please your help

[soreng]

fundiver199 thanks for the infos ..but i have read about the advantages that a refugee has not only to bring his wife to denmark but also to get permanent residence in denmark and i was really surprised

Are you not really comparing to sizes that are hard to compare.
One of the sides CANNOT return to his/hers home country without risking health or maybe even life. The other side would just PREFER to live in Denmark.

...a refugee gets automatically a permanent residence after 4 years of his stay in denmark without undergoing any test or fullfiling any requirements whereas others should have a full time job at least 3 years and everybody knows that forgeiners in denmark will not get a full time job no matter what

They can get dispensation if they are still not able to return to their come country, without risking health or life...They do not automatically get anything.

i personally know an american girl who has a master degree in architecture from colombia univeristy in USA(where Oubama was graduated) and she could not find a job after 4 years of seeking ..which means that getting a full time job in a country like denmark is something impossible coz before u get a job ur name should be jensen or pedersen i mean a danish name and no matter what degree u have or how skilled you are .what do u call such things then if not discrimination against foreigners?

I am sorry to break your bubble, but this is the case of most countries in the world. People speaking the native language fluently will always be picked before someone that does not, if all other qualifications are the same. Speaking the native language fluently is also a qualification, and very few people does that after 4 years...Especially people coming from a country where they either have a high level of English or where English is the native language. Because you can stay a lifetime in Denmark without learning any danish, so those people are normally a little "slower" to become fluent in Danish.
I also know danes with master educations that are also unemployed. If you have 2 persons with excatly the same skills applying for the same job, but one of them just happenes to speak the native language fluently, and the other one does not, then who would you hire if it was your business? That is not discrimination. That is best value for money.

a danish person has also the right to live with the person he wants in his country and why such racist conditions only against some people and not everybody ?it is as if they are asking people not to get married to who they love but to what Dansk Folke parti wants hhh...anyways they can make such rules its their countries but they should not bother us saying that we have democracy and all this stuff coz this has nothing to do with democracy at all ...

Are you seriouslly saying that the fact that because a political party that you do not like (and that is the case of most, if not all, people in here) got more than 8% of the votes at an election, and therefore got a lot of power, then that shows that Denmark is not a democracy? Is it only a democracy if parties that you agree with are in power? Is the power and weakness of a democracy actually that majority rules? And you might disagree (i now that i did), but the majority of the danish population did at the time of a election, believe that this was the way they wanted Denmark to be governed.
That is actually what democracy is in its best and worst.

why a canadian and american person is not obliged to pass this shit test A1 but others should ? do not u call that racism ? why its easy for an east european like Ukrania (and its not a member of EU) and for people from thailand to get their spouse here but they make it hard for a muslim ?

Could you name me just ONE country in the world that does not have different rules based on country, on who is required to have a visa, and who are not? Roughly 50% of the worlds country require a Dane to have a visa before entering. Are they all racist?
What is this law that you are talking about where muslims are treated different when applying for a visa or residence permit, what lets say a christian from the same country would?

if they are doing all this shit to stop immigrants then they should stop refugees instead and not people who have their wives and husbands here coz its impossible .where are all these shit world organazation of human rights ? or they are there only to serve western agendas and they dare to open their mounths only when it comes to some countries .

You are confusing a couple of things here i think. If it is not possible for a Dane to live together with his/her spouse in the spouse's home country, then basiclly the only requirements for living together in denmark are that you are married (or living together for more than 18 months), and are living together in Denmark.

Last time i checked it is not a human right to be allowed to live in whatever country you want in the world, so why are mixing that into it?

Do you seriouslly believe that it is more humane to stop helping people that are in life danger in their home country to have a safe life, and then instead opening up for everybody else? You do not think that it is fair to expect something of a person that, of his/her own free will, make the CHOICE to try to get a better life in another country? There is a huge difference between being in denmark because you WANT TO, and because you where FORCED OUT of your own country.

[mh1]

@ soreng, you are totally right on target

[skaanebo]

jayoma, you ought to make a Plan B in case your appeal is rejected so you know what to do to move on with your life.

And making political comments on this website won't change the laws. Why don't you try to write the politicians in power if you wish to vent your dissatisfaction with the way things are?

[marie shoobi]

am very sorry i just deleted my topic from here and thank you all your matter for helping us is very appreiated....

[Hiren]

@Jayoma

Your comments are very irrelevant. These are sophisticated lawyer(s) providing extremely useful and free of charge information. Not a place to beat about the bush.

[marie shoobi]

yah i know but it's not a comment am displaying my problem and am so polite ok..beside of this i am new here and i dont know how to use the site because i don't speak danish and if you know someone who can give me advices so that will be kind of you but please note that am a human being who has a real problem like all others who are here ,,,if you are here to help us you r welcome...

[Psalm12]

@Marie Shoobi, Hiren's rebuke was meant for jayoma, not for you. Would it work better if you start a new thread with your question? To do that you click on "nytemne", then any replies that come will be for you and not for someone else. Or if you have it set up for English it will be "newtopic".

[fundiver199]

a refugee gets automatically a permanent residence after 4 years of his stay in denmark without undergoing any test or fullfiling any requirements whereas others should have a full time job at least 3 years and everybody knows that forgeiners in denmark will not get a full time job no matter what.

I dont want to continue this political discussion much longer, but I need to correct a misunderstanding here. Refugees do not “automatically” get a permanent residence permit after 4 years in Denmark. However it is true, that our new government has introduced a preferential treatment of refugees, when it comes to the rules for permanent residence permit. If after 8 years a refugee still does not meat all the criteria like e.g. 3 years full time work, but has “done his best” to fullfill them and has not committed crime, he can get permanent residence permit.

This was introduced by our new government in july 2012 so very recently. And the line of reasoning is presumably, that refugees have a particular need for the extra emotional feeling of safety, that a permanent residence permit gives them. Again this is something one can agree or disagree with. But I cant see why it can be wrong, that a majority make such decisions at their discretion, particularly since it does not put anyone in a worse position, that a refugee get permanent residence permit after 8 years, even they did not qualify for it themselfes.

And as soreng wrote, it is really that difficult to see the difference between voluntarily moving to Denmark and having to flee your home country and not be able to safely return? Most or all politics is about giving some kind of preferential treatment to people, who supposedly are in a disadvantaged position, so this is really just plain normal politics.

For the record I would like to state though, that ÆUG is working for much more liberal rules for permanent residence permit for everyone. And one of our many suggestions in the hearing this spring was to expand the 8 year rule “having done your best” to everyone and not only refugees, if politicians were not willing to just scrap the requirement of 3 years full time work altogether, which ÆUG would much prefer.

But unfortunately such suggestions found no resonance with our government, who just proceeded to forward the law proposal, as it was. As these are the political realities, that ÆUG and all individuals just need to accept. There simply is not a majority in the danish parliament, who are willing to even discuss loosening immigration and integration rules further that agreed upon in “regeringsgrundlaget”. And such a majority is nowhere near in sight after the next election either, where it seems much more plausible to assume, that rules might be tightened further again.

[fundiver199]

@Maria

Usually such a short overstay of a few days, and with a good explanation, will not prevent you from getting a new schengen visa. So just apply and hope the best. Good luck

[fundiver199]

why a canadian and american person is not obliged to pass this shit test A1 but others should ? do not u call that racism ?

Yes I would call that pure racism. Fortunatly the pre immigration test (indvandringsprøve) has been scrapped by our new government and thereby also this very racist discrimination against all spouses from socalled "non western countries".

This is surely not something, I have ever agreed with, and former integration minister Søren Pind must take that one on his shoulders, since it was his idea. In honesty though, it was not really his idea, since he just took the idea from Nederlands, where it has been practiced for a number of years.

But this is surely one area, where our new government has done a bit of seriously needed "cleaning up" after the old one. And again ÆUG would wish, they had gone much further, but some improments are surely better than none.

[soreng]

Yes I would call that pure racism.

Really? So requiring a visa from some countries and not from others are also an act of racism?
So all the countries that require a dane to hold a visa before entering are actually guilty of racism towards Denmark?

I do not say that i agreed with the law, and i was happy to see it go...But i do believe that is a very "dangerous" use of the word racism.

[mh1]

I would not label i 'Racism' either, since it had nothing to do with ethnicity.

Rather, it was a false assumption that a redneck from Mississippi with no more than primary schooling would be far more desirable as a New-Dane and far more easily integrated in DK than say a doctor of medicine from Nigeria who has studied medicine in France and England, speaks 5 languages fluently, and whose hobbies are chess, renaissance musical instruments and quantum theory

The latter, of course, might just not be desirable because some people might feel inferior to her

[fundiver199]

So requiring a visa from some countries and not from others are also an act of racism? So all the countries that require a dane to hold a visa before entering are actually guilty of racism towards Denmark?

I find this comparison a very false one because:

a) Visa requirements are based on objective criteria which was not the case with the immigration test at all. The former government was totally unable to explain, why a spouse from e.g. Brazil needed to pass the test before moving to Denmark but not a spouse from e.g. USA. Lars Løkke was famously asked this question by Johanne Smidth-Nielsen at "afslutningsdebatten", and the "dialogue", which resulted, is now a hit on youtube.

b) Issuance of visa does not interfer with any fundamental rights, which family reunification surely does.

So yes I fully stand by my accusation, that this was a 100% racist legislation based on the false presumption, that people from "non-western countries" are a burden to society because of their etnic and/or cultural origin alone. And this is fully within any normal definition of the word racism. And actually I find, that it derails the political debate, if people try to sugarcote things and not recognize them for, what they really are.

If a state wants its citizens to not marry people from certain countries, and introduce legislation to seriously discourage this, that is actually the closest any western country have been to the nazi Nurnberg laws since WW2. So I really do not think, that this is something to be excused or taken lightly.

(In case someone doens´t know, the Nurnberg laws were the laws prohibiting marriages between arian and jewish citizens in nazi Germany.)

[fundiver199]

I would not label i 'Racism' either, since it had nothing to do with ethnicity.

It has since there is a strong indirect link between ethnicity and nationality. But I will admit, that the previous government was properly more interested in the cultural part of the equation than the ethnic one.

That however still fall 100% within any modern definition of racism, since it is fundamentally a belief, that "western" culture - whatever it is - is superior and should therefore not be exposed to influence from these dreadfull barbarians from uncivilized non-western countries.

Hence this whole focus of Dansk Folkeparti as well as e.g. Gert Wilders "Freedom Party" in Nederlands to "limit immigration from non-western countries", which our former government went very far to accommodate and even make their own, not only by introducing the discriminatory immigration test but also things like the point system, which was also clearly targeted at spouses from non-western countries.

[soreng]

Just to make a point clear before going into this, then i do not believe in that it is fair or right to make the kind of law that we discuss here, but i just think the use of the word "racism" is wrong and a dangerous word to use lightly.

a) Visa requirements are based on objective criteria which was not the case with the immigration test at all. The former government was totally unable to explain, why a spouse from e.g. Brazil needed to pass the test before moving to Denmark but not a spouse from e.g. USA. Lars Løkke was famously asked this question by Johanne Smidth-Nielsen at "afslutningsdebatten", and the "dialogue", which resulted, is now a hit on youtube.

Visa requirements are based on excatly the same criteria for alot of countries that the immigration test was...What is your nationallity.
Even today, If you are a Pakistanian then you cannot get a visa unless you are married, even if you are a doctor having your own practise and is not a risk to overstay the visa to work as an exotic male callboy in Denmark.
Or if you are the child or parent of a Pakistanian citizen that lives in Denmark.
This is based ONLY on your nationality.

You can the offcourse apply for a greencard or a work permit, but anyone can do that.

b) Issuance of visa does not interfer with any fundamental rights, which family reunification surely does.

True...But then the laws of most countries in the world are racist, as most countries in the world (i do on purpose not say all, as there most likely is one or two coutries somewhere, where there are no such rules) have laws regulating this. I would agree it would be racist if the rule was from brazil, AND also being a muslim....But that was not the case.

Does my memory fail me, if i think reading from you that it is not a violation of fundamental human rights to deny family reunification in another thread, if the couple have the possibility to live together in the other spouses homeland? It just strikes me that you write the opposite here.

So yes I fully stand by my accusation, that this was a 100% racist legislation based on the false presumption, that people from "non-western countries" are a burden to society because of their etnic and/or cultural origin alone. And this is fully within any normal definition of the word racism. And actually I find, that it derails the political debate, if people try to sugarcote things and not recognize them for, what they really are.

I also believe that alot of the imigration laws today are based on false presumptions. But it do not call the racist because of that...I call them stupid and meaningless.

If the state want its citizens to marry or not marry people from certain countries, and introduce legislation to encourage this, that is actually the closest any western country have been to the nazi Nurnberg laws since WW2. So I really do not think, that this is something to be exused or taken lightly.

In case someone doens´t know, the Nurnberg laws were the laws prohibiting marriages between arian and jewish citizens in nazi Germany.

I think we both agree that if there is one thing that history has shown then it is that laws like that does not change peoples behavior when it comes to falling in love. That is why i also think that they at best are meaningless.

But you are comparing to filter based solely on nationality to filtering on based on religion, but on the other hand saying that filtering on nationality when it comes to issuing a visa is fair enough....It is not really consistent i think.