FRP leaders will make it impossible to obtain asylum in Norway

FRP leaders Sylvi Listhaug and Jon Engen-Helgheim “will make it impossible to obtain a residence permit by applying for asylum in Norway.” Those who try must be sent to third countries.

– We simply have to make it impossible to obtain residency by applying for asylum in Europe. We must enter into agreements with third countries to send people who come here as asylum seekers there, says Sylvi Listhaug, deputy leader of FRP.

She heads the FRP’s immigration committee and Jon Engen-Helgheim is the party’s immigration spokesperson. They have developed a proposed program to end “drowning and traffic accidents in the Mediterranean where human traffickers make a lot of money”.

The proposal says:

• If an asylum seeker is granted the right to protection, the applicant must either enter the UN quota system or receive protection in a country with which Norway has an agreement. Therefore, it will not be possible to obtain residence in Norway even if the asylum application has been granted. The proposal stipulates that only a limited number of quota refugees will be allowed to stay in Norway.
• FRP has previously advocated for asylum applications to be processed in the immediate area of ​​the applicant. Listhaug and Engen-Helgheim are now moving away from this. Asylum seekers arriving at the Norwegian border will have their application processed, but will not be allowed to stay in Norway even if the application is granted.

– We want to get rid of all unfounded asylum immigration overnight.

– Europe must say to asylum seekers: You cannot get asylum in Europe by applying for it at the border. If you arrive at the border, you will not be allowed to stay. Independently.

– That is what will be literally in our program, say the two.

FRP leaders want Norway to enter into agreements with countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Kenya and Rwanda that will receive, process and possibly grant asylum seekers residency.

This is what the FRP calls third countries, which according to the proposal will therefore receive asylum seekers who are currently granted residence in Norway.

They are inspired by Australia, which has decided that it should not be allowed to come to the country by boat to seek asylum.

– Europe must do the same. Then people will see that they will get nowhere by traveling to Europe with human traffickers. We want to get rid of all unfounded asylum immigration overnight. And all the drownings, they say.

– No one should be able to sneak into the queue.

– No one should be allowed to sneak into the queue and come here as asylum seekers. We will select refugees who need it in accordance with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, he says.

The right to asylum derives from the United Nations Convention on Refugees and gives refugees the right to asylum against persecution and serious abuse in the refugees’ countries of origin.

– Do you want to eliminate the right of asylum?

– No. If you need protection, you should get protection in a third country. The Refugee Convention states that no one should be sent back to the place where they are being persecuted or sentenced to death.

– The agreements must be concluded with countries that are safe. So Norway keeps its obligations, they say.

– Will Norway close the door to all asylum seekers in the world?

– Yes, so the only people who can stay in Norway are those who come as UN quota refugees, Listhaug says, saying that Norway can accept “a small quota of refugees”.

– The only thing the Refugee Convention says is that you have the right to request asylum. They must be allowed to do so. It says nothing about where you should be entitled to be when you await treatment, and it says nothing about the outcome, Engen-Helgheim adds.

Frp: Kill two birds with one stone.

FRP leaders believe Norway should “start and make arrangements with other countries so that those who come to Norway and apply will be sent back.”

– We must get the countries of the Middle East or Africa to reach an agreement in which they receive money from us for development projects and to create services to receive asylum seekers who come to Norway, they say.

– Doesn’t that mean that we place additional burdens on poor countries?

– We can defeat two birds with one stone: we can contribute to a project to raise the standard of living and improve it for the people in the countries that help us. We see in some places that the standard of living outside these camps is almost worse than in the refugee camps.

– In the Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya, there were houses inside the camp. Outside the camp there were thatched huts, so the locals really wanted to enter the camp because there were better conditions there, Listhaug recalls.

– What should Norway be willing to pay for others to receive our asylum seekers?

– We have to pay what it requires. It will save Norway a lot of money. And it will ensure that the money is used to help the many rather than the few who come to Norway.

– The current situation chooses a few winners and creates hundreds of losers for each winner, they say.

– It must protect society from excessive immigration.

– What is your motivation: humanitarian efforts or to save the Norwegian treasury for expenses?

– Our starting point is to help as many people as possible. Create a sustainable system where we can better integrate those who will be in Norway.

– So we must reduce the number of people who will integrate and make sure we spend the big money where it benefits them the most, in the surrounding areas, he says.

– And then we will protect our society from too high immigration. Just look at how Sweden is doing if it tries to save the world, adds Engen-Helgheim.

– Must obtain a majority with KrF and Venstre. Is it realistic?

– I think he will force himself to move on. These questions have enormous explosive power, Listhaug says.