A matter of ethic

This is clearly a highly topical issue of major importance, but let there be no illusions that it is also a difficult and controversial one that has generated a broad variety of opinions, analyses and comments. Today I will talk a little bit about political issues in Denmark. I wish to revisit this topic today, due to its currency and importance to the business you are in.

As you maybe already know, on January 26 of 2016, the Folketing adopted a legislative package containing amendments that alter the Danish legislation on asylum and immigration. The changes were supported by a broad majority in the Danish Parliament, including the Social Democratic Party. The amendments in question were strongly criticized in the press and the European Parliament . These criticisms focused their restrictive nature to discourage the influx of asylum seekers in Denmark. Among the most contested measures, even the most publicized, included those relating to the ability to seize assets of asylum seekers (value and cash items) having a value greater than 10,000 kroner (1,400 euros) and those for curing the right to family reunification. "The most evil bill including the history of Denmark", said the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Lokken Liberal Rasmussen responding to critics who were already circulating before the approval of measures in the Danish Parliament.

The approved law gives authorities the right to search the luggage and clothing of the applicants to retain the assets they have to cover the expenses of their welcome and their stay until their applications processed since "those who can help themselves should not be helped by the state. "

Other restrictive measures concern the criteria to obtain a permanent residence permit, reducing the duration of refugee status (from 5 years to 2 years), the abolition of the right to housing outside of camps for couples with children and finally the tightening of rules which disciplined the condition for acquiring a residence permit.

Anyway, the LIBE Committee said that even if a country constrained by legislative instruments , including the confiscation of property and other interventions at the same time stressed that the unilateral (selfish view )will be a factor of fragmentation of European policies on asylum, by removing the path to a common solution. The danger is especially that of seeing other countries in the region to adopt such measures. Indeed, measures of this type already exist in Switzerland (but... as I should remind... it is not part of the European Union).

Several voices were raised against the amendments. The Amnesty International, the Danish Institute for Human Rights  and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) accuse the Danish country to foster fear and xenophobia.

Because the confiscation of property is rather a symbolic act, to discourage the arrival of new applicants. 

But, on the other hand, the Danish government then sponsored the new measures by publishing an advertisement on a popular Lebanese newspaper (the Lebanon currently hosts about 1 million Syrian refugees). The announcement stressed that Denmark had reduced social benefits relating to refugees, providing that those who benefit from the status in question would have to wait at least one year so that it can access the right to family reunification, the residence permit “n” would have been granted that those who already speak Danish and finally that applicants subject to a refusal of protection would have been sent directly to their countries of origin.

We should bear in mind that Denmark hosted 21,500 refugees in 2015 and there are 25,000 expected in 2016. According to the Minister of Immigration, the country is among the 10 European countries that host the most refugees per capita.

The Danish case shows that what is called the "refugee crisis" has now become a crisis in Europe, which is facing now with nationalist tendencies and his populist countries and unilateral solutions that evoke a past that “n”statue, is not too far sometimes to a failure to find a common solution, never accomplished solution still further.

But as long as I was living in Denmark, I can assert that I have quite never seen any tramp staying outside (hopefully... because it is way too cold to do so). We can suppose that should show that Denmark has better integrated its refugees than other European such as France (or even Sweden where I have seen many tramps in Malmô and Gôteborg). Furthermore, the Danish government suspends the “social advantages” for them... but we should keep in mind as well, that the normal social advantages are quite significant. For example, nobody has to pay the doctor  visits. But this is permitted by high contribution taxes.

When I heard French people talking about this topic, they widely criticised Denmark for being a “racist” and “selfish” country. But they forgot to balance their criticisms with the benefits of the “good integration policy”. This may be due because they have never been there to see the  standard of living for real.

Eventually, emigration measures still being a matter of ethic and economic opportunities as well. But maybe, if the country hasn't yet the accommodations to host the refugees and career opportunities, it may be fare to declare those points through “not ethical emigration measures”. Mostly if it is a Northern country where you can settle outside more than one month during summer time. But given the global tremendous emergency of hosting refugees : “are, those last arguments, enough for ignoring the  European and worldwide solidarity ?”

Lorianne.