Dato: 20.11.2024 Svartype: Med merknad Objection against the proposal to repeal of Section 46 of the Immigration Act and instead advocate for prioritizing family reunification for single elderly parents of Norwegian citizens or permanent residents : Compelling Case to Retain Section 46 and Support Family Reunification for Single Elderly Parents 1. The Importance of Family Reunification: A Humanitarian Imperative • Family reunification is a core principle of human rights and aligns with Norway’s obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to family life. • Single elderly parents, particularly those without other children or relatives in their home country, face isolation, neglect, and significant health risks. Denying them reunification with their children in Norway would undermine their basic dignity and human rights. • Supporting single elderly parents also ensures the mental well-being of the sponsoring children in Norway, who may otherwise experience emotional distress due to separation and an inability to provide adequate care. 2. Section 46: A Balanced and Targeted Provision • Section 46 is not a blanket right but a carefully designed provision with clear and narrow eligibility criteria: • Applicants must be over 60 years old. • They must be single and without close family in their home country. • The sponsoring child in Norway must demonstrate financial capacity to support them. • The low number of applications (250 in 2023, with only 150 approvals) underscores that this is not a provision prone to misuse. It is targeted and manageable. 3. Economic Contributions of Reunited Families • Allowing elderly parents to join their children strengthens family bonds and creates support systems within immigrant households, reducing dependency on public resources for childcare or caregiving. • Many immigrants who bring their parents to Norway take full financial responsibility for them, including health care and housing, thus mitigating the public cost burden. 4. Alternatives to Repeal: Focusing on Asylum Management • The proposed repeal of Section 46 disproportionately affects families of Norwegian citizens and permanent residents, while asylum seekers often receive broader protections. • Legislators should focus on reducing Norway’s attractiveness to non-genuine asylum seekers by tightening asylum policies, improving border controls, and expediting deportation processes for rejected applicants. • Redirecting resources from asylum management to family reunification policies ensures fairness and prioritizes individuals with direct ties to Norway, such as family members of citizens and permanent residents. 5. Comparative International Standards • While some countries have stricter rules, Norway has a proud tradition of humanitarian leadership. Retaining Section 46 aligns with Norway’s global image as a progressive, family-oriented society. • Countries like the Netherlands still allow elderly parent reunification under specific conditions, demonstrating that such policies can coexist with sustainable immigration management. 6. Policy Proposal: Enhancing Section 46 Instead of Repealing It If the Ministry is concerned about sustainability, adjustments can be made to improve Section 46 without repealing it. Suggested amendments include: • Strengthening financial guarantees: Require sponsoring children to provide evidence of private health insurance or financial arrangements to cover health and care expenses for their parents. • Raising the age threshold: Adjust the age limit from 60 to 65 or higher to focus on genuinely elderly parents. • Improved verification mechanisms: Increase scrutiny to ensure applicants genuinely meet the criteria of being single and without family in their home country. 7. Social and Ethical Considerations • A repeal of Section 46 sends a message that family ties and humane treatment of elderly individuals are secondary to fiscal concerns. • Norway’s aging population and declining birth rates mean families play an even more crucial role in caregiving and social cohesion. Family reunification fosters stronger immigrant integration and loyalty to Norwegian society. • Single elderly parents often provide informal support, such as childcare, within their families, indirectly contributing to the economy by enabling their children to participate fully in the workforce. 8. A Call for Balanced Legislation • The Ministry should consider the long-term social and cultural benefits of retaining Section 46 over the short-term financial savings claimed by its repeal. • Rather than penalizing families of Norwegian citizens and permanent residents, efforts should focus on prioritizing immigration pathways that strengthen family units while curbing the influx of non-genuine asylum seekers. Conclusion Retaining Section 46 can reaffirm Norway's commitment to humanitarian values, family integrity, and the rights of its citizens and permanent residents. Adjusting asylum policies and reinforcing the financial accountability of sponsoring families are more effective ways to address immigration concerns than dismantling a vital family reunification mechanism. By retaining and refining Section 46, Norway can continue to lead by example as a compassionate and forward-thinking nation. Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet Til høringen Til toppen
