SIX
PROPOSITIONS CONCERNING
THE RIGHT OF THIRD-COUNTRY
NATIONALS IN EUROPE TO FAMILY LIFE
__________________________
1. The right to
family life: a basic right that must not be subjected to discrimination
Questions concerning
immigration policy and the right of asylum are complex and controversial, even
among associations. But we all assert that the right to family life
Ñabove all, the right to unite one's family Ñ is a fundamental right. We insist that immigrants coming from other countries must
have the same rights and the same responsibilities as EU citizens.
Kenneth Kristensen: kenneth.k@dfu-nettet.dk / dfkekr@ft.dk: Dansk Folkeparti
Ð Hvidovre (= KK): I do not agree at all. Immigrants who comes to the EU
countries should not have the same rights as residents. I do not find, that
these immigrants should have the right to find a husband or wife in their own
country and bring that person to his or her new country. If these people want
to unite, they can unite in their own country.
Red
signs: the CoordinationÕs reaction: We do not say that all
immigrants coming from a third country should have the right to be immediately
reunified with the members of their family; our position is that all the
immigrants who are legally residents with a residence permit for more
than one year, have the right to be reunified with their family.
In the next sentence, we say that
they have the right to be reunified with their family as it was constituted
before they came to Europe, when they arrive before the other members of
their family (for example, in order to see whether they can easily live in a
European country). We also say that when they have come before their marriage
and have verified that they can live in Europe, they should have the right to
marry somebody from their country of origin.
We believe that the right to family
life is a fundamental human right that should be applied to every man and woman
who is granted by a given state the right to live for a reasonable time in its
territory. We believe that when a given state benefits from the work of
a foreigner legally resident in its territory without acknowledging his or her
right to a private life comparable to that of its citizens, that state is not
recognizing nor applying the fundamental human rights.
S¿ren E. Christensen : sec@postkasse.com: Dansk Folkeparti Ð
Vejen (= SEC): No I mean that each country, can decide there own politics about
immigration and asylum.
Red
signs: the CoordinationÕs reaction: The
candidate answers by shifting the question: we did not question whether member
states can have independent immigration (and asylum) policies; we affirmed that
the right to family life is a fundamental human right that the states must
respect whatever immigration policy they adopt.
2. The right to
unite freely with the partner of one's choice and to reunite one's family in
the country where one legally resides
We affirm that states do not have the right to prevent
foreigners who live and work legally within their territory to unite freely
with the partner of their choice or to reunite the members of their family who
are dependent on them. It is intolerable to prolong their separation: recent
settlers should be granted this right within one year.
KK: Foreigners should not have the right to settle in Denmark for life.
Permits should be given for one year at a time. During their stay no foreigners
should be allowed to bring their spouse or children to Denmark unless very
specific and special circumstances apply.
Well, this is your point of view; it recalls the slave
trade of the past. History will judge...
SEC: If the partner have a proper home, work and money to support the partner
coming to live in the same country, I see no problems.
The candidate agrees with our proposition IF the
foreigners have adequate housing and resources. Theoretically, there is
no problem if they can work (except for refugees); but if they are not allowed
to do so, there are problems (unemployment, accidents, or illness).
3. The social
rights of immigrant families
States should accept these family members with conditions that foster their
social and economic integration. We believe that all states should:
-
facilitate immigrants' acquisition of the language of their new country;
- give
them the right to housing;
- grant
them the same access to health care as nationals;
-
ensure equal opportunities for their children through quality education and
training;
-
provide those who are of working age with immediate access to employment and
offer them training to facilitate their socio-professional insertion.
KK: Danes do not have a right to housing according to Danish law. Why should
a foreigner have this right? Of course he or she should not have such a right.
At the same time, it must be up to the individual foreigner to become part of
the Danish popular nucleus. The Danish government will though assist foreigners
who have married Danish people or migrated to Denmark expecting to stay here
for a number of years with learning Danish language. Foreign citizens should
while they are staying in Denmark have the same access to health care as
nationals. I do not think that special conditions should apply to children of
other nationals than Danish nationals. The Danish cannot ensure Danish workers
the access to employment. Why should a foreigner have such a right? Of course,
he should not. It must be up to the individual foreigner to find employment in
Denmark.
Our aim is not to grant immigrants more rights than
nationals, but rather "equivalent" rights, particularly concerning
housing and education. In fact, we do not ask your government to grant
immigrants housing and employement; rather, we believe that immigrants should
be treated the same way as Danes are treated in these domains. It is true that
it will require more effort to teach Danish to a foreigner than to a Dane!
However, given your opinion expressed in the previous point, we do not see
why you discuss this point!
SEC: NO. This will bring all the 3rd countries to Europe.
The candidate seems to refuse measures that ensure equal
treatment (current ILO conventions), guarantee equal opportunities, and
encourage the integration of members of these families.
4. Equal legal
treatment
We affirm that all
states must, through equal justice for all, guarantee that immigrants whose
primary family ties are in Europe receive the same treatment as nationals who
commit offences, with no "double punishment" depriving them of their
family.
KK: It is very strange to see that you call for equal legal treatment. In
the other questions you propose that foreign nationals should be above the law
and have special treatment because they are foreigners. Here you call for equal
legal treatment - that is hypocrisy. Foreigners who commit crimes in Denmark
causing a sentence to more than two months in penitentiary should be deported.
What do you mean by hypocrisy? We simply ask for
equivalent treatment for nationals and immigrants, as they are human
beings. As such, nobody should be punished more
severely than others for the same crime!
SEC: All people shall be treatet right.
The candidate avoids the question. Obviously
justice means that all people are treated fairly. But foreigners are
(often) treated differently from citizens when they commit the same offenses,
which is not equitable.
5. European
citizenship of residence
We are
convinced that the peace and social cohesion necessary for peoples to live
together in Europe will be possible only if states accept a new European
citizenship, accessible to all persons residing within the Union, allowing all
to share the same responsibilities and the same rights in order to construct
their common future together.
KK: Denmark has opted out of the European citizenship. The EU is not a state
and should never become one.
If this is the point of view of the majority of your country's citizens, perhaps it would be more consistent to withdraw from the EU on the institutional and economic levels as well!
SEC: Let the countries have there one laws, and let EU be based on
development and industrial thinking for a better EU. And let us help the
poor people in ther own countries.
Without saying so, the candidate rejects the idea of a
social and political Europe as well as the idea of European citizenship. He asserts
that Europe must limit its objectives to industrial development and commercial
exchanges.
6. Administrative
regularisation
We believe that
measures must be taken by the states of the European Union to regularise the
situation of illegal foreigners who have established strong ties with the
countries in which they live.
KK: I do not agree. The EU should have no say in the integration of foreign
citizens in the respective EU member states.
Your answer is a logical consequence of what
you have stated previously. What seems less logical is the fact that you are a
candidate to the "European" Parliament!
SEC: Not by EU, but let every country decide there own politics.
The candidate does not take a position, merely restating
that the European Union should not intervene concerning immigration and asylum
policies.