refugee status in accordance with the standards of international law.  Lawyers for M.S.S. argued before the Court that asylum procedures in Greece were in such a state of disarray that it could not be presumed that the requirements of international law with respect to refugees were being met.

The press release of the ECHR follows.

———————————

In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (application no. 30696/09), which is final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:

  • A violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights by Greece both because of the applicant’s detention conditions and because of his living conditions in Greece;
  • A violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken together with Article 3 by Greece because of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure followed in the applicant’s case;
  • A violation of Article 3 by Belgium both because of having exposed the applicant to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in Greece and because of having exposed him to detention and living conditions in Greece that were in breach of Article 3;
  • A violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3 by Belgium because of the lack of an effective remedy against the applicant’s expulsion order.

The case concerned the expulsion of an asylum seeker to Greece by the Belgian authorities in application of the EU Dublin II Regulation.

Principal facts

The applicant, M.S.S., an Afghan national, left Kabul early in 2008 and, travelling via Iran and Turkey, entered the European Union (EU) through Greece.
On 10 February 2009, he arrived in Belgium, where he applied for asylum. By virtue of the “Dublin II” Regulation2, the Belgian Aliens Office submitted a request for the Greek authorities to take charge of the asylum application. While the case was pending, the UNHCR sent a letter to the Belgian Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy criticising the deficiencies in the asylum procedure and the conditions of reception of asylum seekers in Greece and recommending the suspension of transfers to Greece. In late May 2009, the Aliens Office nevertheless ordered the applicant to leave the country for Greece, where he would be able to submit an application for asylum. The Aliens Office received no answer from the Greek authorities within the two-month period provided for by the Regulation, which it treated as a tacit acceptance of its request. It argued that Belgium was not the country responsible for examining the asylum application under the Dublin II Regulation and that there was no reason to suspect that the Greek authorities would fail to honour their obligations in asylum matters.

1 Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). All final judgments are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

2 An EC regulation under which EU Member States are required to determine, based on a hierarchy of criteria, which Member State is responsible for examining an asylum application lodged on their territory.

The applicant lodged an appeal with the Aliens Appeals Board, arguing that he ran the risk of detention in Greece in appalling conditions, that there were deficiencies in the asylum system in Greece and that he feared ultimately being sent back to Afghanistan without any examination of the reasons why he had fled that country, where he claimed he had escaped a murder attempt by the Taliban in reprisal for his having worked as an interpreter for the air force troops stationed in Kabul.

His application for a stay of execution having been rejected, the applicant was transferred to Greece on 15 June 2009. On arriving at Athens airport, he was immediately placed in detention in an adjacent building, where, according to his reports, he was locked up in a small space with 20 other detainees, access to the toilets was restricted, detainees were not allowed out into the open air, were given very little to eat and had to sleep on dirty mattresses or on the bare floor. Following his release and issuance of an asylum seeker’s card on 18 June 2009, he lived in the street, with no means of subsistence.

Having subsequently attempted to leave Greece with a false identity card, the applicant was arrested and again placed in the detention facility next to the airport for one week, where he alleges he was beaten by the police. After his release, he continued to live in the street, occasionally receiving aid from local residents and the church. On renewal of his asylum seeker’s card in December 2009, steps were taken to find him accommodation, but according to his submissions no housing was ever offered to him.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

The applicant alleged that the conditions of his detention and his living conditions in Greece amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3, and that he had no effective remedy in Greek law in respect of his complaints under Articles 2 (right to life) and 3, in violation of Article 13. He further complained that Belgium had exposed him to the risks arising from the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in Greece, in violation of Articles 2 and 3, and to the poor detention and living conditions to which asylum seekers were subjected there, in violation of Article 3. He further maintained that there was no effective remedy under Belgian law in respect of those complaints, in violation of Article 13.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 June 2009. On 12 June 2009, the applicant’s request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to have his transfer to Greece suspended was rejected. On 2 July 2009 it was decided to apply Rule 39 against Greece, to the effect that he would not be deported to Afghanistan pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Court.

On 16 March 2010 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber and on 1 September 2010 a public hearing was held. The Governments of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the UNHCR were given leave to intervene in the oral proceedings as third parties. Written observations were also received from those parties and from the Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe (“the Aire Centre”), Amnesty International and the Greek Helsinki Monitor.

You can continue reading the story by clicking here.

HRHN: In Norway, one ”illegal” immigrant’s case stand for thousands

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: Here is a touching story published on Human Rights House Norway (HRHN) about a Russian from the troubled Caucasus who, after being refused asylum Finland and then in Norway, became an illegal alien with her parents from the age of 12. She is now 26.  After publishing a book about her life, she was arrested and detained.

Her detention and outraged some Norwegians and has sparked protests over her possible deportation.

What does her plight say about the thousands of illegal aliens in Norway?

_____________

“A police crackdown on a lone woman in the shelter of the dark: Is this the kind of Norway that we want?” asks Bjørn Engesland, Secretary General of Norwegian Helsinki Committee.

Asylum rejected

Maria Amelie, left, was taken on the run from the Caucasus by her parents when she was 12 years old. After having been refused asylum in Finland, they fled to Norway and sought asylum here when Amelie was 16 years. After the rejection from the Norwegian authorities the parents decided to stay paperless.

On 12 January Amelie was arrested by eight plainclothes police officers outside the Nansen Academy for violation of the Norwegian Immigration Act. Now she stands in danger of being forced to return to Russia.

“Maria Amelie has never been given an opportunity to explain herself in her case before the Norwegian immigration authorities, something we find tp be in violation of her human rights,” said Engesland. –Not as a child when she was rejected by her parents’ case, and not now, when as an adult she has asked for a reconsideration of her case. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says “Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution”.

Engesland says it is difficult to see how a child who was taken to Norway by its parents may be held liable for violations of the immigration law on an equal footing with adults.

According to Secretary of State Pål Lønseth, a new negative decision was made by the Immigration Appeals Board on 12 January. Maria Amelie was arrested without either having been offered an interview or be notified of the decision. Police Immigration Service would not provide information about the arrest of Maria Amelie lawyer.

Maria is not illegal

Amnesty International Norway demands Maria’s release and that Norwegian authorities consider her case on the basis that the offense she committed was not her own adult choice and that she has a strong connection to Norway.

Against all odds, Maria has gone through higher education in Norway, and made an extraordinary effort to become a part of Norwegian community. Maria has also chosen to give the so-called illegal a face through her book and various appearances in the public sphere in Norway.

Amnesty International Norway believes the government should give her credit for this. Instead, her courage and work for others, perhaps several thousand people, who live like her to be visible and taken seriously resulted in a frightening arrest and confinement.

In Norwegian Helsinki Committee’s opinion, as a 25-year old, Maria has contributed more to the Norwegian public debate than most Norwegian will make in the course of a life.

She has been open and readily available to meet the Norwegian immigration authorities, if they had wanted it. Instead, the Minsitry of Justice decided that the police should take action in a way that brings the thoughts to societies where protection of the rights of the individual is a lot weaker than in Norway.

Deportation
“We are also concerned about Maria’s dispatch to Russia now. It is very difficult for a person from the Caucasus, who was small and without registering when leaving the country, to have valid papers for settlement in Russia,” said Engesland.

From a political and moral point of view, the arrest of Maria Amelie is a reprehensible act. She traveled from Russia to Finland when she was 12 years old, because her parents took her with them. During the last eight years she has been in Norway, she has in every way tried to live as an upstanding citizen – except the fact that she has lived in Norway without a legal residence.

-Responsible politicians in the Parliament should make it crystal clear that this is unnecessary use of force and an unacceptable practice towards peaceful, accessible and cooperative people,” said secretary general John Peder Egenæs and continues:

– Secretary of State Pål Lønseth has stated that it is not that important to discuss what we in Norway do with the so-called illegal people living here. The reason for this is that there is no crisis in the system. Norway has neither the immigration crisis in the administration or in the black labour market, so the government could also provide safe care of the people concerned.

New rules needed
The Norwegian Helsinki Committee says it’s time to get a new set of rules that provides long stay undocumented, especially for those who come to Norway as children and become established in the country, and take into account the amount of time a person has been in the country illegally.

According to the Amnesty International Norway, there must be an upper limit on how long children can live in Norway categorised as illegal before they are automatically granted legal residence.

– We believe that Amelie meets this requirement even though some of her childhood on the run was spent in Finland. She grew up in Norway, partly in childhood and partly in adulthood. She must stay here,” said Irene Khan.

Protests
A court in Oslo went along late 13 January afternoon with a request by the police agency charged with enforcing immigration law that Amelie be held in custody until she can be sent back to Russia. Amelie is now being held in an asylum center near Oslo’s main airport at Gardermoen after her arrest on 12 January.

Her detention unleashed massive protests, Amnesty International Norway, the Norwegian Helsinki Committee and other human rightrs organisations, from politicians for a wide range of parties, and from thousands of ordinary citizens including those who marched on the state government complex in Oslo.

On 13 January evening the protesters demanded her release and permission for her to remain in Norway.

Campaign
Amnesty International is one of several organizations participating in the campaign “No one is illegal”.

The Norway based, ‘No One Is Illegal’ campaign, launched by a wide partnership of human rights groups inside the country, is driving actions now to help undocumented immigrant women and their children find asylum.

According to ‘No One Is Illegal’ some undocumented immigrants have lived as long as 17 years in Norway without access to basic rights, as they are often subjected to suffering and exploitation.

The campaign aims to establish a legal limit on the number of years a person can be classified as ‘illegal’ in Norway. Along with this, the campaign is working to help secure an automatic permit allowance for children and their families who have lived in Norway for a minimum of four years. Director Kari Helene Partapuoli, of The Norwegian Center against Racism and Discrimination, believes this legislation is achievable.

In 2008, the data research group Statistics Norway (SSB), estimated that 18,136 out of Norway’s almost five million inhabitants are undocumented immigrants. Although the exact number is not available, many undocumented immigrants are women. 1,344 of undocumented immigrants in 2008 were children.

Find out more about Maria’s case and other “illegal Norwegians” here.

If you want to visit Maria Amelie’s blog (in Norwegian) click here.

Are parties like the True Finns a threat to national security?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

As the April election approaches, parties like the True Finns and other ones like Muutos 2011 are going to increase their nationalistic and xenophobic rhetoric to new heights. Would it be fair to ask that the land-ownership row in Russia could have a connection with the rise of the True Finns in the polls and demands by some groups that Karelia should be returned to Finland?

(I want to take the opportunity to thank JusticeDemon for bringing this story angle to my attention. After some thought, he does have a point: xenophobia and nationalism could undermine relations with Moscow.)

When Russia announced the ban on the sale of land close to the Finnish border by foreigners, the saber-rattling we heard in Finland was from the True Finns.

Do you think populist parties like the True Finns are a threat to national security?

See what the Anti-Fascist Committee of Finland thinks about the matter.

Vihreä Lanka: Suomalainen puolue järjestää Muhammed-hevitapahtuman: ”Mautonta!”

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: When I read this story in Vihrea Lanka my first reaction was how far extremist parties will go to get attention. They are like little children trying with their antics to get attention. Muutos 2011 is a party that hides its xenophobia and racism by claiming that it is in favor of direct democracy, which means in plain English taking the law into your own hands.

Like the True Finns, some of their members comprise of people on the outer fringes of society. They bash others to lift themselves socially.

But don’t worry, Muutos 2011 is a taxi party: all of its members can fit in the backseat of a taxi.

What do you think about parties that give Finland and Finns a bad name?

_______________________

Suomen islamilaisen neuvoston tiedottaja Isra Lehtinen pitää ”Crushing The Balls of Muhammad” -hevi-iltaa mauttomana.

Muutos 2011-puolue järjestää 28. tammikuuta Turussa ”Crushing The Balls of Muhammad” -hevi-illan, jossa mainoksen mukaan profeettojen pallit kilisevät. Mitä ajattelet tästä?

”Mitä tulee sanoihin ´crushing the balls of Muhammad´, mielestäni se on vain mautonta. Mainos viittaa siihen, että islamista – tai siitä, mitä he kutsuvat islamiksi – lauotaan aika räväköitä juttuja.

Tapahtuman ennakkotiedotteessa puhutaan uskontojen tasa-arvosta, kun vaaditaan valtion ja kirkon erottamista toisistaan, mutta se ja Muhammad-puheen sävy eivät sovi yhteen. Tulee mieleen, että puolueen riveissä on erityisesti islaminvastaisuutta.”

Kuinka reagoitte tapahtumaan?

”Lähetän ennakkotiedotteen nähtäväksi Suomen islamilaisen neuvoston hallitukselle. Toisaalta olisi hyvä, että ottaisimme julkisesti kantaa. Toisaalta voi miettiä, onko se kannanoton arvoinen.

Voisimme lähettää mielipiteemme Muutos 2011:lle, mutta voi käydä niin, että sieltä alkaa tulla kauheasti sähköpostia perään. Ei meillä ole aikaa ryhtyä mittavaan sähköpostikeskusteluun kahden palkatun työntekijän voimin.”

Muutos 2011 ehdottaa kirkon ja valtion erottamista toisistaan. Mitä mieltä olet siitä?

”En suoraan kannata kirkon ja valtion erottamista, koska äänet, jotka sitä vaativat, ajavat usein maallistuneemman yhteiskunnan asiaa. Jos erottamisen kautta yhteiskunnasta tulee moniuskontoisempi, siinä ei ole ongelmaa.

Ei muslimeillekaan ole riemun aihe, että paljon ihmisiä on eronnut viime aikoina kirkosta. Se on merkki maallistumisesta.”

Pelottaako perussuomalaisten huikea gallup-menestys?

”Huolestuimme siitä jo kunnallisvaalien alla ja Jussi Halla-ahon suosion myötä. Suomeen on tullut myös koulutetun keskiluokan rasismia, mitä täällä ei ole ollut aikaisemmin. Toisaalta jos perussuomalaiset päätyvät hallitukseen, kannanotot luultavasti maltillistuvat. Tutkimusten mukaan hallitusvalta tekee näin radikaaleille.

Huono puoli on se, että isot puolueet saattavat kosiskella perussuomalaisten äänestäjiä´ottamalla huomioon maahanmuuttokriittisyyttä´.”

Migrant Tales’ style guide

Posted on by Migrant Tales

In order to encourage others to take part in a constructive debate on this blog, the following guidelines will be enforced:

1. Racist comment that labels whole groups and enforces stereotypes. This also includes xenophobic, sexist and homophobic comment. If you would never say it in public don’t say it on Migrant Tales!
2. Comment that is likely to offend and encourage violence towards ethnic and national groups.
3. Very important: defamatory or libelous comments.
4. Foul or profane language.

Aamulehti: Suomessa pian kansalaisuuden saa helpommin kuin oleskeluluvan?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: Here is a story published in Tampere-based Aamulehti that looks like a soap opera that backfired in the face of the authorities. The main characters of the soap opera are the embattled immigrants that move to Finland but do not know how many years they have to wait to apply for citizenship.

JusticeDemon says the following: “The documentation on this reform is on the website of Parliament here.

It is not uncommon for foreigners to be in a position where they have a choice between seeking citizenship or a residence permit, so this is nothing new.

Based on a quick survey of the parallel texts in the government bill, it appears that fixed penalties for petty offences (e.g. the 10 euro fine for jaywalking) will no longer be an obstacle to naturalisation, but there are no indications of any change in policy regarding serious crimes, so the first sentence of this teaser appears to be incorrect.”

Before a court ruling, the officials at the Finnish Immigration Service decided arbitrarily how many years you’d have to wait. If you were, for example, a student studying at the university your wait could take anywhere from 11 to 13 years. Usually those six to eight years that you studied at the university did not count towards naturalization. You would have to wait another five years to be eligible.

In effect, the new law may make it easier to get citizenship than a residence permit. Another aspect is that a person that has committed a crime in Finland can apply for citizenship, according to Aamulehti.

What are your experiences with the Finnish Immigration Service and do you think the new law is bad?

______________

Suomen kansalaisuus voi irrota jatkossa helpommin kuin oleskelulupa. Vakavakaan rikos ei estä kansalaisuuden saamista – toisin kuin monessa muussa EU-maassa.

Kansalaisuuden saaminen helpottuu eduskunnan hyväksymän kansalaisuuslain muutoksen vuoksi. Velvoitusta Suomessa asumisesta lyhennetään kuudesta vuodesta viiteen. Maahanmuuttovirasto pelkää, että rikolliset alkavat hakea kansalaisuutta oleskeluluvan sijasta.

– Tuleeko tilanteita, että kansalaisuuden saa helpommin kuin pysyvän oleskeluluvan? Jos henkilö hakee pysyvää oleskelulupaa eikä saa, pitääkin tyytyä kansalaisuuteen, Maahanmuuttoviraston kansalaisuusyksikön johtaja Tiina Suominen pohtii.

Lue lisää asiasta torstain Aamulehdestä