Reykjavík Grapevine - 07.10.2016, Qupperneq 16

For more information & bookings visit:
www.sternatravel.com or visit our sales desk at
Harpa Concert Hall, downtown Reykjavík
NORTHERN LIGHTS BUS
Hot cocoa & a twisted doughnut
PRICE: 6.400 ISK
NORTHERN LIGHTS DELUXE
Minibus max 16 persons
Hot cocoa & a twisted doughnut
Warm blankets & a tripod
PRICE: 9.900 ISK
BOOK
ONLINE &
GET
STERNATR
AVEL .COM
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 15 — 2016
16
Helgi Hrafn Gunnarsson, a member
of Parliament for the Pirate Party, has
been one of the few MPs vocally in fa-
vour of reforming UTL. He believes the
tendency of UTL to lean more towards
keeping people out, rather than trying
to help people come in, can be attrib-
uted to a number of factors.
“It appears to me that different ele-
ments of the system have radically dif-
ferent views on how it actually works,”
he told us. “Being in Parliament in
particular, we often hear things in
committee meetings which fit our un-
derstanding of the law, but then don't
seem to match the reality.”
Adding to this, Helgi says, UTL is
“not only underfunded but also under-
staffed, undertrained and underman-
aged, which is a systemic problem.”
The system eats itself
The increasing workload of UTL is
something the institution has been
diligent in reporting. For those work-
ing inside the system, this can mean
taking on tasks they were never meant
to perform.
“We were originally supposed to
help [asylum seekers] out with filling
out various forms, making CVs, apply-
ing for jobs, checking out classes, us-
ing the bus, applying for a kennitala,
opening up bank accounts and helping
them with their Icelandic,” Icelandic
Red Cross volunteer and former Grape-
vine staffer Hrefna Björg Gylfadóttir
told us. “Everything that's a bit harder
for people living in Iceland who don't
speak Icelandic.”
Indeed, the Icelandic Red Cross
has their plates full when it comes to
the work they do with UTL, and Helga
Vala Helgadóttir, a lawyer who worked
on asylum seeker cases for five years,
underlines a number of problems with
this partnership.
"Two years ago, the Interior Minister
decided to put all the legal assistance
on the Red Cross,” she says. “That was a
huge issue at the time, because it is very
strange that an asylum seeker cannot
have an independent lawyer. Red Cross
branches in other countries actually
forbid their employees from taking up
individual cases, but they do it here."
"I'm not saying the lawyers aren't
qualified,” Helga emphasised. “It has
nothing to do with that. But from Au-
gust 2014 to December 2015 we didn't
hear a word from the Red Cross about
how bad the situation was."
Helga also points out that attempt-
ing to appeal your case after the Di-
rectorate and the Appeals Board have
rejected you can be very expensive, se-
riously curtailing an asylum seeker's
legal right to counsel—as outlined in
Iceland's agreement with the United
Nations, and in immigration law.
Conflict of interest
Helga also points out that conflict of in-
terest is a significant part of the process.
"First, asylum seekers don't get a per-
mit to stay in Iceland while their case is
being taken to court,” she said. “Rather,
we lawyers have to ask the Immigration
Appeals Board [if the asylum seeker can
stay in Iceland while the case is being
heard]. That's the same office that made
the decision to deport the asylum seeker
in the first place. It's like if you wanted
to sue me, but you had to ask my permis-
sion to sue me."
Out of step with
the Icelandic public
One could be forgiven for thinking
that UTL is just acting in accordance
with what the Icelandic public wants.
This, however, is not the case.
According to a survey conducted by
Maskína on behalf of Amnesty Inter-
national in Iceland last month, 85.5%
of Icelanders said they welcomed more
refugees coming here, with 74% say-
ing they believe Icelandic authorities
should do more to help those who are
fleeing war and persecution.
Most striking of all, however, was
how Icelanders felt about living near
or even with refugees.
According to the results, 12.7% said
they were ready to let refugees live in
their homes; 52.2% said they approved
of the idea of refugees living in their
neighbourhoods.
So what kind of change
do we need in UTL?
It might be relatively easy to point out
the problems within the UTL and the
system that surrounds it. But what
kind of changes for the better does Ice-
land need?
Based on her experience working
within the system, Helga put forward
an idea echoed by countless asylum
seekers: the right to work.
“We should allow more asylum ap-
plicants to work while we wait,” she
says. “Why? Because it's good for us.
They would pay taxes. They wouldn't
have to get financial support from us.
Their quality of life would be better. It
would be easier for everyone, for the
whole system, if they were just allowed
to work. Instead of doing that, we im-
port workers who don't have any rights
in Iceland, don't pay taxes, and don't
stay in this country. It's absurd.”
When asked what kind of policy
towards asylum seekers he would like
to see in his “Ideal Iceland,” Helgi was
candid.
“One that fundamentally recogniz-
es human beings as valuable to society,
with restrictions intended to prevent
specific problems, as opposed to restric-
tions for the sake of restrictions,” he told
us. “A system that recognizes human
freedom as an inherently good thing.”
Until such time as any of these
changes come into play, the Grapevine
and other media in Iceland will have to
continue reporting on deportations.
And the real human lives behind the
decisions of bureaucrats will continue
to be stripped of all hope; unfortunate
victims of a system that is overworked,
underdeveloped, and lacking in any
form of effective oversight.
Why Does
This Keep
Happening?
A closer look at
the Directorate of
Immigration
ANALYSIS
Words
PAUL FONTAINE
Illustration
LÓA HJÁLM-
TÝSDÓTTIR
Share:
GPV.IS/UTL16
The Grapevine has reported on many
asylum seeker deportation stories over
the years. We’ve reported on how their
treatment at the hands of the Director-
ate of Immigration (UTL) has often
been in violation of international and
domestic law, and how the Directorate
has at times made decisions that went
against the opinions of the authorities
that are supposed to be supervising
them. Time and again, the question
our readers most often ask in response
is, “How do they get away with it?”
What we found is an institution
that all involved—whether in the courts,
in Parliament, or within UTL’s partner
offices themselves—agree is at the very
least in need of some serious reform.
So what exactly is wrong with UTL,
and how can it be fixed?
It all starts with Dublin
To understand how UTL can deport
someone without even opening their
case for asylum, we need to start with
the Dublin Regulation. As a person’s asy-
lum application follows its path through
UTL, the Immigration Appeals Board
and then the courts, it is not uncommon
to see this regulation evoked. The Dublin
Regulation can be employed, and very
frequently is, to reject cases and deport
people without even examining if their
cases have merit (see graph).
“We import workers who
don't have any rights in
Iceland, don't pay taxes, and
don't stay in this country....”