Iceland review - 2015, Blaðsíða 56

54 ICELAND REVIEW
the Red Cross, believes the government is
mindful of not being perceived to grant
asylum too easily. “Iceland doesn’t want to
show a milder interpretation of the refugee
definition than other Nordic countries.
If word got out, then more people would
come here but Iceland can receive many
more. There’s enough space,” he says.
In Þorsteinn’s opinion, the definition
of a refugee, which according to Article 1
of the 1951 Convention on Refugees is a
person with “a well-founded fear of being
persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion, is outside
the country of his nationality and is unable
or, owning to such fear, is unwilling to avail
himself of the protection of that country,” is
very clear. People have all sorts of reasons
for leaving their country, however, lack of
money or job opportunities, he emphasizes,
are not considered reasons to grant asylum.
In January 2013 head of the Directorate
of Immigration Kristín Völundardóttir
caused controversy when she said that some
people seeking asylum in Iceland were
economic migrants who were practicing
so-called ‘asylum tourism’ or ‘asylum shop-
ping.’ She argued that the long processing
times open the possibility to individuals
taking advantage of the system, in particu-
lar “free food and housing.” “People in this
group commonly are not escaping perse-
cution but come for economic reasons but
persons applying for asylum for economic
reasons are clearly not covered by the UN
Refugee Convention,” she said, adding that
despite this, they are entitled to have their
cases processed, adding to the burden on
the system.
If the reason a person is applying for asy-
lum is deemed by the directorate to fit the
refugee definition, that person is granted
protection and given refugee status, or
subsidiary protection status, for example
in cases of general violence or conflict—
Syrians in Iceland receive subsidiary pro-
tection, for example—or authorization to
stay for humanitarian reasons, in cases such
as trafficking, ill health, or because of any
ties they may have to the country in which
they are seeking asylum. Alternatively,
Iceland may send back an individual to
the country deemed responsible for their
application.
While people’s applications are pro-
cessed, they are provided with housing,
access to a lawyer and medical care, cloth-
ing, a weekly ISK 8,000 (USD 60) credit
balance at a supermarket chain, access to
the local swimming pool and language
study as well as ISK 2,700 in weekly allow-
ance for adults and ISK 1,000 for children.
THE LONG WAIT
The application processing time varies
greatly from a few weeks up to four years.
Acutely aware of the strain on the system,
the government and the Icelandic Red
Cross signed an agreement last year on
the Red Cross becoming the main partner
with the Ministry of the Interior in asylum
issues with the aim of shortening the pro-
cessing of applications to a maximum of 90
days with a further 90 days for the appeal
process.
“The idea is that people can get on with
their lives,” Áshildur says of the 90-day
guideline, emphasizing that the two Red
Cross lawyers who are now responsible for
cases are “working day and night to ensure
each case receives proper treatment within
the timeframe.” Áshildur admits that the
processing time has previously been too
long but that “this is an opportunity to
change that.”
During the waiting time, asylum seekers
are able to study, as well as apply for work.
However, few asylum seekers manage to
find work in part because neither the asy-
lum seeker nor the potential employer
knows how long they will be in Iceland,
Björn says.
Allowing asylum seekers to work is fun-
damentally important, Áshildur says. “It
relieves some of the pressure and allows
them to keep their human dignity during
the process. Then, if they are granted
permission to stay, they already have work,
which helps them during their first steps
in integration. If, on the other hand, their
applications are rejected, then their time
here is not wasted. It’s also important for
Icelandic society that asylum seekers are
able to participate in the labor market. It
helps create tolerance as people learn that
these are just normal people like the rest
of us.”
The importance of asylum seekers keep-
ing their minds busy during the waiting
process was highlighted in Lilja Ingvarsson’s
Master’s thesis in Public Health, submitted
in January. She found that idleness is enor-
mously stressful, resulting in impacts on
individuals’ health and mental wellbeing.
The longer the wait, the worse the impact.
In several cases, asylum seekers have resort-
ed to going on hunger strike (see page
46)—and several have committed suicide
while waiting for a decision.
Navid was granted protection in Iceland
in the spring of 2014 after three years in
the country. “It’s a weird situation when
you have no answer and are just waiting.
You feel totally hopeless, in limbo, waiting
for them to make a decision on whether
you can stay or not. It takes a lot of energy
out of you… each time you apply and you
start a new life and then later you get a
negative… I went to The Netherlands, I
learnt Dutch, then I was sent away. They
said: ‘We’re going to send you back to your
country.’ I said: ‘What do you mean, ‘my
country’?’ ‘Afghanistan’ they said. I replied:
‘I don’t know that country. I’ve never been
there. I was born in Iran. My parents hav-
en’t been there in 45 years. I don’t speak the
language. You can’t send me there!’ Instead
I went to France, I started to learn French,
and I got a negative. In Finland, I got a
negative too. They wanted to deport me
from Iceland after waiting for three years.”
Twenty-nine-year-old Iraqi Ali Alsaraaf,
ASYLUM