Hi,
I must congratulate this forum, fastastically done and very active (seeing the number and frequency of posts).
Now, if I may ask a question to which we have not yet found an answer: We live here in Finland, and have Permanent Residence Permits. I have some conflicting information regarding the validity of the Permanent Residence Permits.
A few of us seem like being under the threat of layoffs. Now some of the Finns that I've spoken to say that well, Permanent Residence Permits, unlike the e.g. US Green Cards are not really permanent and that we can remain here only as long as we are in gainful employment or can find another job before the earlier one ends (if it does) and that this is especially true for people like us, where both of us, i.e. my hubby and I are not Finns (not Finnish citizens).
However, some others tell us that this is incorrect and that Permanent Residence Permits are not subject to gainful employments. In other words, we can stay on and find another job and we have the right to social security as everyone else.
Can somebody please clarify this for us? Additionally, what are the conditions under which we may lose this permit.
Thanks.
Question about Permanent Residence Permits & Social Security
-
sprucenaspen
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:48 pm
It depends whether your permit really is permanent (P) or continuous (A). Also a continuous permit is temporary by nature (valid for max 3 years at a time). For those who have arrived after spring 2004 a permanent permit can be granted after living in Finland with A status permit for four years. For those who have moved to Finland by 30.4.2004 the limit is 2 years.
A permanent (P) permit is permanent, but a continuous (A) one not, as you will have to have grounds for having it extended.
Also whether you are an EU citizens has a role in this...
A permanent (P) permit is permanent, but a continuous (A) one not, as you will have to have grounds for having it extended.
Also whether you are an EU citizens has a role in this...
-
Hank W.
- The Motorhead
- Posts: 29973
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 10:00 pm
- Location: Mushroom Mountain
- Contact:
Well, have you read through this page at www.uvi.fi?
Basically, you may change a job "within the profession". So if you got a job as a bus driver you cannot go wash dishes, but probably you can drive a truck.
Then it also depends your type of permit - if its one of these temporary ones that has an end date - you'd need to have a job to renew it probably. If it is a 'pysyvä' then you don't need to worry as much.
Social security - as on the dole? If you did not to read the small print look again - the dole isn't much if anything, unless you belonged to a union/an unemployment fund.
Getting the residence permit revoked requires either being really naughty and getting jailed or then leaving Finland for 2 years. Depending on the circumstances they explain on the UVI pages.
Basically, you may change a job "within the profession". So if you got a job as a bus driver you cannot go wash dishes, but probably you can drive a truck.
Then it also depends your type of permit - if its one of these temporary ones that has an end date - you'd need to have a job to renew it probably. If it is a 'pysyvä' then you don't need to worry as much.
Social security - as on the dole? If you did not to read the small print look again - the dole isn't much if anything, unless you belonged to a union/an unemployment fund.
Getting the residence permit revoked requires either being really naughty and getting jailed or then leaving Finland for 2 years. Depending on the circumstances they explain on the UVI pages.
Cheers, Hank W.
sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.
sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.
-
Hank W.
- The Motorhead
- Posts: 29973
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 10:00 pm
- Location: Mushroom Mountain
- Contact:
EU citizens can live in the fields as cows if they wish. They have an automagical permit, so this is a 'non issue' for EU citizens.zam wrote: Also whether you are an EU citizens has a role in this...
The small print re: the dole applies, as it applies to Finns, Finns just get this explained on 9th grade in school before they're eligible for it.
Cheers, Hank W.
sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.
sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.
-
sprucenaspen
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:48 pm
Thanks zam and Hank W.,
We have the P permit. P is the same as Pysyvä, is it not? So, this is permanent in nature? And no, we are not EU citizens.
Does this mean, that people in the same situation as us (e.g. under the threat of a layoff), if layed off (hopefully not), can continue to live in Finland, despite not being on gainful employment? For how long? So, if I were to refine my question, under what circumstances can the P type permit be revoked? By being naughty, I assume you are talking of criminal activities? No, we don't intend to. BTW, I'd also like to know, what constitutes such activities. Somebody told me that according to the law, a simple red light jump can get somebody ejected. Is that true?
Also, since we have the P permit, does it not mean that we can work in any gainful profession and is not limited to one area?
I'll try to read through http://www.uvi.fi as well, it seems it's all in Finnish.
Thx.
We have the P permit. P is the same as Pysyvä, is it not? So, this is permanent in nature? And no, we are not EU citizens.
Does this mean, that people in the same situation as us (e.g. under the threat of a layoff), if layed off (hopefully not), can continue to live in Finland, despite not being on gainful employment? For how long? So, if I were to refine my question, under what circumstances can the P type permit be revoked? By being naughty, I assume you are talking of criminal activities? No, we don't intend to. BTW, I'd also like to know, what constitutes such activities. Somebody told me that according to the law, a simple red light jump can get somebody ejected. Is that true?
Also, since we have the P permit, does it not mean that we can work in any gainful profession and is not limited to one area?
I'll try to read through http://www.uvi.fi as well, it seems it's all in Finnish.
Thx.
-
sprucenaspen
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:48 pm
Hank! That was funny. Yes, I found the English version soon after.
Unfortunately, my understanding of laws and legal aspects is rather weak. The only thing I found there in the "Aliens" Act (funny name) was what was said earlier, i.e. if you move out from Finland or if you acquire citizenship.
Is this understanding correct? So, can someone re-affirm that the P permits are not cancelled under the circumstances mentioned above in this post?
It also says that fixed term may be cancelled if the grounds no longer exist, but I guess that is not applicable to P permits since P is no fixed term?????? Just confirming, since I have no experience with legal text.
Thx.
Unfortunately, my understanding of laws and legal aspects is rather weak. The only thing I found there in the "Aliens" Act (funny name) was what was said earlier, i.e. if you move out from Finland or if you acquire citizenship.
Is this understanding correct? So, can someone re-affirm that the P permits are not cancelled under the circumstances mentioned above in this post?
It also says that fixed term may be cancelled if the grounds no longer exist, but I guess that is not applicable to P permits since P is no fixed term?????? Just confirming, since I have no experience with legal text.
Thx.
I'm sure I have explained this before several times, but here we go again.
A permanent residence permit has no expiry date. It constitutes permission to remain in Finland for an indefinite period, i.e. for ever. This permission lapses on explicit re-emigration (where the immigrant notifies permanent departure from Finland) or de facto re-emigration (an absence of two years from Finland, unless a dispensation has been issued on request), and it expires in the event of expulsion from Finland. Such expulsion requires serious grounds coupled with an assessment of the balance between individual rights and the public interest. A deportation order is open to appeal to an administrative court and cannot be enforced until the appeal process has ended.
I am unfamiliar with the details of the US Green Card, but I understand that a permanent residence permit is more or less the same thing. Given the present uncertain relationship between executive and judicial power in the USA, I suspect that a Finnish permanent residence permit is more secure than a US Green Card.
The basic deportation threshold is conviction for a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of not less than one year or conviction for several less serious criminal offences. Although the police always request a deportation order in such cases, the Directorate of Immigration often declines to issue such orders and the administrative courts also strike down some of the orders that are issued. This may occur because of the degree of severity of the offence committed or because of the balance of rights and public interest noted above.
An amendment to the Aliens Act will soon introduce a new residential status for long-term residents that increases the expulsion threshold (IMHO) to match the threshold for expelling an EU citizen. It will then be possible to expel the foreigner only if the foreigner constitutes an ongoing danger to public safety. A mere criminal record would not, by itself, be enough to show this.
Expulsion on economic grounds alone of a foreigner with a permanent residence permit is simply not possible.
daryl
A permanent residence permit has no expiry date. It constitutes permission to remain in Finland for an indefinite period, i.e. for ever. This permission lapses on explicit re-emigration (where the immigrant notifies permanent departure from Finland) or de facto re-emigration (an absence of two years from Finland, unless a dispensation has been issued on request), and it expires in the event of expulsion from Finland. Such expulsion requires serious grounds coupled with an assessment of the balance between individual rights and the public interest. A deportation order is open to appeal to an administrative court and cannot be enforced until the appeal process has ended.
I am unfamiliar with the details of the US Green Card, but I understand that a permanent residence permit is more or less the same thing. Given the present uncertain relationship between executive and judicial power in the USA, I suspect that a Finnish permanent residence permit is more secure than a US Green Card.
The basic deportation threshold is conviction for a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of not less than one year or conviction for several less serious criminal offences. Although the police always request a deportation order in such cases, the Directorate of Immigration often declines to issue such orders and the administrative courts also strike down some of the orders that are issued. This may occur because of the degree of severity of the offence committed or because of the balance of rights and public interest noted above.
An amendment to the Aliens Act will soon introduce a new residential status for long-term residents that increases the expulsion threshold (IMHO) to match the threshold for expelling an EU citizen. It will then be possible to expel the foreigner only if the foreigner constitutes an ongoing danger to public safety. A mere criminal record would not, by itself, be enough to show this.
Expulsion on economic grounds alone of a foreigner with a permanent residence permit is simply not possible.
daryl
Wo ai Zhong-guo ren
-
network_engineer
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 10:21 am
Greetings Daryl,
Regarding "The basic deportation threshold is conviction for a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of not less than one year or conviction for several less serious criminal offences.", if I remember correctly, I did mention the differences in translation to you sometime. The English version says thus:
"
Section 149, 2) he or she is found guilty of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of a year, or if he or she is found guilty of repeated offences;
"
Maximum of one year? With a minimum of 30 seconds?
The Finnish versions states "2) jonka on todettu syyllistyneen rikokseen, josta on säädetty enimmäisrangaistuksena vähintään yksi vuosi vankeutta, taikka jonka on todettu syyllistyneen toistuvasti rikoksiin;"
enimmäisrangaistuksena = as a maximum punishment (essiivi)
vähintään = at a / the minimum or at least / at the very least
The bill to the Act says thus:
"Momentin 2 kohdassa nykyisen lain ilmaus ”syyllistynyt” rikokseen ehdotetaan muutettavaksi muotoon ”on todettu syyllistyneen”. Päätöstä karkottamisesta ei nykyisenkään hallintokäytännön mukaan tehdä, ennen kuin rikostuomio on annettu. Asia on syytä selventää lakiin. Sanamuoto ”on todettu syyllistyneen” on tarkoitettu kattamaan myös tilanteet, jolloin ulkomaalainen on todettu syyllistyneen rikokseen, mutta hänet on jätetty rangaistukseen tuomitsematta esimerkiksi täyttä ymmärrystä vailla olevana. Tältä osin ehdotetaan vielä tarkentavaa säännöstä 2 momenttiin. Enimmäisrangaistuksen minimin osalta sanamuotoa ehdotetaan täsmennettäväksi säännöksen pysyessä sisällöltään samana.
"
I must confess, I am a bit confused by the text. Would you help to clarify this?
Kind regards.
Regarding "The basic deportation threshold is conviction for a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of not less than one year or conviction for several less serious criminal offences.", if I remember correctly, I did mention the differences in translation to you sometime. The English version says thus:
"
Section 149, 2) he or she is found guilty of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of a year, or if he or she is found guilty of repeated offences;
"
Maximum of one year? With a minimum of 30 seconds?
The Finnish versions states "2) jonka on todettu syyllistyneen rikokseen, josta on säädetty enimmäisrangaistuksena vähintään yksi vuosi vankeutta, taikka jonka on todettu syyllistyneen toistuvasti rikoksiin;"
enimmäisrangaistuksena = as a maximum punishment (essiivi)
vähintään = at a / the minimum or at least / at the very least
The bill to the Act says thus:
"Momentin 2 kohdassa nykyisen lain ilmaus ”syyllistynyt” rikokseen ehdotetaan muutettavaksi muotoon ”on todettu syyllistyneen”. Päätöstä karkottamisesta ei nykyisenkään hallintokäytännön mukaan tehdä, ennen kuin rikostuomio on annettu. Asia on syytä selventää lakiin. Sanamuoto ”on todettu syyllistyneen” on tarkoitettu kattamaan myös tilanteet, jolloin ulkomaalainen on todettu syyllistyneen rikokseen, mutta hänet on jätetty rangaistukseen tuomitsematta esimerkiksi täyttä ymmärrystä vailla olevana. Tältä osin ehdotetaan vielä tarkentavaa säännöstä 2 momenttiin. Enimmäisrangaistuksen minimin osalta sanamuotoa ehdotetaan täsmennettäväksi säännöksen pysyessä sisällöltään samana.
"
I must confess, I am a bit confused by the text. Would you help to clarify this?
Kind regards.
-
Hank W.
- The Motorhead
- Posts: 29973
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 10:00 pm
- Location: Mushroom Mountain
- Contact:
The English translation should read probably "guilty of an offence where at minimum the the maximum sentence is imprisonment for one year"... The English grammar doesn't follow Finnish logic (and translations have no legal validity anyhow)
Basically when you look at the Finnish criminal code you see in the text
a) to a fine or to imprisonment for at most six months.
b) to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.
so no minimum sentences.
Q: 2 guys A and B get fined in court. A for a and B for b. Which one of them is deported and why?
A: B because offence b) has a maximum sentence of two years. A is not deported as his offence a) has the maximum of 6 months. B passes the minimum of one year maximum threshold passed as the maximum sentence of the crime (even if he got off with a fine).
Basically when you look at the Finnish criminal code you see in the text
a) to a fine or to imprisonment for at most six months.
b) to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.
so no minimum sentences.
Q: 2 guys A and B get fined in court. A for a and B for b. Which one of them is deported and why?
A: B because offence b) has a maximum sentence of two years. A is not deported as his offence a) has the maximum of 6 months. B passes the minimum of one year maximum threshold passed as the maximum sentence of the crime (even if he got off with a fine).
Cheers, Hank W.
sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.
sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.
Congratulations network_engineer, your Finnish has reached a standard at which you can find silly translation errors in Interior Ministry documents.
Now here is a suggestion as to how to proceed:
1. Find the translation on the UVI website. Note the URL of the pdf document and download a copy.
2. Send an e-mail to the Director-General of UVI, the webmaster and the Minister of the Interior pointing out the error and requesting correction.
3. Wait six months and then verify that nothing has been done. Simply program your calendar to remind you to check the same url again.
4. Forward your e-mail as a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I can provide a template based on a similar complaint that I sent last year concerning the Ministry of Labour website. You can refer to this complaint and point out to the Ombudsman that his office is fast establishing a regular role in amending incorrect public information because ministries do not respond to simple requests.
The Ministry of Labour ignored my request to correct an obvious error on its website until I enlisted the support of the Ombudsman, who then sweetly advised me that there was no need to take action "because the error had been corrected". In other words, the Ministry does not respond to polite requests until they become formal complaints to a legal watchdog, but then it jumps to fix the problem.
The track record of UVI is no better in this respect, but let's at least give them a chance to prove otherwise.
The Ministry will inevitably argue that its translation is unofficial, but this does not constitute an excuse for not correcting a significant error that has been pointed out.
daryl
Now here is a suggestion as to how to proceed:
1. Find the translation on the UVI website. Note the URL of the pdf document and download a copy.
2. Send an e-mail to the Director-General of UVI, the webmaster and the Minister of the Interior pointing out the error and requesting correction.
3. Wait six months and then verify that nothing has been done. Simply program your calendar to remind you to check the same url again.
4. Forward your e-mail as a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I can provide a template based on a similar complaint that I sent last year concerning the Ministry of Labour website. You can refer to this complaint and point out to the Ombudsman that his office is fast establishing a regular role in amending incorrect public information because ministries do not respond to simple requests.
The Ministry of Labour ignored my request to correct an obvious error on its website until I enlisted the support of the Ombudsman, who then sweetly advised me that there was no need to take action "because the error had been corrected". In other words, the Ministry does not respond to polite requests until they become formal complaints to a legal watchdog, but then it jumps to fix the problem.
The track record of UVI is no better in this respect, but let's at least give them a chance to prove otherwise.
The Ministry will inevitably argue that its translation is unofficial, but this does not constitute an excuse for not correcting a significant error that has been pointed out.
daryl
Wo ai Zhong-guo ren