Stupid UVI decision - be carefull

[enk]

oi joo, olen alien, täysin ulkopuolinen, olen Turkulainen Helsingis...

Noh, tuo nyt selittää kaiken

-enk

[daryl]

This is spoken in jest or in ignorance, surely

I mean no disrespect. Perhaps it was out of ignorance. But can't a refugee or an asylum seeker be rejected, thereby needing to be deported?

A policy of releasing failed asylum seekers directly into the hands of the powers from whom they claim to have fled might (arguably) be acceptable if Finland adhered to UNHCR recommendations and applied the "benefit of doubt" principle. Instead, Finland has, AFAIK, always placed the burden of proving a well-founded fear of persecution on the individual asylum seeker. This means that an asylum application can be turned down on the grounds that the threat of persecution was not proven. Clearly this does not mean that there is no threat of persecution, nor does the State assume the burden of demonstrating this.

Now if your neighbour's husband seeks sanctuary in your home, claiming that his wife is trying to kill him, then you may not be persuaded of the case to let him stay. However, it's one thing to let him slip out of the back door quietly, and quite another thing to put him in handcuffs and take him back to his wife's house.

And I know what archaic means. I guess I was just trying to suggest that perhaps a more 'in' word be used, instead of 'alien', which sounds kind of condescending in this day and age.

This is not a new problem, but it's a problem of the English language, and we have to look at how the question is resolved in various countries. I notice that the UK nowadays avoids the word "alien", but that it is still widely used in the European Union context, particularly in statistics and in documents of the Justice and Home Affairs Directorate General. Several non-English speaking Member States (most notably the Netherlands) continue to use "alien". The combination "resident alien" yields 114,000 Google hits for dot-gov sites in the USA (all of them immigration-related as far as I can see). Canadian government websites (dot-gc-dot-ca) also freely use this expression in explanations of US immigration procedures. I could also examine usage in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Gibraltar, India etc., but life is too short.

As noted previously, Finland appears to be disengaging from the use of "alien" in favour of "immigrant" and from "aliens affairs" in favour of "immigration", despite the fact that very many aliens are not immigrants. However, this is a work in progress. To consider this language use in any way deliberate or offensive in a non-English speaking country is simply silly. If the sign in the police station said mutakuonoasiat, then there might be cause for concern.

daryl

[Karhunkoski]

and we have to look at how the question is resolved in

TBH I would be happier if all available resources and efforts were directed towards building a slick and healthy processing system rather than pandering to easily-offended "modernists"!

I don't give two hoots whether I'm referred to as an alien, foreigner, immigrant or banana for that matter, as long as the system is working efficiently

Farting around trying to please everyone with "correct use of language" just further drains cash out of the system and leaves less available for more useful ventures.

[albatross]

A policy of releasing failed asylum seekers directly into the hands of the powers from whom they claim to have fled might (arguably) be acceptable if Finland adhered to UNHCR recommendations and applied the "benefit of doubt" principle. Instead, Finland has, AFAIK, always placed the burden of proving a well-founded fear of persecution on the individual asylum seeker. This means that an asylum application can be turned down on the grounds that the threat of persecution was not proven. Clearly this does not mean that there is no threat of persecution, nor does the State assume the burden of demonstrating this.

Really? Does UNHCR say that? I.e. a refugee from a country facing turmoil and persecution could be sent right back in to the hands of those spreading the turmoil?

But I agree with some of the posters above. I would be far happier with a working and more efficient system than worry about what the term is.

BTW, are there any "under-the-table" unacceptable-in-public behaviour by this UVI/polissi? There was some rumour about them deporting a resident with a PR who lost his job and had no income here in Finland.

At the same time Daryl since you seem to be very knowledgeable in this area: Are traffic offences considered serious enough to warrant deportation?

Thanks.

PS: You know what, somebody should reach an agreement with the authorities to include an "advertisement of sorts" where "aliens" can read about the going-ons in Finland. This is a neat site.

[daryl]

A policy of releasing failed asylum seekers directly into the hands of the powers from whom they claim to have fled might (arguably) be acceptable if Finland adhered to UNHCR recommendations and applied the "benefit of doubt" principle. Instead, Finland has, AFAIK, always placed the burden of proving a well-founded fear of persecution on the individual asylum seeker. This means that an asylum application can be turned down on the grounds that the threat of persecution was not proven. Clearly this does not mean that there is no threat of persecution, nor does the State assume the burden of demonstrating this.

Really? Does UNHCR say that? I.e. a refugee from a country facing turmoil and persecution could be sent right back in to the hands of those spreading the turmoil?

Do I really write so unclearly that you could get this impression? IIRC, the "benefit of doubt" principle shifts the burden of proof onto the State to refute the asylum seeker's claim, not merely to find the claim not proven. If the claim can be refuted, then custody to custody expulsion would presumably be acceptable, at least in international human rights law.

But I agree with some of the posters above. I would be far happier with a working and more efficient system than worry about what the term is.

Obviously.

One thing that I forgot to mention is that the Finnish word muukalainen was previously used in this context. I even have an old book Muukalaisen oikeusasema Suomessa somewhere in my cellar that was the leading specialist work on the subject in its day.

BTW, are there any "under-the-table" unacceptable-in-public behaviour by this UVI/polissi? There was some rumour about them deporting a resident with a PR who lost his job and had no income here in Finland.

I did once catch more than a whiff of collusion between a local police station and a junior official of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs concerning a proposal to expel her ex-husband, who was also the father of her child. This evaporated extremely quickly once I started sniffing round the case, and the expulsion proposal went nowhere. This was also many years ago.

Aside from this one, rather isolated case, I can only point to varying degrees of poor service, ignorance and lack of basic competence in certain quarters. However, it would be stretching things to accuse any official of outright malice. Personally, I don't care what officials think, provided that they can justify their actions (and the overall pattern of those actions) without reference to those thoughts.

The case that you describe would require UVI to issue a deportation order that was so patently unlawful that it would call the fundamental competence of the official into question.

On the other hand, I did successfully defend a UK citizen in a case involving a deportation order that was flagrantly contrary to Community Law. The order was even upheld by the Administrative Court of Helsinki over the protest of the presiding member, who was outvoted by the other two judges. However, her dissenting opinion was so thorough that I really had no difficulty in overturning the judgement and the original deportation order in the Supreme Administrative Court. There were indications in this case that the person concerned was simply regarded as "difficult" in various ways (with some justification, if I may say so).

At the same time Daryl since you seem to be very knowledgeable in this area: Are traffic offences considered serious enough to warrant deportation?

What traffic offences are we talking about here? Parking on a yellow line or causing death by reckless driving?

The basic deportation threshold for a non-EU foreign citizen is a criminal offence for which the maximum penalty is not less than one year's imprisonment, or a series of lesser offences. The threshold for an EU citizen is somewhat higher, requiring the individual to pose a continuing threat to public safety. The threshold for someone with the new long-term EC resident status will, I believe, be understood in terms of the latter, higher threshold.

daryl

[albatross]

Hi Daryl, all,

Thanks Daryl for the reply. OK, I misunderstood the wording. You are right, it does not imply what I understood.

Well, the kind of traffic offence (also posted about it in another thread - Living in Finland - "Got flashed... speed cameras") that I was talking about e.g. being flashed driving at about 87 Kms in a 70 Kms stretch.

Having read your reply, I checked the English version of the Finnish Penal Code, randomly searching by the word traffic and it led me to Chapter 23, Section 2, where it is stated that

"If in the causing of a traffic hazard, the driver of a motor-driven vehicle or tram deliberately or grossly negligently (1) significantly exceeds the maximum speed limit;

so that the act is conducive to causing serious danger to another’s health or safety, the offender shall be sentenced for causing a serious traffic hazard to at least 30 day-fines or to imprisonment for at most two years.''

Hubby fears still that 17 Kms over could be considered serious. So, does this mean that he/we could be deported for such an offense? Or then what would be considered serious?

Thanks.

[Hank W.]

Is the poor guy still sweating? The police only dream of putting such a fear of God into the regular drivers...

[daryl]

Well, the kind of traffic offence (also posted about it in another thread - Living in Finland - "Got flashed... speed cameras") that I was talking about e.g. being flashed driving at about 87 Kms in a 70 Kms stretch.

Having read your reply, I checked the English version of the Finnish Penal Code, randomly searching by the word traffic and it led me to Chapter 23, Section 2, where it is stated that

"If in the causing of a traffic hazard, the driver of a motor-driven vehicle or tram deliberately or grossly negligently (1) significantly exceeds the maximum speed limit;

so that the act is conducive to causing serious danger to another’s health or safety, the offender shall be sentenced for causing a serious traffic hazard to at least 30 day-fines or to imprisonment for at most two years.''

Hubby fears still that 17 Kms over could be considered serious. So, does this mean that he/we could be deported for such an offense? Or then what would be considered serious?

Thanks.

There are clearly several elements of this offence that need to be satisfied for a conviction:

1. exceeding the speed limit,
2. significantly,
3. deliberately or through gross negligence,
4. in a manner that can seriously endanger the health of another person
5. thereby causing a traffic hazard

Allowing that 87/70 is "significant", the prosecutor would at least have to show that the act occurred out of gross negligence (a legal expression with a rather specific meaning - was visibility impaired? was the road surface unreliable and did the driver know this?), that it could result in a serious health hazard to someone else (obviously not possible if the road was deserted), and that the overall situation was hazardous. All of this would be subject to the standards of proof that are required in criminal proceedings, which would be well-nigh impossible to procure even based on a video film of the offence, let alone a mere flash photo. Of course confession is good for the soul, so your husband could offer a statement that fills in the gaps in the prosecutor's case...

Speeding alone seldom if ever constitutes reckless driving.

daryl

[Hank W.]

To point out the devil in the details - say you have summer slicks (deliberate) doing 70 in an 80 zone on a frosty day (negligence) and you drive into a tree (causing danger to a person - yourself) - on an empty road even - you will get a fine for "endangerment of traffic". The "circumstances" can dictate you are "reckless driving" even if you are under the speed limit.

[albatross]

Hi Daryl, all,

Thank you so much for that reply. He has a breather now.

Yep Hank, he was still sweating it, till yesterday night at least. He checks the mailbox for the dreaded notification of the fine. etc.

Regards.

[network_engineer]

Dear Daryl, all,

Hi! To what extent can traffic offences be taken in to account while deciding on permanent residence permits and citizenship applications?

I ask this particularly considering that an exception was granted to one of my friends on his citizenship application for a traffic infraction that he had committed. What is the relation and the basis? The Citizenship Act says that he should not have committed any punishable acts, but then is parking without a ticket a punishable act? What governs it?

Thanks.

Kind regards.

[daryl]

Dear Daryl, all,

Hi! To what extent can traffic offences be taken in to account while deciding on permanent residence permits and citizenship applications?

I ask this particularly considering that an exception was granted to one of my friends on his citizenship application for a traffic infraction that he had committed. What is the relation and the basis? The Citizenship Act says that he should not have committed any punishable acts, but then is parking without a ticket a punishable act? What governs it?

Thanks.

Kind regards.

Citizenship: Section 19 of the Nationality Act.
Permanent residence: Section 57 of the Aliens Act.

Parking without a ticket is a punishable act, but is not normally a criminal offence unless it causes serious danger or inconvenience (e.g. blocking the only exit from a fire station). The relevant provision AFAIK is section 105 of the Road Traffic Act, which begins as follows:

Ajoneuvon pysäyttämistä ja pysäköintiä koskevien kieltojen ja rajoitusten rikkomisesta tuomitaan rangaistus vain, jos pysäköintivirheestä on aiheutunut tai voinut aiheutua vakavaa vaaraa tai haittaa. Muutoin virheestä määrätään suoritettavaksi pysäköintivirhemaksu sen mukaan kuin siitä erikseen säädetään.

daryl

[Karhunkoski]

Oh no, more mention of Aliens!

[angiepohja]

you should have one month to appeal this decision. If you feel that the decision is racially motivated, contact the ombudsman for minorites in HKI: vahemmistovaltuutetun.toimisto@mol.fi phone: 010 60 47048

Also, it's good to get a lawyer. Legal services needn't cost anything. What city are you in?

[Desundial]

Local police stations have been in some hot water regarding overzealous "advice" of this kind, specifically because it often takes the form: "You can't apply for that." Advice of this kind is simply illegal. The client is always entitled to submit a claim to the authority, even if that claim has no hope of success.
daryl

#!¤"!!!! Now I am hopping mad! This is exactly what happened to me when I filed for a renewel of my residence permit. I brought in two applications, one for a status level I thought I qualified for and one for a status level I knew I qualified for, and was told "you can't...." Now, unless having had two applications complicates it, and provided I read Daryl's post correctly, I should have insisted the lady take the application. Glad this discussion is now posted, and that daryl's commentary is so thorough. Now maybe others may have a chance to more fully understand their rights before going down to the police queue!

And BTW...three months on, no reply. Does this mean I could be in the pile of "find a reason to reject?" ? Having read this whole thread, I'm now having paranoid visions of getting caught in some pääkaupungin seutu drive-the aliens-out campaign! Best start hounding them and getting mr. snow to do same. At least I kept my passport. Surrendering my home country drivers license (on application for the Finnish one) was hard enough!

What I don't understand about the UVI inefficiency / under-resourced /what not is that my original application (from home country) was processed in a shocking less than 3 weeks. I would have understood if it had taken much longer. Somehow if UVI can't handle the load I think applications of people already here should be prioritized over people living abroad, especially if they can keep working away in home country vs. that local authority paranoia of "foreigner = drain on system".