Mvq
2016 TC Champion
but:
Denmark has become the first country to deny a Syrian asylum on the basis that the country is safe, despite continued killings of civilians due to airstrikes saying otherwise.
According to the Refugee Board, a Danish independent group that deals with complaints about asylum-related decisions in the country, a number of asylum applications related to Syrians in Damascus have been denied residency as the area is now considered "safe" and so not applicable for residency.
An individual's appeal was denied on the basis that "general conditions" in the Damascus region were acceptable.
Emma Beals, an expert on Syria condemned the country, tweeting: "Denmark just became the first place to deny a Syrian asylum on the basis that Syria is safe now and no personal protection issues exist."
"This is not true. Nobody can be said to be 'safe' to return."
She went on to add: "Denmark decided in June that Damascus is safe and people from there needed personal reasons for protection, rather than blanket protections for all Syrians because *war*. It's impossible to say that Damascus or any particular individual is safe at the present time."
so which is it?
Not sure when I said I agreed with any of this. I simply stated that "the majority agree that being born on the other side of an arbitrary line in the ground doesn't make you any different."
It does not logically follow that, because some random idiot within Denmark denied a Syrian asylum, that now Denmark as a whole is gonna deny Syrians asylum because Damascus is deemed "safe" by some guy.
If this was true, then Syrian asylum seekers would be sent back to their country. Which they aren't: https://www.thelocal.dk/20190705/danish-refugee-board-allows-syrians-to-retain-asylum-status