Denmark must be doing something right, because both the United Nations and the European Union oppose its plan to move its asylum application facilities to the African continent.
Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from the German-language service of RT:
Denmark: Asylum procedures are to be moved to the African continent
Denmark wants to transfer its asylum obligations to a third country. Tunisia, Ethiopia, Egypt and Rwanda are eligible. Reception centers for the Danish government are to be set up in one of the countries in order to decide on asylum procedures. The United Nations and the EU are against it.
According to the United Nations and the European Union, Denmark’s project undermines international cooperation. Amnesty International, the International Red Cross and the international NGO “Save the Children” also strongly criticize Denmark’s plan to decide on refugees’ asylum applications to Denmark on the African continent.
The Danish government argues that this will foil the criminal networks of smugglers, and asylum seekers will be spared the life-threatening journey to Europe by sea.
In April the Danish Minister for Immigration and Integration, Mattias Tesfaye, traveled to Rwanda. However, no concrete negotiations resulted from this, and no consensus could be found on the establishment of an asylum center:
“We have agreed to continue to discuss refugee and asylum policy, but also development issues, investments, green change, tourism and many other things.”
Denmark has a rigid asylum policy. For several years it has not been possible to apply for asylum in the country through Danish consulates or embassies. About the planned asylum centers, Martin Lemberg-Pedersen, a lecturer at the Center for Advanced Migration Studies at the University of Copenhagen, said:
“This would be one of the biggest changes in Danish asylum and refugee policy since 1951. That is why the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has very clearly distanced himself from this idea and criticized it, which the EU has also done.”
The director of the Danish Institute for the Protection of Human Rights, Louise Holck, criticizes that one cannot simply export the “protection of human rights”. The bill is far too imprecise. A “legally secure asylum procedure” could no more be ensured than the non-prosecution of refugees.
The EU and UN would likely be ok with such a move if the Danes were to supply the “asylum seekers” with a sufficient quantity of comfort women for the purpose of sexual emergencies as well as miscegenation during the long asylum process. Hordes of these could be sourced from the “refugees welcome” groupies in Sweden and Germany, and once they were in a family way, returned to Europe where they would fulfill the requirements of Soros, Schwab, Gates, etc., regardless of whether the asylum seeker was allowed to infest Europe or not. A Lebensborn initiative to bring to pass the post-Europe future…