The government cannot introduce a ban on church asylum in Norway.

That’s what Vårt land means in the lead.

“The institution of church asylum should continue as an exceptional practice for people in a desperate and desperate situation”, writes the newspaper.

They also praise SV for having forced negotiations with the government, during the budget negotiations, that foreigners who have spent more than 5 years in church asylum should automatically be granted legal residence in Norway.

The newspaper is supported by Jan Christian Kielland of the Church Council, who believes that a majority of people in Norway are in favour of the system of church asylum.

Kielland says the church has deliberately not wanted to regulate the arrangement of church asylum, as it is not something the church encourages, but that it falls under their “mission to meet people on the run with love, respect and kindness”.

Vårt Land is nervous because the Ministry of Justice and Emergency Preparedness will “look at the framework around church asylum”.

“Will the police continue to treat the church building as a holy house, or will the review of the framework result in church asylum seekers being taken out in the future”? asks the newspaper.

Our country believes that church asylum is not an “ideal solution for anyone”, as it “in many ways helps to “weaken the legitimacy” of the current asylum and immigration policy which has been determined by both the Storting, the government and the immigration administration.

“Nevertheless, the scheme should continue to be a practice for people who, in a desperation and in a desperate situation, seek safety in the church building and refuse to leave it,” the newspaper concludes.

No account is taken of the fact that many of those seeking church asylum may have lied about their “desperate situation”, or that church asylum is an abuse of a holy house.

If you flee from another country, but your asylum application is rejected, then there is a reason for the rejection. Our country perhaps thinks that they know better than the authorities that check the applications of the asylum seekers?

Norway has indeed signed several agreements obliging them to accept asylum seekers – something that it is rather doubtful that the majority in Norway is in agreement with. However, an asylum seeker whose application for residence in the country is refused must of course be deported.

To think otherwise is actually a threat to democracy.

When you take the law into your own hands and seek out a church to force your continued stay, it is not only a breach of the law, but also a total lack of respect of the established laws, the authorities, the church and the Norwegian population.

It should be obvious, even to the naive in Vårt Land and Kielland in the Church Council, that the law must be the same for everyone. It is both disappointing and frightening that there are people around the country who are willing to fight for illegal asylum seekers to be allowed to enter and stay in the country.

Under the guise of being so good and warm-hearted, they let in villains, and label them as “people in a desperation and a desperate situation”.

Does Vårt Land really know how many millions of children, sick and elderly around the world are in desperation and a desperate situation?

Do they realise that typically those who manage to get to Norway have something that all the other millions don’t?

Money.

Only those with money, position, power, influence or good contacts have the opportunity to get to Norway.

Once the asylum seekers have arrived and having their asylum application rejected, they force themselves into a legal residence anyway they can, even through the possibility of sitting in a church asylum for a few years. But they do this to the applause of Vårt Land, the Church Council and according to Kielland – “most others in Norway”.

We must be allowed to protest both against this practice and against the claim that the majority in Norway believes church asylum is fine.

It is neither good nor right, regardless of what the apostles of goodness in Vårt Land and the Church Council may think.

When you see how difficult it is for a person from Southeast Asia, who is married to a Norwegian, and who has legally arrived in Norway to obtain permanent residence, it is difficult to feel anything other than that breaking the law pays off.

How can Vårt Land defend an arrangement that abuses the church and makes fun of Norway’s laws?