HS: Kokoomus ja keskusta kiristäisivät perheenyhdistämisen ehtoja

Helsingin Sanomat: Kokoomus ja keskusta kiristäisivät perheenyhdistämisen ehtoja 14.4.2011

Helsingin Sanomat: Centre and Nat. Coalition parties want tougher regulations on immigration for family unification

Kokoomuksen ja keskustan mielestä Suomen täytyy seuraavalla vaalikaudella muuttaa ulkomaalaislain säännöksiä perheenyhdistämisistä. Puolueiden mielestä se jäi tällä vaalikaudella tekemättä, vaikka aihetta olisi ollut.

Puolueiden mainitsemat ongelmat koskevat lähinnä sitä, millä ehdoilla pakolaiseksi hyväksytty Suomeen tulija tai oleskeluluvan muun suojelun perusteella saanut ulkomaalainen saa Suomeen muita perheenjäseniään.

Perheenyhdistämishakemukset ovat ruuhkautuneet pahasti. Niitä on jonossa noin 5 500 kappaletta. Viime vuonna yli neljännes hakemuksista hylättiin. Perheenyhdistäminen tarkoittaa sitä, että maahanmuuttaja saa tuoda Suomeen myös ydinperheensä.

Kokoomuksen ja keskustan mielestä pääongelma on se, että Suomi ei aseta kansainvälistä suojelua saaneelle ulkomaalaiselle tarpeeksi ehtoja perheen yhdistämiseksi.

Puolueiden linja tuli esille, kun eduskunnan hallintovaliokunta pyysi maahanmuuttoministeri Astrid Thorsilta (r) selvityksen siitä, millaisia perheenyhdistämiskäytäntöjä on Euroopan maissa. Valiokunnassa keskusta ja kokoomus kritisoivat selvityksen johtopäätöstä, jonka mukaan Suomessa ei olisi tarvetta muutoksiin.

Suomen maahanmuuttopolitiikka alkoi kiristyä 2009, kun hallitus teki niin sanotun puolivälitarkastelun.

Turvapaikkahakemusten määrä oli kasvanut vauhdilla, ja poliitikoille tuli kiire kartoittaa Suomen maahanmuuttopolitiikan vetovoimatekijät.

Vetovoimatekijöillä tarkoitetaan sitä, että Suomen etuuksissa ja prosesseissa on yksityiskohtia, jotka houkuttelevat turvapaikanhakijoita.

Turvapaikkahakemusten käsittelyaika on ollut pitkä, ja koko käsittelyn ajan hakijat ovat voineet olla turvapaikanhakijoiden vastaanoton piirissä ja nostaa toimeentulotukea.

Sdp:n maahanmuutto-ohjelman kirjoittanut kansanedustaja Maarit Feldt-Ranta sanoo, että hallituksen linja maahanmuutossa on ollut sekava:

"Tarvittaisiin vakautta ja ennustettavuutta, sillä tällaisessa hallitsemattomassa tilanteessa syntyy virheitä", Feldt-Ranta arvioi.

_________________________________________________

Helsingin Sanomat: Centre and Nat. Coalition parties want tougher regulations on immigration for family unification

Rise in asylum seekers leads to changes in immigration policy

The two current largest government parties, the Centre Party and the National Coalition Party, feel that Finland needs to change the rules on family unification in the law on immigration.
The parties say that the changes should have been made in the electoral term that is coming to an end, but it did not happen.
The National Coalition Party feels that the issue should be brought up in the next government formation talks.

Family unification means that immigrants are allowed to bring their nuclear families into Finland. The problems mentioned by the parties mainly apply to the terms under which a person who has been granted refugee status in Finland, or a foreigner who has been granted a residence permit because of a need for protection can bring other family members to Finland.
There is a serious backlog in family unification applications. At present, there are more than 5,500 waiting to be processed. Last year more than a quarter of them were rejected.

The main problem in the view of the Centre and the National Coalition parties is that Finland does not impose sufficiently strict conditions for family unification for foreigners.
The views of the parties came out at the very end of the Parliamentary term, when the Parliament’s Administration Committee asked Immigration and European Affairs Minister Astrid Thors (Swed. People’s Party) for a report on the family unification policies of other European countries. Centre and National Coalition Party members on the committee criticised the conclusion drawn in the report according to which there would be no need for changes in Finland.
“It would be good to adopt the Danish practice according to which a person first needs to be self-sufficient, and to have housing available”, says MP Arto Satonen, who has written the immigration platform of the National Coalition Party.

Centre Party MP Antti Rantakangas considers the line taken by the Administration Committee that he chairs to be a good one. In addition to the housing requirement, someone bringing in family members from abroad would be expected not to have used welfare benefits for a year or two before submitting an application.
The committee also felt that of all EU countries only Finland accepts foster children as family members.
One member of the committee, True Finns MP Pietari Jääskeläinen, said that the committee has been much more active in immigration issues than Minister Thors.

Finnish immigration policy became more restrictive in 2009 when the government made its so-called half-way assessment.
The number of asylum applications has grown rapidly, and politicians scrambled to ascertain the factors in immigration policy that make Finland especially attractive.
“We have been a bit naive. The loopholes need to be examined to prevent negative attitudes from emerging against immigration in general”, Arto Satonen said.

Efforts were made to cut back on the factors that make Finland especially attractive. The clearest success was on the issue of asylum applications by citizens of other European Union countries.
Roma from Bulgaria applied for asylum in Finland knowing quite well that asylum cannot be given to the citizen of another EU country. However, as processing times were slow, the asylum applicants were able to spend the entire time at refugee reception centres, enjoying income supplement benefits.
To stop this, Finland instituted a system of fast-track processing of applications of EU citizens. Negative decisions came quickly, and the number of applications fell sharply.

As Jääskeläinen sees it, the worst problem with Finnish immigration policy today is that 70 per cent of asylum seekers are rejected.
“The costs of one person in a refugee reception centres is EUR 50,000 a year. With the same money it would be possible to help dozens of asylum seekers near their homes, where there is a similar culture, climate, and religion.”
Another problem in Jääskeläinen’s view is that there is no certainty of the actual final costs of immigration.

MP Maarit Feldt-Ranta, who has written the immigration platform of the Social Democratic Party, says that the government’s line on immigration has been confused.
“We would need stability and predictability, as mistakes happen in this kind of an uncontrolled situation.”