FinlandGirl wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 2:40 pm
fair citizenship after 4 years was always ridiculously short.
For a country that has hostile weather, a hard-to-learn language, and closed off social culture, would the 4 year requirement actually have been a favourable currency? *Many* western countries with e.g. English as the official language, or no language requirements (IIRC, including Sweden), and countries with lower taxes would now be the desired alternative.
It is dangerous to pander to close-mindedness when planning the future of the country based on the colour of the foreskin!
FinlandGirl wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 2:40 pm
The longer times until you are eligible for a permanent residence permit or citizenship will apply to you
...
If you moved to Finland 50 years ago and apply for citizenship today, the citizenship rules from 50 years ago when you moved to Finland are irrelevant.
Finland has previously tried to apply new requirements retroactively, and been hit with court cases and they've lost. This might be a grey area, but one that would solve itself with an administrative case. I.e. if after four years, they raise the citizenship requirements to 12 years, would it leave the current applicants in a state of what exactly? It depends on the specifics of the case, i.e. the intent. E.g. if the applicant chose not to apply under previous rules, then it would be different vs. if the rules were not in favour of the applicant at that time.
valkosipuli wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 4:53 pm
The job market itself is very small, slow hiring in companies in general and locals are preferred over immigrants in lot of places.
This raises another interesting question: Equality before the law, and must be argued in court.
My personal opinion is that cancelling a permit of an unemployed immigrant to be considered fair and acceptable is ONLY IF they are treated equally as another tax payer.
E.g. if the unemployment benefits are valid for 500 days, then the native Finn, the non-native-Finnish citizen, and the foreigner must be treated equally. They can cancel the permit AFTER the 500 days (as the requirements for a new/ or renewed permit are not met).
If they want to cancel after three months, then the immigrant worker should also not be paying for the society and should be thus exempt from due taxes.
In simple words, if the foreign worker is not entitled to the same level of social services as a native or a citizen, why should they pay for the services?
At the end of the day, an economic migrant (work based) is a *free* gift to Finland, i.e. Finland has NOT paid for birth, health, education of the migrant but they get a productive resource from the date of the move. AND the migrant worker pays taxes from day 1. In that sense, one can argue the migrant worker is more valuable than the native one.
FinlandGirl wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:28 pm
You should be more grateful that out of pure luck (and with no strong connection to Finland like speaking the language) you were granted a residence permit under the very generous rules of the remigration permit where one Finnish grandparent is sufficient to bypass all the rules that usually apply to everyone else.
That's presumptuous. Assuming you are not a native Finn. And EVEN IF you were, I'd wonder what did you do to be a native-Finn BEFORE you were born? Filed an application with the creator? Or chose your parents?
FinlandGirl wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:28 pm
Whose taxes will pay the massive healthcare bill during the last years of your life?
Wouldn't the answer be, "Exactly the same that pays for yours?"
FinlandGirl wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 2:16 pm
You made it sound as if you considered getting citizenship very fast would be something you would be entitled to.
As would anybody that had a parents of the same state. And that was a decision made by the state that *they wish to recognise* descendants of the state.
irnbru wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:16 pm
God help us if
Perussuomalaiset
You spelt it wrong!
There's a likelihood that somebody will file a case when their application is rejected, all the way to the KHO. And then possibly to the ECHR.
I think a more reasonable approach that they would understand is to have an impact on public finances. Not a citizen, nor a permanent resident? Then the migrant has no responsibility either to pay for the cost of the society. Bring that on, and see how the PS run!