Immigration policy spokesperson in the Progress Party
Today’s asylum system is not sustainable, but cynical and unethical.
This is a debate post. Opinions in the text are at the writer’s expense.
In 2009, the Progress Party in the Storting proposed establishing an asylum center in third countries. The proposal at the time meant that asylum seekers to Norway should be sent to reception in safe third countries while the asylum application was being processed.
The characteristics hailed. The proposal was branded as both “irresponsible”, “right-wing extremist” and “racist”. Now, 12 years later, the Danish Parliament, led by a Social Democratic government, adopts the same proposal that the FRP put forward in 2009 and has since spoken out.
The legislative changes in Denmark are the first step on the road and a new European asylum system.
The need for a new asylum system
Europe’s need for a fundamental change in asylum policy is obvious. Today’s asylum system is not sustainable, neither from an economic, demographic nor humanitarian perspective.
Since 2013 has 17,000 people drowned on its way across the sea from North Africa. People are lured to death in the hope of a better life.
Few of those who travel have a real need for protection and must therefore send back. At the same time, cynical cannibals are once again sitting with a huge financial gain. It shows how cynical and unethical the current asylum system is.
Today’s asylum system is not sustainable
The UN has estimated of 80 million people are on the run. This is an increase of 15 million people since 2016, corresponding to and growing several times Norway’s population.
It still does not seem to stop there. UN population forecasts show significant population growth in the coming decades. According to the UN, the population of the region with the most refugees in the world will grow by 2.7 billion by the year 2100.
The population will thus grow by 3,000 people every 48 minutes, which may be equivalent to Norway opposing some quota refugees in 2020.
It goes without saying that the current asylum system is not designed to handle this.
In the same way, it goes without saying that whether Norway receives 3,000 or 10,000 quota refugees a year, in reality it does not solve anything in the big picture. We have to think new.
The costs of today’s asylum model are enormous. They are not sustainable.
The life cycle cost of bringing one refugee to Norway is estimated by Statistics Norway at around NOK 20 million. This corresponds to NOK 60 billion in future obligations every year we pick up 3,000 quota refugees.
For the same money we could help and significantly larger number of people in the surrounding areas.
Morally, this is obviously what is most true. It is to help as many people as possible by ensuring them access to basic goods and protection, which is obviously the most humane.
Denmark is leading the way
The Folketing is taking the first step towards a new asylum system. By moving asylum treatment and the place where protection is to be granted out of Europe, a man can do things:
Firstly one stops the deadly traffic across the Mediterranean, since what one achieves by traveling is to be sent back to a place in the immediate area.
Secondly it will free up huge summer that can be used to ensure help and access to basic goods for more people.
You also know that it works. Australia has implemented it. In 2012, 400 people drowned in an attempt to cross the sea from Indonesia to Australia. After Australian information left about and denied substantive processing of asylum applications at the border, no people have drowned.
Denmark takes responsibility as the first European country to open up for processing asylum applications without the country.
Norway should do the same, as the Progress Party proposed in 2009.
Fortunately, the world is moving forward, and now the Danish Social Democrats are implementing the same proposal. A decision that will stand for posterity.