Denmark has repeatedly tightened deeply its immigration policies in last some years. More than 21,000 asylum seekers arrived in Denmark in 2015. Denmark has enacted a law that allows it to relocate asylum seekers to a third country outside the European Union while their process is pending. It proposed by the social democratic government will seek partner countries that run camps and financial institutions along migration routes.
“If you apply for asylum in Denmark, you know that you will be returned to a country outside Europe. We hope that people in Denmark will stop seeking asylum,” Government spokesman quoted as saying to media.
Denmark recently signed a migration agreement with Rwanda, sparking speculation about its intention to open a facility there.
Two weeks ago it became the first European country to withdraw the residency status of more than 200 Syrian refugees. The country stated that there is now a risk that countries hosting more refugees will also surrender. Danish authorities say parts of Syria are safe enough to return to, but the move has sparked protests from activists and social groups.
EU and other NGO’s responded critically on new Asylum Seekers law
European Union Commission is critical of the law. It said it had concerns about the legislation and a leading NGO said it was irresponsible. European Commission Asylum cases are processing in a third country and applicants can get protection in that country.
The Danish Refugee Council (DRC), a leading NGO, said in a statement that the legislature was “effectively voting blindly” because the model it supports does not yet exist. External processing of asylum applications raises central questions about access to asylum procedures and effective access to protection. The idea of being responsible for asylum seekers externally is irresponsible and lacks solidarity. EU and other NGO’s have repeatedly asked Danish parliamentarians to reject this law.
Moreover, Some other countries took step like Denmark to get rid of refugees. Australia has stirred controversy with its use of asylum camps in Nauru as well as Papua New Guinea. Last year Britain also considered building an asylum treatment center on Ascension Island, a remote area of the Atlantic, but chose not to go ahead.