Biggest surprise about living in Finland?

[network_engineer]

They're not legal residents and not eligible to Kela I guess?

There are, not just residents, also citizens in abject poverty. There are charities run by volunteers that request people to donate basic items like food, clothes, shoes etc. and food. Rarely met anybody that is open to talking about it openly. Many people get stuck in boorocrazy!

The purpose of a country, any country, is to first and foremost act for the benefit of its own citizens. If you think otherwise, please explain why?

PART I
To what extent may a country act in the interest of its own citizens? ::

Colonialism? Slavery? Trafficking? War? Murder? Exploitation for immigrant workers? Racism? After all each of these did/ do benefit the citizens of the colonial power. So, what is the limit?

'Blind' patriotism, nationalism, and other synonyms :: Taking pride of being born in a country, skin, or any birthright privilege, where one had no choice, will, role, or even power to influence.

If yes, it is prudent of the country to set preferred standards for the people immigrating on a permanent basis. If you think otherwise, please explain why?

Every country can set the standards, the standards need to be fair. Immigration is of different types:

• 1. Family reunification (love, marriage)
  • The closet one with an obligation to honor their chosen country, since they chose to move here e.g. IF they are married to a native.

• 2. Humanitarian (e.g. refugee, asylum etc.)
  • Humanitarian immigrants may chose to be grateful but are not mandated to do so. E.g. if they have been driven out of their countries due to war, but then they move to a country that is sponsoring or part of the war that forced them to leave their homelands in the first place. They are not immigrants by choice, and cannot be forced e.g. to love a country that has destroyed their homeland.

• 3. Economic: Skills against jobs.
  • Economic immigrants are not true immigrants in the sense that they are not immigrating because they want to be part of a nation, they come skills-against-money.
    
    They have NOT taken on a moral binding or obligation on themselves to pay for the country's welfare needs at the cost of ignoring their own loved ones, e.g. at least their parents

PART II
So what if the person being worked against is a citizen? E.g. let's assume a young worker moves here, in due time becomes a citizen, but then has the burden of his aging and lone parent? Does acquiring the citizenship contractually mandate that they forego their parents? Chapter and clause to that commitment?

[SecretCode]

4) Do you want a bank account? Well guess what you can't get one unless you have a job!

Not true. I got a bank account based on my RP with no proof of income and no initial deposit.

[SecretCode]

2) Finnish Nationalism - one time I was passing by a fruit stall where a girl was selling strawberries, two different kinds, one from Spain and other from Finland, I asked her which ones are better, and she said obviously the Finnish ones are sooooooooooooooooo much better because they are Finnish!!. Obviously.

I would expect, and have seen, exactly the same attitudes from fruit sellers in Britain and in South Africa. And other places I'm sure. National pride is not the same as nationalism.

[FinnGuyHelsinki]

The purpose of a country, any country, is to first and foremost act for the benefit of its own citizens. If you think otherwise, please explain why?

PART I
To what extent may a country act in the interest of its own citizens? ::

Colonialism? Slavery? Trafficking? War? Murder? Exploitation for immigrant workers? Racism? After all each of these did/ do benefit the citizens of the colonial power. So, what is the limit?

'Blind' patriotism, nationalism, and other synonyms :: Taking pride of being born in a country, skin, or any birthright privilege, where one had no choice, will, role, or even power to influence.

If yes, it is prudent of the country to set preferred standards for the people immigrating on a permanent basis. If you think otherwise, please explain why?

Every country can set the standards, the standards need to be fair. Immigration is of different types:

• 1. Family reunification (love, marriage)
  • The closet one with an obligation to honor their chosen country, since they chose to move here e.g. IF they are married to a native.

• 2. Humanitarian (e.g. refugee, asylum etc.)
  • Humanitarian immigrants may chose to be grateful but are not mandated to do so. E.g. if they have been driven out of their countries due to war, but then they move to a country that is sponsoring or part of the war that forced them to leave their homelands in the first place. They are not immigrants by choice, and cannot be forced e.g. to love a country that has destroyed their homeland.

• 3. Economic: Skills against jobs.
  • Economic immigrants are not true immigrants in the sense that they are not immigrating because they want to be part of a nation, they come skills-against-money.
    
    They have NOT taken on a moral binding or obligation on themselves to pay for the country's welfare needs at the cost of ignoring their own loved ones, e.g. at least their parents

PART II
So what if the person being worked against is a citizen? E.g. let's assume a young worker moves here, in due time becomes a citizen, but then has the burden of his aging and lone parent? Does acquiring the citizenship contractually mandate that they forego their parents? Chapter and clause to that commitment?

Countries have different criteria and policies, and have every right putting their own citizens first. Monaco is a good example; in simplified terms, either you're a citizen, married to a citizen, have enough money or you cannot reside there. Those that meet the criteria and want to reside there, have no obligations whatsoever beyond obeying the local law. Citizens are given, among other things, preferential treatment in job selection and subsidies for rent. Would anyone honestly think they as a non-citizen deserve or are entitled to an exception, let alone demand that. It is not a universal human right to live in a country of their choosing on their own terms.

[network_engineer]

Countries have different criteria and policies, and have every right putting their own citizens first.

As asked earlier: To what extent can the policies go?

Colonialism? Slavery? Trafficking? War? Murder? Exploitation and racism towards non-native-citizens?

After all each of these did/ do benefit the citizens of the colonial power. So, what is the limit?

[esimerkki]

Lots of moaning and sense of entitlement in this thread.

The purpose of a country, any country, is to first and foremost act for the benefit of its own citizens. If you think otherwise, please explain why?

If yes, it is prudent of the country to set preferred standards for the people immigrating on a permanent basis. If you think otherwise, please explain why?

Yes, of course. Citizens first.

But when Abdul and Matti (who are both citizens of Finland) apply for a job with the exact CV, only the name is different, Matti will most likely be hired.
https://yle.fi/news/3-11026589

There is discrimination in Finland, there is discrimination EVERYWHERE in the world.
There are Finns who like to deny that this very human behavior exists in Finland, and call anyone who points out discrimination in Finland as they are moaning.
I find this silly.

[network_engineer]

But when Abdul and Matti (who are both citizens of Finland) apply for a job with the exact CV, only the name is different, Matti will most likely be hired.
https://yle.fi/news/3-11026589

THIS.

There are Finns who like to deny that this very human behavior exists in Finland, and call anyone who points out discrimination in Finland as they are moaning.
I find this silly.

THIS.

[agroot]

But when Abdul and Matti (who are both citizens of Finland) apply for a job with the exact CV, only the name is different, Matti will most likely be hired.
https://yle.fi/news/3-11026589

Why not just change names, if it's the only reason?

[riku2]

when Abdul and Matti (who are both citizens of Finland) apply for a job with the exact CV, only the name is different, Matti will most likely be hired.

I am not a Finnish citizen and have a very British name and after I was hired by Comptel the hiring manager told me that over 70 people applied for the job, many of them with Finnish names and I was chosen because the job was international and involved travel and they thought a foreigner living in FInland would handle that role better than somebody bought up in Finland.

But this is also discrimination, so proof again that discrimination exists in Finland!!

[esimerkki]

when Abdul and Matti (who are both citizens of Finland) apply for a job with the exact CV, only the name is different, Matti will most likely be hired.

I am not a Finnish citizen and have a very British name and after I was hired by Comptel the hiring manager told me that over 70 people applied for the job, many of them with Finnish names and I was chosen because the job was international and involved travel and they thought a foreigner living in FInland would handle that role better than somebody bought up in Finland.

But this is also discrimination, so proof again that discrimination exists in Finland!!

Yes, of course. I was waiting for an anecdote to refute the statistics.

[esimerkki]

But when Abdul and Matti (who are both citizens of Finland) apply for a job with the exact CV, only the name is different, Matti will most likely be hired.
https://yle.fi/news/3-11026589

Why not just change names, if it's the only reason?

The name is not the point. It is just an easy way to figure out your background before the interview.

[NukkuMatti]

Lots of moaning and sense of entitlement in this thread.

The purpose of a country, any country, is to first and foremost act for the benefit of its own citizens. If you think otherwise, please explain why?

If yes, it is prudent of the country to set preferred standards for the people immigrating on a permanent basis. If you think otherwise, please explain why?

Yes I kow already older post in this thread but needed to comment on it due to .... well read the comment:

No !!! that is exactly the point what is wrong with Finns, they think alike you... which is the whole hate and discrimination creating problem!!!
You feel you have WAY more rights than others who are not Citizen.



It is the purpose of the country, any country, to first and foremost act on the benefit of its "tax paying RESIDENTS", which is the whole point here...

Why would you be as a Citizen (not even talking about naturalized Citizens which you seem to exclude in your statement hence they are also immigrants facing the same issues), have a bigger right to wealth / health / social services / securities and happiness than residents that also pay the same taxes as Citizens and sometimes even more due to income from abroad .. but face bigger struggles exactly due to your way of thinking.

Note: I am not talking about illegal immigrants here for clarity's sake but even for them arguments could be made regarding their rights.

Your way of thinking is exactly what is wrong with Finns!! Thank you for highlighting it and proving my / our point.

[agroot]

No !!! that is exactly the point what is wrong with Finns, they think alike you... which is the whole hate and discrimination creating problem!!!
You feel you have WAY more rights than others who are not Citizen.

It is the purpose of the country, any country, to first and foremost act on the benefit of its "tax paying RESIDENTS"

Citizenship is a privilege and residence status is a step up from tourist, to get workforce and potential citizens.

It's like a club with several grades of membership. A good club attracts new members by offering more benefits than other clubs; Treating everyone equally is not a benefit or an advantage.

[network_engineer]

Citizenship is a privilege and residence status is a step up from tourist, to get workforce and potential citizens.

It is odd to equate residents with tourists! Tourists pay for what they want, they are not obliged to pay for anything not even care about the locals.

To make a point, consider that you travel to a 3rd world country. You pay for the benefits you want: Tourism, hotel, ice-creams whatever! You are NOT paying for nor willing to pay for the miseries of the country.

A good club attracts new members by offering more benefits than other clubs; Treating everyone equally is not a benefit or an advantage.

That analogy works against the argument. If I went to a club where I am paying equally or more for membership, and more for a club soda (why?), and don't get the same benefits or respect ... ?

[agroot]

That analogy works against the argument. If I went to a club where I am paying equally or more for membership, and more for a club soda (why?), and don't get the same benefits or respect ... ?

But you can't work or stay for longer time, being a tourist. Also being a resident grants social security until the permit expires.

What I meant is that Finland only needs to offer competitive benefits over other countries. Whether it's the same as citizenship is not relevant unless their preferred kind of immigrants would choose here for that.