Citizenship, immigration and refugee crises universalism and civil rights under pressure in Scandinavian Countries 1

Transcription

1 1 Citizenship, immigration and refugee crises universalism and civil rights under pressure in Scandinavian Countries 1 Trond Solhaug Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU, Norway trond.solhaug@plu.ntnu.no Niels Nørgaard Kristensen Ålborg University Denmark nnk@dps.aau.dk Very first draft! Not to be cited. Abstract The theme of this paper is how the notion of social citizenship and the notion of universalism in welfare states is increasingly under pressure as the refugee crises challenges the solidarity among groups of citizens. More profoundly, immigration also seem to destabilize the modern welfare states as social citizenship and particularly universalism is put under pressure. This paper analyses how two Scandinavian countries with their universalist welfare state models handle the consequences of the refugee crises at the policy level, and how these political markings relate to the normative ideals of social citizenship and universalism. Theoretically the paper draws on Gøsta Esping-Andersen s welfare state models. The method is public document analysis, and data consist of public documents from Denmark and Norway. A main finding is that recent changes in the immigration policy is motivated by sustainability of the welfare states. The analysis discuss findings in the light of the welfare state models, here notably the universal and rights based Scandinavian model. 1 Work in progress. Please do not quote.

2 2 Introduction When crowds of refugees swept across the borders of European countries in the late summer of 2015 it destabilized the social cohesiveness, not only within the European Union, but also broadly across European countries and within European societies, as it challenged the solidarity among groups of citizens. In the case of national citizenship for example, highly increased immigration has reconfigured citizens sense of belonging by adding geographically and culturally distinct layers to their pre-existing social identities (Miller, 1995; Brubaker, 1998). Hence citizens citizenship and national identity has become infused with exclusionary, ethnic and culturist ideals (Balibar, 2009), and it continues to nourish group struggles for recognition (Kymlicka 2011). While some developments (such as the introduction of EU citizenship in some countries) may hint at a gradual move away from such exclusionary practices (Habermas, 1998), current policy debates in Denmark and Norway about how to respond (normatively) and handle (empirically) the refugee crisis underscore their on-going relevance (Jantzi, 2015). Important questions also remain about the genuine meaning of and the most appropriate methods for addressing the intersection between social citizenship and immigration. Also, we know very little about what characterizes this intersection, how it differs from one another, how it depends on the model of citizenship, the context in which they are applied to, and the citizens it relates to. We basically argue that we see signs of warning from political authorities and that there is growing evidence in Denmark and Norway that international conventions regarding refugees are currently being sacrificed on the altar of national welfare politics and opinion polls. The Scandinavian democracies have the most advanced welfare systems safe-guarding citizen s social rights. Still, the current refugee crises has made the theme of citizenship and immigration become an everyday talk and has created fierce political contradictions on policies, rights, practices of solidarity and integration at all levels of society. While policies and practices of exclusion and inclusion has evolved slowly for decades, we now face day to day changes of civil, political and social citizenship and social and legal rights play a new and decisive role in inclusion and exclusion regarding cultural, political and social community. Our research intention is; to explore how the tension between states responsibilities for immigration and refugees on the one hand, and universal social citizenship on the other is resolved in two Scandinavian countries.

3 3 We respond to this question by looking at recent political views as expressed in governmental documents and proposed legal changes in relevant laws. We start, however, with some theoretical arguments. Theory When describing the Scandinavian welfare model and social policy, reference is most often made to the principle of universalism. According to Kildal and Kuhnle (2005) the guiding principle of Scandinavian social policies is universalism. This means that the Scandinavian countries have set out to develop a welfare state that includes the entire population. The universalist Scandinavian welfare model is often described as the social democratic model or social democratic regime (Esping-Andersen 1990). European or Western welfare systems are typically classified by account of Esping-Andersen s classic book The three worlds of welfare capitalism (1990). Here, he makes a distinction between three distinct regimes of welfare: the liberal, the corporatist-conservative and the social democratic. This classification is based on two presumptions concerning the differentials and similarities between these systems. The first one states that similar economic-political systems lead to the same type of institutional structures. The second one states that similar institutional structures will have the same effects on living conditions for citizens in same types of welfare systems (Esping-Andersen 1990). The Scandinavian universalist welfare model was brought into discussion fairly late by comparative welfare state scholars. Thus, according to Esping-Andersen, it lacks the same kind of strong political and normative ethos that was typical to post-war welfare state debate in Britain. If universalism lost much of its earlier importance in Britain already in the 1970s and 1980s, in the Scandinavian countries the same time period witnessed that universalism became the leading doctrine, idea and principle (Anttonen & Sipilä 2015). Universalism has gradually become nearly parallel with the notion of Scandinavian in social policy literature. This way the language of universalism becomes more ambiguous and complex. Universalism is an ideal and political goal to be achieved by universalist solutions in social policy (Anttonen & Sipilä 2015: 7).

4 4 The notion of universal welfare model is however something that has been used only very recently. Up until mid 1980s the distinction between the institutional and residual model was the most important one. In his book of The Democratic Class Struggle Korpi (1983, ) presented that marginal and institutional policy models can be seen as ideal types representing two opposite poles on a number of sub-dimensions. Typical dimensions to the marginal model are for instance low proportion of GNP for social purposes, minor importance of programmes preventing needs, extensive use of selective social policies, major role of private organisations and dominant financing basing on fees. Typical to the institutional policy model are the following features: high proportion of GNP, major importance of preventive programmes, extensive use of universal social policies, minor role of private organizations and financing basing on taxation (Anttonen & Sipilä 2015). In Korpi s classification universalism is defined as having a special importance in the way (re)distribution of resources is made in a society. Universalistic measures are directed towards large sections of population, while selective policies are directed toward subgroups of the population with specific needs. According to Korpi in areas where universal programmes exist, institutional social policy decreases inequality by making it possible for lower socio-economic strata to enjoy roughly the same standard as other groups. Universalism is thus a precondition for equality of citizens and universalist social policies part of democratic class struggle (Anttonen & Sipilä 2015). Esping-Andersen further developed the distinction between marginal and residual model and arrived at his famous regime theory. The institutional model is renamed by social democratic regime alongside liberal and conservative regimes. According to his definition the socialdemocratic regime-type emphasises solidarity, universal rights and de-commodifying (Esping Andersen 1990, 28). In his account of welfare regimes Esping-Andersen builds on the distinction proposed earlier by Titmuss (1974), who distinguished three system-types in social policy, those of residual, industrial-achievement, and institutional ones. Accordingly, it is understandable that institutional, universal and social democratic are nearly synonymous concepts even if the notion of institutional has nearly vanished from welfare state literature. Scandinavian scholars

5 5 often use the labels of universal, social democratic, and Scandinavian welfare state to describe roughly the same thing (e.g. Bergh 2004). The fact that the Scandinavian countries have applied universal welfare rights to such an extent, makes the system vulnerable to changes in population structure, like decline in birth-rates, increase in elderly people, lowering of public health and also large increase in number of immigrants being refugees, asylum seekers or work migrants. In this article we focus on the latter groups of immigrants and explore the tension between immigration and social citizenship as it is expressed in the policy documents and proposed legal changes in Denmark and Norway. Method The method used in this paper is document analysis and web-presentations of legal changes to immigration. In Norway there are two key documents, Meld. St. 30 ( ), [Report to the Storting], hereafter referred to Stm 30 and Prop 90 L ( ) hereafter referred to Prop 90 suggesting legal changes. In Denmark the analysis is mainly based on governmental presentations on the w.w.w. The context the case of Denmark A new and restrictive immigration policy In the late summer and in the autumn of 2015 historically comprehensive crowds of refugees provided a vast pressure upon the borders of Europe including those of Denmark. A fast and farreaching legislative reaction from the Danish government provided a series of new immigration policies, resulting in a relatively modest increase in the number of asylum seekers compared to the other Scandinavian countries. The most prominent clamp-downs to the Danish Aliens Act include: (Regeringen.dk (2016): - A lower introductory benefit for newcomers, as well as for Danish citizens who have not lived in Denmark for 7 out of the last 8 years - A new and more restrictive qualifying principle for child and youth benefit for newcomers - Time spent in country of origin is no longer included when old age pension is calculated, and reduces the pension benefit.

6 6 Besides from these regulations the possibilities for acquiring Danish citizenship have also been tightened. The implications of this is that foreign citizens who are born and raised in Denmark now must apply for Danish citizenship by naturalisation, and also that they must pass a Danish language test, and that they must pass a test for Danish naturalisation demonstrating knowledge of Danish society, culture and history. Finally they must have been economically self-supporting for the past 4,5 years and free of deferred periods of criminality. There has also been a number of tightenings of the asylum requirements of the law. Including a decrease in duration for asylum seekers and more self-payment. It also implies tougher policies on rejected asylum seekers and criminals. The Danish parliament has established new border controls, notably an exceptional and temporarily border control at inner Schengen borders. There have also been agreements to launch tougher policies on imams and religious preachers undermining Danish laws and Danish values (Regeringen.dk 2016). In January 2016 a broad coalition in Danish parliament passed the infamous L87, better known as «the jewellery law», legalizing the seizing of major assets and expensive pieces of jewellery belonging to asylum seekers, which the primeminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen announced as the most misunderstood act of law in Danish history. Never the less it divided influential political parties and also reached majors papers worldwide such as International New York Times. New restrictions on the legislation concerning family reunification for refugees has also been established, including a tightening of the demands related to obtaining a permanent residence, and legal requirements concerning language skills and employment. The government and public servants, have admitted that this legislation L87 might be in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. The violation of HR is because this rule of law together with restrictions on family reunification to wait up till 3 years, violates the rights of a family life, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on unequivocal respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, as stipulated in Article 8. In summary

7 7 the refugee crises and accompanying increase in immigration has led to severe restrictions on welfare benefits and also a brake with the principle of universalism in Denmark. The case of Norway: The refugee/immigration context. The UN High Commissioner for refugees reported at the end of 2014 that there were 56 million refugees and internally displaced humans in the world, which is a huge number. Europe and Scandinavia are highly affected by this as the number of refugees in 2015 was historically high. In Norway a total of 16% from a more than 200 nations had immigrant background, while approx. 20% of these were refugees. In Denmark in the fall of 2015 the immigration changed to a great number of asylum seekers from recent years of to asylum seekers in In addition, a large increase in single under aged children took place from around 1000 a year to in In Scandinavia, there were significant differences. While Sweden got asylum seekers, Denmark got and Finland which was the largest amount of refugees/immigrants in a few months. Increasing conflict and uncertainty makes it likely that an increasing number of people will try to find (p 9). Governmental estimates March 2016 shows between 5000 and asylum seekers will arrive in Norway. In other words, estimates are quite uncertain in both Norway and Europe. The Scandinavian countries are very dependent on the overall European (EU) attitude and development. (Ministry of Justice Stm.30: p.9) The extensive immigration provides a background for changes in immigration policy in many European countries. In the following we pick up on some of the political viewpoints from the governmental report to the Storting (parliament) and the follow up on legal changes. Viewpoints from Ministry of Justice, Stm. 30 ( )-Abb Stem 30. We start with the Norwegian policy document Stortingsmeling 30 (Ministry of Justice to the Storting). We continue with the proposed legal changes as they are described on the web-page by the Norwegian government. (Ministry of Justice: Prop 90 L ) The Stm 30 is quite clear addressing the overall concern for the Norwegian welfare system or a universal social citizenship. This is expressed on page 7, the Norwegian welfare model is dependent upon high work participation. Consequently high immigration without work participation is an economic challenge. It continues to explain the tension between high

8 8 immigration along with demographic changes may challenge the sustainability and ultimately the legitimacy of the welfare system. The situational understanding is that not only is immigration an economic burden in it-self. It also is a threat to the welfare system of universal rights to generous support like 100% payment in one year at sick leave, one year fully paid maternity leave, universal health insurance practically 100% coverage (small charges though), pensions to all, free education also higher education. The pressure on welfare also increases from higher unemployment. Two goals stand out in the governmental policy for immigration. First to reduce immigration itself by changing the legal access to the country. In this paper we have a focus on these legal changes. Second, the government wishes to improve integration and provide work opportunities for those who immigrate. Both these attempts are clear and explicit in the Stm. 30 ( ). Proposed, Legal changes in immigration laws After the refugee crises fall 2015 the government put forward law proposition on changes (restrictions) in the field of immigration regulated by law on Citizenship, asylum, law on foreigners etc. According to the ministries involved the goal is to be able to take care of refugees, asylum seekers and other immigrants in good way and put them to work as soon as possible. The Stm 30 prepare for quite a few changes; among these is to demand minimum three years of residence and work from the immigrant before any family reunion may take place. (page 9). Along with 3 years of residence and work is also entertaining requirements. A second suggestion in Stm 30 is to require a language and knowledge test before any permanent residences may be given. (page 9). On page 11 it is summarized that; The aim and the decisions of the proposed changes is motivated by keeping the Norwegian welfare model (page 11). What is quite clear and explicit in the Stm 30 is that overall political goal is to keep the Norwegian welfare system with all its general universal benefits as it is. There seem to be no significant political disagreement over this goal, but some political disagreements over the proposed legal changes. Building on this, the legal changes on law on citizenship and law on foreigners all aim to reduce both short and long term financial welfare burdens of the state. The proposed legal changes from the Ministry of Justice; Prop L The ministry of Justice proposes a number of austerity measures in response to the rapid increase in migration. All measures are motivated by securing the welfare system. Generally, these

9 9 measures affect visa requirements to asylum seekers, the handling of immigrants from Nordic countries, procedures of asylum seekers, which are obviously groundless, stricter expulsion rules in cases of misconduct and some minor changes in the law on citizenship. Among the changes we mention; First, changes in the rules for Visa requirements in order to expel asylum seekers at the boarder who have obviously groundless claims for asylum (Prop 90 L, 5.1) Second, the government wishes to have legal opportunities to make temporary rules and expel immigrants/asylum seekers at the border. It is emphasised that the government need to have legal opportunities to handle a large amount of migrants at the border. It is suggested that the government should have legal opportunities to expel migrants coming from a Nordic country at the boarders. Third, current law on foreigners has a wider concept of refugees than the international convention and includes internal refugees as well. It is proposed that the concept of refugees is more restricted and should not include internal refugees who are able to obtain effective protection within their country. The current legal requirements of reasonableness of transfer of refugees to internal displacements are removed (Prop 90 L, 6). The implication of this is that asylum seekers from conflict areas like Syria and Afghanistan may be returned to safe areas in their countries. Fourth, the government wishes to counteract the increase in under aged migrants by making two legal changes. One is that the temporary residence permit is limited until the child is 18 year old. Also, such a temporary residence permit may not be legal basis for permanent residence. Single under aged children who gets temporary residence permit on ground that no reliable caregiver can be obtained in the home country will be returned at the age of 18. Fifth, it is proposed that immigrants should support them self in a minimum of 3 years of work in order to obtain a permanent residence permit. Also courses in the Norwegian language and civics is a requirements. The government also proposes a general rule which makes any decline of application of permanent residence on grounds to limit immigration legal (Prop 90 L 7).

10 10 Sixth, it is proposed that the deadline for appeal is limited from three to one week. Most of these rules were supported in parliament and made effective laws. They have limited the immigration to Norway which in 2009 accepted about 5% of Europes refugees to.03% of Europes refugees in 2016 (Aftenposten Eurostat). Discussion The status of citizenship has always implied a differentiation between citizens and aliens but the financial, economic and employment crises in Europe during the last decade has caused growing economic poverty and inequality in Scandinavian countries. The grooving inequality has led to increased differentiation in the citizenry, while the welfare state in most countries has reduced the involvement in the solution of a number of social problems. A central element of this topic is the groups of immigrants and their lack of inclusion in the welfare states. System rationality and its discursive leanings towards control and regulation in general and in various instances seem on advance on behalf of humanity and tolerance. We face a growing differentiation in the citizenry and even a growth of a precariat (Standing 2011) consisting of people outside the labour market and immigrant workers with no social rights. In addition immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers are increasingly excluded from the protection and from the civil and social rights of the welfare state. Vast groups of the population have experienced a reduction of their social and economic rights (social citizenship) leaving them outside the cultural, political and social community and instead they are to a greater extent subject to the discipline and controlling functions of welfare state institutions (Waquant 2009). At the discursive level they are even being perceived as regular parasites on social welfare. However, while the government's refugee policies and the erosion of social citizenship is one part of reality we also witness interesting countermeasures of civil repair steaming from civil society, like the appearance of associations like Venligboerne (the friendly residents) in Denmark, mounting up to more than citizens on Facebook. The growth of spontaneous and temporary actions and social networks working and organizing activities in order to show tolerance and to welcome immigrants as citizens is evident in Denmark (Boje 2017).

11 11 The history of citizenship could be seen as a constant struggle led by groups of ill-suited, marginalized and incapable non-citizens without voting rights fighting to gain rights and to be included in the community of proper citizens (Kvisto & Faist 2007). Still, securing social cohesion in many ways seems to be eroding. The citizenries of Scandinavian welfare states are becoming much more heterogeneous partly because of an increased number of immigrants characterized by different cultures, and by different work ethics and different patterns of social maintenance than traditionally found in these countries. The diversification of the societies has challenged the universal welfare states, which to a much lesser extent fit the realities of life of many current citizens (Piketty 2015). Denmark, as well as Norway and a number of other European countries are witnessing growing demands on the governments from large groups of voters in order to reverse the decisions made by the EU and other international and supranational organizations in the aftermath of the refugee crisis of We see a growing dilemma between the notions universalism and differentiation in the modern Scandinavian welfare states. The classic social rights paradigm of the universal welfare state is gradually and increasingly under pressure by New Public Management reforms challenging the idea of state support and introducing a social rights paradigm expecting the individual to take a greater responsibility and control of own life situation and economic maintenance. Conclusion A preliminary conclusion on this introductory analysis is that, concern for the for the sustainability of the welfare state seem to be a major and explicit motive for a much more restrictive immigrant policy in both Denmark and Norway.

12 12 Literature Aftenposten Immigration statistics. Aftenposten source: Eurostat. Anttonen A. & Sipilä J. (2015): Universalism: an idea and principle in social policy. Balibar E. (2009): We, the People of Europe?: Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. Princeton University Press. Bergh, Andreas (2004): The universal welfare state: theory and the case of Sweden. Political Studies, 52 (4), Boje T. P. (2017): Civilsamfund, medborgerskab og politisk deltagelse. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels forlag. Brubaker R. (1998). Myths and Misconceptions in the Study of Nationalism', in J. Hall (ed.) The State of the Nation. Cambridge University Press. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990): The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas J., 1998): Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge: MIT. Jantzi, M. (2015). Stranger Danger : A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Kildal and Kuhnle (2005): The Principle of Universalism: Tracing a Key Idea in the Scandinavian Welfare Model. 9th International Congress, Geneva, September 12th-14th. Korpi W. (1983): The Democratic Class Struggle. Routledge Kegan & Paul. Korpi, Walter & Palme, Joakim (1998): The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: welfare state Institutions, inequality, and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review, 63 (5) Kvisto & Faist (2007): Citizenship: Discourse, Theory, and Transnational Prospects. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Kymlicka W. ( 2011): Transitional justice, federalism and the accommodation of minority nationalism. In: Arthur P (ed.) Identities in Transition: Challenges for Transitional Justice in Divided Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Miller D. (1995). Citizenship and Pluralism. Political Studies Volume 43, Issue 3. Ministry_of_Justice_and_Public_Security. ( ). Stortingsmeding (Stm) 30 ( ). Oslo: Government of Norway Retrieved from st /id /.

13 13 Ministry_of_Justice_and_Public_Security. (( )). Prop. 90 L ( ) Endringer i utlendingsloven mv. innstramninger II [Changes in the law on foreigners] Oslo: Government of Norway. Piketty T. (2015): The Economics of Inequality. Belknap Press. New York. Regeringen.dk (2016): Regeringens politik med regeringens egne ord. Statsministeriet, København K. Standing G. (2011): The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. Bloomsbury Academic. Titmuss R. M. (1974): Social Policy: An Introduction. Pantheon Press, New York. Waquant L. (2009): Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Duke University Press. Durham and London