Asks the Minister of Justice to stop the eviction of Zarina (32) – NRK Nordland

Both Tobias Drevland Lund (R) and Andreas Sjalg Unneland (SV) asked a number of questions in connection with the Zarina case.

The questions went directly to Minister of Justice Emilie Mehl.

Andreas Sjalg Unneland (SV):

– After almost 20 years in Norway, a woman lost her residence permit after she and her mother went to the police themselves and confessed to having stated the wrong nationality in their asylum application. UDI states that the woman’s connection to Norway over 18 years from the time she was 13 has been built up on an incorrect basis and is therefore given little weight.

– How does the minister think that children who come to Norway should have an incentive to clear up inaccuracies if the connection is not to be given weight and the consequences will be dramatic?

Minister of Justice Emilie Mehl:

– As I also said to the previous representative, the question is based on a single case. I cannot go into it or comment on it. And as far as I am aware, it is being processed by the immigration board, which is the independent appeals body.

– I have also answered written questions from the representative Tobias Drevland Lund in the past, and now in question time about the same with some general comments on the dilemmas that occur when parents with minor children give false explanations.

– As I highlighted in my reply to Drevland Lund in writing earlier, and in the oral round we just had, it is absolutely fundamental for the immigration policy to work that those who come here and submit applications for residence and protection provide correct information. And it is still a serious challenge that there is a not inconsiderable number who do not do so, but who give false information. Among other things, about their identity, about their nationality.

– I also think we all agree that there are some very difficult dilemmas and painful situations for people that arise when completely innocent children, perhaps after many years, become victims if a family has been granted residence on the wrong basis. Then the different cases in the immigration administration, also in the specific topic we are dealing with now, can be very different.

– There can be very large variations in how weighty considerations are in favor of one or the other outcome in the case. Other factors could be when these things were discovered. Was it while the children were young, or after they had reached adulthood? It is still important that we do not set up a practice that gives great benefits to families who explain themselves falsely, or that the practice encourages that children can simply be exploited to obtain residence on false grounds.

– But then it’s not quite the case that connection should not be given weight. In such a way that you can read a bit out of the premise of the representative. In all cases where there is someone who has achieved a strong connection to Norway after arriving as a child, a consideration is made of the individual’s connection. Against, among other things, immigration regulatory considerations when it is to be assessed whether there are grounds for granting continued residence.

– And as the representative is familiar with, it must be done concretely in each individual case. I cannot do that, but something that is in accordance with what the Storting has laid down is delegated to the UDI and the immigration board.

Andreas Sjalg Unneland (SV):

– I am glad that the Minister of Justice is making it clear that it is precisely the connection that must be emphasized. I also understand that the minister cannot go into Zarina’s case, but we have some principles in the legal system in Norway. For example, in Section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an exception is made to the duty to explain oneself to, among other things, children. The purpose of this provision is to prevent close relatives from being relieved of the burden that would entail contributing to a conviction of close relatives. It borders on the case we are facing here, but this principle clearly does not apply to people who came to Norway as children and risk leading to their parents’ extension and deportation.

– It not only violates this principle if Zarina had to report her mother, but it actually manifests the original sin in the asylum policy.

– Does the Minister of Justice believe that people who came to Norway as children must state their parents, or does the Minister think that hereditary sin is a good principle for Norwegian asylum policy?

Minister of Justice Emilie Mehl:

– I believe, on a general basis, that it is important that we have a system that enables us to uncover those cases where residence or other rights have been granted on an incorrect basis, where false information has been given. That we must not make arrangements for parents to use their children to obtain residence, or to keep residence that has been illegally obtained.

– At the same time, I understand very well that very demanding situations can arise. And demanding dilemmas. That is why we also have a set of regulations that take care of other types of considerations. Such as the consideration of the child’s best interest if it is a question of children, the attachment you have and that a concrete assessment must be made in each individual case.

– I don’t understand how the fact that you think it is still right to deport children is going to prevent children from being exploited. And deporting children who have grown up and spent large parts of their lives in Norway is simply unreasonable. Especially when you are deported to a country to which you do not feel or have any particular connection.

Andreas Sjalg Unneland (SV):

– Another important principle in criminal law is that when you admit to criminal acts, you normally get a reduced sentence. Zarina, to take her example, went to the police uninvited with her mother and cleared up a false statement given 18 years earlier. Then we are back to my original question. I want to ask the minister; do you really think that you are creating a good system when children of asylum seekers have no incentive to clean up their case when the consequences can be so dramatic?

Minister of Justice Emilie Mehl:

– Again, I cannot go into individual matters that are very much part of what the representative is asking about. At the same time, I would say that there are many ways in which children can be exploited in asylum policy. We also have problems with children who are sent in advance to be able to apply for family reunification at a later date. It is also important that we have a system that balances the various considerations here. I mean we have. I am also happy that we have a system where you have the right to a concrete assessment in each individual case. It is precisely what also makes it possible to bring out the different perspectives that can be had with these matters. Some are more rare than others, and then it is good that you have the opportunity to present your whole story. And be assessed on all that it entails.