Tag: European immigration issues

Family reunification: Interior Ministry calls for comments

Posted on by JusticeDemon

The Finnish Ministry of the Interior recently published a working group report on the present state of family reunification of refugees and displaced persons in Finland. This report seeks to clarify the background to family reunification and to examine the prospects for amending the associated regulations.

The report was prepared in response to the programme of the Katainen government, which envisages harmonisation of family reunification practices in Finland with those of the other Nordic countries. The working group was an internal committee of civil servants from the Ministry’s Immigration Department.

There is nothing objectionable in principle about a closed ministerial committee preparing a preliminary factual review. However, this report also includes one very important “proposal” that is, to all intents and purposes, a policy recommendation. This is described in the abstract as follows:

Selvityksessä ehdotetaan, että asetetaan hanke ulkomaalaislain perhesidelupia koskevien säännösten muuttamiseksi tavoitteena Suomessa jo käytössä olevan toimeentuloedellytyksen laajentaminen koskemaan myös humanitaarista suojelua saavien perheen yhdistämistilanteita.

“The report proposes a project to amend the provisions of the Aliens Act governing permits issued on family grounds, with a view to extending the income condition already applied in Finland to include reunification of the families of recipients of humanitarian protection.”

This would scrap the exemption that humanitarian immigrants currently enjoy from the income condition that otherwise governs family reunification.

It is interesting that this exemption would nevertheless continue to apply to the families of citizens of Finland and other Nordic countries.

In concrete terms, and applying current rates, this means that a person displaced by civil war, for example, would have to demonstrate a net monthly income of EUR 1,530 to bring a spouse to Finland plus a further EUR 450 for each additional child. The national average monthly wage in Finland is currently just over EUR 3,000 before taxes and contributions.

The Interior Ministry has requested comments on the report by no later than 6 July 2012.

La Prórroga: Los sudacas dan consuelo a los “refugiados del euro”

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: This beautifully written blog entry by Zulma Sierra, based on a story on Madrid-based daily El País, has a moral:  Treat people, especially immigrants, nicely because those you meet on the way up you’ll meet on the way down.

Zulma writes on La Prórroga about how Spanish “refugees” escaping the euro crisis in their country are having to deal with issues like acceptance and anti-immigration sentiment in countries like Norway. Coming to their rescue are South American immigrants from Bolivia and Ecuador, who appear to be the only people who speak Spanish in Norway.  

 Says a Chilean immigrant ironically: “How many of the Spaniards that are here [in Norway] have criticized in the past immigrants in Spain?” 

________________

por Zulma Sierra

Al principio me resistí a leerlo. Pensaba que era un reportaje más, de los que circulan por estos días, politizando con el hecho de que los españoles tienen que salir de su país en busca de trabajo. Pero pasados unos días me reencontré con él y le di una oportunidad.

Atrapados en el norte me conmovió profundamente y me robó dos sonrisas cómplices.

Y empiezo por explicar las sonrisas, para que después no se piense que soy una Cruela Devil burlándome de los emigrantes a la europea. Cuenta el reportaje que esMauricio, un ecuatoriano, quien ayuda a los españoles sin trabajo y sin techo en un albergue llamado Robin Hood. ¡Sonrisa!

Estamos en Bergen (Noruega), una población con 260.000 habitantes que no sabía lo que era la indigencia, hasta que ha visto crecer, en los últimos meses, el número de “refugiados del euro” (como les llaman aquí): inmigrantes, en su gran mayoría españoles, que no encuentran trabajo porque no saben ni inglés ni noruego y se ven enfrentados a malvivir en las calles.

Pues en el albergue Robin Hood les dan comida y abrigo para espantar el frío de este intenso invierno y es Mauricio -el ecuatoriano- el que les indica dónde aprender noruego, cómo trabajar en negro… en definitiva: cómo sobrevivir.

Luego nos cuentan que a una de las oficinas de empleo de Bergen llegaron 75 españoles en una semana. Ellos esperan pacientemente a que pueda atenderlos Juan Criales, un boliviano que lleva 30 años viviendo aquí. Llegó huyendo de la dictadura de García Meza y ahora es el único que puede comunicarse con los españoles que llegan a esta oficina en busca de trabajo. ¡Sonrisa!

Un ecuatoriano y un boliviano son prácticamente los únicos consuelos que encuentran los “refugiados del euro” en esta fría ciudad noruega. ¡Vaya ironía! Dos representantes de los colectivos que quizás más han sufrido las etiquetas de “sudacas” de una sociedad española desesperada por la falta de empleo y de dinero.

Y mientras leía todo esto pensaba si los españoles que ahora buscan trabajo de lo que sea en Noruega no se habrán puesto en la piel de los africanos, rumanos y asiáticos que, sin saber castellano, llegaron a este país en busca de una oportunidad laboral. Y si no se habrán sentido mal porque algunos medios de comunicación y políticos noruegos les piden abiertamente que se vayan de su país, que no tienen nada qué hacer allí. Y si no habrán caído en la cuenta de que eso de migrar no es una opción, es una necesidad.

Lo dice claramente en el reportaje un señor chileno que también se las ve canutas para comer y dormir: “¿Cuántos de los españoles que hay aquí ahora habrán criticado en su momento la inmigración en España?”

Total que mis dos sonrisas cómplices no tienen nada qué ver con la burla sino con la emoción de saber que, en medio del drama de la migración y tan lejos, los latinoamericanos y los españoles por fin pudieron darse la mano como iguales.

MIPEX Blog: European Commission asks, When is a family not a family?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: Plans to tighten family reunification laws in Finland even further speak volumes about Conservative Party Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen’s government.  What does it say? Fear of the anti-immigration Perussuomalaiset (PS) party, prejudice and lack of leadership to name a few.

It seems surreal but not abnormal during these times in Finland that a pro-family party like the Christian Democrats will spearhead the tightening of family reunification laws. Interior Minister Päivi Räsänen washes her hands of the whole issue by stating that this is not her wish but that of the government’s.  They claim that they want to bring such laws in line with other Nordic countries. 

According to MIPEX, Nordic policy is mixed on family reunification: Denmark has the strictest policy and Sweden is “slightly favorable,” with Norway and Finland being “halfway favorable.” 

MIPEX writes: “The average EU country goes beyond the minimum definition of the family in the Directive. Most adopt slightly inclusive definitions of the family and only basic conditions for acquisition, out of respect for family life. In contrast, countries like Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, and France restrict the eligibility of family members and impose burdensome conditions on sponsors.”

If we look at the chart in the story below on reuniting non-EU family members other than spouses, partners, or children, we’re speaking of small numbers in the Nordic region: Sweden (229), Finland (197) and Denmark (0). Most family reunifications took place in 2010 in Italy (22,355), Portugal (10,038) and Spain (1,666). 

So what is the issue? The issue is fear of the threat of the anti-immigration Perussuomalaiset (PS) party, prejudice and lack of leadership iced with lame excuses. 

How can you grant a minor asylum but take away his or her right to be with his immediate family?

Where is our sense of justice and fairness?  

_____________

By Thomas Huddleston

Does the EU Family Reunion Directive reflect how you would define a family? MPG’s analysis of MIPEX and Eurostat statistics reveals that immigrant’s parents, grandparents, and adult children are somehow entitled to reunite in most countries, but few can or do apply.

Read whole story.

guardian.co.uk: While the European left dithers, the right marches menacingly on

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: There are many factors that are fueling the rise of nativist right-wing populist parties in Europe. One of these is the global economic recession after September 2008, which was triggered by the bankruptcy of US banking group Lehman Brothers. Another factor has been the lack of any effective opposition to a message that aims to polarize society further.

The rise of xenophobia in Finland, for example, has been fueled by the Perussuomalaiset and little to no opposition by the media to their xenophobic message, according to a doctoral dissertation by Camila Haavisto.

Wilt Hutton’s column below attempts to answer the main challenges facing Europe on the right-wing populist front. He writes: “The trouble is that the longer the left’s response is confused, the more the populist right has begun to make anti-immigrant attitudes culturally acceptable (in Europe).”

Probably the first question we should ask is why the message of right-wing populist parties, which the PS is a part of, are unacceptable in today’s Europe?

Like much of the ongoing debate, your view depends on where you stand: Are you a target or the one attacking immigrants? Are you white or black? Muslim or Christian?

How do you think Europeans should address the right-wing populist message and challenge?

_____________

Wilt Hutton

Immigration: The longer the left’s response is confused, the more the populist right begins to make xenophobia acceptable.  It is hard not to be very uneasy. Every month, there is another milestone passed in the ever onward march of Europe’s populist, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, nativist right.

Read whole story.

Here is a comprehensive story by HBL (in Swedish) on the rise of right-wing populism in Europe.

Helsingin Sanomat: Multikulturalismin arvostelijat ovat hakoteillä

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: Here is a well-balanced letter to the editor published in Helsingin Sanomat about what the “anti-multicultural” critics forget to tell you when they speak out against the “failures” of cultural diversity.

If you look at recent statements by Angela Merkel and David Cameron on how multiculturalism has failed,  they attempt to pin all the blame on immigrants not on the state, which is the real culprit. As the letter to the editor below points out, many countries lack comprehensive and effective programs for immigrants to adapt to their new homes.

Why haven’t Merkel and Cameron mentioned any options on how to turn this failure into a success story? The answer is simple: They don’t have a clue.

The above is supported by a  Migration Integration Policy Index (Mipex) study, which found that “integration policies are only improving slowly, with countries still creating as many obstacles as opportunities for immigrants to live, work, and participate in society.”

Some European societies don’t envision the bigger picture and what role immigrants will play in their respective countries. Are they accepted? Respected? Do they have equal opportunities? What does living in a culturally diverse society mean? How do we become Europeans?

What do you think?

__________

Useiden valtioiden johtajat ovat viime aikoina todenneet maahanmuuttopolitiikan epäonnistuneen maassaan. Vastikään multikulturalismin ottivat silmätikukseen myös Britannian pääministeri David Cameron ja Ranskan presidentti Nicolas Sarkozy.

To keep on reading click here.

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.

Finland’s difficult quest for foreign laborers

Posted on by Migrant Tales

In a recent article in the London Financial Times. there is an article about how Finland is aiming to become a magnet for foreign laborers. While this is understandable, taking into account Finland’s aging population and the shortage of workers in some sectors of the economy, the country’s policy makers still have a lot of work to do before the country becomes an attractive magnet.

Facts such as 20% jobless claims by foreigners, high taxation and housing prices, harsh climate, language and, very importantly, the lack of foreign communities and outright opposition to foreigners by some Finns, undermine its attractiveness to outsiders. Laborers would have an easier time in places such as Sweden, Germany and the United Kingdom.

Another thumbs down to Finland’s quest is that it still continues to place hiring restrictions on foreign workers despite being a member of the European Union. If a Finnish company employs a foreigner, it has to prove that a Finnish worker could not do the job.

In my opinion it is a paradox that Finland, which had fought in past decades to assert a sense of strong national identity, is seeing itself a victim of such a rigid stance. It creates a narrow view of the world and scares away people from making Finland their home.

Why would I want to move to a country and bring up my children where they will always be reminded by some that they are foreigners? All you have to do is look at the myriad of comments in this blog to understand that some Finns are not ready to handle more foreigners in this country, especially if they are black.

Finland has a long way to go before it becomes a magnet for foreign laborers. First it will have to convince the labor unions that they should hire foreigners in the face of unemployed Finns. Second, the rigid perceptions of how Finns see outsiders will have to change. Some continue to see foreigners as a threat to the culture.

A complete about-turn will have to take place and this will not happen overnight, but take decades, probably generations to set in. I do not see it any other way, unless you want to maintain the present untenable status quo of keeping 20% of foreigners outside of the economy and their children aloof from Finnish society.

What is scary is that it appears that not even our policy makers seem to know what they are doing and what  bringing more foreigners to the country imply. It looks more like a program left to chance than anything else.

Some good advice about Finnish culture

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Some people who move to Finland for the first time may suffer from a generous dose of culture shock like in any country.

In the thirty years that I have lived in Finland on and off, the best advice I can give you and the Finns is the following: What is normal in your culture may be abnormal in another — and viceversa.

One of the most common observations I hear from some foreigners that live in Finland is that Finns are “cold.” Even though some may greet you with a laconic “hei,” it does not mean that they are “cold.” It only shows that some Finns greet that way because it is normal in their culture.

The matter that surprised me the most about Finland when I moved here was the Finns’ view of the people who lived in different parts of the country. “The Hämäläinens are slow,” one would say as it it were a scientific fact, while another would affirm: The Savolainens are all crooked people. Never trust a Gypsy – they are all thieves!”

Certainly such simplistic definitions of a so-called regional character, which does not exist, also must have rubbed off on how some Finns see foreigners today.

But all those types of so-called fictional behavior “traits” are nothing more than stereotypes and not based on any empirical study. They are only cultural fairy tales.

Foreigners will help Finns see who they are

Posted on by Migrant Tales

My father, who moved to Europe from Argentina at the age of 21in the early 1950s, told me that he never learned so much about himself except when he became a foreigner.

In the same manner, and as more foreigners move to Finland, can they help us see the positive and negative aspects of our society? Undoubtedly, one of the positive matters that they will reinforce is our high standard of living and our social welfare system, which is supposed to be based on social justice and equality for all. These values make a Nordic nation such as Finland a beacon of hope in a very troubled world.

Some of the negative matters that foreigners have exposed with their high 20% unemployment are the structural deficiencies of the economy, according to a report by the Financial Times:

The numbers tell a curious story. Finland has recovered from the recession of the early 1990s and its economy grew 6 per cent in 2006.

The country’s gross domestic product has grown by an average annual rate of 3.4 per cent between 1994 and 2005, well above the 1.8 per cent average for members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and easily outstripping 2.1 per cent growth in the US and 2.5 per cent in the UK.

But despite this performance, employment growth is weak, hovering at 0.4 per cent, just over the OECD average of 0.3 per cent. This is far lower than it should be given the strong economy and reflects deep underlying structural problems that have been masked by growth, according to private sector analysis.

When speaking to refugees in Finland from countries such as Sudan, who are probably suffering from over 90% unemployment, one sees how social assistance from KELA and other institutions, together with our strict labor laws, slow instead of facilitate their integration process into our society. In the same manner, it also permits society, policy makers and politicians to wash their hands from the challenging task of integrating them.

The presence of foreigners will reveal many good and bad things about ourselves. Some of these, like racism, have  come to light. Heikki Waris, one of the foremost Finnish sociologists, claimed in the 1960s that there was no racism in Finland because Finnish society was homogeneous.

How can a society be homogeneous?! It can be near-homogeneous but never homogeneous. What about the Roma of Finland? Certainly there was and still is a lot of racism towards that group. I could list other examples such as the Sami, Skolt Sami and others.

Some questions about immigration to Finland

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Many thanks to all of you that have taken so actively part in the debate on immigration to Finland. There have been a wide spectrum of opinions over the issue. The most positive matter that these comments have shown is that we can debate them in a civil fashion. But there are some questions that I posed that never got answers:

1) Some argued that if foreigners come to Finland, they should be forced to learn about Finnish culture. How do you force people to learn Finnish culture?

2) I asked what is Finnish culture. What aspects of our culture should foreigners be forced to learn?

3) Others thought that the policy of multiculturalism, which has its roots in Canada, is a bad thing because it creates ghettos. While I disagree with the latter claim, I asked what other policies could be more effective to accommodate people from different cultures, creeds and backgrounds?

Could anyone shed light on the above-mentioned questions?

What have the arguments shown?

Some of the comments have revealed that there is still too much ignorance and preconceived ideas on immigration that are simply false. One of these is that immigrants are lazy and that they want to use Finland’s generous welfare system. There are all types of people — native and non-natives — but I tend to believe that it takes guts and ambition to leave a country for another one. The immigrant usually ends up working more than the native and for less money.

Another matter that surprises me is that some people, who claim to have an education and are privileged to live in a society like Finland, show little understanding for outsiders. Certainly part of one’s education should teach us how to think and to be outspoken for those that suffer from economic and political persecution.

Why do some want to impose one set of standards for Finns and another one for immigrants? Certainly these type of double standards already imply that we are favoring a segregated society.