[ad_1]
Michala Clante Bendixen is chair of Refugees Welcome, Denmark and country coordinator for Denmark for the European Commission’s European Web Site on Integration.
COPENHAGEN — What has happened to Denmark? Once renowned as a liberal, tolerant, open-minded society with respect for human rights and a strong and humane welfare state, we have now become the first country in Europe to revoke residence permits for Syrian refugees.
Last week, Danish authorities ruled that the security situation around Damascus has improved, despite evidence of dire living conditions and continued persecution by Bashar al-Assad’s regime. As a result, they stripped 94 refugees of their right to stay in the country. Another recently introduced proposal would move all asylum applicants outside Denmark.
In other words, Denmark — the first country to sign the U.N. Refugee Convention in 1951 — has now adopted an asylum policy that’s less like that of its Scandinavian neighbors than of nationalist countries like Austria or Hungary.
Thankfully, nobody is being sent back to Syria anytime soon. Under the new system, refugees have to have lived in Denmark for at least 10 years for their attachment to the country to be considered strong enough for continued residence, no matter how hard they have worked or studied. However, it’s currently impossible to deport anyone back to Syria — Denmark won’t negotiate with Assad — and very few Syrians are willing to return voluntarily. So those who lose their residency permits will likely end up in Danish camps awaiting deportation or in other European countries.
But the fact remains that Denmark is now passing laws with obviously discriminatory purposes, with politicians on both the left and right speaking about ethnic minorities and Muslims in terms that would be unimaginable in neighboring countries. Indeed, had this law been pushed forward by a hard-right government it might not have been surprising. But Denmark is currently governed by a left-wing coalition led by the Social Democrats. What, indeed, has happened to our country?
The answer lies in a tug of war between the Social Democrats and the far-right Danish People’s Party. Though the Danish People’s Party has never been part of a government, its representatives have spent the past two decades using their mandates for a single purpose: They only vote for bills concerning other issues if they get restrictions on foreigners in return. Step by step, the Danish People’s Party has dragged all the other parties in their direction — none more so than the Social Democrats with whom they compete for working-class voters.
In 2001, a right-wing government made the first radical restrictions for refugees and foreigners. And while the Social Democrats first opposed it, they soon changed their strategy to fend off the challenge from the Danish People’s Party. At first, not all Social Democrats agreed to the new hard-line policy, but the party gradually came to embrace it, along with the vast majority of their voters. Today the Danish People’s Party has become almost redundant. Their policies, once denounced as racist and extreme, have now become mainstream.
Two years ago, the government passed legislation turning the concept of refugee protection upside down: It replaced efforts at long-term integration and equal rights with temporary stays, limited rights and a focus on deportation at the earliest possibility. Paradoxically, this came at a time when Denmark received the lowest number of refugees in 30 years, and integration had been going better than ever in terms of employment, education and language skills.
Meanwhile, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board has been stripped of its experts and cut down to only three members including an employee from the ministry of immigration, thus making it not quite as independent as the government claims, but more in line with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen who is pursuing a goal of having “zero asylum seekers.”
Currently, Danish politicians are discussing a bill that is even more extreme than its predecessors: a loose and imprecise plan for a contract to transfer asylum seekers who arrive in Denmark to a non-European country (most likely in Africa), where their cases will be processed. If they are granted asylum, they will stay in that third country.
The minister says it would make the asylum system more “humane and fair,” but Danish human rights organizations and the UNHCR say it will do precisely the opposite. The plan is essentially a new form of colonialism, paying others to take care of “unwanted” persons far away from Denmark, and not accepting even a small portion of the millions of refugees in the world.
Fortunately, it seems like the right wing is so offended by the Social Democrats co-opting and expanding their policies that they will vote against it. But if it passes, the policy could have terrible consequences for collaboration within the European Union and on the international level.
This game has gone too far. Most Danes are not racist or against human rights and solidarity. But it’s getting hard to see how we can find our way back.
[ad_2]
Source link
