Green League of Finland made maeby the biggest political scam in it's history in this January by protesting the proposal for new Alien Act in Finland( the Act later in text ). Because of this protest the party clearly harmed the intrests of foreigners already residing in Finland. In below I will show case by case how the Act would of improved the status of the applicants. I will focus on non-EU citizens in this document: visa procedures are not changing much and work permit procedure would of been improved drasticly in the Act. EU/Schengen-member country citizens have virtually unlimited right to move to other member country.
Green League of Finland strongly argued for two points of law: the safe land of origin and also speeded up handling of residence permit appication. You have to remember, that both safe land of origin and speeded up handling of some residence permit applications are valid and effective procedure nowadays. Now most of the rules are hidden in internal guides and procedures of Directorate of Immigration (DoI), Minitery of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) and Ministry of Internal Affairs (MoIA). The new law would of given much more transparent law considering immigration - transparency of law is one of key elements for democratic and humane legistlation.
Protest of Green League of Finland and some other opposition parties caused the Act to become ineffective. They definitely knew, that by protesting content of the Act there is no time to handle it before the election and therefore invalidate the law. Is it possible, that the Act would of been effective by 1st of January 2004? Yes. If Green League of Finland would of demanded speeded up handling of the law, no party would of voted against it. If that would of happened, the Act would be in the desk of president waiting for her signature by the date.
Also third point to argue was that in some counties family is understood to be more than man, wife and their heir. The current law gives posibility to get your immediate family members to Finland and the Act is not changing the situation anyway. The thing is, you have to apply for your parents, they have to apply for their parents. Giving more freedom - for example by giving right ot apply for ones cousins - will actually close the border. Or wouldn't Finland do everything to prevent a person to come to country, if there is possibility that all of his/her 500 relatives has automatically right to come to country? Finally: current practise is by no means against international law.
How the Act would of improved status of some applicants? By widening of right to apply in Finland. 47§, 47a§1st moment, (48§, 48a§, 50§ or 51§) can be applied in Finland. Respectivelly the persons could be :
47§1 1)-3): Former citizen of Finland or direct descentant of one, spouse of citizen of Finland, employed foreigner in special cases
47§1 4): Person who got studying place and the studies starts soon. Spouse of foreigner with recident permit and married with children.
47a§1st: Spouse of finnish citizen. Other relative (like parents of spouse) have to wait in land of origin.
50§ 5th: If reason of your residence changes you can apply in Finland. Employed in other company? Graduated and got job? Got unemployed, but also married in short time?
By current law in all of cases above you have to stay in or return to your home country for making application and waiting for the result. Current 20§1 3) is practicly the same as 47§1 4). Complying of EU directive on preventing fake marriages (97/C382/01) is reguired in applicable cases.
There is not such as perfect law and the Act makes no difference. If there is 214 apples in basket, there is probably one or two rotten ones. You may not see the rotten ones when you open the lid, maeby those are not on the top. But when you take the apples one-by-one from basket you will find the rotten ones also. You do not have to eat those, but you can grow new tree from seeds. My perception is, that most of members of Green League of Finland haven't even opened the lid. Here's some of their comments** considering the Act:
"Therefore this Act is not stratetical plan for immigration, it is focusing only problems of handling refugees and aslym seekers" Irina Krohn, vihr.
"Without detailed arguments it is very difficult to understand the Act or flaws on it." Tuija Brax /vihr.
[How I found the detailed arguments in 10 minutes?]
"It has to be notifyed, that this [speeded up processing of applications, when land of origin is considered to be safe] is now worser version[in the Act], legal protection of applicant is lessened" Kirsi Ojansuu /vihr.
[It's not better, but the current procedure would of been written in law, e.g. transparency increased, and therefore the legal protection would be better (if splitting a hair is allowed)]
"It is totally miserable and inhuman order to march, for example in a case, if the child's best is to do re-union of family in some other country, the child is left alone. The best intrest for the child is to get family to Finland" Tuija Brax /vihr
[The real case is that if the child is coming from safe land of origin, the child can be re-united with his/her family - not left alone. If the land of origin is considered unsafe, the family is re-united in Finland a.s.a.p.]
"Actually there will not be any Act, everybody knows it by now, but they want to give a signal, that who is doing and how. I have to say, that in my view, it is sad that we do so. The Act has also been matter which is used as stick horse in many elections." Janina Anderson / vihr.
[Which party has the political stick horse here, the goverment or Green League of Finland?]
"It means, that we seduce foreigners to study in Finland, cash them and kick them out after the studies" ... "We do have to accept that after their studies the foreign students can stay and work in Finland" Erkki Pulliainen / vihr
Most of all, writing current practises to form of law - a.k.a to new Alien Act of Finland - would of speeded up handling of resident permit applications. When handling time of a residence permit application in late 1980's was one to two months, in 2001 the average handling time clearly exceeds six months. It seems to be, that there is no political will to shrink handling times of applications - not in the current goverment, nor in side of opposition parties: There has not been public outcry* from any party to demand more resources for DoI. Shortening handling times of applications is the best way to gurantee humane treatment of the applicants.
It seems, that Green League of Finland wanted to fish some votes from immigrants by rude and coldly calculated politics. I think, they should bear the responsibility of their actions. I will definedly BOYCOTT Vihreä Liitto - GREEN LEAGUE OF FINLAND and I will protest their politics even more strongly by voting some other party.
* Kisi Ojansuu mentioned resource needs of DoI it in her comment on the Act, but this issue has not been part of core politics of any party in Finland.
**Translated from PKT 177/2002 vp, which can be found from
inputting "HE 265/2002" to "Asian tunnus:" field and pressing the search button.
Green League of Finland strongly argued for two points of law: the safe land of origin and also speeded up handling of residence permit appication. You have to remember, that both safe land of origin and speeded up handling of some residence permit applications are valid and effective procedure nowadays. Now most of the rules are hidden in internal guides and procedures of Directorate of Immigration (DoI), Minitery of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) and Ministry of Internal Affairs (MoIA). The new law would of given much more transparent law considering immigration - transparency of law is one of key elements for democratic and humane legistlation.
Protest of Green League of Finland and some other opposition parties caused the Act to become ineffective. They definitely knew, that by protesting content of the Act there is no time to handle it before the election and therefore invalidate the law. Is it possible, that the Act would of been effective by 1st of January 2004? Yes. If Green League of Finland would of demanded speeded up handling of the law, no party would of voted against it. If that would of happened, the Act would be in the desk of president waiting for her signature by the date.
Also third point to argue was that in some counties family is understood to be more than man, wife and their heir. The current law gives posibility to get your immediate family members to Finland and the Act is not changing the situation anyway. The thing is, you have to apply for your parents, they have to apply for their parents. Giving more freedom - for example by giving right ot apply for ones cousins - will actually close the border. Or wouldn't Finland do everything to prevent a person to come to country, if there is possibility that all of his/her 500 relatives has automatically right to come to country? Finally: current practise is by no means against international law.
How the Act would of improved status of some applicants? By widening of right to apply in Finland. 47§, 47a§1st moment, (48§, 48a§, 50§ or 51§) can be applied in Finland. Respectivelly the persons could be :
47§1 1)-3): Former citizen of Finland or direct descentant of one, spouse of citizen of Finland, employed foreigner in special cases
47§1 4): Person who got studying place and the studies starts soon. Spouse of foreigner with recident permit and married with children.
47a§1st: Spouse of finnish citizen. Other relative (like parents of spouse) have to wait in land of origin.
50§ 5th: If reason of your residence changes you can apply in Finland. Employed in other company? Graduated and got job? Got unemployed, but also married in short time?
By current law in all of cases above you have to stay in or return to your home country for making application and waiting for the result. Current 20§1 3) is practicly the same as 47§1 4). Complying of EU directive on preventing fake marriages (97/C382/01) is reguired in applicable cases.
There is not such as perfect law and the Act makes no difference. If there is 214 apples in basket, there is probably one or two rotten ones. You may not see the rotten ones when you open the lid, maeby those are not on the top. But when you take the apples one-by-one from basket you will find the rotten ones also. You do not have to eat those, but you can grow new tree from seeds. My perception is, that most of members of Green League of Finland haven't even opened the lid. Here's some of their comments** considering the Act:
"Therefore this Act is not stratetical plan for immigration, it is focusing only problems of handling refugees and aslym seekers" Irina Krohn, vihr.
"Without detailed arguments it is very difficult to understand the Act or flaws on it." Tuija Brax /vihr.
[How I found the detailed arguments in 10 minutes?]
"It has to be notifyed, that this [speeded up processing of applications, when land of origin is considered to be safe] is now worser version[in the Act], legal protection of applicant is lessened" Kirsi Ojansuu /vihr.
[It's not better, but the current procedure would of been written in law, e.g. transparency increased, and therefore the legal protection would be better (if splitting a hair is allowed)]
"It is totally miserable and inhuman order to march, for example in a case, if the child's best is to do re-union of family in some other country, the child is left alone. The best intrest for the child is to get family to Finland" Tuija Brax /vihr
[The real case is that if the child is coming from safe land of origin, the child can be re-united with his/her family - not left alone. If the land of origin is considered unsafe, the family is re-united in Finland a.s.a.p.]
"Actually there will not be any Act, everybody knows it by now, but they want to give a signal, that who is doing and how. I have to say, that in my view, it is sad that we do so. The Act has also been matter which is used as stick horse in many elections." Janina Anderson / vihr.
[Which party has the political stick horse here, the goverment or Green League of Finland?]
"It means, that we seduce foreigners to study in Finland, cash them and kick them out after the studies" ... "We do have to accept that after their studies the foreign students can stay and work in Finland" Erkki Pulliainen / vihr
Most of all, writing current practises to form of law - a.k.a to new Alien Act of Finland - would of speeded up handling of resident permit applications. When handling time of a residence permit application in late 1980's was one to two months, in 2001 the average handling time clearly exceeds six months. It seems to be, that there is no political will to shrink handling times of applications - not in the current goverment, nor in side of opposition parties: There has not been public outcry* from any party to demand more resources for DoI. Shortening handling times of applications is the best way to gurantee humane treatment of the applicants.
It seems, that Green League of Finland wanted to fish some votes from immigrants by rude and coldly calculated politics. I think, they should bear the responsibility of their actions. I will definedly BOYCOTT Vihreä Liitto - GREEN LEAGUE OF FINLAND and I will protest their politics even more strongly by voting some other party.
* Kisi Ojansuu mentioned resource needs of DoI it in her comment on the Act, but this issue has not been part of core politics of any party in Finland.
**Translated from PKT 177/2002 vp, which can be found from
inputting "HE 265/2002" to "Asian tunnus:" field and pressing the search button.
Vastaukset 5
Vanhimmat
Ulkomaalaislain eduskuntakäsittelyn yhteydessä keväällä 2003 Vihreät hirttäytyivät pikakäännytys-pykälään ja samalla tekivät karhunpalveluksen kaikille Suomessa oleville ulkomaalaisille. Tämä siksi, koska uusi Ulkomaalaislaki olisi tuonut oleellisia parannuksia oleskelulupaa hakevien oikeusturvaan. Mutta kaikki kaadettiin ja aivan turhaan. Edustaja Anderssonia lainatekseni: "Sitten vielä inhimillisyydestä. Voidaan kokeilla eri rooleja, että voidaan samaistua: Tuoreena isänä ministeri Itälä tietää, että lastaan hän ei kyllä jätä, jollei ole todella hätä. Semmoisia isiä ei ole missään, eli silloin on todella, todella hätä olemassa." Ilmeisesti kuitenkin sellaisia politikkoja löytyy, joilla on pyrkimyksiä tällaisen tilanteen turhaan pitkittämiseen - ainakin Suomen eduskunnassa.
Ovatko Vihreän Liiton kansanedustajat edes lukeneet koko ehdotusta? Vai eikö heidän maailmankuvaansa mahdu, että politiikan oikelta laidalta tehdään sosiaalisesti vastuullisia lakiehdotuksia? Ei kai ihmisoikeudet ja niihin liittyvä lainsäädäntö voi olla yhden puolueen etuoikeus? Onko edellämainittu ajattelutapa rasismia? Oliko tarkoitus raa-asti tehdä politiikkaa ja sumuttaa äänestäjiä samalla törkeästi heidän oikeuksiaan polkien? Vai sittenkin silkkaa tyhmyyttä?
Välillä kehuakseni, esimerkiksi Erkki Pulliaisen ulkomaalais-abc oli täyttä asiaa. On älytöntä, että "oleskelun perusteen muuttuessa" pitää lähteä takaisin kotimaahan odottamaan päätöstä - esimerkiksi työpaikan vaihduttua kesken oleskeluluvan tai opiskelun päätyttyä varmasta työpaikasta huolimatta. Tämä on siis nykykäytäntö. Tosin sisälukutaidossa Erkillä on parantamien varaa, sillä Ulomaalaislaki-ehdotuksen § 50 viimeinen kappale kuuluu:
"Uusi määräaikainen oleskelulupa myönnetään uudella perusteella, jos ulkomaalaiselle voitaisiin myöntää ensimmäinen oleskelulupa tällä uudella perusteella. Ulkomaalaiselle, jolle on myönnetty tilapäinen tai jatkuva oleskelulupa perhesiteen perusteella, voidaan myöntää oleskelulupa perhesiteen päätyttyä sillä perustella, että henkilöllä on kiinteät siteet Suomeen ja hänen toimeentulonsa on turvattu. [Perheenjäsenelle voidaan myöntää oleskelulupa myös tässä momentissa tarkoitetulla uudella perusteella.]"
Eli tämä kappale olisi korjannut juuri tämän Pulliaisen esiin nostaman epäkohdan! Eli esimerkiksi opiskelija joka valmistuu ja työllistyy hakee uutta oleskelulupaa uudella perusteella, ei jatko-oleskelulupaa. Mutta ei, eihän tällaista voi ulkomaalaisille suoda, menkööt kotiinsa vain.
Mutta mitä muutakaan oli odotettavissa puolueelta, jonka päätavoite näissä vaaleissa on päästä hallitukseen ( kuten Osmo Soininvaara medialle asian Vihreän Liiton vaalikampanjan avauksessa esitti ).
Mitä tämä Vihreän Liiton yksisilmäinen politiikka sitten maksoi?
1) parjattu, mutta toimiva pikakäännytys on edelleenkin toiminnassa. Ylilyöntejä viranomaisten puolelta ei ole tapahtunut. Lisäksi pitää muistaa, että voimassa oleva hallintomenettelylaki suojaa kielteisen päätöksen saaneita - he voivat valittaa sekä Suomen, että EU:n hallinto-oikeuksiin.
2) Tämänhetkinen perheitä rikkova käytäntö, joka sinäänsä ei riko kansainvälisiä lakeja, jatkuu. Eli Suomessa oleskelevan ulkomalaisen tai suomalaisen oleskelulupaa hakevat perheenjäsenet joutuvat odottamaan päätöstä kotimaassaan. Tässä ei todellakaan lapsen etu toteudu. Tyypillinen käsittelyaika vuonna 2001 oli 6-7 kk.
3) Nykyinen laki sekavuudessaan pidentää edelleen oleskelulupahakemusten käsittelyä. Nykyiset lait sekavuudessaan lisäksi aiheuttavat sen, että päätökset ovat pääsääntöisesti kielteisiä. Ja hakijoiden pitää tehdä uusi hakemus. Erästä oleskelulupaa oli keväällä 2003 käsitelty 15 kuukautta, eikä lopullisesta päätöksestä ole vieläkään tietoa.
Tuolla Vihreiden poliittisella päätöksellä on hintalappu, mittaamattoman arvokas sellainen. Tuhansia unettomia öitä, satoja itkuisia silmiä, kymmeniä lapsia erossa vanhemmistaan, pahimmillaan seurassaan vain yksinäisyys. Mikä on tällaista politiikkaa tekevien politikkojen moraalinen vastuu?
Se, että esiinnytään muka-asiantuntijoina ja puhutaan pehmoisia tunteisiin vetoavan teatterin keinoin ei todellakaan tarkoita sitä, että Vihreillä olisi mitään tietoa Suomessa asuvien ulkomaalaisten todellisuudesta. Minä olen päivittäin tekemisissä Suomessa asuvien ulkomaalaisten kanssa ja kysynkin Vihreiltä: Onko heillä mitään käsitystä ulkomaalaisten tilanteesta ja mitä he aikovat tehdä ulkomaalaisten asioiden parantamiseksi, mikäli he ovat seuraavassa eduskunnassa?
Kaikkein eniten tässä korpeaa se, että Vihreät mainostavat julkisuudessa olevansa monikulttuurisuuden edistäjiä ja ulkomaalaisten asioiden ajajia. Poliittiset teot sen sijaan puhuvat karusti toista kieltä. Suosittelen Vihreille lämpimästi norsunluutorninsa homeläikkien poistoa ja poliittisen linjansa uudistamista, sillä tuo home taitaa olla ainoaa monikulttuurista, mitä tuossa puolueessa on.
Eipä ollut mitään kaunista englantia tuo.
No sujuukos lukiolekurilta sitten latina???
:)
Quo usque tandem abutere, qmnebtqev, patientia mea?
Uitutus Maximus