Denmark plans to send "unwanted" migrants to remote island

[Dashinka 24,752]

I think Australia does something similar.

 

Dec 5, 2018 6:36 PM EST World

By Christopher Brito / CBS News

 

The Danish government has come up with a plan to send dozens of rejected migrants to a remote island that currently houses a research center conducting tests on diseased animals.

Denmark's center-right government and right-wing Danish People's Party reached an agreement under its new finance bill for 2019  to decontaminate Lindholm Island – located around two miles from the nearest shore — and then use it hold as many as 100 people by 2021, according to a government website. Among the migrants who could be sent to the island are criminals, rejected asylum seekers and others who can't return to their home country "due to the risk of ill-treatment."

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/denmark-migrants-lindholm-island-danish-peoples-party-inger-stjberg/

[Steeleballz 7,550]

  It's what Jesus would do!

[Boiler 46,001]

I saw this in the UK media a few weeks back, makes a lot of sense.

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think Australia does something similar.

 

Dec 5, 2018 6:36 PM EST World

By Christopher Brito / CBS News

 

The Danish government has come up with a plan to send dozens of rejected migrants to a remote island that currently houses a research center conducting tests on diseased animals.

Denmark's center-right government and right-wing Danish People's Party reached an agreement under its new finance bill for 2019  to decontaminate Lindholm Island – located around two miles from the nearest shore — and then use it hold as many as 100 people by 2021, according to a government website. Among the migrants who could be sent to the island are criminals, rejected asylum seekers and others who can't return to their home country "due to the risk of ill-treatment."

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/denmark-migrants-lindholm-island-danish-peoples-party-inger-stjberg/

I was going to say "I thought this was what Australia was". It was with criminals though. Or is that just an urban myth? I've never actually bothered to learn the history of Australia. I believe there is some truth in it.

 

Wouldn't those in bold be asylum seekers? If there is a risk of "ill-treatment" in their home country, wouldn't that qualify for asylum? I guess it depends on how you define "ill-treatment". Seems a little crazy to say "Well you aren't an asylum seeker, but we agree it probably isn't safe for you to return home".

Edited December 11, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,752]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

I was going to say "I thought this was what Australia was". It was with criminals though. Or is that just an urban myth? I've never actually bothered to learn the history of Australia. I believe there is some truth in it.

 

Wouldn't those in bold be asylum seekers? If there is a risk of "ill-treatment" in their home country, wouldn't that qualify for asylum? I guess it depends on how you define "ill-treatment". Seems a little crazy to say "Well you aren't an asylum seeker, but we agree it probably isn't safe for you to return home".

I believe the UK actually sent criminals to the American colonies first, then of course after the American Revolution the UK had to find somewhere else.  I don't think the whole of Australia was one big prison colony, but the UK certainly sent several criminals there.

 

As to my comment, I believe the Australian government runs several immigration detainment centers some of them on very remote islands, but some of them also on the mainland, so it is not entirely the same thing.

[Boiler 46,001]

Australia keeps their migrants offshore for processing, seems to have cut down deaths at sea dramatically.

[Unidentified 2,930]

14 minutes ago, bcking said:

I was going to say "I thought this was what Australia was". It was with criminals though. Or is that just an urban myth? I've never actually bothered to learn the history of Australia. I believe there is some truth in it.

 

Wouldn't those in bold be asylum seekers? If there is a risk of "ill-treatment" in their home country, wouldn't that qualify for asylum? I guess it depends on how you define "ill-treatment". Seems a little crazy to say "Well you aren't an asylum seeker, but we agree it probably isn't safe for you to return home".

Well if it's like it is in Sweden it's kind of like this: The immigration office has decided that going home would not pose a threat to their well being but the asylum seekers claim there is and if immigration still sends them home there's public outrage and they just decide not to do it anyway...  

[Unidentified 2,930]

When I read the headline I first thought they were sending them to Greenland...

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

5 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I believe the UK actually sent criminals to the American colonies first, then of course after the American Revolution the UK had to find somewhere else.  I don't think the whole of Australia was one big prison colony, but the UK certainly sent several criminals there.

 

As to my comment, I believe the Australian government runs several immigration detainment centers some of them on very remote islands, but some of them also on the mainland, so it is not entirely the same thing.

The state of Georgia was founded as a place to dump the people in Englands debtor prisons