Should Norway Emulate Denmark and Sweden?

Debate

Norway should emulate Denmark and Sweden by expelling criminal foreigners and refugees.

This piece serves as a contribution to the ongoing debate. Readers are invited to share their views by submitting entries to debatt@dagsavisen.no.

In both Denmark and Sweden, recent developments demand attention and reflection in Norway. There, political leaders are opting for safety and accountability, even as they challenge existing legal norms.

The pressing question is: How long can Norway remain an exception?

It’s one thing to espouse the importance of rights. Yet, when the systems in place fail to provide the anticipated security and predictability, the challenge becomes far more pressing.

In recent years, authorities in Denmark and Sweden have acknowledged the shortcomings of their systems. Faced with serious crimes committed by non-citizens, both countries have decided to enforce tangible consequences for residency rights.

In Sweden, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has made it clear: foreigners convicted of serious sexual and violent offenses should face deportation, even if they hold refugee status.

The logic is straightforward: victims should not have to fear encountering their abusers again. This isn’t merely ideological; it speaks to an inherent need for trust and security.

These changes are not abrupt; they arise from years of grappling with regulations that ultimately proved ineffective. When serious crimes lack tangible consequences for residency, both public trust and the sense of justice erode.

Denmark has taken even bolder steps. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has asserted that serious offenders should not remain within its borders, openly discussing the potential to reinterpret international conventions that clash with the fundamental duty to ensure citizens’ safety.

It’s significant to note that such remarks come not from extremist factions, but from a mainstream social democratic leader. This message is not inflammatory; it is fundamentally principled. The state bears a responsibility to safeguard its citizens, making clear that rights must be paired with duties.

In Norway, the ongoing discussion has been rather subdued. The Progress Party has recently introduced a significant proposal in the Storting aimed at comprehensive reform for the deportation of criminal foreigners, arguing that serious crimes should lead to deportation, even for those with refugee status.

Moreover, the Labor Party government has initiated some steps in this direction. In January, the Ministry of Justice and Public Security revised its directives to the Directorate of Immigration, granting more latitude for deporting foreigners deemed serious threats due to ties with criminal networks.

Justice Minister Astri Aas Hansen has acknowledged considerable challenges in returning individuals without legal residency. The government aspires for clearer and more expedited responses in serious cases and is exploring rule changes for broader access to deportation

.

Yet, these measures remain largely exceptional and stop-gap rather than representing the sweeping reforms seen in Denmark and Sweden. Thus arises the question: is Norway finally recognizing its challenges, or are we merely addressing symptoms piecemeal?

As the proposals from the Progress Party are set for debate, a critical inquiry arises: Will the Labor Party and the Conservative Party choose to align more closely with their counterparts in Denmark and Sweden, endorsing a robust approach in Norway? Or will they opt to maintain a more restrained stance amidst growing regional consistency?

For any effective policy to gain legitimacy and longevity, cross-party collaboration is essential. The issue of deporting criminal foreigners transcends political affiliations; it fundamentally encompasses the state’s obligation to ensure safety, predictability, and public trust.

Should Norway decide to remain passive, we risk becoming synonymous with irony—an image of a nation where rules overshadow real consequences, forcing victims to navigate a landscape riddled with insecurity while perpetrators find shelter in legal ambiguities that increasingly defy reason.

Denmark and Sweden are beginning to reexamine critical aspects of how the refugee convention is implemented today—not with the intention of undermining human rights but rather to clarify that these frameworks were never designed to shield individuals committing heinous acts.

Deporting foreigners and refugees guilty of severe crimes is not an indicator of inhumanity. Rather, it reflects a commitment to establish boundaries essential for both victims and the integrity of the justice system.

Denmark and Sweden illustrate that it is indeed possible to balance empathy with accountability. Norway should take note. If the inadequacies of our systems are apparent, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the lack of decisive action.