Boundaries of Belonging: Highly Skilled Migrants and the Migrant Hierarchy in Finland

Abstract

This article introduces a concept of a “migrant hierarchy,” a framework that is formed from Finnish society's perceptions of different types of immigrants. The hierarchy places value on immigrants in Finland based on their ethnicity, socio-economic status, and various other interlinking factors, dividing them into differently valued categories. Against this framework, the relevance of such a hierarchy to the everyday lives of highly skilled migrants in Finland is explored, using data from ethnographic fieldwork and interviews. The data are used to describe these migrants’ experiences of being categorized and perceived as particular types of immigrants, and the relevance of these experiences to their social lives and their self-defined group identities. The data show, firstly, that highly skilled migrants in Finland are aware of the migrant hierarchy, and that it has an impact on their lives. Secondly, although they object to its homogenizing and hierarchizing aspects, the categorizations of the hierarchy are still internalized to a certain extent, affecting identity constructions. Exploring these issues reveals boundaries that imply underlying problems in regards to the social integration and feelings of belonging by highly skilled migrants in Finland.

Examining the Impact of Conscript Service on the Labour Market Integration of Migrants

“…For instance, one interviewee, who had moved to Finland 6 years ago, noted that during his service, "I have been in contact with more Finns than previously during my whole life" (Interview 8). Despite previous research indicating difficulties in forming friendships with the majority population (Koskela, 2014;Li & Pitkänen, 2018;Tiilikainen, 2000), the context of conscript service does seem to provide an avenue for such connections.…”

“…Lack of these bridging ties, on the other hand, is the second-most common barrier to employment (after lack of language skills) according to migrants in Finland (Martelin et al, 2020). However, migrants often rely on their social contacts with other migrants, as building a network of social contacts among native citizens is found to be difficult (Koskela, 2014;Li & Pitkänen, 2018;Tiilikainen, 2000). Due to the generally disadvantaged position of migrants in the labour market, they are more likely to be aware of job opportunities in the secondary labour market, which can then lead to workplace segregation (OECD, 2018).…”

Navigating the Cultures of Health Care and Health Insurance

“…Salazar and Smart 2011), the politics of mobility (cf. Vertovec 2007) and an increasing awareness of the consequences of the inherent power relations of such a classification, much less research has focused on how transmigrants view their mobility and how categorization shapes their experiences (for exceptions to this trend, see Koskela 2013;Cranston 2017). In fact, as I will discuss throughout this book, these labels also create certain assumptions, which in turn can influence how individuals see themselves and their chances for successful integration into the medical system and the host society in general (Anthias 2012: 103;cf.…”

Vicarious comparative victimhood: Introducing a framework to illustrate vicariously experienced inequalities in behaviors toward members of victimized groups.

“…Recent research on acculturation strategies and outcomes that includes relatively more dominant versus nondominant groups considers the relationships between several groups in pluralistic societies (for an overview, see Berry et al, 2022; also see Schwartz & Cobb, 2022). Moreover, empirical findings building on paradigms like the stereotype content model (e.g., Fiske et al, 2002) suggest that different out-groups are ranked, also in terms of more or less favorably valanced characteristics (e.g., Kotzur et al, 2019), indicating varying preferences and out-group hierarchies (Hagendoorn, 1995; Koskela, 2014). Such rankings may produce differential treatment of others, as they may determine the extent to which members of different out-groups are discriminated against, for instance, based on the perceptions of differential threats from distinct groups (e.g., Hellwig & Sinno, 2017).…”