in one Interview with the New Zurich newspaper (NZZ) the social-democratic Danish Minister for Integration, Mattias Tesfaye, himself the son of an Ethiopian refugee, justified and explained in more detail his country’s increasingly rigid asylum policy. With a clarity that is enviable from a German point of view, he analyzes the catastrophic consequences of the current European migration policy.
Tesfaye clarifies that the Danish government’s “zero target” does not apply to refugees, but to asylum seekers. However, he knows, “that the German press acts as if it were the same, but it is not the same.” Denmark strive “An international asylum system to help people near conflict zones.” Tesfaye stated, “shocked by the number of asylum seekers who [2015] came to Denmark, Sweden, Germany or Austria” to have been.
When migration got out of hand, as in Denmark since the 1980s, they paid “Low earners and poorly educated people pay the highest price for integration that doesn’t work.” be “not the rich quarters that have to integrate the most children. Rather, areas where the classic social democratic voters and trade unionists live have to deal with the biggest problems.”
there is “There is no correlation between the number of asylum seekers in Europe and the number of vulnerable refugees in the world. If we want to help refugees, we have to settle them in Europe and in Denmark within the framework of UN programs, and we have to invest a lot more money in international programs. Today’s asylum system is part of the problem, not the solution.”
The minister further explained the Half of the asylum seekers in Europe are not in any way vulnerable and it is mostly young men who come. If they are rejected, cause the “a bunch of problems and costs“. Every time someone applies for the right to asylum, this is a new part of the problem. Refugees should therefore be selected strictly according to humanitarian criteria.
Denmark can pursue this policy because it “Some points of European legislation excluded” have. This makes it possible to examine asylum applications in third countries. He recommends his European colleagues to follow this example.
A lack of willingness to integrate among Muslims
Not surprisingly, he identifies those from the Middle East as the most problematic group of refugees, or specifically: Muslims. “If we analyze which groups of migrants contribute to a sustainable welfare state, we see that we have no problems with people from Thailand, China or India.” For the most part, Muslims are not criminals. However, it is more important “a lack of cultural integration: the willingness to live democratic values, to accept equality between men and women or that a religion is never above the law. Or that children and young people have the right to practice their religion as they see fit and that they can marry whomever they want.”
There is also an unprecedented level of anti-Semitism. His government is planning a law that would oblige Muslim clergy to preach exclusively in Danish, to identify hate speech against Jews or homosexuals at an early stage. “Anti-Democratic Preacher” have been prevented from entering the country for years.
Tesfaye even expressed understanding for the discussion about a ban on the construction of minarets: “I can absolutely understand that we are having this discussion in Europe. We must find a way for our citizens to practice their religion, including Islam. But nobody should use religion to change our society. These discussions about minarets, calls to prayer, pork in public institutions and so on revolve around the same question: How can Muslims practice their religion without coming into conflict with the surrounding society? I’m optimistic, but again, it will be difficult to manage when large numbers of migrants from the Middle East come to us every year. Then we will have to start from the beginning to explain our culture.”
