politiskprogram-asylbrosjyre_printsword-eng

Solidarity in Practice

Asylum and Integration

1. 1.1.2

1.1.3

Position Document Norwegian People’s Aid’s role in political influence work Who we act on behalf of

page 4 page 4

page 6

Contents

2. 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6 2.1.7 2.1.8 2.1.9 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3

Action plan Protection The public debate Safeguarding human rights Protection against persecution Case handling Unaccompanied children seeking asylum Asylum reception centres Vulnerable groups Return ‘Unreturnable’ asylum seekers and other paperless persons Inclusion and participation The first phase An inclusive society Equal rights Racism and discrimination

page 8 page 8 page 8 page 9 page 10 page 12 page 13 page 15 page 17 page 18 page 19 page 20 page 20 page 21 page 24 page 26

2.1 Asylum and Integration Asylum and Integration I 3

1. Position Document

Superior Perspectives Orientation of Rights: The basis for Norwegian immigration and integration policy must be established human rights. In particular refugees require treatment that fully respects their fundamental rights to safety and welfare.

Equal rights: Norwegian society must be founded on equal protection and equal treatment of all groups, regardless of sex, age, culture, religion and disability, sexual orientation or ethnicity.

Majority perspective: Minorities have a responsibility for active participation in society, however it is the majority population who controls the most significant resources for successful integration, and who therefore have a special responsibility.

A responsible debate: Integration in Norway has generally been successful. The challenges we face must not obscure this fact.

1.1.2 Norwegian People’s Aid’s role in political influence work

Norwegian People’s Aid plays a unique role and has unique competence as the organization with the widest range of activities within integration and refugee work in Norway. Norwegian People’s Aid is the only humanitarian organization that runs asylum reception centres, and due to its size and close proximity to trade unions, has the resources to be an important voice in the field.

Whilst Norwegian People’s Aid’s local activities in Norway allows it proximity to individuals and knowledge of the actual consequences of policies, organization possesses considerable

competence in many of the countries from which asylum seekers are fleeing via our international activities. Together this creates a solid foundation for political influence, in both safeguarding the institute of asylum and ensuring proper treatment of those who do not fulfil its requirements.

↗ A Nigerian mother and her child have put their shoes outside their home, a room at the Veumalléen asylum reception centre.

Photo: ©werneranderson.no


1.1.3 Who we act on behalf of As a trade union’s solidarity organization, Norwegian People’s Aid is a political player that fights injustice and unequal treatment both at home and abroad. We support the oppressed and discriminated. We take a stand point and make clear our views in the

media and other locations.

Asylum seekers, refugees and ethnic minorities in Norway score lowest on living condition indices, face discrimination in many areas, and in many ways do not have the rights that

they deserve. This places them at the core of Norwegian People’s Aid’s responsibility and activities.

↖

Asylum and Integration I 7

.

1 “Mental health in reception centres”, National Knowledge Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress (Oslo, 2007).

6.1 Asylum and Integration

2. Norwegian People’s Aid works to ensure:

2.1 Protection Asylum seekers from known conflict areas such as Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq are being increasingly refused protection in Norway, in conflict with the UN’s recommendations.

Norwegian People’s Aid believes that asylum seekers who apply for protection in Norway must receive treatment in accordance with current international standards, in particular the guidelines and directions from the UN system.

Asylum receptions centres must be good, safe residences, and safety for vulnerable groups must be a high priority with clear standards for the operation of reception centres and sensitivity to the residents’ backgrounds, sex and ages.

Unaccompanied asylum seeking children in particular require safety, predictability and care, with care requirements in line with Norwegian children, and qualified conservators from day one.

2.1.1 The Public Debate There has been a marked polarisation of the immigration debate in Norway in recent years, which few would have envisioned just a few years before. Several governments’ one-sided focus on cuts and negative rhetoric has contributed to this situation. Firstly, we are becoming constantly more restrictive – without consideration to the fact that this restrictive perspective has made the opportunities for inclusion far poorer. In short, we

are on the road to becoming a tougher society. Leading politicians have a responsibility in this respect.

Unusually serious statements concerning asylum seekers were uncontested during the election campaign in autumn 2009. Few reacted when Siv Jensen stated in one ministerial debate: “The people on Oslo’s streets see an ever increasing flood of criminal asylum seekers who are selling drugs and raping girls without thought”.2 The truth? According to UDI one asylum seeker

was arrested for rape in Oslo in the last three years.3 However few people reacted to Jensen’s statement. We cannot be proud of a climate of debate in which such extreme utterances as this remain unchallenged.

There is a general problem that the media focuses too much on negative issues, thus creating

an unjust image of asylum seekers and immigrants as criminals, school dropouts and people who do not want to integrate. Norwegian People’s Aid will increase public acceptance of the fact that many “immigrants” were born in Norway, are Norwegian citizens and therefore a part of Norway.

NORWEGIAN PEOPLE’S AID WORKS TOWARDS:

• Politicians taking responsibility for the society that is created via public debate. Everyone has a self-evident obligation to immediately oppose lies, stereotypes and prejudices towards vulnerable groups in society. Whilst there must be great tolerance in Norwegian debate, there must never be indifference.

• The media contributing to active debate, whilst simultaneously taking responsibility for checking and potentially countering dubious claims.

• The considerable volume of research and other precise factual information related to asylum seekers must be used. All people in society have an obligation to use the best possible knowledge that exists as a basis for debates and political development.

2.1.2 Safeguarding Human Rights Seeking protection is an entirely fundamental human right. There is an equivalent obligation to ensure that people have the opportunity to seek protection. It must

therefore be a priority to ensure that the treatment is in line with Norway’s human rights obligations. Norway has a long tradition for actively measuring our policies in a range of social areas against human rights, including many of the conventions

that have the greatest relevance to refugees. There is now a need for a more systematic application of these instruments in the area of asylum as well.

↖ Karya Abbas Yousefi (5) from Iraq plays in a staircase at the asylum reception centre.


2 3 TV2, 10th September 2009.

http://www.udi.no/templates/Page.aspx?id=10174


FACTS:

Many of the most central human rights conventions were incorporated into Norwegian law via the Human Rights Act (1999): the UN convention on children’s rights, the European Human Rights Convention, the UN convention on economic, social and cultural rights and the UN convention on civil and political rights. The Human Rights Act § 3 establishes that in the event of conflict the provisions in the

four conventions shall take precedence over provisions in other Norwegian legislation. Furthermore article 1 A of the UN Refugee Convention has been incorporated in the new Immigration Act, which shall apply from the 1

st January 2010. Other conventions

of particular importance in the area of asylum to which Norway is affiliated are the UN torture convention and the UN convention on women.


Asylum/protection.

• The target for quota refugees before 2013 is 3000 per year. The Soria Moria declaration states that the government must increase the number of quota

refugees from the UN to at least 1500 “when the number of asylum seekers is significantly reduced”. Norwegian People’s Aids believes that this must be’ a minimum by 2010. • Norway follows a humane interpretation of the Refugee Convention that is in line with both the UN’s high commissioners for refugee’s general guidelines for application of the convention4 and the more specific recommendations for various groups of asylum seekers.

• The threshold for residence on a humanitarian basis is not being raised. The threshold is already high today, and Norwegian People’s Aid therefore opposes any further cuts. The vast majority of asylum seekers who currently have residence

on a humanitarian basis are from conflict areas and totalitarian states such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Sri Lanka and Eritrea. In many cases rejecting them and returning them to their homelands will be in conflict with international law (the principle of non-refoulement or non-return to danger).

• Asylum seekers must not sent back to flee in another country. Return people to areas with which they have no connection breaks the UN’s standards on the

protection of refugees. • The Dublin II regulation must not be used to transfer refugees to countries where they do not have a realistic chance of obtaining protection. Greece in particular does not satisfy even the most fundamental criteria for the protection of refugees,

•and transfer there is not applicable for both protection and humanitarian reasons.

• Homosexual asylum seekers must not be returned to countries where ordinary Homosexual cohabitation is unthinkable. Everyone has the right to respect for his

or her family life. Asylum seekers from countries where ordinary, homosexual cohabitation entails a serious risk of persecution, even in major cities, must have the right to protection. • When evaluating religious persecution, asylum seekers cannot be required to limit or adapt their religious activity in order to live within their home country’s

cultural and social frameworks. Religious conviction and religious practice must be seen together.

• People trafficking must be handled with a significantly greater emphasis on the

victims’ perspective than is the case today.

As a clear rule, victims of forced prostitution must have the right to a residence permit/protection regardless of whether they act as witnesses against molesters. The focus must be on saving people from abusive situations. Help for

victims of abuse must never be dependent on the return of favours.

Legal assistance to victims when evaluating a report must be provided for 5 hours rather than the 3 hours of today.


• Ensuring a human rights evaluation is performed of all new measures where this is relevant to ensuring that the measure itself and its actual implementation is in line with Norway’s international obligations.

2.1.3 Protection Against Persecution Norwegian refugee policy is often characterised by negative attitudes, and the authorities’ focus on control, deterrent and cuts. It must be a fundamental principle that Norwegian

refugee and asylum policy must be inspired by international solidarity and be based on international rights, not national political conditions or varying policies in different countries. Similarly central is that Norway’s contribution to safeguarding the rights and needs of refugees

must not be evaluated against Norway’s population statistics, but Norway’s resources as one of the world’s richest and most peaceful countries.

No one disputes that it is a challenge to ensure that all those who need protection receive it, whilst on the other hand avoiding the system from being used by people who do not

require its protection. At the same time there is far too much focus on abuse of the system. Even if financial motives are an element in the influx, the fact is that the vast majority of those seeking asylum have fled from conflict ravaged countries and totalitarian states.

This also applies to the vast majority of those whose asylum applications are currently rejected.

Three groups of asylum seekers can be generally distinguished: those who fall under international conventions (first and foremost the Refugee Convention and the European Human Right Convention), those who should have a requirement for residence out of strong humane considerations, and those who do not have a strong enough requirement

for residence in Norway. All the groups must be treated with respect. Norwegian People’s Aid also believes that these groups must be defined and processed in a very different way than today. In particular following significant cuts in recent years, Norwegian People’s Aids

believes that there are currently relevantly many people who need protection but who do not receive it.

FACTS:

2008: There were 14,400 asylum seekers to Norway compared with 24,000 in Sweden. 3052 asylum seekers received residence, either asylum, protection or residence on

humanitarian grounds. Norway received 935 quota refugees.

2009: In 2009 there were 17,170 asylum seekers. The majority of the applicants came from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia and Iraq.

Residence on humanitarian grounds.

• Consideration to children’s best interests must be emphasized more than today. This means that families with children who have lived in Norway for three years or more, must as a rule be given a residence permit.5

• Practice for residence on humanitarian grounds for persons with serious health problems is no stronger under the new Immigration Act, which entered into force on the 1

st January 2010. The phrase “compelling health conditions” appears to be

enforcement of current strict practice, and should be changed.

• Reuniting people with children cannot be used as pressure. Persons who cannot document their identity currently receive a temporary residence permit in many cases without the right to reunification with their spouse and children (MUF). In order to be able to reunite them with their family, they must first document their identity, which many find difficult. MUF was a serious failure to the Iraqi Kurds, and must not

reoccur in the case of other groups.6 4 5 6

In particular see the UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection, including on sex related persecution (2002) and internal refugee alternatives (2003). In 2005 the government adopted a new provision that children’s affiliation to Norway should be given greater weight, but the implementation of the new provision has been criticized by organizations as far too strong. It refers to the type of residence permit that provides few rights and is often characterized as MUF (temporary without family reunification) and in particular has been breached in the case of asylum seekers from North Iraq and South Somalia.



• All asylum seekers being offered a voluntary medical examination in order to be able to document any injuries or torture or other abuse.

• The case handling time for asylum seekers not generally exceeding six months.

The majority of the case handling time is idle time when the case is inactive pending free handling capacity. Sufficient resources must be granted so that the idle can be removed as far as possible.

• A permanent case handling capacity in the immigration administration should be established. The number of asylum seekers fluctuates strongly from year to year,

and each time the number increases the immigration authorities struggles with a capacity that has been recently reduced. More rapid (overall) handling of asylum applications is necessary, however the “rapid course” that undermines thorough

handling of applications will also undermine asylum seekers’ rights.

• The 48 hour procedure should either be stopped as a permanent scheme or UDI capacity must be established that can be utilized as required given the necessary right safety guarantees.

2.1.5 Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children Unaccompanied asylum seeking children are children and youths under 18 years who come to Norway to seek asylum without having been accompanied by parents or others who have parental responsibility for them. Children generally have certain special rights under the UN children convention, including the fact that children’s best interests should be a decisive factor (art. 3) and that the child has the right to be heard (art. 12). This must also be a fundamental consideration in Norway’s

handling of unaccompanied children seeking asylum.

The Norwegian government has worked to introduce a new definition of the transition from child to adult that significantly differs from the treatment that applies at 15/16 years of age.

In accordance with a range of UN conventions, a child remains a child until the age of 18. One particular problem is that the government has transferred responsibility for all children under 15 to the Child Protection Unit, whilst children over 15 are constantly the Immigration Directorate’s

responsibility.

The government is working on the creation of a care institution in Afghanistan’s capital Kabul. Norwegian People’s Aid is very sceptical that safety and humanitarian needs can be met in situations such as Afghanistan today, and is worried that such an institution for children and young people will be a station post before further flight.

Norwegian authorities have also recently opened the first waiting reception centre for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers between 16 and 18 outside of Bergen. In the Netherlands it has often been the case that many of the children abandon the return reception centres shortly before they reach 18, and end up living via criminality.

Another measure discussed by Norwegian authorities concerning asylum seeking children is the clinical age test where children have their sex organs examined to establish whether they are under the age of 18. A legal investigation performed by the law firm Stabell & Co on behalf of Norwegian People’s Aid concludes that the examination is a breach of private life, and therefore conflicts with Norwegian and international law. Norwegian authorities have also been asked to explain themselves to both the UN’s children committee and the UN’s high commissioner for

refugees.

FACTS:

The number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children has varied considerably. In 2009 there were 2,400 unaccompanied asylum seeking children in Norway. This was

an increase of 75 percent compared with the year before. 1670 of these were from Afghanistan – a country where Norway is in a war. UDI currently has a responsibility of care for unaccompanied asylum seeking children between 15 and 18 years, whilst the Child Protection Unit is responsible for those

under 15 years. In principle all of the children should be appointed a conservator who will ensure the children’s legal safety. The conservator is a substitute for parents with regards to the legal side of parents’ responsibility, whilst the reception centre is

responsible for day-to-day care. After the transition phase the appointment of qualified conservators is extremely insufficient and random.

2.1.4 Case Handling

FACTS:

The case handling time for asylum seekers varies considerably. Asylum seekers who are considered to be groundless7 must be given a resolution from UDI within 48 hours after arrival. Asylum seekers who are considered to be routine case, including many asylum seekers from Iraq, must normally be given a decision within three weeks. For

others the case handling time will normally vary from six months to two-three years, including any complaints to the Immigration Appeals Board. The differences in the case handling time may be somewhat random, but may also be connected to the

need to obtain more information, for example from Norwegian stations abroad. In the case of certain groups (including many Iraqi and Afghan asylum seekers, and unaccompanied asylum seeking children) there has been a suitable, temporary project

for rapid treatment at certain periods.

There are many serious problems associated with asylum seekers’ legal safety. For

example, it is a common occurrence today that asylum seekers, even with clear injuries after torture, go through the asylum process without their injuries being documented medically, or they are only documented by a GP without the necessary

competence. In Denmark a specialized medical examination service has existed for several years. Another problem is that only a few of the asylum seekers meet those taking the

decision directly, particularly during the appeals procedure.8

↑

Somali Deqa Ibrahim Muhamed shouts: “Thank you Norway for giving me a home” and waves his hands. “In Norway I’m free and no one has the right to hit me,” she continues.


7 We have recently noted that the expression “groundless asylum seekers” is being used more and more often as a general expression for asylum seekers with a rejected asylum application, including NRK. This appears to be a very imprecise use of the expression “groundless asylum seekers”. As we understand it, the expression, “groundless applicants” (not “seekers”) refers to applicants where it is obvious that there is no need for protection as per the Immigration Act § 15. This applies in a very few cases, which are chiefly handled within the 48 hour procedure. 8 It is not always the case that the people at UDI who perform the asylum interview also make the decision. At the Immigration Appeals Board approximately 10 percent of the asylum seekers meet the decision taker(s) in person.

12 Asylum and Integration Asylum and Integration I 13


• Care for asylum seeking children between 15 and 18 years being transferred from the immigration administration to the Child Protection Unit. Children are children regardless of where they come from, and asylum seeking children have the right to just the same

care as Norwegian children. • Parliament must ensure that the work to establis care measures for unaccompanied asylum seeking children between 15 and 18 years is commenced in 2009.

• The government must produce a progress plan with a final end date, preferably in 2010, when the Child Protection Unit takes over the care responsibility for all unaccompanied asylum seeking children between 15-18 years of age.

• An independent, national scheme for recruiting, training and following up conservators for unaccompanied asylum seeking children being established that can function as a resource for the public guardian’s office.

• Enough funds for training and follow up of conservators must be granted for all unaccompanied asylum seeking children in the country as a temporary measure pending new legislation and regulation. Funds must also be invested for compensation

and interpretation for conservators outside the transition phase.

• Unaccompanied asylum seeking children not being made to wait or being forcibly removed from the country when they are minors. A probable consequence is that

some of the children will abandon the institutions in the waiting period and disappear into Norway’s growing group of paperless persons.

• Creation of case institutions in the home country for unaccompanied asylum seeking

children only being established under the following conditions: Physical safety. Norwegian authorities have a clear responsibility for the safety of children and young people who are potentially sent to such institutions. This must also

include a feeling of safety.

Quality of life. The institutions must provide a good service from a humanitarian perspective, and which includes relevant training/schooling.

Stability. Institutions such as these may only be established in areas where stable operation can be expected over several years.

Follow-up. It is indefensible that minors are sent onto the streets of poor and conflict ridden countries immediately upon becoming 18. There must be facilitation and follow up in a transition period.

• The following requirement must be fulfilled if age examinations are to be used to identify asylum seekers who are over 18:

Unaccompanied asylum seeking children may only undergo age examinations that receive general approval in the relevant professional environment. All necessary

arrangements must be taken to avoid minors incorrectly being treated as adults.

It is not acceptable to use methods that may be considered degrading or offensive to the child. Unaccompanied asylum seeking children are not to be treated as tennis

balls in Europe, and be saved from unnecessary stresses that result from transfer to another country under the Dublin system.

2.1.6 Asylum Reception Centres Asylum reception centres must first and foremost be a good, safe residence for refugees. There are figures that indicate that 67 percent of all asylum seekers have experienced family and/ or friends being killed, and that 57 percent have experienced torture.9 The asylum reception centre will normally be the first location in which have experienced some safety and stability during their flight. This is also important for the individual asylum seeking being capable of handling his or her rights in relation to the asylum process and starting work on recovering a normal life situation.

Norwegian People’s Aid believes that treating refugees in a proper manner is an important part of our humanitarian work in Norway. We also believe that humanitarian organizations have something important to contribute in this respect. Not least is that the provision of local

activities can be better ensured within the frameworks of local voluntary membership activities. Even if we believe that today’s reception provision is secure, this does not meet our ambitions that refugees should establish a normal living situation. Norwegian People’s Age therefore works

to strengthen the framework of and professional services within reception centre operation.

A tender system with insufficient quality standards that is opened for purely commercial considerations will operate at the cost of humanitarian considerations. This includes the idea that it is acceptable to reduce wage costs in order to win tenders at the cost of the staff’s stability and competence. The lack

of proper requirements also means that reception centres remain free to prioritise profit rather than, for example, sufficient use of interpreting services or the quality of services for children.

The EU’s reception directive establishes that special consideration should be given to victims of torture and other serious abuse, both with regards to reception conditions and medical treatment. There is no equivalent to this in Norwegian law. The government has appointed a

committee that will evaluate the organization and frameworks for services for people seeking asylum in Norway, including the reception apparatus. Norwegian People’s Aid welcomes this measure.

Vanessa Egrybot (5) plays in the snow outside the asylum reception centre where she lives together with her mother and younger brother.


↓

9 “Mental health in reception centres”, National Knowledge Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress (Oslo, 2007).


FACTS:

There were approximately 150 asylum reception centres in Norway in December 2009. This includes 53 reception centres for unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The largest reception operator is Hero, which operates 48 reception centres. Norwegian

People’s Aid operates eleven asylum reception centres. Norwegian People’s Aid currently does not operate a reception centre for unaccompanied asylum seeking children, as the framework conditions are not satisfactory.

2.1.7 Vulnerable Groups Reception centres must be good, safe residences for refugees. This presumes both a continued focus on residential security, and that the reception centres and surroundings support apparatus are on a level with the challenges associated with people who have

fled war and persecution. Not least this requires systematic psychosocial follow-up from both the reception centre and the health service. Norwegian People’s Aid has a continuous focus on this in our reception centres, and has developed our own guidance: Powerlessness and Mastery – Manual (2003).

FACTS:

The Norwegian People’s Aid report Powerlessness and Mastery (2003) documents how the asylum seeking phase and life in a reception centre results in an increased risk of

violence and sexual assault.


• The authorities preparing specific norms for minimum standards in law with regards to physical residential conditions, including area per resident/family, staffing (employees per resident), working hours and follow up measures, as well as activity provisions for individuals. Minimum standards must be set in a legal form, and, as a minimum, must

be on a par with the EU’s standards.

• The current reception staff being increased by approximately 30 percent. Based on requirements and needs, staffing is currently far too low.

• Importance being placed upon establishing and maintaining competent reception centres. These must be large reception centres, which via long-term operating contracts (10 years) can build up competence that act as a resource when establishing other

reception centres.

• The tender system must be changed with increased emphasis on quality. Individual reception centres must be opened for longer-term operation to ensure the stability and establishment of competence and on longer operating contracts. In the case of the majority of reception centres, it should not be possible to cancel the contracts in the contract period. Today’s lack of predictability is also an obstacle to investments in infrastructure.

The authorities must consider the guidelines for competition in children’s care institutions against humanitarian organizations’ roles and the importance of competence from previous operations.

Lease costs must not be at the cost of the operating budget in more expensive areas in the country/towns, as is the case today.

A large general extra capacity should be included in the reception system, so that the

system can better absorb the constant fluctuations in arrivals, as well as maintaining stability and competence.

• Residents in reception areas must have the same real access to health services as all

other people in the municipalities. This presumes that the reception centres are not located in places that lack sufficient health service capacity.

• All reception centres must have a (part-time) position as a social contact between the reception centre and the local environment, both with regards to organizing voluntary activity at the reception centre, establishing contact between residents and the local

populace. Reception centres should be specifically allocated funds for this purpose.

• Reception centre employees do not have a role in case handling. They must observe confidentiality and must not report what they hear and see at the reception to UDI,

unless it is necessary for ensuring the safety of residents or employees. A duty to supply information creates unhappiness, distrust and lack of faith amongst both asylum seekers and employees. It is important to avoid a situation in which reception centre

employees are put in a position of power over residents, not least out of consideration to the safety of women in the reception centres and other vulnerable groups.

• Financial considerations for residents must be improved. The current system with

different financial rates for different groups of residents (with or without rejection of their application or persons in Dublin cases) are a source of tension and conflicts.

“Employees and residents we talked to think that violence in the family is the most extensive

form of violence in reception centres. […] Violence in the family is particularly complicated because it is difficult for those exposed to break out of the situation. The abusers are not just abusers but perhaps constitute the only network and the only protection against the

surroundings that the exposed person has. The lack of a network and lack of knowledge of rights and opportunities constitutes an even greater barrier .”10

For many years there has been a need to increase the focus on violence in

reception centres.


• Reception centres must maintain a continuous focus on conflict, cultural and sexual sensitivities and implement this in all parts of the operation.

• Unalterable requirements for minimum standards and routines must be set that ensure protection and safeguarding against violence at reception centres, with a special focus

on women and children. • Clear and specific standards must be established for activities in the reception centres. It is not sufficient for UDI to state that guard schemes and leisure provision etc. should be “good enough” and leave it up to those operating the reception to assess what this

means. • Reception centres who do not follow the requirements for the protection of women must actually risk losing the right to operate reception centres. UDI’s specification of

requirements presumes that rooms must have lockable doors, separate rooms for women and that the reception centres must ensure that women are on residents’ councils.

• Stronger requirements must be set activity provision for children in reception centres including the provision that is given in children’s bases. The psychosocial work with

asylum seekers who suffer trauma from war situations or assault must be increased. A scheme should be introduced with individual psychosocial follow up plans for asylum seekers with special needs.

• Funds must be invested for suitable information and conversation groups for both men and women in the reception centres.

10 Poul, R.: “Powerlessness and Mastery. A report on violence and sexual assault in refugee reception centres”. Norwegian People’s Aid, 2003.


2.1.8 Return

Norwegian People’s Aid believes that asylum seekers whose applications are rejected must be returned to their homeland under appropriate circumstances. The Norwegian authorities must follow the UN’s recommendations with regards to which people require protection,

and in which areas it is safe to return those who are rejected.

FACTS:

There has been an increase focus on returns in Norwegian asylum policy in recent years, and Norway is one of the countries in Europe with the most comprehensive input in the

area. A large number of people are forcibly returned each year. In the course of the first eight months of 2009 the Policy’s Immigration Unit transported 2600 people. An active return policy of persons without the need for protection is a necessary part of an asylum system. However forced return is a radical measure for the individual, and many will experience it as a considerable strain.

Some rejected asylum seekers who are difficult to return to their home country are held

at the Lier and Fagerli waiting reception centres, and their experience is characterized by passivity and isolation with very simple living conditions (for example four adult people in 6x6 metres). Some have been here approximately three years. The reception centres

also have a poor success rate in motivating them to return.11


• The waiting receptions must be restructured into professionalized return reception

centres with an increased focus on respect, collaboration and qualification for return. Minimum standards must be ensured, and there must be a maximum limit on how long someone will stay in a return reception centre.

• Rejected asylum seekers’ rights in connection with transportation are legally established. Procedures for returns, and rejected asylum seekers’ rights in this connection are generally not described in the Immigration Act or the order. They must include:

The right to make a telephone call(s) to lawyers/family/friends and to bring a certain quantity of baggage. Particular consideration must be given to the care of children.

Consideration and well prepared handling of vulnerable individuals, for example mothers with infants or persons with mental difficulties or health problems, must

be ensured. Procedures when families are split (if not all persons in the family are present when the police comes to implement the measure).

Special directions to strictly limit the use of hand/foot cuffs in light of rejected asylum

seekers often being people with a background of imprisonment and torture.

An obligation for registration and follow up in situations where Norwegian police have reason to suspect problematic conditions, for example if the rejected asylum seeker is taken by the country’s security police.

• An independent evaluation of the performance of forcible return must be performed. There is normally no follow up of returned asylum seekers and minimally inspection into

the police’s procedures and methods. This is perhaps the most concealed part of the Norwegian immigration administration today, and for obvious reasons of safeguarding legal rights it must be opened up to the public.

• Return agreements with the relevant country of origin cannot be connected to Norway’s international aid activities. There are many regimes that are whose totalitarian nature means that any collaboration on Norway’s part should be excluded.

↗ Promice Gebre (6), at Veumalléen asylum reception centre in Fredrikstad, looks out the window in the corridor at the reception at some of her friends who are playing outside.


2.1.9 Non-Returnable Asylum Seekers and other Paperless Persons Norway is on the way to developing a permanent paperless underclass that consists of people who have lived in Norway for up to 16 years without basic rights. Many of these are so-called

unreturnable asylum seekers; these are persons whose asylum application has been rejected but for various reasons they cannot be forcibly returned to their home countries. Others are returnable asylum seekers who live in secret to avoid return. Others again are irregular immigrants who have never sought asylum in Norway. The expression ‘paperless’ is the preferred common designation.

Counteracting the establishment of a permanent paperless underclass in Norway must be a

political priority. A socially democratic welfare society cannot allow the development of a more or less a parallel society in which an increasing group of people live permanently outside major society’s safety and predictability.

FACTS:

The number of paperless persons is disputed. The Central Statistics Bureau estimates that the number of paperless persons is approximately 18 000. According to organizations who work with paperless persons (SEIF, border countries) the number of

persons who have had irregular residence in Norway for longer periods is considerably lower. They estimate that there are several hundred people who have lived in Norway for eight years or more.

Unreturnable cases fall into several categories. For example, Ethiopian and Eritrean

authorities do not collaborate with other countries’ authorities concerning the return of rejected asylum seekers; forcible returns are therefore not an option and the asylum seekers themselves are often saved from voluntary return. Some of these are previous

victims of serious abuse,

11 January – October 2008 only four asylum seekers were voluntarily returned to their home country from the Lier reception centre (UDI inspection report November 2008). UDI’s inspection report from Fagerli waiting reception centre in the same period does not include statistics since the reception was relatively newly established (December 2008).


including serious ethnic oppression. In certain cases asylum seekers from war and

conflict areas are rejected, which is potentially in conflict with the UN’s recommendations, where return is not performable.12

A number of victims of serious ethnic oppression live amongst us as paperless persons

today. A quite large group amongst unreturnable persons are ethnic Eritreans from Ethiopia, who fled in connection with the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea 1998-2000. As Ethiopian citizens with Eritrean ethnicity the majority were driven from Ethiopia.

Some still do not know what has happened to their families. As it is now a long time since the war and the forced deportations ceased, the Eritreans asylum applications were rejected. However it is easy to understand why they do not wish to return to

Ethiopia – a homeland that has exposed them to serious human rights violations, split up their families, refused them their right to be Ethiopians and driven them away.

As early as April 2003 the Immigration Directorate recommended the opportunity for granting residence five years after a final rejection. The European Council Commission

against racism and intolerance (ECRI) has in its last two reports (most recent from 2009), sought such a legalization mechanism. ECRI refers in its first report that the Norwegian authorities recognize the difference between those who collaborate and those who do not collaborate with returns, but points out that regardless of the circumstances some people have been in this situation too long. This is otherwise far more usual in other European countries with different (sometimes highly comprehensive)

amnesty schemes, including relatively recently Sweden. Finland has a general mechanism that involves paperless persons being granted residence a certain time after the final reject if they remain in the country.

2.2.1 The First Phase In order for immigrants to be able to succeed in Norway, it is important to start the inclusion work as soon as possible after arrival in Norway. This also applies to the period in which residential status in Norway is unclear, however different courses can be gradually created depending on decision the immigration polices eventually make. If a rejection is given, the work must be focussed on competences that are useful when upon return, for example English teaching and/or professional training. Inclusion work must be extended and strengthened in Norway. The majority has a special responsibility for creating the conditions for ensuring such equal opportunities in Norwegian society.

Inclusion work must commence in the reception centre. Asylum seekers have been brutally ripped from the life they lived, and have a strong need to recreate normality in their lives as far as possible. However the time spent waiting for an answer to an asylum application is often characterized by extreme passivity and also social isolation. The fact that the Norwegian authorities do not prioritise using this phase more constructively, means that Norway is not

successful in an important role, namely ensuring the best possible transfer from existence as a refugee to a new, normal life.

FACTS:

An asylum seekers who choose to live privately rather than in a reception centre normally

lose their basic financial support, and do not have a claim to social services. This means that it is difficult for asylum seekers to choose to live, for example, together with a spouse who has residence in Norway, or together with other family or friends.

The red-green government has already severely cut the opportunity for temporary work

permits during the waiting period. Whilst the majority received such permits in the past, today just under half gain access to use the waiting time for meaningful work. Norwegian People’s Aid believe this is a serious step backwards both with consideration to the

individual asylum seeker’s life situation in the waiting time and integration. The fact that passivity and isolation are actually the greatest challenges to a successful reception policy is documented by Norwegian People’s Aid’s report. Powerlessness and Mastery (2003):

“Reception centre employees tell of people strong in resources who after time at the reception centre are unrecognisable. For many the lack of meaning and waiting time at the reception centre is overwhelming.”13


• Unreturnable asylum seekers who have lived in Norway for more than five years after the rejection decision must be given the opportunity to have their case handled again.

An exception can be made for persons who have committed serious crime. A higher limit in line with UDI’s proposal should be set for people whose IDs are uncertain.

• The Iraqi Kurds, who are often called ”MUFs”, must be granted permanent residence and work permits with the opportunity for family reunification due to obvious

humanitarian considerations and their long time of residence in Norway. Following ten years of unclear and conflicting policy the focus must be on:

• A solution for the majority of the MUFs. Only people who have committed serious crimes should be excluded. It would be particularly unfortunate if the red-green government’s legalization scheme of 2009 continues to leave many MUFs without a solution.

• Funds must be invested for ensuring quality health provision for paperless persons. This should be a state responsibility.


• Asylum seekers must be granted meaningful residence with training and work opportunities from day one.

• All asylum seeking children between 16 and 18 years, regardless of residential status, must receive the right to go to secondary school. A child’s life must not be placed on

hold. • Institutionalisation of asylum seekers whilst they wait for an answer to their asylum applications can be counteracted via several measures.

All asylum seekers where there is no serious dispute of the identify should be able to work in the waiting period.

A scheme must be established with temporary ID cards for asylum seekers that can be used as a basis for opening a bank account.

A scheme should be introduced with asylum seekers who choose to live with family/ friends in the waiting period should receive payment presuming permanent contact with the reception/UDI. The Norwegian authorities will provide this financially whilst simultaneously contributing to solving an acute need in respect of the lack of reception

places. The fact that asylum seekers must maintain contact with a reception or one of the UDI’s regional offices to receive money, will also contribute to a better overview of asylum seekers who abandon receptions today.

2.2 Inclusion and Participation Instead of passivity and institutionalisation, asylum seekers must face expectations and opportunities. The foundations must be laid to give asylum seekers meaningful residence in the reception centres with training and work opportunities from as early a time as possible.

Asylum seekers’ participation in local society must be prioritized, including via voluntary organizations.

12 UDI and UNE has rejected asylum seekers from South-Somalia, in conflict with the recommendations from UNHCR, and despite the fact that return has not been possible due to ongoing conflicts. 13 Poul, R.: “Powerlessness and Mastery. A report on violence and sexual assault in refugee reception centres”. Norwegian People’s Aid, 2003.


FACTS:

In 2007 six out of ten immigrants were in work, compared with seven out of ten in the entire population. The organization for economic collaboration and development

(OECD)14 has established that integration in Norway is so far much better than in other member states. Whilst immigrants in Norway have approximately 8 percentage less professional participation than the rest of the population, the equivalent figure for

Sweden and Denmark is 14. However a doctoral thesis from the University of Oslo demonstrates that first generation immigrants who achieve higher education in Norway are at the back of the queue when competing for work, even if they have entirely the same education and the same good marks. Ethnic Norwegian employees are first to be employed, followed by western Europeans, Asians and eastern Europeans. Finally in the queue are Africans. Despite

an identical master’s degree level from a Norwegian university and the same marks as an ethnic Nordic person, an African has only 30 percent of an ethnic Nordic’s chances of getting a job after the end of studies.15


• The requirement for four years work or training for family reunification for persons who receive residence on humanitarian basis should be abandoned. The requirement actually prevents reunification with spouses and children, which in many cases will be in conflict with the right to family life in accordance with the European Human Rights Convention’s article 8. Actual separation is 6-8 years, including the expected case handling time.

• There must be positive equal treatment of all state employees and in businesses that are owned by the state. In addition quota systems should be used in selected state institutions where recruiting of persons of a minority background is of special consideration, for example to ensure that the policy is representative of the Norwegian population today.

• It is a priority that both the parliament and government must be representative of an ethnically, culturally and religiously mixed population.

• Organizations must be established so that new arrivals and other professionally selected bodies can participate in voluntary work in a valuable manner with a basis in

their competences without, for example, being fluent in Norwegian.

• The ability to learn Norwegian in the workplace must be established to a far greater than it is today. National and municipal businesses should develop training courses specially intended to include persons who are not fluent in Norwegian. It should also be possible for private businesses to seek support from the Norwegian

Labour and Welfare Organiation, for example the teaching of Norwegian in the workplace. • Sufficient funds must granted to develop and maintain voluntary activities for including refugees in municipalities and associated with reception centres.

• It must be simpler and quicker to obtain approved education taken in other countries. The Norwegian documentation should include a specific description of how this can be applied in working life.

• Collaboration with the employment organizations should be strengthened with a special focus on the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprises’s role to encourage its member organizations to have an active recruitment policy towards minorities.

• Central authorities must be in dialogue with the municipalities on a better geographical spread of municipal residences, particularly in larger towns.

2.2.2 An Inclusive Society It is the Norwegian majority that possesses the necessary funds for integration to be realized. The majority hold the majority of the workplaces, the majority of residences and control the political agenda. This gives them power. The ethnic majorities must use their opportunity to participate in the job market, housing market and opportunity to affect the political agenda. We do not underestimate the minorities’ necessary contribution, but believe that the integration debate has focused to far on minorities and has little considered the power and responsibility of the majority. It is necessary to take into consideration the fact that Norwegian majority society has a strongly negative historical inheritance with blindness to vulnerable groups’ situation and rights, and subsequent serious unequal treatment.

Many are quick to state the Norwegian society is filled with people from a minority background

who function on the same lines as all others, and similarly that many integration problems are associated with several large groups – for example Somalis- are recent in Norwegian society and that integration is not completed.

↖

Cabdi Rashiid (17) from Mogadishu in Somalia learns Norwegian whilst he is at primary school He hopes to become a teacher when he has completed school. Photo: ©werneranderson.no

14 15 Report OECD: International Migration Outlook 2008

Idunn Brekke: “Equal opportunities? Importance of ethnic background for employment and income”. University of Oslo, 2008. Repeated from LDO’s annual report: «Balance 2008».


2.2.3 Women and Equal Opportunities

Women have faced a long struggle for equally rights in many countries. Equal opportunities for women have long been achieved in Norway, however women from an ethnic minority background still struggle to fight for full participation in public spaces in order to be visible and be heard. There are always minority women who live isolated from Norwegian society, and many have low participation in work and social life. This struggle is our common responsibility – we need collaboration and solidarity. All women, regardless of background, must have access to the knowledge and the opportunities granted in Norwegian society.

In order to save costs, in particular the cost of bilingual employees, children with the same minority background in one area are often grouped into one kindergarten. The works

against the purpose of the scheme.

FACTS:

With a background from over 200 countries, the immigrant population in Norway is diverse. Women with a Vietnamese background, for example, have far higher professional participation than women with a Pakistani background. The reverse is true with regards to electoral participation – there is far high electoral participation amongst

women with a background from Pakistan than women with a background from Vietnam. Even if there are major differences in professional participation amongst women from the different ethnic groups, one thing is the same – they all have lower professional

participation than their sisters from the majority population. This also applies to higher education.


• Provision of free core time in kindergartens for all 4 and 5 year olds must be provided in areas with a high share of minority language children.

• Public subsidy schemes that help women with minority background be institutionalised and excluded from working life must be removed.

• Persons who marry a person with a residence permit in Norway must be included

in the introduction program. They are currently not included; particularly in the case of women who come to Norway through marriage.

• The authorities must invest more funds in programs that increase the participation of minority women in social and working life.

• The focus on relevant work training within the introduction program must be

strengthened so that the majority enter work gradually. This particularly applies to women.

2.3 Racism and Discrimination Integration and anti-racism work are two sides of the same coin. By integration we mean that ethnic minorities should have equal opportunities, rights and obligations for participation in society as the ethnic majority. Integration is a mutual process that includes both minorities and the majority. Via working against racism it will become easier to implement the integration

process Norwegian People’s Aid works to counteract the difference between “us” and “them”. The right to practice one’s religion and culture must likewise be a fundamental right for minorities as well as the majority of the population.

Norwegian People’s Aid uses knowledge dissemination, dialogue and reflection as methods to increase awareness of one’s own attitudes and the consequences of our attitudes when meeting with ethnic minorities. We also work on making visible revealing anti-racist messages in public spaces through businesses and institutions.

↗

It is important for residents at the Veumalléen asylum reception centre to keep up to date with the latest news from their home countries. Photo: ©werneranderson.no

FACTS:

Almost half of people with an immigrant background in SSB’s living conditions investigation state that they have experienced discrimination in one or more social areas. Immigrants from Somalia and Iran have experienced discrimination most often and in most areas. Just one third of those questioned from these countries have not

experienced discrimination. According to an investigation from IMDI almost one fifth state that they have experienced discrimination when seeking a new job in the course of the last year.17 In addition there is constant publicity of highly racist statements in the

media, for example in the form of graffiti at asylum centres or residences for economic immigrants.

17 Sources: LDO’s annual report: “Balance 2008”. IMDi: Report 2-2008, SSB.


Mapping of hate crime in Norway is generally poor. During the course of 2007 and 2008 there were several media articles in which asylum seekers and people with non-western appearances reported experiencing threats and violence in the public streets. This is in addition to reporting from organizations concerning such events.

Following the event in Sofienberg Park, in which Ali Farah was abandoned by both the police and ambulance services, the Equality and Discrimination Ombudsman (LDO) performed a comprehensive mapping of ethnic discrimination in state sectors. As many as one third of state businesses did not deliver the reports. The reports that were delivered demonstrated a highly unsatisfactory situation. The main conclusion in the LDO report was clear – the state does not take racism and discrimination seriously.18


• The new activity obligation that is established in the new anti-discrimination legislation specifies that businesses with more than 50 employees are obliged to implement

measures to create change. This should include:

Clear routines for reporting racism/other discrimination to the main protection body.

There must be clear routines for how the public may report racism/other discrimination to a responsible person in institutions with public services; this opportunity must be visible to the public.

• More public funds must be invested in attitude forming work. In particular the provision to voluntary organizations and employers on inclusion and attitude forming work directed at the majority population must be increased. This work should be targeted at the majority population in general and at important public services in particular, for example in education of health personnel and social workers.

• Work against racism and discrimination must be incorporated into HSE work in all state businesses, and should be extended within the limits of the IA agreement.

• User examinations in all state businesses should be performed of comprehensive public contact to detect and prevent racism and discrimination. The Confederation of

Norwegian Enterprise should conduct equivalent user examinations amongst its members.

• Inspection examinations should be performed both in the state and private sector to discover potential discrimination and racism.

• Discrimination should be taken as a priority area for free legal aid.

• An ideas bank for spreading good ideas to prevent racism and discrimination in service provision and personnel policy should be established.

• Mapping of hate crime should be a priority for the police. Organizations, trade unions and others who receive reports of racism and discrimination must be allocated resources to register such events, and a central database be established to register events of racism and discrimination that are received from difference sources.

• All state businesses with inspection functions that check individuals or groups must

introduce a receipt scheme so that they are given a written receipt for each inspection.

• Conditions on non-discrimination and an active recruitment policy of persons with a minority background shall be introduced in all state and municipal tenders and purchases.

18 “Mapping discrimination in the state sector – the first stage?” LDO, 2008

26 Asylum and integration Asylum and Integration I 27

Norwegian People’s Aid PB 8844 Youngstorget 0028 Oslo TEL: 22 03 77 00

www.folkehjelp.no

politiskprogram-asylbrosjyre_printsword-eng

Documents

integration asylum

behalf of page

discrimination page

institute of asylum

practice asylum

unreturnable asylum

norwegian society

successful integration