Today’s asylum system is dysfunctional and should reformers. We need a more coherent policy that will be more refugees to good, and that ensure necessary control over immigration to Europe.
TORSTEIN ULSERØD, Lawyer Civita
The ongoing refugee crisis has led to changes in asylum and immigration policy in a number of countries in Europe in recent months. It also applies to Norway. Just before New Year, the Government presented a proposal for several amendments to the rules “to tighten and make it less attractive to seek asylum in Norway”, as it says in the press release from the Ministry of Justice.
The proposals have created some strong reactions from both parts of the opposition and some organizations. The individual measures must of course be debated thoroughly. But in light of the context of these proposals, there is no doubt that any tightening in the direction Government proposes, is necessary. When neighboring countries are tightening, it will be untenable if Norway refrains from undertaking any other.
Tragic short straw
Torstein Ulserød
is, as many have pointed out, in many ways a race to the bottom and a “short straw” that is currently taking place in asylum policy in Europe, where countries compete to do as little as possible attractive for refugees.
This dynamic is understandable but tragic. The situation we are now in, it shows the weakness of the international refugee regime. It is a system which has neither succeeded in addressing the humanitarian considerations that justify asylum scheme or facilitates a controlled immigration.
The result is that countries are trying to regain control by tightening in ways that inevitably also affects refugees with protection needs. It is not right that, among other authorities argue that tightening only prevents those without protection needs from taking into Norway.
See also: Listhaug Turkey – Terrorist attacks can happen anytime hvorsom, anytime
A fairer system
It should be possible to create a better system. A system that is fairer, human and predictable. It was certainly our starting point when Sylo Taraku and I recently wrote a Civita-paper proposing a more comprehensive and rational refugee policy.
In the note we took advocated that the main choice in a new system for refugees should be to distinguish between large populations that are incidental victims of war, conflict and human rights violations, and refugees on an individual basis are targets for persecution.
War Refugees group can be addressed better through the EU calls “Regional development and protection program” (RDPP), which includes everything from accommodation deals in neighboring areas, integration and safe repatriation, resettlement of some refugees to safe third countries outside the Schengen area. That way we can safeguard the right to asylum in neighboring areas and help prevent tragedies associated with human smuggling.
In addition, there should be established a special program to ensure protection for human rights defenders and political dissidents, who originally was the main target group for Refugee Convention. These should know that if the risk becomes too great, ask the international community up for them, too, as a last resort, by offering asylum in a safe country.
Clearly need for new policies
Also Frode Forfang, director of UDI, has recently advocated a radical overhaul of the refugee policy in an article published in Aftenposten. Laminitis point to the same obvious shortcomings of the current system that we have described. In summary, one can say, that Forfang writes, that we have “an international refugee regime which is not able to handle the current migration crisis.”
It will be difficult to formulate a new policy for refugees. But the need to rethink and comprehensive refugee policies should now be obvious. Therefore, it is discouraging that the public debate between the parties increasingly dominated by positioning, petty squabbles and predictable rhetoric.
A large majority of parties have indeed gone in for a “review” of international conventions on refugees, the so-called asylum Settlement. It is hardly necessary to add about the practice. But in all cases, neither the Government nor the opposition parties suggested something about what changes you possibly envisage in the current system. Instead, use the powers of debate on national measures, as well as extensive discussions about other people’s rhetoric, and about who really has “ownership” of specific solutions.
A pan-European solution
We believes it is obvious that the current asylum system is dysfunctional and should reformers. We need a more coherent policy that will be more refugees to good, and that ensure necessary control over immigration to Europe.
National austerity measures is no satisfactory answer to the challenges we are facing, and we need common European solutions.
No one claims that it is easy to get to. But Norway’s ambition should be to contribute constructive proposals for solutions. Therefore we need a more general solution and debate on refugee policy. To contribute to such a debate should be a shared responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment