Time Favors the Immigrant Criminal in Norway

Gates of Vienna 19 July 2011

We’ve written a lot over the years about the "asylum-seeker” racket, which is particularly popular in Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Nordic societies are traditionally built on a high level of trust and honesty, and these characteristics are routinely abused and exploited by culture-enrichers who migrate northwards to scam the system.

Muslim immigrants are especially partial to "asylum” fraud. They come from societies having almost no tradition of trust or honesty, and are therefore without compunction in their exploitation of what they see as the weakness and foolishness of Scandinavian infidels.

Many asylum-seekers destroy any identifying documents before arriving in their host countries, so that they cannot be easily deported. Men in their twenties claim to be teenagers in order to exploit laws which require the favorable treatment of minors. New arrivals falsely claim to be related to previously resident immigrants in order to take advantage of generous provisions for "family reunions”. The list goes on and on.

Our Norwegian correspondent The Observer has translated an article from today’s VG Nett about the persistent inability of the Norwegian authorities to expel asylum-seekers who have been convicted of heinous violent crimes. In these cases the criminal culture-enrichers don’t have do anything but hang around Norway long enough — the state bureaucracy does the rest:

Bureaucrats dawdle — criminals get to stay

Convicted of attempted murder, rape, and robbery — allowed to stay

Is allowed to stay
Man from Tunisia
Convicted of attempted murder in 1996 and 2008.
Was informed of deportation order in 1999
Was allowed to stay

Is allowed to stay
Man from Somalia
Convicted in 2003 and 2004
Was allowed to stay.
The bureaucrats took two years to reach a decision

Is allowed to stay
Man from Pakistan
Convicted of sexual abuse of minors in 2005
Was allowed to stay
The bureaucrats took four years to reach a decision

Is allowed to return
Man from Iraq
Convicted of violence and threats
Had denied entry period reduced from five to two years

Is allowed to stay
Man from Sudan
Convicted in 2006
Was allowed to stay
Bureaucrats took three years to reach a decision.

By Lars Akerhaug

Several asylum-seekers have been allowed to stay in Norway due to incompetence and inefficiency at the UDI (Norwegian directorate of Immigration). Several of these asylum-seekers have serious criminal convictions.

[Right sidebar:]

This is the case

In one of three cases that the UNE (The Norwegian Immigration Appeals Board) heard in 2010 the asylum-seekers were allowed to stay due to lengthy processing times.
The majority of these asylum-seekers are convicted criminals. Several of them have been convicted of very serious crimes.
Due to protracted processing times they have been allowed to stay.
This is the result of an amendment to the law in 2010 which imposed more rigid criteria on processing times.
Figures from the UDI shows that asylum bureaucrats spend more time deliberating on cases involving criminal asylum-seekers than non-criminal asylum-seekers.
VG Nett found these cases by searching the UDI’s implementation database.

[Main article:]

VG Nett has gone through all the cases during the last twelve months where asylum-seekers with deportation orders have been allowed to stay in Norway. In one out of three cases brought before the UNE the asylum-seekers have been allowed to stay due to protracted processing times.

The majority of these asylum-seekers are convicted criminals. Several of them have serious criminal convictions. But because of what the department describes as unseasonably long processing times, they have been allowed to stay in Norway.

A Tunisian national was convicted of attempted murder, threats and abduction in 1996, but was deemed by the courts to be criminally insane.

He was convicted of another murder attempt in 2008, but avoided jail because he was deemed to be mentally ill. When the UNE made their decision they pointed to the prolonged processing time.

"I thought I was going to die”

The victim told VG about the horrible experience in 2008. She believed she was going to die.

The ex-boyfriend came to her home while she and her new boyfriend were asleep.

"Now you are going to die,” the Tunisian screamed.

"He told me that he was going to spend the next 20 minutes torturing me. Then he was going to kill me,” said the woman.

She was stabbed in the stomach with a knife. Her new boyfriend was kept in check with a replica pistol. He was bound with a nylon stocking and was forced to witness the abuse.

When the alarm on the mobile phone went off after 20 minutes the woman thought she was going to die. But the 49 year old Tunisian wanted to grant her a final wish.

The woman asked the Tunisian if she could say goodbye to her four children. At this time the Tunisian went over to the doorway to light a cigarette.

"That’s when I all of a sudden received unknown powers. I was lying in the foetal position on the floor, but I managed to quickly jump up and slam the door shut. At the same time I called out to my friend and together we managed to block the door with our bodies and prevent him from coming back in again,” said the woman.

Menace to society

When the UNE made their decision in 2010 those members of the board who wanted to deport the man were in the minority. These members wanted to protect society against individuals who they deemed to be a ‘menace to society’.

A Pakistani national who was convicted in 2005 for sexually molesting a child was allowed to stay because it took the bureaucrats four years to reach a decision after the man had been sentenced.

Took three years

A Somali national who arrived in Norway in 1997 was convicted in 2003 and in 2004. But because of the prolonged processing time, three years from the time he was released from prison until a deportation order was issued, he was allowed to stay in Norway.

UNE spent two years more than the maximum allowed one year deadline to reach a decision in that particular case.

A Sudanese national who was convicted in 2006 was allowed to stay in Norway because the UNE didn’t make a decision until 2009. This was the only cause for clemency towards him.

In another case it took six years before the UNE reached a final decision. As a result of this lengthy processing the asylum-seeker was allowed to stay in Norway.

"In this specific case the UNE has spent so much time trying to come to a decision that it has to be considered a mitigating factor for the applicant,” was the final conclusion of the asylum bureaucrats.

Processing time at the UNE is at a snail’s pace.

Since 2004 the processing times have on average been one year. After the introduction of a new law in 2010, cases that take more than one year to process can result in non-deportation orders for criminal asylum-seekers who would otherwise be deported.

New law

The reason behind the highly unorthodox decision-making process is the passing of a new law by the Norwegian Parliament in 2010. As a result the UNE has been forced to allow asylum-seekers whom they wish to deport to remain in Norway.

"Yes, the new law covers all the cases that are referred to the UNE, even in those instances where the UDI have already made a decision based on the old law,” says department chief Line Wilberg to VG Nett.

UNE has since January 2010 rescinded several deportation orders simply because the criteria to deport have not met the new law’s deportation specifications.

"We have acknowledged that protracted processing times have been mentioned as factors in these cases, but there are also other factors that have been decisive,” says director of the department of approvals, Karl Erik Sjoholt to VG Nett.

"We believe that we have addressed these issues, and especially in more recent cases. We are going to do whatever we can to avoid decisions judged solely on protracted processing times. We have to pay close attention to the Department’s practice in this area, and if it turns out to have a continued effect on our cases we’ll have to implement new measures,” says the UDI director.