In March this year, citizenship applicants were contacted by the Ministry of Immigration and Integration and told that the naturalisation process would be frozen for an unspecified period of time.
This was to accommodate the general election, and thereafter an expert group that would evaluate potential ways to tighten requirements for applicants, and finally political negotiations on new rules.
This is the product of a contentious period in 2024, when three applicants who had been approved but had expressed “undemocratic views” on social media led to debates about potentially introducing a new screening element in the application process.
In 2024, the debate led to the three controversial applicants being called in for a never-before-seen hearing process in front of the Naturalisation Committee in Folketinget.
To understand the political process, The Danish Dispatch spoke to the newly appointed Deputy Chairman of the Naturalisation Committee, Peder Hvelplund from the Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten).
“One of the most shameful days”
In 2024, while not Deputy Chairman of the Committee, Peder Hvelplund was still a member. At the time, he was a very outspoken opponent of the hearing process.
Could you elaborate on your views on the hearings in 2024?
“At the time it was a dramatic step to take. These were citizens we had been told that if they met certain conditions, they would be included when parliament voted on the citizenship bill.
“They met every criterion we had asked them to meet and yet still faced a hearing at the risk that it could determine their application.
“For me it was one of the most shameful days I have had as a democrat and as a member of parliament.”
As a member of the Naturalisation Committee at the time, you were in attendance. How did you experience those hearings?
“I experienced the hearings as very uncomfortable and intimidating. You have to imagine a citizen who does not really know what process they are in, what they must answer, or what the consequences are.
“They walk into a room with about fifteen people who can make a wide-ranging decision about their life.
“Questions were asked about how you would react if your husband came home with a partner of the same sex, or of another religion, or if you saw two people of the same sex holding hands.
“And you sit there thinking: this is someone who is supposed to get the chance to vote in a general election. Why are they being examined like this?”
Thought control?
These screenings of “undemocratic views” that were conducted in 2024 and led to the hearings are now being considered both legally and politically as potential additions to the application process in the future.
Several parties support introducing them at the coming negotiations on the naturalisation process. However, Hvelplund strongly disagrees with doing this, calling it “sindelagskontrol” (effectively: thought control).
Is it not fair to ensure that the people you give Danish citizenship reflect Danish values and don’t hold undemocratic views?
“In a democratic state you have to be able to hold strange attitudes. There are citizens with views I find completely unacceptable: right-wing extremist, left-wing extremist, Islamist, anti-democratic.
“I will fight those attitudes. I would never say that means they should lose the chance to vote.”
Earlier this week Epinion published a poll that found 74% of Danes support introducing these measures. Aren’t you out of touch with the Danish population?
“If we start saying that some opinions should exclude people from voting rights, the question is where it stops. Who defines which opinions are extreme?
“How do we avoid a democracy where 51% can decide that 49% are beyond the pale and cannot take part? Democracy is also the protection of rights we do not like.
“Even if a majority wants to implement something, it can still be undemocratic. If a majority decided to take the vote away from women again, that would not make it democratic.
“And the attitudes do not disappear because people are denied the vote. They are still there. I would rather meet them in the open, with democratic means, than start taking democratic rights away.”
Suddenly standing aloneIn 2024, the hearing process was supported by all the parties in the blue bloc (the right-of-centre bloc of parties) plus the Social Democrats (Socialdemokratiet). Enough for a hefty majority in both the previous and current parliaments.
However, Hvelplund is more isolated now politically than he was previously. The Alternative (Alternativet), a left-wing green party that also opposes introducing additional screenings, is no longer represented on the Naturalisation Committee.
And other previous allies of the left and centre have become government coalition parties, meaning they are more limited in their willingness and capacity to disagree with the Social Democrats.
Where do other political parties stand in relation to your political views?
“I can feel that we are suddenly standing alone on this. That makes it harder to carry the task, because we are at a marginal point in public opinion. And that is quite problematic.
“What worries me most is that when I talk to people about those affected, they have a picture of who is seeking citizenship. It is Islamists, group-rape offenders, mass murderers, deeply criminal citizens. They have an idea that everyone looking for citizenship is a criminal who wants to harm Denmark.
“What worries me is that the less we manage to say this out loud, the more that other story takes hold. So there is a huge need to show what kind of people we are actually talking about.”
The future timeline
By the end of the year, the expert group is due to deliver its verdict on the legalities around additional requirements.
After that, the political parties will negotiate and likely reach a new agreement on requirements for citizenship. This could take a long time, however.
How long do you think it will be before the application process starts moving ahead again?
“I don’t want to take hope away from people about what can happen. In the best-case scenario, the government could get to reopen L98 without a new indfødsretsaftale.
“If that were achieved, L98 could be dealt with within a time horizon of maybe eight months to a year. That would be the best-case scenario.
“It would still mean that all the citizens on L98 would have to be checked again in relation to public order, criminality and so on. That is why it would take a bit longer.
“So that it could be completed in the course of a year, people would still have to wait for the ‘grundlovsceremoni’ (the ceremony for finalising naturalisation), and then the button could be pressed and it could be finished in parliament.“
But that depends on the government reopening L98 and accepting that the citizens who are on L98 only have to live up to the current criteria.”
Are you saying there may not be any new citizenships handed out in 2027?
“Yes.”
However, it does not end there. Some parties are suggesting a trial period for citizenship of five years. That would in practice likely mean that someone’s naturalisation would be passed by law, but the “grundlovsceremoni” would not take place until five years later.
If someone’s naturalisation was then first passed in 2028, that means they would not get their final citizenship until around 2032.