The election of the first head of a county administration by the far-right Alternative of Germany in a rural eastern region recently has led to concern among opponents of the party.
Well that’s not true at all. Denmark arguably offers the best refugee benefits and support programs in the entire world. They’re extremely expensive, hence the desire to keep refugee numbers at a sustainable rate, and minimise people who abuse the system. It’s very common in Europe for people from poor countries to burn their passports before entering Europe, travel all the way up to Denmark, passing many safe countries, then claim asylum while pretending to be from a country at war. It’s very difficult to expel these migrants because it’s hard to determine where they’re from. Even if we do, often their home countries won’t take them back.
You say that the Danish system tries to avoid people trying to abuse the system, but here’s my problem with that: Where do you draw the line for abuse? Do you think that people from poor countries don’t deserve a better chance at life? Even if they lied about escaping war, they probably did it out of fear of being sent back to their home countries. They immigrated the way they did, because Denmark or other EU countries wouldn’t have granted them visas to travel there legally. People “abusing” the system is very broad & could be a lot of things including sending people home for “only” wanting to escape poverty.
I can answer that very succinctly: those seeking to falsely invoke the articles under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
There are six billion people on the planet who are poorer than Danish citizens. Denmark is a tiny country. They can’t all fit in Denmark. That’s not a solution to global poverty.
You have to understand the rich country side. They cannot just accept anyone and everyone, their economy would collapse and then the country would just be as shitty as the one refugees are trying to escape.
Well that’s not true at all. Denmark arguably offers the best refugee benefits and support programs in the entire world. They’re extremely expensive, hence the desire to keep refugee numbers at a sustainable rate, and minimise people who abuse the system. It’s very common in Europe for people from poor countries to burn their passports before entering Europe, travel all the way up to Denmark, passing many safe countries, then claim asylum while pretending to be from a country at war. It’s very difficult to expel these migrants because it’s hard to determine where they’re from. Even if we do, often their home countries won’t take them back.
You say that the Danish system tries to avoid people trying to abuse the system, but here’s my problem with that: Where do you draw the line for abuse? Do you think that people from poor countries don’t deserve a better chance at life? Even if they lied about escaping war, they probably did it out of fear of being sent back to their home countries. They immigrated the way they did, because Denmark or other EU countries wouldn’t have granted them visas to travel there legally. People “abusing” the system is very broad & could be a lot of things including sending people home for “only” wanting to escape poverty.
I can answer that very succinctly: those seeking to falsely invoke the articles under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
There are six billion people on the planet who are poorer than Danish citizens. Denmark is a tiny country. They can’t all fit in Denmark. That’s not a solution to global poverty.
You have to understand the rich country side. They cannot just accept anyone and everyone, their economy would collapse and then the country would just be as shitty as the one refugees are trying to escape.