Edited by Layann Halawi
Throughout recent history, Denmark has rigidly held on to its strict immigration policies, especially when it came to certain nationalities, in spite of the equality ideals it preaches. As such, there is an evident divide between immigration policies aimed at Europeans and those aimed at other nationalities. Case in point would be Denmark’s plans to deport Syrian refugees to make space for Ukrainian ones, in the aftermath of the Russian invasion. Denmark’s hard line on Arab refugees poses an ethical dilemma, particularly after Denmark introduced Bill L 226, which reflected Denmark’s incapability or unwillingness to integrate. From forcing 2-year-old Arab children to take danish “ethics” courses, to issuing a ghetto plan aimed at cancelling parallel societies through deportation and enforcement of discriminatory laws, the nature of Danish immigration policies aimed at non-western refugees carry a clearly discriminatory rhetoric.
To begin with, Bill L 226 was adopted on the 8th of June 2021, which is an amendment that transfers non-EU refugees to a third non-EU country, while their asylum paperwork gets processed. The suggested country for this transfer is . This amendment further destabilizes the possibility of these refugees, who only have temporary refugee status, being granted refuge in Denmark. The Danish immigration law states that it provides temporary refuge to asylum seekers up until their homelands are safe again.
According to the “Country of Origin Information” (COI) report which was co-written by the country’s immigration service and Denmark’s largest NGO, and the Danish Refugee Council (DRC), Damascus is now declared a safe zone (which would make efforts to return refugees legally sound and consistent from the perspective of Danish refugee policies). With this declaration, a lot of municipalities are stopping Syrian refugees’ work permits, and are even deporting them back to Syria. Additionally, Mette Frederiksenthe, Social Democratic Prime Minister, introduced a higher punishment for any crime, minor or major, if committed by an immigrant as compared to a Dane as step one of the so-called “Ghetto Deal”. This criminalizes the immigrant community, and signals to the Danish people that they too should be paranoid of the immigrants. Denmark’s Social Democratic Party supporters protested the policy deeming it discriminatory and xenophobic, they advocated for immigrants’ rights, gesturing to their government that refugees are welcome. The three factors which are: a strict immigration policy in place, the introduction of the amendment Bill L 226, and the COI report claiming Damascus is a safe zone, are further hurdles that Syrian refugees have to endure in their pursuit of a better life. Most of these policies have been implemented in “ghettos” that only house refugees of Arab and African origin. Furthermore, most of these policies have been amended to make it easier for Ukrainian refugees. In times in which Denmark is set to accept 100,000 Ukrainian refugees while deporting Syrian ones, it is emblematic of the double standards that Denmark’s authorities operate under, making this policy appear to be xenophobic and discriminatory.
The “Ghetto plan”:
The minister of housing issued a disenfranchising “Ghetto Plan” to try and incorporate a new style of housing that unites citizens from low-income backgrounds and refugees into other Danish neighborhoods. Civil society and some NGOs agree to the plan’s main objective which is integration, as it is believed that the destruction of immigrant neighborhoods may aid in integration, particularly since it reduces the differences in the future prospects between teenagers living in social housing projects, and private housing. However, the way this plan was executed is discriminatory as it only applied to non-western refugees, and the areas labeled “Ghetto” happen to be areas housing such refugees. The “ghetto list” released by the Danish government follows the criteria of labeling areas with lower educational attainment, higher unemployment rate, higher crime rate, and higher number of immigrants as ghettos. For example, 50% of Mjølnerparken’s residents are non-Danish born or born in Denmark to non-Danish parents. A neighborhood with similar problems but occupied by third-generation Danes, most of whom are white, would not qualify as a “ghetto”. Much of the newer policies should focus, instead, on providing immigrants resources, such as: mentorship programs which would entail support for communication skills, help younger refugees find schools or programs which allow them to continue their education and provide them with the tools needed to meet their needs in a new country , Danish language classes, step-in jobs (subsidized employment aimed at faster entry into the labor market), and surveys aimed at collecting information from refugees on their work and education experience. nceling ghettos are a key factor to integration,
Notably, there is an effort by the Danish authorities to forcefully homogenize Arab refugees into the culture. While homogenization in itself may be good in certain respects, the way in which the Danish government has handled it is quite problematic and alarming. For instance, Arab Muslim refugees are forced to take “Danish value” courses from the age of 2, and This means any finable offenses could mean imprisonment for refugees. Homogenization through mentorship may encourage refugees to adapt to new cultures, something that ensures natives and immigrants live in harmony. Such programs already exist, but require more funding from the Danish government. However, spending a lot of money on the ghetto plan destroying “ghettos” like Moljernpark as an attempt to eradicate parallel societies leaves refugees without a sense of community. Immigrants usually tend to resettle in neighborhoods with other immigrants as this helps them with the language barrier when they first move to a new country, helps preserve parts of their culture, and a lot of emotional ties are formed in these neighborhoods between neighbors. Being in such neighborhoods where they can find the products they used to use, speak their native language, and celebrate their culture gives them a taste of what the home they left felt like. These neighborhoods are crucial to the mental wellbeing of a lot of immigrants, particularly those residing in countries that find it hard to be integrated with the rest.
The ghetto plan has already been called a “waste of money” by many Danish citizens, as ten billion DKR (Danish Krone) have been allocated to the housing plan (ghetto plan). This ghetto plan was made by the Danish parliament, aiming to reduce the amount of state money used for social support programs, and leaving administrations to find funding in the future. However, rather than spending this huge sum on social support or social work, it was allocated to tearing down houses, forceful rehousing, and the overall aim of changing the profile of the population in the area
Refugees have had to endure significant amounts of hurdles in their pursuit of a better life in order to escape the realities of war in their home country. Unfortunately, their struggle only continues with their acceptance into a host country, with some European countries, Denmark and Poland being prime cases, making refugees feel unwelcome through harsh laws targeted against them. Deporting these refugees back to their home countries is not an option, since they will face persecution. On the other hand, policymaking that aims at integrating these refugees by accounting for their needs and creating a safe space creates harmony between the Danes and the refugees.
The excuse that integrating Ukrainian refugees might be easier for the Danish government due to some ‘similar cultural beliefs,’ is used to explain why most Ukrainian refugees have been given a permit for refuge that lasts up to two years, where they are exempted from any of the refugee laws mentioned. This exceptionalism was also showcased when, recently, the Danish government inquired as to the number of Ukrainian refugees that its 98 municipalities would be able to handle, all the while stripping Syrian refugees from their working permits. Denmark’s efforts to take care of Ukrainian refugees would be noble if it didn’t strip other refugees of their basic rights. It is important to note that integration programs for refugees already exist in Denmark, but they lack funding. Taking the shorter road of applying xenophobic policies and forced homogenization is unethical and alienating.
