Latest news with #KaareDybvad
Euronews
a day ago
- Politics
- Euronews
Denmark's migration reset sets the stage for EU-wide rethink
When it comes to migration, Denmark can barely hide its sense of vindication. "What has been mainstream among our populations for quite many years is now mainstream for many of us politicians as well," Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said earlier this month, speaking at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. "Finally." Her minister for immigration, Kaare Dybvad, feels equally triumphant. "I remember when I started in this post three years ago, the Austrian minister was the only one who supported these notions," Dybvad told Euronews in an interview. "Now it seems there are a lot more countries that have rallied around the notion that we should get democratic control of the migrant flows." For years, Denmark was considered the European Union's black sheep of migration policy. In the aftermath of the 2015-2016 migration crisis, the country began adopting increasingly restrictive rules to deter arrivals and hinder access to legal safeguards, a decision powered by its opt-out clause from the EU asylum framework. In 2019, Denmark approved a "paradigm shift" law that made temporary protection for refugees the new norm. The focus turned to self-sufficiency to stimulate integration in the labour market and reduce welfare dependency. Permanent residence was still available, but subject to strict criteria on full-time, long-lasting employment. By limiting the duration of asylum, Danish authorities made it easier to check whether the grounds of protection were still applicable and, if not, whether deportation was feasible. Denmark became the first European nation to declare parts of Syria as "safe", alleging the situation on the ground had "improved significantly". At that time, the designation, which saw the residence permits of hundreds of Syrian refugees revoked, proved extremely controversial and made international headlines. A similar outcry occurred in 2021 when Denmark signed a memorandum of understanding with Rwanda. Under the deal, Denmark would transfer asylum seekers to a reception centre in the African nation to wait for the examination of their applications. It was the first time that an EU member state openly pursued an outsourcing strategy. The European Commission, which had harshly criticised a similar scheme between the United Kingdom and Rwanda, reserved its right to take legal action. "External processing of asylum applications raises fundamental questions about both access to asylum procedures but also effective access to protection in line with the requirements of international law," a Commission spokesperson said in 2022. A year later, Denmark ditched the plan – but retained the principle. Instead of pursuing outsourcing at a national level, the country would aim higher: the European dimension. From black sheep to shepherd The Danish bet on the European level did not immediately resonate. The bloc was then negotiating the New Pact of Migration and Asylum, a comprehensive reform aimed at establishing common, predictable rules for the reception and distribution of asylum seekers. The talks were bitter and intense, and laid bare the old-age divisions between the South and the North. At times, the Pact seemed doomed to fail. In the end, member states recognised the value of having collective legislation to deal with a cross-border challenge like irregular migration. The five interlinked laws under the Pact were adopted on 14 May 2024, with only Poland and Hungary voting against. The moment was hailed as a historic breakthrough. But for Copenhagen, it was not enough. Two days after the vote, Denmark published a letter co-signed by Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania. In the document, the 15-strong group advocated, in no uncertain terms, the outsourcing of asylum procedures, including by setting up a "return hub mechanism" where "returnees could be transferred to while waiting their final removal". The letter made special mention of Italy's initiative to build centres in Albania to process asylum claims of migrants rescued in high waters. It was a show of force and a declaration of intent that Brussels could no longer ignore. The conversation quickly shifted from the Pact to so-called "innovative solutions". In October, the lobbying paid its greatest dividend when Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, endorsed the idea of building deportation centres on foreign soil, a clean break from the executive's traditional thinking. Soon after her re-election, the Commission presented a draft regulation that would enable member states to strike arrangements with nations outside the bloc to transfer rejected asylum seekers in return for financial incentives. By coincidence, the law is primed for negotiations just as Denmark assumes the six-month presidency of the EU Council. The country has underscored its intention to reach a political deal on the file before the end of the year. Another key priority is the review of the "safe third country" concept, which would facilitate the relocation of asylum seekers beyond European borders. "We want to move the migration agenda forward," Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Denmark's foreign minister, said earlier this month in a briefing with journalists in Aarhus. "It's well known we have a rather tough policy towards illegal migration, and we have proven to be pretty successful," he added. Pushing the law As it happens, Copenhagen has more-than-decent chances of success: the 15-country group that backed the 2024 letter has grown over time and today represents a decisive majority. Germany joined shortly after its new federal chancellor, Friedrich Merz, came into office. Merz has praised Denmark's migration policy as "truly exemplary". The speed at which things are moving has alarmed humanitarian organisations, who warn that outsourcing will waste taxpayers' money and fuel human suffering. "Denmark's model of migration control is being advertised as the gold standard and worthy of imitation because it aims to deter asylum-seekers from coming," said Céline Mias, EU director at the Danish Refugee Council (DRC). "The current trend of European nations focusing on deterrence mechanisms and externalising asylum processes is not only ethically questionable, often violating the principle of non-refoulement, but also demonstrably ineffective in the long run." At any rate, outsourcing remains a largely abstract concept. Neither Denmark, its allies nor the European Commission have yet offered details on what these external facilities might look like in practice. There has been no financial estimation, no logistical blueprint and, crucially, no suggested destination. The Italian-Albanian protocol, which von der Leyen hailed as a pioneering model from which the bloc could draw lessons, has fallen well below the five-digit figure of asylum seekers originally announced. With a reported price tag of €74.2 million, the centres currently host a few hundred migrants under deportation order. Danish officials admit they have not yet conducted an assessment to flesh out the project of "return hubs", but insist any agreement with a non-EU country should be designed as a mutually beneficial partnership and comply with international law and fundamental rights, a high standard that might complicate the selection process. Given the divisive nature of outsourcing, the scheme is expected to be pursued by a "coalition of the willing" with the political and potentially financial support of Brussels. A progressive spin Denmark's approach to migration comes with an ideological twist. Instead of being spearheaded by a right-wing government, as is generally the case in Europe, the stringent policy is enthusiastically promoted by the Social Democrats. The party defends many of the ideas common in the European left, such as climate action, gender equality, LGBTQ rights and a strong welfare state. But on migration, it has chosen to deviate sharply from the progressive agenda and adopt a hard line that raises eyebrows among socialists and prompts cheers among conservatives. The taboo-breaking fusion has played in Frederiksen's favour. The prime minister is one of the three socialists who have managed to survive the recent right-wing shift and retain their seat in the European Council. The other two are Malta's Robert Abela, who supports outsourcing, and Spain's Pedro Sánchez, who opposes it. "We need to tackle the migratory phenomenon by thinking about the future generations and not the future elections," Sánchez said last year, arguing a welcoming approach was necessary to address Europe's demographic crisis and ensure economic prosperity. But Frederiksen and her ministers are convinced that their method is the only viable option for centre-left politicians to stay in power and fend off the advance of hard-right forces, which pose a direct threat to their progressive beliefs. Kaare Dybvad, Denmark's minister for immigration, believes other social democratic parties should reframe the hot-button issue by taking their cue from Copenhagen. "Migration is often a burden for the constituents. Working-class communities have taken the largest part of the task of integrating people into local communities and the labour market," Dybvad told Euronews. "And therefore, if you're a party that is representing low-skilled, low-paid people, then you should be quite restrictive around migration." Asked if he felt vindicated by Europe's change of heart, the minister said: "I'm just happy that we have a lot more discussions on these matters."
Euronews
a day ago
- Politics
- Euronews
Denmark's migration reset sets stage for EU-wide rethink
When it comes to migration, Denmark can barely hide its sense of vindication. "What has been mainstream among our populations for quite many years is now mainstream for many of us politicians as well," Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said earlier this month, speaking at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. "Finally." Her minister for immigration, Kaare Dybvad, feels equally triumphant. "I remember when I started in this post three years ago, the Austrian minister was the only one who supported these notions," Dybvad told Euronews in an interview. "Now it seems there are a lot more countries that have rallied around the notion that we should get democratic control of the migrant flows." For years, Denmark was considered the European Union's black sheep of migration policy. In the aftermath of the 2015-2016 migration crisis, the country began adopting increasingly restrictive rules to deter arrivals and hinder access to legal safeguards, a decision powered by its opt-out clause from the EU asylum framework. In 2019, Denmark approved a "paradigm shift" law that made temporary protection for refugees the new norm. The focus turned to self-sufficiency to stimulate integration in the labour market and reduce welfare dependency. Permanent residence was still available, but subject to strict criteria on full-time, long-lasting employment. By limiting the duration of asylum, Danish authorities made it easier to check whether the grounds of protection were still applicable and, if not, whether deportation was feasible. Denmark became the first European nation to declare parts of Syria as "safe", alleging the situation on the ground had "improved significantly". At that time, the designation, which saw the residence permits of hundreds of Syrian refugees revoked, proved extremely controversial and made international headlines. A similar outcry occurred in 2021 when Denmark signed a memorandum of understanding with Rwanda. Under the deal, Denmark would transfer asylum seekers to a reception centre in the African nation to wait for the examination of their applications. It was the first time that an EU member state openly pursued an outsourcing strategy. The European Commission, which had harshly criticised a similar scheme between the United Kingdom and Rwanda, reserved its right to take legal action. "External processing of asylum applications raises fundamental questions about both access to asylum procedures but also effective access to protection in line with the requirements of international law," a Commission spokesperson said in 2022. A year later, Denmark ditched the plan – but retained the principle. Instead of pursuing outsourcing at a national level, the country would aim higher: the European dimension. From black sheep to shepherd The Danish bet on the European level did not immediately resonate. The bloc was then negotiating the New Pact of Migration and Asylum, a comprehensive reform aimed at establishing common, predictable rules for the reception and distribution of asylum seekers. The talks were bitter and intense, and laid bare the old-age divisions between the South and the North. At times, the Pact seemed doomed to fail. In the end, member states recognised the value of having collective legislation to deal with a cross-border challenge like irregular migration. The five interlinked laws under the Pact were adopted on 14 May 2024, with only Poland and Hungary voting against. The moment was hailed as a historic breakthrough. But for Copenhagen, it was not enough. Two days after the vote, Denmark published a letter co-signed by Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania. In the document, the 15-strong group advocated, in no uncertain terms, the outsourcing of asylum procedures, including by setting up a "return hub mechanism" where "returnees could be transferred to while waiting their final removal". The letter made special mention of Italy's initiative to build centres in Albania to process asylum claims of migrants rescued in high waters. It was a show of force and a declaration of intent that Brussels could no longer ignore. The conversation quickly shifted from the Pact to so-called "innovative solutions". In October, the lobbying paid its greatest dividend when Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, endorsed the idea of building deportation centres on foreign soil, a clean break from the executive's traditional thinking. Soon after her re-election, the Commission presented a draft regulation that would enable member states to strike arrangements with nations outside the bloc to transfer rejected asylum seekers in return for financial incentives. By coincidence, the law is primed for negotiations just as Denmark assumes the six-month presidency of the EU Council. The country has underscored its intention to reach a political deal on the file before the end of the year. Another key priority is the review of the "safe third country" concept, which would facilitate the relocation of asylum seekers beyond European borders. "We want to move the migration agenda forward," Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Denmark's foreign minister, said earlier this month in a briefing with journalists in Aarhus. "It's well known we have a rather tough policy towards illegal migration, and we have proven to be pretty successful," he added. Pushing the law As it happens, Copenhagen has more-than-decent chances of success: the 15-country group that backed the 2024 letter has grown over time and today represents a decisive majority. Germany joined shortly after its new federal chancellor, Friedrich Merz, came into office. Merz has praised Denmark's migration policy as "truly exemplary". The speed at which things are moving has alarmed humanitarian organisations, who warn that outsourcing will waste taxpayers' money and fuel human suffering. "Denmark's model of migration control is being advertised as the gold standard and worthy of imitation because it aims to deter asylum-seekers from coming," said Céline Mias, EU director at the Danish Refugee Council (DRC). "The current trend of European nations focusing on deterrence mechanisms and externalising asylum processes is not only ethically questionable, often violating the principle of non-refoulement, but also demonstrably ineffective in the long run." At any rate, outsourcing remains a largely abstract concept. Neither Denmark, its allies nor the European Commission have yet offered details on what these external facilities might look like in practice. There has been no financial estimation, no logistical blueprint and, crucially, no suggested destination. The Italian-Albanian protocol, which von der Leyen hailed as a pioneering model from which the bloc could draw lessons, has fallen well below the five-digit figure of asylum seekers originally announced. With a reported price tag of €74.2 million, the centres currently host a few hundred migrants under deportation order. Danish officials admit they have not yet conducted an assessment to flesh out the project of "return hubs", but insist any agreement with a non-EU country should be designed as a mutually beneficial partnership and comply with international law and fundamental rights, a high standard that might complicate the selection process. Given the divisive nature of outsourcing, the scheme is expected to be pursued by a "coalition of the willing" with the political and potentially financial support of Brussels. A progressive spin Denmark's approach to migration comes with an ideological twist. Instead of being spearheaded by a right-wing government, as is generally the case in Europe, the stringent policy is enthusiastically promoted by the Social Democrats. The party defends many of the ideas common in the European left, such as climate action, gender equality, LGBTQ rights and a strong welfare state. But on migration, it has chosen to deviate sharply from the progressive agenda and adopt a hard line that raises eyebrows among socialists and prompts cheers among conservatives. The taboo-breaking fusion has played in Frederiksen's favour. The prime minister is one of the three socialists who have managed to survive the recent right-wing shift and retain their seat in the European Council. The other two are Malta's Robert Abela, who supports outsourcing, and Spain's Pedro Sánchez, who opposes it. "We need to tackle the migratory phenomenon by thinking about the future generations and not the future elections," Sánchez said last year, arguing a welcoming approach was necessary to address Europe's demographic crisis and ensure economic prosperity. But Frederiksen and her ministers are convinced that their method is the only viable option for centre-left politicians to stay in power and fend off the advance of hard-right forces, which pose a direct threat to their progressive beliefs. Kaare Dybvad, Denmark's minister for immigration, believes other social democratic parties should reframe the hot-button issue by taking their cue from Copenhagen. "Migration is often a burden for the constituents. Working-class communities have taken the largest part of the task of integrating people into local communities and the labour market," Dybvad told Euronews. "And therefore, if you're a party that is representing low-skilled, low-paid people, then you should be quite restrictive around migration." Asked if he felt vindicated by Europe's change of heart, the minister said: "I'm just happy that we have a lot more discussions on these matters."
Euractiv
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Euractiv
EU's migration Zeitenwende must include all, no opt-outs, Danish minister says
Kaare Dybvad, Danish minister for integration and immigration, hopes Denmark's Council presidency can push returns forward, downplaying Dutch hopes of getting their own opt-out in an interview with Euractiv. Since Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen seized power in 2019, Dybvad has served as minister in her different governments and now holds the migration portfolio. As such, for the next half a year, Dybvad will sit at the end of the table when EU migration ministers meet. On Tuesday, he hosted his European counterparts and EU migration chief Magnus Brunner for an informal gathering in Copenhagen. What follows is an edited transcript. Denmark has been a vocal backer of 'return hubs.' What exactly is your position, and how widely supported is this idea across the EU? Dybvad: We support the return hubs as a concept. I'd say most European countries, at least the ones I've heard from, support return hubs in some form. Of course, there are concerns – especially about safeguarding human rights and monitoring conditions. But broadly, this approach is seen as a way to ensure that more people are actually returned. Is there any progress on where these return hubs might be located, or which third countries are in play? That's tricky. You don't get the countries before you get the deal. If you want these arrangements, you need to negotiate first – not announce names in advance. But I don't see it as harder than other agreements already out there. The Italian-Albanian deal, for example, shows it can be done. If the EU negotiates as a bloc, it has leverage. More broadly, there seems to be a shift across the EU toward stricter migration policy. Do you see this as sudden or something more gradual? It's been a gradual change. When I started three years ago, Austria was basically the only one supporting our line. Now that's changing – and the biggest shift came from Germany. Their new government openly supports abolishing the connection criteria. That's key to making third-country arrangements legal under EU law. Denmark has had an opt-out on justice and home affairs since the 90s – what role does that play in Denmark's position as a broker on migration issues? I've had that conversation with the former Dutch asylum minister, Marjolein Faber. She was very interested in getting one for the Netherlands. But honestly, I don't think the opt-out does a lot. There are areas where we don't vote or get affected by decisions, sure. But when it comes to real migration outcomes – lower numbers, better control – it's more about efficient return policy and coordination with neighbours. That matters more than any opt-out. At the European level, in the Council with the EU countries, how do you see Danish migration policy affecting other countries? I don't know if our migration policy directly affects other countries, but I think that we proved that you can, from a centre-left perspective, handle these problems, that you can get democratic control of migration policy. And I hope, and this is also what some of my colleagues say, that this inspires others to try to get better control, and to do it from a standardised and left position instead of letting far-right parties run with this agenda. Do you see other centre-left parties, your colleagues in S&D, adopting your stance on this? Aren't you pretty alone on the centre-left? I'm seeing a lot of centre-left parties, social democratic parties, and governments that are huge in this policy. In Austria, you have the SPÖ; in Germany, you have the SPD in government with the Christian Democrats. In Belgium, the Flemish social democrats are part of the coalition government. In Sweden, you'll see the opposition social democrats now also changing their policy. So I think I see it in quite a lot of places right now. And of course, many of the Central and Eastern European social democrats also have quite a strict policy. The Maltese government, which is social democratic, has also introduced some very strict migration policies. There are a lot of sovereign democrats and governments in Europe right now implementing some of the policies that we have tried to implement. But in the European Parliament, the Socialists are led by the Spanish delegation, one of the biggest, and far from your line. How do you get them on board? That's going to be a discussion in the coming half year, of course, from our side. I hope people will be reasonable, and that at least the delegations from different countries will look at their own countries and see what is working, and how we're actually implementing policy at the domestic level. And I'd say for the Spanish side – if I could get some kind of agreement like Spain has with Morocco, we would very much like that. I think there are some very effective migration policies that have been introduced by the Sánchez government – and at least from my side as a minister, I'm very jealous of that. (mm)
Times
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Times
EU wants UN backing for Rwanda-style migrant ‘return hubs'
The European Union is seeking United Nations support for plans to forcibly deport failed asylum seekers or illegal migrants to 'return hubs' outside Europe, to avoid the legal challenges that sank Britain's Rwanda scheme. European interior ministers will hear presentations from the UN on the conditions for its refugee agency to take part in, and approve, deportation or 'place of safety' centres in countries such as Tunisia, Mauritania, Jordan, Egypt or Uganda. The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, last year called for an exploration of return hubs in a letter to the EU's national leaders, citing a deal between Italy and Albania as a possible model. Kaare Dybvad, the Danish immigration minister, who is chairing the talks in Copenhagen, stressed that the plans were urgently needed to 'get control of migration flow back into the democratic sphere', as European elections show increasing gains for nationalist and populist parties. 'The European asylum system is broken and we need innovative solutions,' he said before the talks. 'We are under pressure. We need to return people faster, we need to make innovative solutions and agreements outside of the EU.' Up to 80 per cent of failed asylum seekers — half of those who apply — who were ordered to leave countries across Europe have not done so, including dangerous criminals and terror suspects who have gone on to carry out attacks. While the EU is moving towards plans similar to the British Rwanda model — of setting up centres outside Europe to deter asylum seekers — governments want to ensure that plans are legally watertight, especially after judicial challenges to the Italian scheme in Albania. Crucially, under these plans, migrants housed in the 'return hubs' would already have been refused asylum — unlike those covered in Britain's Rwanda plan or Italy's Albanian asylum centres. 'It is part of the legislative work that we have to do now and to make sure it is possible,' said Dybvad. 'Return hubs are about returning people who are already rejected as asylum seekers. Reception centres as in Albania … as in Rwanda, that is about processing asylum claims. We need to make our own European model for these solutions.' On top of deportations, the EU is additionally looking at 'places of safety' centres for temporary reception and screening of refugees. UN involvement is seen as vital to making these proposals legally watertight and preventing judges from striking down plans. A 2023 ruling in the British Supreme Court against the Rwanda scheme followed a warning from the UN's refugee agency, the UNHCR, that it potentially breached the international conventions that set rules for asylum. A diplomat said: 'It is about showing that this is not a taboo with the UN and that we can work with them to make it more legally viable.' The UNHCR has not ruled out supporting the EU deportation centres but has asked for many legal safeguards that would water down and restrict the powers that national governments would have to detain and deport failed asylum seekers. Under a new EU return directive, tabled in March, deportations will be carried out either to the migrant's country of origin, or a country they transited through as well as a new option of a 'return hub' — an idea that was previously ruled out as illegal. The UN is opposed to EU proposals that failed asylum seekers or foreign criminals will no longer be able to have their deportations suspended while their appeal is heard, a loophole that often allows people to disappear upon their release. Bruno Retailleau, the French interior minister, warned that the status quo was not an option. He said: 'Today our states are totally disarmed, especially for forced removals. Throughout Europe, whether governments are conservative or social democrat, all the peoples have the same demand: control of mass immigration that has completely escaped us.'
Euractiv
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Euractiv
Denmark pushes offshore asylum to hit smugglers' profit
Externalisation of asylum procedures is the best way to "break the business model" of smugglers, Danish Immigration Minister Kaare Dybvad said on Tuesday, ahead of the informal meeting of EU migration ministers in Copenhagen. Asylum processing "is not necessarily something that has to happen inside the EU," he said, framing migration flows as a system run by "organisations that make billions every year." On the table: the Commission's return regulation and safe third country proposals, files that could redefine EU asylum. Under the new rules, asylum seekers could be deported to countries they passed through – or never even entered – if a deal exists. The mandatory "connection" requirement would be scrapped, with national laws left to decide what counts. "What they sell is a product and the product is access to European countries," Dybvad said of smugglers. "If we devalue that product and make it impossible for them, it will be much more difficult to transfer people." The solution, he said, lies in striking agreements with countries outside the EU, a key topic at this informal meeting, which will shape migration priorities after the summer break. Earlier, Poland's Deputy Interior Minister Maciej Duszczyk confirmed there are 'ideas' for setting up new return hubs in third countries, though he didn't name potential locations. The often-invoked Italy-Albania asylum deal remains in limbo, but it is facing mounting legal scrutiny. The latest blow came from Italy's supreme court, which has called it potentially unconstitutional, reigniting tensions between the judiciary and Meloni's government. "The European asylum system is broken, we need innovative solutions," Dybvad added. Asked about Spain's well-known reservations on return hubs, the minister said, "I think it's too early to say if Spain should be in or out," adding, "It's one of the discussions today and in the coming months." He acknowledged differing views across member states but noted that "there's a quite big majority of member states now supporting innovative solutions." Rejecting the idea of a north-south split, he stressed, "I don't see it as a conflict between north and south. I just see it as a conflict between different points of view and the relation to how we handle migration in Europe." (mm)
