Another question on the 'Long Term Resident' Directive

[network_engineer]

Hi all,

Another question if I may. I might sound a bit repetitive, my apologies for that.

Daryl: Based on the advice you gave Sy, i.e. to apply for a Long Term Resident status as in the directive, might I ask (and only because I am a bit confused): What is the relationship between a Long Term Resident status as defined in the directive and the Finnish Permanent Resident status? Is there any relationship at all? Or are these two separate issues? Can it be assumed that a somebody with a permanent residence status in Finland is automatically eligible for the Long Term Resident status as defined?

Or is this then something that has to be applied for separately? If yes, what, in your opinion would be the criteria? The directive mentions five years. So, can I assume that e.g. Sy and others here in Finland that are living here on a permanent basis (i.e. have lived here for five years) can just walk in and apply for it as a right (obviously subject to conditions as in the directive)?

Or then, have I totally misunderstood the whole issue???

Thanks.

[Hank W.]

The thing is, there is no such thing existing, except in the EU directive. You can apply for anything you want. Will you be getting it is another thing.

Basically, the police will probably take your application and return it reading the Finnish law does not say anything like this. Then you take it "upstairs" enough until the superior adminsitrative court will refer it to the EU courts etc etc etc. By the time the result will come back you will be rocking your grandchildren on your knee... Or, if enough people apply for it they might wake up in the ministry... Look how long it took for the one guy to battle the car tax. Theres directives allright, but don't necessarily expect anything to happen right away

The whole directive makes a lot of sense, but I guess nobody "upstairs" read the small print...

[network_engineer]

Hi!

Fair enough. My question still remains - The directive *should* have been implemented by some date in January 2006, was it the 26th? Has anybody been following this with the UVI? Any idea of what they have been doing about it? Further more, do they even plan to create a relationship of sorts with the directive? I understand that the 'Pysyvä Oleskelulupa' is granted as based on the Finnish Alien's Act. Does the fact that the resident is in Finland on a permanent basis (or that he has lived here for five years plus) automatically render him eligible towards this long term resident status?`

Would it be good to have somebody from UVI sign on to this forum Where else could they get proper customer feedback???

[sinikettu]

The Finnish attitude is quite simple..
Permanent Residents permit..is by defintion.."permanent = long term"..
We already have a "permanent permit" ..we already have a "temp permit" why produce a third?...
OK because Brussels says so
..They also say...Cucumbers must not be straight...Feta Cheese must come from Greece....But Sauna can be taken anywhere...except Sweden where it is a Bastu
i.e: Stuff what the EU says we are Finns.

[sy]

To my understanding, the EC long-term residence status and Finnish permanent residence permit are totally two different legal identities. And this is also clearly separated in the Directive, if you read the Directive carefully.

Finnish permanent residence permit allows you to live and work within the territory of Finland permanently (of course, subjected to some conditions), as specified in Finnish Aliens Act. Then according to the Schengen treaty, you can also travel to other Schengen countries for at most 3 months.

The EC long-term residence status allows you to live and work also in other EU countries (minus UK, Ireland, and Denmark), to let you enjoy equal treatment with nationals in some/many areas.

Also Article 17 says:

Certain Member States issue permits
with a permanent or unlimited validity on conditions
that are more favourable than those provided for by this
Directive. The possibility of applying more favourable
national provisions is not excluded by the Treaty.
However, for the purposes of this Directive, it should be
provided that permits issued on more favourable terms
do not confer the right to reside in other Member States.

The criteria for these two statuses/permits are also different. For example, when counting the duration of residence for the EC long-term residence status, half of the periods of residence for study purposes or vocational training may be taken into account. While it is not true when applying for the Finnish PR, IIRC. So it is possible that someone is eligible for the EC long-term residence status, but not for the Finnish PR, or vice versa.

From the web site of the Ministry of the Interior, they mention that on the list of on-going projects there is this project:

Vuonna 2003 hyväksytyt direktiivit oikeudesta perheenyhdistämiseen (U 11/2000 vp.) ja pitkään oleskelleiden kolmansien maiden kansalaisten asemasta (U 41/2001 vp.) on saatettava kansallisesti voimaan 3.10.2005 ja 23.1.2006 mennessä.

I've sent my application directly to the Minister of the Interior. So I hope I'll give them a wake-up call to speed up the project.

[daryl]

Oh dear, oh dear...

Time to point out a few things again.

A permanent residence permit (pysyvä oleskelulupa) remains valid indefinitely. It does not have an expiry date, and it therefore outlives the foreigner's passport or travel document.

There is another provision that requires a foreigner to maintain an in-date passport or travel document, but there is no provision that specifically requires any new passport or travel document to include a residence permit sticker. As I have pointed out before, if you do not require an entry in your passport or travel document in order to return to the Schengen Area (for example if you do not travel outside of this area), then the permanent residence permit sticker is a waste of time and money.

I should add that there is also no absolute requirement for a temporary residence permit sticker to be entered in a replacement passport. This is merely an optional convenience that may assist the permit holder to travel abroad. If you do not need this convenience, then the intelligent thing to do is to wait until the time of permit renewal.

Hank is simply wrong about the relationship between Finnish legislation and Community Law. A Directive that has passed its implementation deadline confers rights on individuals vis-á-vis the defaulting Member State. In sy's case, for example, the Directive guarantees the right to travel to a non-Schengen European Union Member State (e.g. Estonia) with neither a visa nor a residence permit issued by that State. If, within the specified maximum processing period (6 months), the Finnish government fails to provide the necessary documentation for sy to exercise this right, then the Finnish government will be liable for the damages that are so incurred. These damages would include the cost of any separate travel documentation that sy has to obtain in order to travel to the Member State concerned.

It does not matter that the enforcement process is a long one. If sy gets hit by a bolt of lightning, then the Finnish government can expect the action for any outstanding receivables to be continued by his death estate. So what?

Hank is free to choose not to pursue well-merited claims in his own case. In fact as a taxpayer I heartily encourage him not to seek compensation from the State under any circumstances. You are absolutely right, Hank, it's too much hassle. Don't bother!

In sy's case the State has an easy escape route: it can approve his pending citizenship application.

Sy is correct about the relationship between the permanent residence permit and the right conferred on long-term EC residents by the new Directive.

Finland is naturally free to withdraw from the European Union or to renegotiate its accession package and join the drag anchors like the UK and Denmark if it chooses not to implement this Directive. Somehow, however, I don't think the Finnish State is going to let the tardiness of one government department divert the entire mainstream of the country's international policy.

daryl

[Hank W.]

Well, see now Daryl; theres two attitudes:

A fact of life is there is a zebra crossing, a robot, a big puddle of water and a speeding bus.

Now there is a probability of the bus speeding through on old greens, and the old greens turned already red so the green for pedestrians is on.

Now Daryl's of the world go stand 10cm from the curb, and will step on the crossing the minute the robot turns green. They'll be very wet, or dead, beut they are correct.

While the Hanks of the world look a place 6 meters upstream of the bus, and cross over dry, wondering why the person bothers to get wet and then complain to the city for soiled clothes...

[daryl]

Well, see now Daryl; theres two attitudes:

A fact of life is there is a zebra crossing, a robot, a big puddle of water and a speeding bus.

Now there is a probability of the bus speeding through on old greens, and the old greens turned already red so the green for pedestrians is on.

Now Daryl's of the world go stand 10cm from the curb, and will step on the crossing the minute the robot turns green. They'll be very wet, or dead, beut they are correct.

While the Hanks of the world look a place 6 meters upstream of the bus, and cross over dry, wondering why the person bothers to get wet and then complain to the city for soiled clothes...

Hey, like I said, I applaud your attitude and the public spirited example that you set in keeping all of our taxes down by not bothering to claim benefits. I just don't think you should try to indoctrinate immigrants into following that example.

It's really very simple: we all pay taxes and then you choose not to claim the associated benefits, but merely to grumble here. I think this is an excellent strategy that benefits all truly deserving people.

Unless, of course, your strategy is to claim benefits all along and merely use this forum to try to persuade others not to do so. But nobody would be that dishonest, would they?

Your clumsy analogy, BTW, blames sy for being a foreigner and law-abiding in the first place. Cute.

daryl

[Hank W.]

What I am saying is that I calculate the benefit vs. the hassle involved. If the hassle outweighs the benefit, why bother?

In other words, wait for a while, and there will be no puddle. But still do not expect the bus to stop necessarily.

[daryl]

What I am saying is that I calculate the benefit vs. the hassle involved. If the hassle outweighs the benefit, why bother?

In other words, wait for a while, and there will be no puddle. But still do not expect the bus to stop necessarily.

Well, I have the same attitude towards new software releases. Never buy the .00 version, as the first paying customers are the last beta testers. Wait for version .01 at least, and then you get something with most of the obvious bugs already patched.

When discussing the laws on foreigners in Finland with people such as myself, sy and network_engineer, however, you are talking to dedicated beta testers and software product developers.

When you say "wait for a while", you are really saying "wait for the vanguard to clear the area". With the new Directive, you are watching that happen. I suppose a little respect would be too much to ask for.

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

George Bernard Shaw summed up the vanguard attitude as follows:

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

Inspiring words, though Shaw was somewhat handicapped in physical appearance (as you will no doubt keenly appreciate).



daryl

[Hank W.]

When you say "wait for a while", you are really saying "wait for the vanguard to clear the area". With the new Directive, you are watching that happen. I suppose a little respect would be too much to ask for.

Not at all, what I am saying some bright-eyed HBS syndrome case straight off Nowheremäki, who hasn't been here for years on end and can't read Finnish and has no clue of how the bureaucracy works here shouldn't be the ones to go cross the breach first...

And asking for respect... well, the Light Brigade is respected for being corageous, while everyone agrees they were barking mad.

There is a bit of a "Finnish thing" involved as well. However I wouldn't say this mentality is *uniquely* Finnish.

The Jante Law (Danish and Norwegian: Janteloven Swedish: Jantelagen Finnish: Jante-laki) is a concept created by the Danish/Norwegian author Aksel Sandemose in his novel A refugee crosses his tracks (En flygtning krysser sitt spor, 1933), where he portrays the small Danish town Jante, modelled upon his native town Nykøbing Mors as it was in the beginning of the 20th century.

There are 10 different rules in the law, but they are all variations on a single theme and are usually referred to as a homogeneous unit:Don't think you're anyone special or that you're better than us. The 10 rules are:

1. You shall not think that you are special.
2. You shall not think that you are of the same standing as us.
3. You shall not think that you are smarter than us.
4. Don't fancy yourself as being better than us.
5. You shall not think that you know more than us.
6. You shall not think that you are more important than us.
7. You shall not think that you are good at anything.
8. You shall not laugh at us.
9. You shall not think that anyone cares about you.
10. You shall not think that you can teach us anything.

In the book, those Janters who transgress this unwritten 'law' are regarded with suspicion and some hostility, as it goes against communal desire in the town, which is to preserve social stability and uniformity.

The "Jante law" has become a set phrase and a symbol of what many residents and also foreign visitors have seen as a permeating cultural code in the Nordic countries: It is frowned upon to appear to elevate oneself or claim to be better or smarter than others. Those who assert to the influence of the Jante law often maintain that the values of the Danish and other Nordic welfare states are to blame for (the persistence of) the Jante law, in particular their stress on social equality and their emphasis on fairness for all. Others point to such traits as protestant work ethic and an early development of a modern central government in the Nordic states.

This kind of communal order has been observed in many areas of the world. It has echoes in the attitude towards others in some areas of England, exemplified in sayings such as "Just who does he think he is?". The "tall poppy syndrome" – cutting off the heads of the tallest poppies – is another expression of the idea, and is a prominent phenomenon in Australia and New Zealand. The Jante law should also be seen in the light of the "smallness" of the individual Nordic nations, which forms an important part of their self-image.

Even though this is a very general stereotype, and I do not know if the mentality described in the Jante laws is so pronouncedly evident all over, but it reflects in the Finns' grumbling but not complaining. See now as complaining would make one elevate themselves above others. Hence the resentment of "complaining foreigners"... for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.