The Progress Party has made its stance abundantly clear: Norway grapples with enough crime, and we have no need to import more criminals. Willy Tore Mørch has taken aim at both the Progress Party and my own views, suggesting that I lack a moral compass. For both FrP and myself, however, this issue revolves around justice, security, and a responsibility to all law-abiding citizens—principles that we hold as paramount, far outweighing Mørch’s concerns for the criminal element.
Let’s clarify the matter: there is no human right to residency in Norway. While human rights protect individuals from torture and inhumane treatment, they do not guarantee an automatic right to remain in a country after committing a serious offense.
Expulsion from Norway is not an additional punishment; it is a consequence of the legal process that has already taken place. Once a sentence has been served in prison, residency is governed by the Immigration Act. Those who do not possess citizenship or legal residency simply have no entitlement to remain in Norway.
Currently, Norway is home to many individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes—violence, rape, threats, and robbery—yet do not hold legal residency and face deportation orders. Alarmingly, the government often chooses not to enforce these deportations.
The rationale provided by the government varies—it cites reasons such as family ties to Norway, poor health, long-term residency, or potential danger upon return to their home countries. The FrP contends that these circumstances should not dictate residency in Norway. The guiding principle should be that individuals are returned to their place of origin. For those who might face harm upon their return, FrP advocates relocating them to safe third countries through mutual agreements.
This approach does not equate to stripping away human rights; rather, it seeks to balance the protection against abuse with the imperative of societal security.
Mørch argues that “Norwegian social morality” is a clean slate after atonement. While that may be true, societies reserve the right to determine who may reside within their borders. The alternative—a regime of unrestricted immigration—threatens to undermine our country and its welfare system overnight. Norway is not obliged to grant permanent residence to foreigners who have misused their welcome and engaged in serious criminal activity.
This is not about revenge; it is about prioritizing the needs of law-abiding citizens. This, I believe, should be a widely accepted notion.