Posts Tagged ‘Migration Court’

The blogger Merit Wager reports interesting information from inside the Swedish Migration Board. Her contact inside the walls regularly provides Wager with alarming information on corrupt legal practice from this authority. Read this blog post and judge for yourself.

It is easy to believe that the following quotation is taken over from some kind of comic magazine. Unfortunately, it isn’t. It is true and the quotation is taken from an article in the magazine Today’s Law (Dagens juridik):

The Migration Court claimed that it was apparent that the government had not had the right to promulgate a regulation of a claim for a passport in order to a residence permit can be issued, and decided not to apply the regulation.

Int the Migration Courts, those who judge are representatives from the seven parliamentary parties, together with one judge. The party representatives are laymen, called lay assessors (nämndemän), so there is only the judge who has a degree in Law. So the lay assessors can make a decision by a majority and disregard the opinion and knowledge of the judge.

Now, this one and only sentence in the quotation above shows, with unpleasant and absolute clarity, that the asylum management (and the rule of law on the whole) has had a total breakdown in Sweden.

Read the quotation once more and figure out what it implies!

It means that the politically appointed lay assessors “decide” that the government’s (and the parliament’s) legislation “isn’t correct” (according to the lay assessors who are at the court that very day) and that the Migration Court therefore wilfully reserves the right to ignore the law.

In American TV series they talk of ”contempt of court”. Transferred to Swedish conditions the Migration Court is “in contempt” of both itself and the government. As usual, no one will have energy enough to act and the madness and the disregard of the legislation will continue. In the banana monarchy of Sweden.

Follow my blog with bloglovin

Read Full Post »

Sweden is the country in Europe that opens its doors to the highest number of immigrants. The Migration Board’s director-general, Dan Eliasson, sees no reason to worry.

In 2009, permanent residence permits (PUT) were granted to over 102,000 immigrants, the number UN convention refugees of which was less than 5 per cent. The largest immigrant group consists of people seeking family reunification with immigrants that have already been granted PUT.

Those who don’t meet the requirement of the UN standards, can be allowed a permanent residence anyway, with reference to “particularly compassionate grounds” (979 persons in 2009) or with reference to having a “need of protection” (5967 persons in 2009). As far as I am informed, no other European country have these other reasons for residence permit. NB! Most of the immigrants (95%) arriving to Sweden have no identity documents. They are more often than not allowed to stay anyway, even though this is against the law.

Now let’s look further into the reasons that convinced the Migration Court that the following persons must stay. I will here enumerate a number of reasons that led to a permanent residence permit (PUT):

Case UM 3139-80 Yemenite woman had had sex with a Canadian, now she runs the risk of being murdered by her uncle

Case UM 993-09 Divorce after bogus marriage (in order to get a PUT) no reason for cancelling the PUT

Case UM 3411-08 The parents’ reasons for PUT are not credible but the oldest child has turned apathetic so PUT is granted

Case UM 1673-09 Girl born 1992 gets PUT because of mental illness

Case UM 595-09 Man from Kamerun says he is son of a deceased headman; he doesn’t want to inherit the headmanship, the father’s 6 wives and 28 children

Case UM 2479-09 Raped Iranian woman had been harassed by her divorced husband after the rape

Case UM 1662-09 Young Iraqi man gets PUT in spite of no actual reason but for the fact that he otherwise must live in a state of uncertainty as regards the point of time of the expulsion from Sweden

Case UM 2902-08 Afghan man gets PUT because of a psychotic illness

Case UM 5814-08 A Sudanese woman risks being frozen out from society because she has a child

Case UM 2053-09 A family that states they come from Yemen and that Al-Qaeda are after them

These are only ten cases out of many hundred thousands more. A list of some more PUT permissions is to be found here.

In a British TV documentary, immigrants (the majority being young men) were interviewed on the reasons for trying to get into Great Britain. It appeared that they were trying to “live the European dream”, i.e. to get themselves better economic conditions than they had in Africa and in the Middle East. Consequently, the speaker called them “economical migrants”.

Having given examples of a few of all the reasons of the immigrants to Sweden granted permanent residence permit on the grounds of a “need of protection”, the immediate question at issue is if they are not as well to be called “economical migrants”.

Sweden’s welfare system is the most generous in Europe. The Swedish tax burden is the heaviest in Europe. There is a connection between these two facts. The one requires the other. An immigrant who has got a permanent residence permit automatically has the right to receive all the social welfare allowances there are. Couldn’t this, put together with the proportionate easiness to obtain the PUT, be a contributory reason for the fact that Sweden functions like magnet for immigrants?

Follow my blog with bloglovin

Read Full Post »