Asylum seekers, human rights | Listhaug caused:

– We are now in a crisis situation. Everything stops, everyone has to give up and give up a lot, and then it is completely unreasonable to use resources now to accept asylum seekers due to the danger of infection, due to the arrival of new ones in the country. And that an asylum seeker is wasting considerable resources, Frp immigration policy spokesman Jon Helgheim told TV 2 when the crown measures were fact.

The limits were closed. The arrest of the refugee quota was stopped and the foreigners rejected at the border. However, one group exceeded closed limits: asylum seekers.

Also read: 35 foreigners applied for asylum in April

“Norway must, of course, fulfill its international obligations. We must follow both international law and the UN Refugee Convention, ”wrote Høyre’s immigration policy spokesperson, Ove Trellevik in Vårt Land, in response to NOAS, who was concerned that crown regulations might create problems for asylum law.

The Norwegian Refugee Council clearly distanced itself from Helgheim’s statements:

“When the Progress Party wants to exclude asylum seekers from human rights, it is a particularly unfortunate signal to send,” wrote Pål Nesse of the Norwegian Council for Refugees in a chronicle.

Also read: Pål Nesse (NRC): – Norway should receive 5,000 refugees a year, plus those in need of asylum

Corona’s measures challenge human rights

But when the Institute of Public Health released its new risk report last week, they knew that the powerful measures that have been put in place have been borderline with at least 16 human rights.

– When Norwegian authorities take steps to guarantee and respect life and health, other human rights will often be affected, FHI wrote.

They mention that rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of belief, respect for privacy, freedom of assembly, the right to education, the rights of children and the right to work are some of those that have had to resign. when the pandemic broke out.

Also read: UDI had to buy more asylum reception centers due to the crown crisis

Stack List: – Provocative

The deputy director of the Progress Party, Sylvi Listhaug, cannot be impressed by the government, and calls it provocative that “all” human rights must be waived, with the exception of the right of asylum.

– The government has neglected the human rights of Norwegian citizens in several areas after the crown pandemic hit the country. Freedom of movement is limited, many have violated the right to work due to the ban on closure, and the ban on deprivation of liberty was smoked when people were forced to be quarantined. The measures have been widely supported by the population, but it is completely incomprehensible that the right of asylum is maintained at a time when we must restrict travel between countries. No one traveling to Norway comes directly from a safe country. They often travel from another country in Europe or through Sweden, Listhaug tells Nettavisen.

She notes that Norway has based its entire immigration policy on Schengen cooperation, which has fallen apart for a long time because countries like Italy, Greece and Spain do not comply with regulations. On Wednesday, it was announced, among other things, that Greece has refused to recover nearly 950 asylum seekers since 2017.

– The question is why the government, without a wink, violates the human rights of its own people, but protects the right of asylum? Frp believes that safeguarding Norway and its own inhabitants is a priority, especially now, she says.

The Government: – The Asylum Court places in another category

Secretary of State Hilde Barstad (H) makes it clear that the measures have been necessary.

– The government has not violated human rights towards its own population. The measures introduced in Norway have been necessary due to important social considerations, in this case, to protect public health and prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Human rights provide the possibility to implement the necessary measures, both under normal conditions and during crises, and the measures do not imply a violation or violation of human rights, says Barstad.

She believes that touching the right of asylum has completely different consequences:

– When the restrictions imposed on the population itself oppose the right to request asylum, the consequences of limiting the various rights must also be considered. Of course, it is a burden not to have complete freedom of movement and to close the workplace, but to be returned to a country where one is being persecuted or at risk of being tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, however, puts a hero Another category. Therefore, human rights are also not open to making exceptions to those rights.

– Listhaug notes that asylum seekers often travel from another country in Europe or through Sweden, and not directly from an insecure country, and for this reason we believe that they can reject them. Immigration authorities continue to use the Dublin rules, among other things, to return asylum seekers to other safe European countries, to the extent possible. It should also be emphasized that a modest number of asylum seekers have come to Norway during these months, and none of them has posed a threat to public health. The quarantine rules have been followed and things have gone well, he concludes.

Aid to refugees: the right of asylum is indispensable

Pål Nesse at the Norwegian Refugee Council believes Listhaug is wrong:

– When it comes to human rights, there are some that are indispensable: the prohibition of torture and slavery are two examples, and a third is to request asylum. You do not have the right to obtain asylum, but to apply for it. We saw in March that the United Nations High Commissioners for Refugees and Human Rights came together and recalled that these are indispensable rights, Nesse tells Nettavisen.

– There are many human rights that you can restrict in certain situations, as long as it is within the law. It is easy to imagine that if I am a coronary infection, then I do not have the freedom to move where I want and infect who I want, because others have the right to their health.

– FHI has spoken of restrictions, but rights are not completely set aside. The debate on the measures is appropriate, wise, etc., it is important, but there have been hardly any human rights violations. Closing the borders for asylum seekers would be a violation, he says.

It also rejects the argument that asylum seekers who have come to Norway have had the opportunity to apply in another country.

– You are allowed to travel through various countries. More or less 100 percent of Syrians and Eritreans who come to Norway have received asylum, despite having traveled to various countries. It is a special European standard that should preferably be registered in the first country you come to, the Dublin Regulation, so as not to “buy asylum” in several countries at the same time. But he cannot yet be denied asylum in Norway, says Nesse.

Also read: the sailboat asylum seeker was heading to a completely different country than Norway