Millions of foreigners are residing illegally in Europe and the United States, yet they are not being sent home. Why not?
In the United States, eight million migrants entered the country illegally during the Biden regime alone. In Britain, we see the same pattern. In Denmark, there are 27,000 Syrians with temporary residence permits. The agreement was otherwise clear: The Syrians were granted protection for as long as the war lasted, but were to return home when conditions allowed.
The authorities assess that they can be sent home, yet the government still fails, as Mikkel Bjørn of the Danish People’s Party explains to the apathetic minister responsible for the area, Morten Bødskov. The government breaks its promise; the Syrians are granted permanent residence.
One is reminded of Milton Friedman’s words: Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government programme.
Temporary residence for refugees has become a waiting room for permanent residence.
The rule of law does not threaten; it is itself under threat
In The Free Press, Douglas Murray asks the fundamental question: Can a country tolerate law-breaking on such a massive scale and preserve its integrity? No state would accept massive law-breaking in other areas such as burglary, drink-driving or tax fraud. Can one imagine the authorities announcing that burglary has now become so widespread that it would be inhumane to intervene? No, surely?
But why, then, permit illegal immigration and reward the criminals? For, yes, they are criminals inasmuch as their first act on American and European soil was to commit an unlawful act.
The common claim is that deportations threaten the rule of law. But the exact opposite is true: It is the failure to enforce the law that threatens the state. A law that no one enforces teaches citizens to disregard the law.
The Danish Refugee Appeals Board (Flygtningenævnet) decided in March this year that the general conditions in Syria can no longer justify a residence permit in Denmark. On that point, the voters’ mandate is crystal clear: They have only agreed to temporary assistance. No one has asked them whether they want the permanent settlement of immigrants who, like the Syrians, are heavily overrepresented in serious crime (seven times as much as Danes) and place an enormous burden on the public coffers.
No Western population whatsoever has ever given a mandate for such large-scale demographic changes.
Three reasons for the apathy
So again: Why, then, are no effective deportations taking place? There are three clear answers.
Imagine the following: One morning in Holstebro, a Syrian family whose application for a residence permit has been finally rejected is collected by the police to be put on a plane and sent home. That same morning, the media are there. They show footage of the crying daughter, which is broadcast around the country around the clock. The next day, large demonstrations surge forth outside Holstebro Town Hall, attended by the girl’s classmates and teachers, the family’s neighbours and the local priest. The demonstrations spread to Christiansborg, where refugee spokespeople are given permanent airtime in the media. On day three, the minister puts the case on hold.
In other words: Deportations become a scandal that the government is unable to handle. It simply lays down its arms. The post of immigration minister already wears people out. Without a clear mandate, iron resolve, determination and planning, the repatriation policy collapses with a bang.
In the United States, the heavy-handed raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have shifted public opinion. Support for deportations has fallen from 47 per cent in 2024 to 39 per cent in June, according to figures from Gallup, and in Britain Nigel Farage, who is building his Reform UK party on opposition to mass immigration, rejected the idea of removing illegal migrants. Only when voters protested did he change course.
The second reason for the failure to carry out deportations is that many countries of origin refuse to accept their own citizens. Other countries require valid travel documents, which the person being deported has an interest in ‘losing’. Syria does not accept forced returnees, but why does the Danish government not toughen its stance and immediately deprive the country of the half a billion kroner in annual humanitarian aid?
Thirdly, there is Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on family life, which places obstacles in the way: The longer one has lived in a Western country, the stronger one’s right to remain. Time works in favour of the person who stays. Here, the Refugee Appeals Board’s test cases show that seven out of ten were allowed to remain. Six of them because of family ties to a person with a residence permit in Denmark.
The harmful conventions cannot be abolished quickly enough.
The question is not whether the deportations will come. But how. It can happen now, in relative peace and order and precisely in accordance with the law. Or it can happen later, when the well of patience has run dry and hard-line politicians and a stricter policy take over. Then the tears will truly begin to flow.
