Yeah, I am in Glasgow...Left Denmark for the very same changes in immigration laws almost 9 years ago.
EUsmileWEallsmile wrote:Perhaps it is time for people to persuade others that 3rd country family members are not a threat to Danish way of life.
LMFAO there is no way in hell the majority of Danes will ever see foreigners as anything else as a choice between the plague and Cholera.
In the post-September 11th atmosphere dominated by widespread
islamophobia, the L-C coalition promised stricter controls and tougher policies, and an end to the lenient immigration policies and practices of the Social Democratic-Radical coalition.
After the 2001 election, a new Ministry for Refugees, Immigrants and Integration was formed, taking over tasks that had belonged to the Ministry for the Interior. The new minister assumed responsibility for the Aliens Act, the Integration Act (see below), statistics on foreigners, ethnic equality, naturalization, instruction in Danish language and civics, etc.
The L-C government soon presented a legislative "package" on immigration and integration to Parliament. Its principal purpose was to restrict the number of immigrants and refugees, to introduce tougher requirements on access to permanent residence and citizenship, to
ensure the loyalty of newcomers to "Danish values," and to speed up the integration of immigrants, particularly women and young, second-generation males, into the labor market.
The proposals passed into law in the summer of 2002 due to DPP support. Since then, a large number of new policy statements, proposals, and initiatives have followed, including an agreement between the government and the DPP titled A New Chance for Everybody (2005).
Yet policies based on the idea that thorough integration and acculturation are necessary for guaranteeing the welfare state and its social cohesion were introduced well before the L-C government came to power. One of the most important pieces of legislation in that regard is the Integration Act of 1999.
Being the first of its kind in a Western country, the act assigned the main responsibility for integration to the municipalities. Previously, the Danish Refugee Aid organization had been responsible for an 18-month-long introduction program, with municipalities responsible for "activating" (i.e., putting immigrants to socially useful but unpaid work outside the ordinary job market) and housing refugees, and regional governments for language instruction. The government intended the Integration Act to improve the management and coordination of the integration process by uniting all its disparate elements under the same political authority.
In addition, the formal integration period was extended from 18 months to three years, during which refugees and immigrants over age 18 are expected to learn Danish; familiarize themselves with Danish history, culture and society; acquire skills and competences needed to find jobs; and generally participate in everyday life.
Family dependents, EU and Nordic citizens, and immigrants on the so-called Job Card Scheme (an initiative passed by the government in 2003 that allows companies to bring high-skilled workers to Denmark with little bureaucratic hassle) are not obliged to take part in the introduction program or to be "activated" for labor-market integration, but they may join the program, and many family dependents have done so.
On its introduction in 1999, the Integration Act became the object of intense public debate, partly because it contained a monthly integration allowance, which was considerably lower than the corresponding welfare benefits Danes receive in comparable social situations. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), among others, found it to be a case of negative discrimination and unequal treatment of foreigners and thus a violation of international refugee conventions, to which Denmark is a signatory. After a few months, the government backed down and withdrew this section of the act.
However, when the L-C government took office, the reduced payment was reintroduced in a new form and under a new name ("start allowance" or "introductory allowance"), in extreme cases receivable for up to seven years. Conditions were phrased so that the law does not formally discriminate against ethnic minorities, since Danish citizens also risk being subjected to its provisions.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the law was motivated by the considerably higher unemployment rate among ethnic minorities and a belief that lower welfare benefits might work as an incentive to look for employment more actively.
The DPP made it clear that, in its perspective, the objective was also to reduce the attractiveness of Denmark for potential asylum seekers, in other words to minimize the alleged pull factor for would-be "welfare scroungers." And whether or not this or other initiatives introduced to curtail immigration were responsible,
the number of asylum seekers over the last five years has dropped by nearly two-thirds.
The same kind of dual motivation also applies to other immigration policy compartments, including the "24-year rule" for family reunification introduced by the L-C government in 2003. The general rule is that no Danish citizen can marry a non-EU or Nordic foreign national and settle in Denmark with his/her spouse unless both parties are 24 years or older.
Even so, the Danish Integration Service has to screen and approve the spouse based on criteria such as "aggregate affiliation," a discretionary assessment by the Immigration Service on whether the couple has stronger ties to Denmark or to some other country; proper housing facilities, which the resident spouse must have at his or her disposal; and financial independence of government aid, based on an assessment of the financial circumstances of the resident spouse.
One unintended effect of the law has been that young, native Danes with foreign spouses have had to settle in other EU countries; most of them choose neighboring Sweden, which has no such restrictions.
The law, which had support from the Social Democrats, was supposedly meant to restrict forced marriages and protect ethnic minority women from family pressure. The DPP's support was based on the law's ability to restrict the number of foreigners entering Denmark.
Both the 24-year rule and reduced welfare benefits have been roundly criticized by the UN, the EU, and the Council of Europe for being discriminatory and making life more difficult for people who are already in a marginalized and vulnerable social position.
Source:
http://www.migrationinformation.org/fea ... cfm?ID=485
See where UKBA got their ideas from for the consultation document?
Good intentions are appreciated but results are what matters..
