Children's best?

The government has submitted its proposals for asylum restrictions. In the presentation, the words "children's best" were mentioned several times. According to the Minister for Immigration and Integration, the most stringent rules in Europe are to be for the best interests of the child and within the limits of Norway's obligations through international conventions. Here are three reasons why Norway is pursuing an asylum policy that is not in the best interests of the child, but rather destroys the lives of children:

A life on hold. Over the 90 hearing agencies expressed great concern over the Government's proposal to extend the use of temporary residence permits for single children on the run. Nevertheless, the Government chose to present this proposal with a slightly amended wording. Temporary residence permits put the lives of particularly vulnerable children on hold. These children have not fled for no reason.
Temporality creates a safe life. Temporality creates despairing children that can easily be captured by harmful environments. Temporality creates children with a critical health condition, both physically and mentally. What do we as a society really gain from this proposal? I'd rather call it a loss. We are losing future resources and we are destroying the most vulnerable children in the world. Article 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child relies heavily on the rights of refugee children. As a child on the run, you have the right to protection and humanitarian aid, as well as to be reunited with your family. A temporary residence permit for children does not provide necessary protection.

We are destroying the most vulnerable children in the world.

The kids no one misses. So far this year, 49 children have disappeared from Norwegian asylum centers. Had these been "Norwegian children", heaven and earth would have been set in motion to find them. What happens when the 49 children are single asylum seekers?
In 2007, a care reform was implemented in the Storting. It aimed to transfer the responsibility for caring for unaccompanied asylum children under the age of 15 from the UDI to the child welfare service. In the long run, the same scheme would apply to children between the ages of 15 and 18. This has not yet happened, and it is mostly children between the ages of 15 and 18 who disappear. The conditions at the asylum reception centers are often not guaranteed. Some children experience great conditions, while others experience a tough everyday life characterized by unrest and conflicts, little space and few activities. There are not very high requirements for the UDI as "parents". The staffing norm is significantly different in care centers under the child welfare service and in the UDI's asylum reception center. The same applies to the pediatric competence.
Children on the run need a particularly safe environment, and an offer that is sufficient to function in society. When these frameworks are absent, children may find that a different lifestyle is more attractive. They disappear and no one looks. The UDI knows little about "their" children, and the police owe little or no information about the disappearances. Politicians do not seem to care, and the media rarely cover the cases. This is despite the fact that we know that several of these children end up in situations they absolutely should not be in. It is a clear violation of all articles in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Education for all? Dozens of children in Norway are not allowed to go to school today. Where we would otherwise ring the alarm bells, children without the right to upper secondary education meet with the attitude "pity for you". Based on a separate survey, Press has concluded that 70 children have been denied upper secondary education in Norway in the last five years. This number is most likely just the tip of the iceberg.
The children who have been deprived of their right to education have either received a "final rejection" of their asylum application, or they are children with "Dublin status". According to the plan, these children will be sent out of Norway; yet many are living in the country for several years.
Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that all children have the right to school, but with a final refusal, children lose the right to upper secondary education. The refusal puts an end to the children's schooling. The Convention on the Rights of the Child ceases to apply to them, simply because we do not want a "flow of refugees" to Norway. By depriving children of the right to education, we give the greatest punishment to those who deserve it the least.

Where is the child's best? The government apparently believes that it is Norwegian asylum policy that causes unaccompanied and accompanying children to flee. I know better. As a child rights activist, I know of Norway's obligations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and I know that we have major challenges in the years to come. With temporary lives, children disappearing from their temporary homes and a lack of access to education, I am afraid Norway is becoming a child rights violation.
Fulfilling children's rights will not lead to a "flood" of children and families with children fleeing to Norway. This will simply lead to us fulfilling our international obligations.

Nylander is the leader of Press – Save the Children Youth.
karoline@press.no