L 168 - 2010-11 (1. samling) - Bilag 7: Materiale fra høring om L 168 den 4/5-11

This research report primarily examines the actual effects of recent legislationon compulsory integration courses and tests as a condition for access to apermanent residence permit and naturalisation. Although Denmark has in-troduced an immigration test as a condition for admission for family reunifi-cation, this test did only recently enter into force (as of 15 November 2010),and its effects are not yet known. Therefore, Chapter 2 ‘Integration test as acondition for admission’ only contains a description of the Danish legislationon the introduction of an ‘immigration test’ and some background informa-tion (arguments, problems, media attention, public discussion etc.), whileChapters 3 and 4 on integration tests as a condition for permanent residenceand naturalisation, deal additionally with the effects of the two tests evalu-ated on the basis of interviews with 26 migrants,1five representatives fromlanguage schools, five representatives from immigrant organisations and fiveofficials responsible for the application of the integration and naturalisationlegislation.Since the research was carried out within a very short period (from midFebruary 2010 to July 2010) and because limited resources were available,2we were not able to select the respondents evenly on the basis of nationality,age, gender, socio-economic background, etc. Accordingly, among the mi-grants interviewed, there were more than twice as many women as men (dis-tribution: 64 - 36 per cent for permanent residence and 73 - 17 per cent fornaturalisation)3and the respondents were relatively young (on average intheir early thirties) with a middle to high educational background (less thana quarter had a low educational background). Most of the applicants forpermanent residence settled in Denmark for family reunification while al-most half of the applicants for naturalisation were born and/or raised inDenmark. In general, the migrants interviewed represent a variety of coun-tries; see Annex 1.

Particulars about the RespondentsFinding migrant interviewees turned out to be more difficult than firstthought. As will appear from the following chapters, the Danish languagetests required for permanent residence and naturalisation are not tests estab-lished for the purpose of approving applications for permanent residenceand naturalisation. The Danish language courses and the Danish languagetests are part of an introductory programme offered to newcomers after theirarrival and normally lasting for three years. Migrants who have passed alanguage examination after three years of schooling will normally have towait an additional number of years before they can apply for permanentresidence (at the time of the interviews, the general residence requirement forpermanent residence was seven years and the residence requirement fornaturalisation nine years). Therefore, applicants for permanent residence andnaturalisation are normally not found on the language school courses. Someapplicants who have not passed the relevant examination may of course at-tend a language school to sit an examination (a test) in connection with theirapplication for either permanent residence or naturalisation; however, sincethe language examinations take place every six months (May/June and No-vember/December) – and since we had to finalise the INTEC research projectby the end of June, we had to commence the interview work in March.Thus, instead of finding migrant respondents at the language schools, wetried to find the respondents through the administrative authorities dealingwith applications for permanent residence and naturalisation. A job centre inthe Municipality of Copenhagen (dealing with applications for permanentresidence) agreed to send out letters to all the migrants who had applied forpermanent residence within a certain period (the last few months of 2009).Using this method, we made contacts with seven migrants (50 per cent of ourmigrant respondents). The advantage of this method was that the applicantswere randomly chosen; the only common features were that the respondents– at a certain point in time – had lived in the Municipality of Copenhagenand that they had contacted us at their own initiative after having receivedthe letter from the job centre in Copenhagen.The process of finding respondents for interviews concerning access topermanent residence was characterised by what is known as the ‘snowballeffect’; by contacting people working in the field, new possibilities emerged.Thus, through language teachers at a preparatory course for the naturalisa-tion test, we were given the possibility of interviewing migrants at a lan-guage course held at a major international company and here, by case- to-case contact, we found the opportunity to conduct interviews at another lan-guage school. In this way, we interviewed a total off seven more respon-dents: two at the international company and five at the language school.These respondents were from the area of Copenhagen, but with differenteducational backgrounds, nationalities, residence permits, etc.4

As for naturalisation, it was easier to find the applicants. An applicationfor naturalisation has to be submitted to the police who after its examinationforward it to the Ministry of Integration. We made arrangements with one ofthe local police stations in Copenhagen handling naturalisation cases. In ad-dition, we made an appointment with a language school in the vicinity ofCopenhagen where, as of April 2010, migrants could attend a preparatorycourse for the naturalisation test. Five of the twelve applicants for naturalisa-tion were interviewed at the police station, four at the preparatory courseand three through other contacts (snowball effect). These respondents alsohave a different background.The characteristics of all respondents are described in Annex 1.It is worth noting that we had difficulties finding migrants who hadgiven up applying for a permanent residence permit or naturalisation. Thereis every indication that migrants are very persistent in their desire to acquirea permanent residence permit and/or citizenship. However, as regards per-manent residence we interviewed two and, regarding naturalisation, threemigrants for whom fulfilling the requirements presented great difficulties.While selecting immigrant organisations, we asked different people withlong-term experience within the field which organisations would be the mostrelevant and representative to interview. The selected organisations are theCouncil for Ethnic Minorities, the Somali Network in Denmark, the Docu-mentation and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination, Copenhagen LegalAid4and the Danish Refugee Council.The same method was used for selecting language schools. The chosenschools are a large private and a large public language school, a schoolowned by the Danish Refugee Council, a small private school in the provinceand a large provincial language centre covering ten municipalities.The officials interviewed represent the police, the central administration(the Immigration Service and the Ministry of Integration) and the municipali-ties. Regarding naturalisation, we interviewed an employee in the Ministryof Integration’s Naturalisation Office5and a police officer in Copenhagen.Regarding permanent residence we interviewed an employee from the Officefor Family Reunification, Passports and Extension of Residence Permits inthe Immigration Service, two employees of the Municipality of Copenhagen,the Job Office,6and an employee from a smaller suburban municipality in thevicinity of Copenhagen.

Research MethodThe Danish legislation, the legislative debate and the literature, etc, on inte-gration tests are analysed and 41 interviews based on the common INTECquestionnaires are evaluated. Before describing the results, some reservationshave to be made.A number of the migrants interviewed did not have sufficient languageskills to understand and/or answer all the questions in the interview guide.This problem was most noticeable in relation to applicants for permanentresidence. Furthermore, even during interviews with migrants with goodDanish language skills, comprehension gaps arose as to some of the ques-tions. These problems may have influenced the overall analysis of the inter-views since the viewpoints of the most articulated may have prevailed. Asalready mentioned, the comprehension problem was the least evident duringthe interviews with applicants for naturalisation, although a few had troubleboth understanding the questions and expressing themselves. In such situa-tions with comprehension problems, the interviews centred more on the re-spondents’ experiences and stories and less on getting answers to the ques-tions in the interview guide.From the very beginning it was our intention to record all interviews.Very soon, however, we realised that many applicants for both permanentresidence and naturalisation felt insecure being recorded during the inter-views. Therefore, only a few interviews with applicants were recorded; con-sequently, the summaries of the interviews with migrants are less detailed,since it turned out to be difficult for the interviewer taking extensive notesduring the interviews.A related problem was that the location of the interviews seemed to in-fluence the openness of the migrants. This effect became especially clear dur-ing the interviews conducted at the police station. We had the impressionthat some of the applicants for naturalisation were made uneasy by the merefact that their applications were being handled by the police and that addi-tionally, they felt that their answers during the interview with us might in-fluence the outcome of their application for naturalisation. As to the mi-grants’ openness, we had the reverse experience while interviewing migrantsin their own homes where they were fairly outspoken and open-minded.All the interviews were conducted by one person.7This may influencethe perception and analysis of the interviews both negatively and positively.Such an effect may be generated since interpretation and analysis during theinterview situation may influence the final analysis and interpretation of theinterviews. This may broaden the analysis but, on the other hand, one draw-

Existing Danish LiteratureSo far there, not much literature has been published on Danish integrationand naturalisation tests. However, the language requirement for naturalisa-tion and the citizenship test are mentioned in Eva Ersbøll’sDansk indfødsret iinternational og historisk belysning (2008),in Silvia Adamo: Northern Exposure:The New Danish Model of Citizenship Test, in theInternational Journal onMulticultural Societies008 vol. 10 no. 1, pp. 10-28, UNESCO and in SilviaAdamo’s PhD thesis:Citizenship Law and the Challenge of Multiculturalism, TheCase of Denmark(2009; not yet published). Furthermore, the language re-quirement for naturalisation and the citizenship test are described on theEUDO website, the Danish country profile by Eva Ersbøll: http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/CountryReports/Denmark.pdf . Moreover, the Danish in-tegration tests, etc, are discussed in Eva Ersbøll: On trial in Denmark, inRicky van Oers, Eva Ersbøll and Dora Kostakopoulou:A Re-definition of Be-longing? Language and Integration Tests in Europe(2010). Additionally, someforeign literature refers to the Danish tests, including others Anja Wiesbrock:Legal Migration in the European Union, Ten Years after Tampere(2009). Added tothis, several studies examine foreigners’ integration in Denmark, including‘IntegrationStatus -10 års fremgang – og hvad nu?’8The effects of the Danishlanguage courses under the Danish for Adult Immigrants scheme are alsodiscussed in a number of publications, including a publication concerningimmigrant women learning Danish:Indvandrerkvinder i danskuddannelsen(AKF Working paper 2010 www.akf.dk ).

The first DanishAct on the Integration of Aliens in Denmarkwas adopted in1998 and entered into force on 1 January 1999.9The Integration Act appliedto both refugees and immigrants. The aim was to make it possible through anintegration effort for, newly-arrived refugees and immigrants to become ac-tive participants in the Danish society as a whole, self-supporting and withan understanding of Danish fundamental values and norms. The Act as-signed the municipalities overall responsibility for the integration efforts(formerly handled by the Danish Refugee Council).Newly arrived foreigners were offered an introductory programmecomprising a course in societal knowledge, a Danish language course and‘activation’, normally lasting three years. The target groups were foreigners,defined as refugees and family reunified immigrants, legally resident inDenmark. Nationals from the other Nordic countries and the EC/EEA werenot covered, nor were foreigners affected by the EC rules on visa exemptionand the abolition of entry and visa restrictions in connection with freemovement rights.10As a rule, foreigners offered an introductory programme were entitled tointroductory aid for a period of up to three years.11At that time the introduc-tory aid amounted to a maximum of 5000 DKK (EUR 672) per month for sin-gle people and 7000 DKK (EUR 940) for persons supporting minor children.If a foreigner refused to participate in the introductory programme for nogood reason, the municipality could reduce or withdraw the introductoryaid; similarly, a reduction was possible if a foreigner refused to attend with-out justification. Moreover, lack of attendance could lead to refusal of an ap-plication for permanent residence.91011Act no. 474 of 1 July 1998.See now section 2(3) in Consolidation no. 1593 of 14 December 2007 of the Act on the In-tegration of Aliens in Denmark (the Integration Act).Introductory aid was conditional upon certain income requirements and family reuni-fied foreigners were not entitled to the allowance if their sponsor had guaranteed theirmaintenance and their residence permit was conditional upon this person’s support.

The Danish language course was a key element of the integration pro-gramme. According to the 1998 Act, the extent and content of the introduc-tory programme, including the Danish language course, were to be laiddown in an individual ‘action plan’ based on the abilities and skills of eachindividual foreigner with the explicit objective of introducing him or her tothe labour marked or to further education.In January 2002, the new Liberal-Conservative government that cameinto power in 2001 adopted a ‘new aliens policy’.12This policy was based onthe following three fundamental principles: Denmark’s international obliga-tions are to be respected; the number of immigrants is to be limited and therequirement that immigrants be self-supporting is to be strengthened.Accordingly, in February 2002, the new Minister for Integration pre-sented a Bill amending the Integration Act in order to implement the newaliens policy. With the adoption of the amendment, foreigners and their localcouncils became obliged to enter into ‘an individual contract’ (instead of theformer ‘action plan’) in order to guarantee the quality of the introductoryprogramme. The contract was to specify that foreigners offered an introduc-tory programme had a duty to participate actively in the different pro-gramme elements.13The different elements were to be laid down in the con-tract on the basis of an assessment of the foreigner’s situation, skills, back-ground and needs (Section 16(3), cf. Section 19). Furthermore, the contractwas to specify the sanctions applicable to the legislation in situations wherethe foreigner failed to appear or rejected one or more of the activities agreedupon (or decided) in the individual contract. The consequences included areduction or suspension of the introductory aid (sections 30 and 31) and alack of options for obtaining a permanent residence permit (Section 11(7) (2)of the Aliens Act (as amended in 2002).14The Integration Act has since been amended several times. In 2006 it wasamended on the basis of an integration agreement which the governmenthad entered in 2005 into with the Danish People’s Party and the Social De-mocrats.15The basic idea was that foreigners should meet the same expecta-tions and requirements as other citizens and that they and their descendantsshould have the same fair opportunities as others. Education was seen as aprecondition for integration and foreigners should make an effort, take re-sponsibility for and demonstrate their will to integrate, find employment andbecome self-sufficient.According to the 2006-amendments it was established that a foreigner’s‘integration contract’ lasts until he or she has acquired a permanent residencepermit (Section 19(8)); the integration contract replaced the ‘individual con-12131415En ny udlændingepolitik (A new aliens policy), 17 January 2002.Act no. 364 of 6 June 2002.Amended by Act no. 365 of 6 June 2002.See Act no. 243 of 27 March 2006

tract’. Furthermore, it became a requirement that foreigners must sign andthereby recognise the values stated in a ‘Declaration on integration and ac-tive citizenship’. In principle, this declaration is not legally binding; its pur-pose is to render Danish values visible and indicate that the society expectsforeigners to make an effort to integrate as participating and contributingcitizens, equal to other citizens.16The latest amendment of the Integration Act was adopted in Parliamenton 25 May 2010.17The aim of this amendment is to adjust the Act to achanged migration pattern and new challenges as regards migration. Thenumber of foreigners who have emigrated to Denmark for the purposes ofemployment and studies has more than tripled since 2001, while the num-bers of refugees and those seeking family reunification have fallen to belowone third of the 2001-level. The government and the Danish People’s Party(which entered into an agreement with the government regarding thechanges on 15 March 2010), want to ensure that the integration efforts in-clude all foreigners, not exclusively refugees and foreigners seeking familyreunification. Moreover, the integration offers must be adapted to the newgroup of immigrants.Thus, as of 1 August 2010 the scope of the Integration Act has been ex-tended to include labour migrants and their families plus EU migrants. Con-sequently, the municipalities have been assigned responsibility for all newlyarrived foreigners. There is to be more focus on active citizenship, and withinfour months of a local council having taken over responsibility for a for-eigner, that person must be able to begin a course on Danish society, cultureand history: an ‘active citizenship course’(Section 22). Moreover, employ-ment promotion and tailor-made offers to the extended target groups of theIntegration Act will be emphasised, and the link between the integration ef-forts and the right to permanent residence will be explained. For instance, itis explicitly spelled out in the Objects clause, Section 1, paragraph 4, that oneof the aims of the Integration Act is to ensure that newcomers be made awarethat successful integration is a precondition for access to a permanent resi-dence permit (see below under 1.4 and 3.1).The integration options will follow two paths: anintegration programmefor refugees and foreigners arriving for family reunification and a less inten-siveintroductory coursefor labour migrants and other migrants with (pre-sumably) more resources. Normally, the duration of the integration pro-gramme and the introductory course will have a maximum of three years,but a course must be completed as quickly as possible. As for content and

As previously mentioned, a close link exists between the legislation on inte-gration and the legislation on Danish language education. Thus, in 1998, con-currently with the adoption of the Integration Act, anAct on Teaching Danishas a Second Language for Adult Foreigners and Others and Language Centreswasadopted.18Like the Integration Act, the Education Act entered into force on 1January 1999. Danish language tuition was to be provided at languageschools with a view to securing appropriate educational options for partici-pants with very diverse backgrounds, abilities and needs. The educationalfacilities were to be accredited and streamlined and the number of weeklyperiods/lessons was to be increased (by 30 per cent).In 2003, the newly established Ministry of Integration presented a neweducation Act to Parliament with a view to making the Danish education sys-tem more effective in order to secure the integration of foreigners into the la-bour market. Among other things education in Danish culture and societywas strengthened. (The Danish courses provide both knowledge of Danishlanguage and knowledge of Danish society, etc.)The newAct on Danish Courses for Adult Aliens and Othersentered intoforce on 1 January 2004.19According to the Act, foreigners are generally of-fered a Danish language course lasting three years: Danish Course 1 (DC1),Danish Course 2 (DC2) or Danish Course 3 (DC3).20The scope of each of thethree Danish courses corresponds to 1.2 years’ full-time study. The coursesare split into 6 six-month modules with specific targets (on average, eachmodule corresponds to 0.2 years’ full-time study). Enrolment in a moduleother than the first module assumes that the targets of the preceding mod-ule(s) have been achieved.DC1 attaches importance to oral Danish. However, students do have tolearn how to read and write a simple text in Danish. The object of DC1 is toqualify the students for unskilled labour and active citizenship.In DC2, students learn to understand, speak and read Danish and towrite some texts. The object is to qualify students for the labour market, ac-

tive citizenship and participation in qualifying labour market courses orother vocational training alongside Danish colleagues.In DC3, the speed and level of Danish are higher than in DC2. Studentslearn to put problems into perspective and to incorporate general cultural,historical and societal knowledge. They learn to vary their spoken and writ-ten Danish language in order to be able to argue in favour of their personalattitudes and viewpoints. The object of DC3 is to qualify students for the la-bour market or for further education – and active citizenship.All three courses culminate in tests in oral communication, as well asreading comprehension and written presentation. The Danish 1 Examination(D1E) is comparable to ALTE level 1/Council of Europe level (CEFR) A2. TheDanish 2 examination (D2E) is comparable to ALTE level 2/CEFR B1. D2E in-cludes an assessment of whether the students can express themselves in flu-ent, understandable and relevant language with a certain complexity andcorrectness. The Danish 3 Examination (D3E) is comparable to ALTE level3/CEFR B2. D3E comprises an assessment of whether the students can ex-press themselves relevantly and understandably using fairly nuanced andcomplex language with a relatively high degree of accuracy. In writing, thestudents must be able to discuss a subject, describe attitudes and viewpoints,elaborate, give reasons and summarise.21The three Danish language courses target foreigners according to theirprevious schooling, i.e. no schooling, limited schooling and extensive school-ing, respectively. DC1 is intended for students who have little or no educa-tional background and have not learned to read and write in their mothertongue (and Latin script illiterates who do not understand European nota-tion). DC2 is intended for students with some educational background intheir country of origin who are expected to learn Danish as a second lan-guage fairly slowly. DC3 is intended for students with lower or upper secon-dary or higher education in their country of origin (for instance vocationaltraining, grammar school or long cycle higher education), who are expectedto learn Danish as a second language fairly rapidly.22Students with special needs, for instance as a result of dyslexia, otherlearning difficulties, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), other psychiatricillnesses or brain injuries, etc., are offered tuition in small groups or – in very21SeeBekendtgørelse om prøver inden for danskuddannelse til voksne udlændinge m.f.(Regula-tion No. 912 of 28 September 2005 on tests within Danish education for adult foreignersand others); D3E may be taken by students who have completed the first five modulesof DC3. Students who complete all 6 modules can take the higher education examina-tion (the study test); since success in this examination is not an ‘integration requirement’it will not be discussed further.The aim of the test is to ensure that students have sufficient knowledge of Danish lan-guage to render them capable of coping well in the Danish educational system. Thus,reading and writing are the main focus. The students are supposed to be able to expressa reasoned opinion on public matters in fluent Danish.

special cases – individual tuition. These students may also be offered special(compensatory) education before starting a Danish course, with the right todeferment of the three-year Danish education period.Furthermore, foreigners have the option to extend the three-year periodof free Danish language tuition if, for instance as a result of full-time work,illness or childbirth, they are prevented from participating in courses for thethree-year period. In general, the courses are relatively flexible in terms oftime, place and content in order to enhance interaction with the students'employment, activities or training; among other things, students may followclasses outside normal working hours.It remains to be said that, with the adoption to the recent amendments tothe Integration Act, Section 2 of the Act on Danish Courses for Adult Aliensand Others, concerning the personal scope of the Act, was also amended,providing for access to Danish courses for all foreigners who have reachedthe age of 18 and have a residence permit or other permission to hold habit-ual, legal residence in Denmark, including persons with EU registrations andEU residence cards.

1.3.1 The Aliens Act’s Integration Requirements regarding PermanentResidenceIn 1998, the Aliens Act was amended with a view to making it a condition foraccess to permanent residence, as of 1 January 1999, that the applicant hascompleted an introductory course (established according to the IntegrationAct). By an amendment to the Aliens Act in 2002, the requirement for per-manent residence was extended to include a language examination. No fixedlevel was set at that time; applicants simply had to pass the examination atthe course in which they were enrolled (or – if they had not been enrolled ata course – an examination at a suitable level). However, by an amendment in2007, the required language level was fixed at D2E, comparable to the Euro-pean level B1 (part of an ‘integration examination’, see below under 3.1). As aresult of the transitional rules, the 1998- and 2002-requirements co-existedwith the 2007-requirements and were applied to applicants who had appliedfor a residence permit when the respective Acts were in force and had com-14

1.3.2 The Naturalisation Circular’s Integration RequirementsIn 2002 the government and the Danish People’s Party agreed that as a ruleapplicants for naturalisation should document their Danish language abili-ties by passing a language examination at a language school at a level com-parable to D2E (B1).24In 2005, it was agreed that the required level would beraised to D3E (B2) and at the same time, it was decided that a citizenship testwould be introduced, which came into force in May 2007. In 2008, the citi-zenship test requirements were strengthened and, moreover, it was notlonger sufficient simply to pass the D3E examination (in order to pass, amark of at least 6 on a 13- point scale or 2 on a 7-step scale is required). Fromnow on, an average mark of at least 7 (on the 13 -point scale) or 4 (on the 7-step scale) is required.

As already mentioned, close interaction exists between immigration, integra-tion and language policies. The first DanishAct on Integrationwas adoptedconcurrently with the adoption of theAct on Teaching Danish as a Second Lan-guage for Adult Foreigners and Others and Language Centresand theAliens Actwas amended at the same time. All the interrelated new rules entered intoforce as of 1 January 1999. In 2002 it was decided that both applicants forpermanent residence and applicants for naturalisation should documenttheir Danish language abilities by passing a language examination at a lan-guage centre (no fixed level for permanent residence, while an examinationat level B1 was required for naturalisation). Both the requirement for perma-nent residence and the requirement for naturalisation were strengthenedaround 2006 (the level was fixed at B1 for permanent residence and B2 fornaturalisation). At the same time, a naturalisation test was introduced –modelled on the Dutch societal knowledge test. The language and societalknowledge requirements for naturalisation were strengthened in 2008, and2324The day when the Bill amending the Aliens Act was presented in Parliament.The level was a little below B1, but this was changed by the Act on Danish Coursesfrom 2003.

the general requirements for permanent residence were strengthened in 2010when, among other things, an active citizenship test was introduced, mod-elled on the naturalisation test.25In some ways the requirements for perma-nent residence are more restrictive than the requirements for naturalisation,for instance regarding the requirement for full-time employment. However,the requirements for permanent residence and the requirements for naturali-sation apply independently: the fulfilment of the former does not exempt anapplicant from fulfilling the latter.In general, the arguments with regard to the different tests have more orless been of the same nature. However, the view of ‘immigrant responsibil-ity’ has shifted. In 1998 the public responsibility for providing immigrantswith opportunities to integrate on an equal footing with other citizens wasemphasised. Since then, the demands on immigrants to take responsibilityfor their own integration and to document their good will to integrate haveincreased. It is increasingly being stated that immigrants themselves have aduty towards their own integration and that they must respect Danish soci-ety’s values and norms and must meet expectations, especially that success-ful integration requires an active individual effort. This has culminated inlegislation based on the idea that ‘permanent residence is reserved for for-eigners who integrate’, that ‘results count’ and also that ‘citizenship must beearned’.The aim of promoting better integration is mentioned in the preparatorywork to the 2010 amendment of the Integration Act. This explicitly statesthat, in order to encourage foreigners to integrate into the Danish society andto highlight the link between access to permanent residence and integration,foreigners signing an integration contract must be made aware of the re-quirements for permanent residence. Furthermore, foreigners on the activecitizen course must be taught about the conditions and it should be stressedthat ‘poorly integrated foreigners cannot acquire a permanent residencepermit’.The official message is that what matters is the immigrant’s desire forin-tegration;however, immigrants with little ‘integrationcapacity’are at a disad-vantage.This became alarmingly clear with the 2010 amendments to the AliensAct. Apparently, the Danish government now defines ‘integrated foreigners’as foreigners who can fulfil ten integration requirements comprising, amongother things, full- time employment, good Danish language skills and ‘activecitizenship’. Many immigrants who, informally, are considered well-integrated will not be able to fulfil these criteria, whether they be hard work-ing people with too little spare time for studying or in the process of trainingwith no possibilities for taking up full time- employment.

Chapter 2: Integration test as a condition for admission2.1 The test2.1.1 Introduction of the testBy an amendment to the Aliens Act adopted on 25 April 2007,26it was de-cided that an immigration test would be established for foreigners applyingfor family reunification and for religious preachers applying for (extensionof) a residence permit. The decision followed the Dutch example regardingthe establishment of an integration test to be taken abroad before admission.According to the preparatory report to the Bill, the purpose was tostrengthen the individual foreigner’s possibilities for successful and rapid in-tegration into Danish society. The perception was that foreigners who hadpassed an immigration test would be better prepared for the introductoryprogramme to which they were to be subjected as newcomers to Denmark.Apart from being a supplement to the ordinary language courses, the immi-gration test should help ensure that foreigners took responsibility at the ear-liest opportunity for their own integration and documented their motivationand dire to become part of Danish society.After the adoption of the immigration test, a working group was set upwith a view to conducting a pre-analysis of the implementation of the test.Based on the working group’s conclusion that it would be very costly to es-tablish a testing system abroad (comprising relatively few applicants frommany different countries), the government and the Danish People’s Partyagreed that applicants for family reunification should take the immigrationtest in Denmark – after having received pre-recognition regarding their ful-filment of the other conditions for admission.27This change required anamendment of the 2007 Act. A Bill in this respect was presented in Parlia-ment on 10 December 2009 and adopted on 15 April 2010 with 107 votes forand 7 votes against (only the two small parties, the Social Liberals and theRed-Green Alliance, voted against).28The Act authorised the Minister for In-tegration to determine when the immigration test was to come into force.Eventually, the date was set to 15 November 2010.

2.1.2 Target Groups, ExemptionsApart from EU/EEA citizens and foreign citizens seeing family reunificationwith a Turkish citizen living in Denmark who is economically active as anemployee, self-employed person or service provider,29the immigration testrequirement includes in principle all foreigners applying for reunificationwith a spouse or partner (and religious preachers).30Exemption from the test requirement is possible under certain specialcircumstances, for instance where the sponsor is a refugee who cannot takeup residence in his or her country of origin due to the risk of persecution orwhere the sponsor’s personal conditions call for an exemption. In all caseswhere a refusal will constitute a violation of the European Convention onHuman Rights (ECHR), exemption must be granted. In general, the test re-quirement does not apply to foreigners who cannot fulfil the requirementsdue to serious illness or handicap, including PTSD. Furthermore, the re-quirement does not apply to foreigners who are granted family reunificationaccording to special practice, including foreigners applying for family reuni-fication with a sponsor with a residence permit granted for occupational oreducational reasons. Lastly, the test requirement does not apply if the for-eigner already has a sound knowledge of Danish and Denmark, for instanceacquired while staying in Denmark for a number of years; exemption will begranted if the foreigner has lived in Denmark for at least five years and fulfilsthe Danish language requirement for permanent residence.

2.1.3 Content, Level, etc.The immigration test is an oral test. It consists of a Danish language test anda societal knowledge test. The entire immigration test takes approximately 30minutes.The language test comprises 40 questions and implies that the applicantsmust understand and answer simple, direct questions and demonstrate alimited knowledge as to polite phrases, everyday and standardised expres-sions. In order to pass, the applicant must have at least 28 correct answers.The level of the Danish language test is A1-minus corresponding to the testfollowing Module 1 at DC1 and DC2.29Based on the rulings af the European Court of Justice (on how to interpret the 1963 as-sociation agreement between the EU and Turkey) in the case of T. Sahin (17 September2009, C-242/06) and the Commission v. The Netherlands (29 April 2010, C-92/07), theDanish immigration authorities have concluded that these group of foreigners cannotbe required to take the immigration test (or to pay the test fee).Thus, foreigners from countries such as the US, Australia, Japan and North Korea arealso covered (unlike in the Netherlands, see Eva Ersbøll 2010, p. 129-130).

The knowledge test comprises 30 questions and in order to pass, the ap-plicant must have at least 21 correct answers. The level will be higher thanA1-minus. Vocabulary will be kept within the scope of the preparatory mate-rial. The intention is that immigrants must be familiar with Danish norms,values and fundamental rights, including democratic principles, individualfreedom, personal integrity, gender equality, freedom of religion and free-dom of speech; furthermore immigrants must be familiar with certain morepractical facts such as the prohibition of female circumcision, forced mar-riages and parental responsibility for their children, education, health, work,etc.No preparatory courses for the immigration test are offered. However,for the purpose of the test, a preparatory package is prepared. The most cen-tral part of the package is an educational film entitled, ‘Living in Denmark’.31The aim of the film is to give the participants a realistic general picture ofDenmark and daily life in Denmark. Thus, the film communicates both factsand values with a view to adapting the expectations of the immigrants toDanish reality. According to the Ministry of Integration, the basic message ofthe film will be that prospects in Denmark are good for those who are willingto make an effort and take responsibility for their life in Denmark.The film is supposed to provide answers to the test questions about Dan-ish society. It is approximately 90 minutes long and consists of 17 chapters. Itis produced in Danish and recorded in 18 different foreign languages (noreading abilities are required). The film is not supposed to include languagelessons since the immigrants themselves are responsible for their preparationfor the language test. However, some expressions from the language testmay be present in the film.Apart from the film, the preparatory package contains a recorded vo-cabulary list, 100 pictures from the film with information about Denmarkand Danish society, two samples of the language test, test instructions, etc.All material is available in a spoken version - dubbed into 18 foreign lan-guages.32The test will be administered by a computer based test system playingthe questions and recording the (oral) answers on a sound track. For eachquestion, the computer shows a relevant picture from the educational film;likewise it shows a picture for four out of every five language test exercises.The societal knowledge test and the language test are conducted in Danish

and all questions must be answered in Danish. The tests will be evaluated byexternal examiners.A fee of 3000 DKK (about 300 euro) has to be paid to take the test. Thepreparatory packet costs 50 DKK (about 7 euro) plus shipping and admini-stration fees (about 150 DKK or 20 euro).As already mentioned, the test must be taken in Denmark after the appli-cant has received recognition in advance of his or her application for familyreunification. Applicants subjected to a visa requirement will be granted aspecial short-stay visa, valid for 28 days from the date of issue, with a view toenter Denmark. Before the entry visa expires, the applicant must submitspecified documentation to the Ministry of Integration in order to be granteda right to ‘procedural stay’ in Denmark for three months in order to pass theimmigration test. While staying in Denmark, the applicant may in principletake a language course at his or her own expense. However, in practice thismay give rise to difficulties, see also below under 2.2.33As a rule, foreignerscoming to Denmark in order to pass the test must do so within the first two-and-a -half months (75 days) of their arrival, and foreigners applying forfamily reunification in Denmark must do so within two and a half months af-ter the date of a letter from the Ministry of Integration informing them thatthey need to take the test; if this time limit is exceeded, there may not beenough time to evaluate the test within the three-month time limit. Duringthe three-month period the test may be re-taken, but the fee of about EUR400 must also be paid again. If an applicant has not passed the test within thethree-month time limit, family reunification will be refused and a date fordeparture will be fixed.Per year, 1500 – 2000 foreigners are expected to take the test; the estimateis based on the present number of resident permits issued to reunifiedspouses/partners and religious preachers.

Before the legislative work, during a consultation procedure, a number ofNGOs and other organisations and institutions criticised the test for beingexclusive, especially taking into consideration the lack of educational offersand the high fee, which as a whole, could make it difficult, if not impossible,to pass for poor and/or uneducated applicants. In order to solve some of thealleged problems, it was suggested to be made possible for migrants to takethe knowledge test in their own language.Among the opposition parties in Parliament, the Social Democrats sup-ported the idea of introducing an immigration test provided that all appli-cants regardless of their educational and financial backgrounds were able topass it. Members of the party suggested that more time should be allotted forstaying in Denmark while preparing for the test; furthermore, they asked formore information about the Dutch experiences.The Minister for Integration has from the very beginning stressed thatthe purpose of the test is not to limit the number of family reunifications –nor is it to keep foreigners out of Denmark; no marked decrease in the num-ber of applications is expected. During the debate in Parliament in 2010 theMinister made it quite clear that the test would be adjusted in such a waythat all ‘can work it out’.34She emphasised that it is not about ‘integration’,but may regarded as a ‘taster’, making it possible for applicants to documenttheir interest in being integrated and becoming familiar with Danish norms.Based on the test, some migrants might change their minds about staying inDenmark - having discovered ‘what it is all about’ (learning about Danishsexual morality, etc.). The test is supposed to send a signal to newcomers thatintegration is also about individuals contributing actively and engaging intheir own integration; likewise, the test aims to give applicants some realisticexpectations of their life in Denmark and the possibilities, requirements, ob-ligations, etc. they will encounter.The Minister for Integration argued against the possibility of allowingimmigrants to take the test in their own language. As for the idea of offeringpreparatory language courses, she stressed that a central element of the im-migration test is that it is up to the individual to prepare for the test and ap-plicants may start preparing themselves for the test in their country of origin.In response to a question, she stated that if all applicants were to be offeredDanish language education at Module 1 at the Danish language courses – themodule (at DC1 and DC2) expected to lead to Danish language skills at levelA1 minus – the cost would be between 32.7 and 44.3 million DKK (EUR 4.4 –6 million euros), and probably only applicants with a good educational back-ground in their country of origin would be able to complete the modulewithin the 75 days allocated for passing the immigration test.

3.1.1 Integration Test RequirementsThe integration test requirements in force since 2 June 2010 were, as men-tioned above in section 1.3.1, adopted on 25 May 2010 and have not yet had ameasurable effect; all the applicants interviewed in connection with this re-search project have so far been subjected to other requirements, dependingon when they applied for a residence permit in Denmark. For the purposes ofthis research, it is therefore appropriate to describe the requirements forpermanent residence adopted over the last ten years.Until 1999, access to secure status was regulated indirectly by the AliensAct’s imposition of a five-year time limit for withdrawal of a residence per-mit.35However, in 1998, by an amendment to the Aliens Act, this arrange-ment was repealed and permanent residence was made conditional upon in-tegration requirements; these requirements have become strict. The integra-tion conditions (which, due to transitional rules, were in force until June2010) will be mentioned below. It should be noted that the respondents inthis project normally refer to these earlier rules in force when the interviewswere conducted.

3.1.2 Requirements 1999-2002The 1998 Aliens Act provided for the granting of a permanent residencepermit to a foreigner holding a residence permit issued with a view to per-manent residence if that person had lived in Denmark for more than 3 years(section 11(3)), provided that a number of supplementary conditions werefulfilled. These conditions were introduced in order to emphasise that a for-eigner wishing to stay in Denmark on a permanent basis would be expectedto make an effort to learn the Danish language and adapt to the Danish soci-ety.36Thus, at that time, in order to qualify for a permanent residence permit,a foreigner had to complete an integration programme (or a comparablecourse).37Furthermore, the applicant was not allowed to have public debt353637Consolidation Act no. 557 of 30 July 1998, section 11(2):Jens Vedsted-Hansen: Tidsbegrænsning og forlængelse af opholdstilladelser, in Lone BChristensen et al.,Udlændingeret,p. 531 ff.Only active participation in the introduction programme was required.

3.1.3 Requirements 2002–2006In 2002, the residence requirement for being granted a permanent residencepermit was raised from 3 to 7 years (section 1(3)). Furthermore – in additionto completing an integration course (section11 (7) (1)) – the applicant had topass a test in the Danish language (section 11 (7) (2)).39Moreover, seriouscrimes (prison sentences of two years or more or other criminal penalties forserious crimes) would prevent the applicant from acquiring a permanentresidence permit (section11 (5),40as would any overdue public debt (section11(7) (3)).In 2003, with an amendment to the Aliens Act, the requirement of 7years’ residence as a condition for being issued a permanent residence per-mit was modified. The government had suggested, in its integration proposalof 5 March 2002 that foreigners who had made a successful effort to integrateinto Danish society (including self-supporting foreigners), should have thepossibility of acquiring a permanent residence permit earlier than wouldnormally be the case. Thus, with the amendment, in principle it became pos-sible for ‘well integrated foreigners’ to acquire a permanent residence permitafter 5 or 3 years; the possibilities depended on the foreigner’s integrationlevel (firm connection to the labour market, self-support for the last threeyears and close ties with Danish society through, for instance through asso-ciation or political activity or long-cycle higher education) (section 11(4 and5)).41After the government had entered into an integration agreement with theDanish People’s Party and the Social Democrats on 17 June 2005, with a viewto implementing its new integration plan, ‘A New Chance for Everybody’,the Integration Act and the Aliens Act were changed again. Apart from in-troducing ‘integration contracts’ lasting until the issue of a permanent resi-dence permit, together with declarations on integration and active citizen-

3.1.4 Requirements 2006–2010On 20 June 2006, the government entered into a new agreement with theDanish People’s Party on future immigration. On the same day, a broaderwelfare agreement was secured and the immigration agreement was an ex-tension of this agreement; the challenges to be met in order to secure futurewelfare and cohesion included the employment of immigrants and immi-grants’ descendents. Employment was seen as a better way to integrate. Itwas considered important for foreigners to be met with a clear signal as towhat was expected of them in Denmark. Immigration policy should contrib-ute towards improving Denmark’s position in the competition for highlyqualified international labour. Increasing highly qualified labour wouldstrengthen welfare and production and enhance the employment possibili-ties for persons with limited education. In the agreement, it was decided thatthe existing job card scheme would be extended and a green card scheme es-tablished; furthermore an ‘integration examination’ would be required as acondition for the issue of a permanent residence permit.In November 2006 the Minister for Integration presented a Bill amendingthe Aliens Act and the Act on Active Social Policy, providing for an integra-tion examination, a green card scheme, residence permits for foreigners withan annual salary of 450,000 DKK (60,000 euros) (the pay limit scheme) andresidence permits for foreigners with special qualifications (the positivelist).43The Act was adopted in April 2007. Thus, according to the amendedAliens Act, it was made a condition for the issue of a permanent residencepermit that the applicant pass a test in the Danish language at level D2E(level B1) or have passed a test in the Danish language at level D1E (level A2)together with a test in English at level B1 (section 11(8 and 9)). Moreover, the42See Act no. 243 of 27 March 2006; among the additional conditions for permanent resi-dence were still that the applicant must not have overdue public debt and not havebeen sentenced to two or more years’ imprisonment or other criminal sanctions for seri-ous crimes.Act no. 379 of 25 April 2007.

3.1.5 Requirements 2010 onwardsIn 2010, a new agreement regarding access to permanent residence and otherissues was entered into by the government and the Danish People’s Party (15March 2010). One of its aims was to make it possible for ‘well-integrated im-migrants’ to acquire a permanent residence permit after just 4 years (insteadof 7) and, on the other hand to make it more difficult for ‘poorly integratedimmigrants’ to acquire this status. The Aliens Act was amended accordinglywith support from members of the Liberal, Conservative and Danish Peo-ple’s Parties.44The members of the other parties voted against the changes.The spokespersons for the Social Democrats, the Socialist People’s Party, theSocial Liberals and the Red-Green Alliance opposed the inflexibility of thesystem, which would make it impossible for some immigrants to obtain apermanent residence permit. The viewpoints of the Social Democrats and theSocialist People’s Party, who in general have accepted the government’s‘firm and fair aliens policy’ with a view to form a new government after thenext election, was challenged by the governing parties and the Danish Peo-ple’s Party warning against the possibility that the ‘firm and fair aliens pol-icy’ would not be continued if the opposition obtained a majority in parlia-ment after an election.45Following the reform of the rules on access to permanent residence, for-eigners applying for a permanent residence permit as of 26 March 2010 musthave attained the age of 18 and obtained at least 100 points according to theAliens Act, section 11, paragraphs 4-6 (70 points must be obtained accordingto paragraph 4, 15 points according to paragraph 5 and 15 points accordingto paragraph 6).Firstly, applicants for permanent residence must fulfil eight essentialconditions in order to obtain 70 points, cf. section 11(4). They must:1) have resided legally in Denmark for at least 4 years;2) not have been sentenced to imprisonment for 18 month or more;463) not have been sentenced to 60 days’ imprisonment or more for violationof Parts 12 and 13 of the Criminal Code (crimes against the Danish state);4) not have outstanding debt to the public authorities, unless a defermenthas been granted and the debt is below 100,000 DKK (13,500 euros);444546Act no. 572 of 31 May 2010.Negotiations of 20 May 2010.Imprisonment for a shorter period will result in waiting periods up to 12 years.

5) not have received welfare assistance (Act on Active Social Policy or Inte-gration Act) within the three years preceding submission of the applica-tion for a permanent residence permit;6) have signed a declaration on integration and active citizenship;7) have passed the D2E (level B1) or a Danish language test at an equivalentor higher level;8) have held ordinary full- time employment in Denmark for at least 2.5years out of the last 3 years before submitting the application for a per-manent residence permit.Moreover, the applicants must achieve an extra 30 points by making an extraeffort with a view to integration through9) ‘active citizenship’ and10) employment or Danish language proficiency or education.The ‘active citizenship’ requirement (that counts for 15 points (cf. section11(5)) is met if the applicantsa) pass a special ‘active citizenship examination’,orb) demonstrate active citizenship in Denmark through at least one year’sparticipation as an active member of boards, organisations etc.The ‘supplementary conditions relevant to integration’(that count for 15points (cf. section 11(6)) are met if the applicants meet one of the followingintegration-related requirements:a) have held ordinary full -time employment in Denmark for at least 4 yearsout of the last 4,5 years before submitting the application for permanentresidence and still be in employment at the time when the permanentresidence permit is granted, orb) have completed one of the following programmes at a Danish educa-tional institution: a higher education programme, a professional bache-lor’s degree, business degree or vocational upper secondary education;orc) have passed D3E or a Danish language test at an equivalent level (B2) orhigher.

mit before turning 19, but only in so far as they have been in school or work-ing full-time since they completed the DanishFolkeskole(municipal primaryand lower-secondary school) (cf. section 11 (10)).Furthermore, foreigners with strong ties to Denmark may be exemptedfrom the conditions of section 11 (4) (1, 5, 6 and 8) as well as 11 (5 and 6).Foreigners ‘with strong ties to Denmark’ are defined as foreigners belongingto the Danish minority in South Schleswig, former Danish citizens, foreignerswith Danish parents and foreigners who are Argentinean citizens with Dan-ish parents or grandparents (cf. section 11 (11)).Finally, exemption is possible for foreigners who cannot fulfil one ormore of the requirements of section 11 (4) (4-8) and 11 (5-6) ‘if the demandscannot be made due to Denmark’s international obligations, including theUN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’. Guidelines con-cerning whom to exempt according to this new, very broadly formulatedrule are lacking and much is left to the discretion of civil servants and judges,which has been criticised by many of the institutions and organisations in-volved.

3.1.7 Interim ProvisionsUntil the adoption of the 2010 requirements, interim provisions ensured thatimmigrants who had applied for a residence permit under one of the Actspreviously in force and who fulfilled the integration conditions according tothe Act in force with the exception of the residence requirement (7 years resi-dence in Denmark) would not face new requirements for which they had notprepared. Thus, by way of example, applicants who had applied for a resi-dence permit between 1 January 1999 and 27 February 2002 and who hadcompleted an introductory programme before 29 November 2006 were notrequired to take a language test, and applicants who had applied for a resi-dence permit between 28 February 2002 and 30 June 2006 and had completedan introductory programme and passed a language test before 29 November2006 were not faced with the requirement of having to pass a Danish lan-guage test at level B1 (if for instance they had enrolled in DC1, D1E (level A2)would suffice). However, as of 26 March 2010, all applicants now need to ful-fil the new stringent requirements for permanent residence and run the riskthat they cannot acquire a permanent residence permit (any more), irrespec-tive of their former legitimate expectations of having qualified for permanentresidence.

3.1.8 FeesThe Danish language courses are free of charge. Until the adoption of the2010 reform, the local council was allowed to charge a fee per module fromself-supporting foreigners who were not covered by the Integration Act (forinstance, foreigners covered by the EU right of free movement, etc., labourmigrants, specialists, au pairs and exchange students). This possibility hasbeen repealed as of 1 August 2010 as part of the government’s de-bureaucratisation plan. However, in relation to students who want to registerfor a languageexaminationand who have not followed a language course, itis still possible to charge a fee of 1000 DKK (about 130 euros).Furthermore, a cost-based fee will be charged for the ‘active citizenshiptest’. The test is supposed to be introduced in mid-2011 and to be similar tothe naturalisation test.47However, the subject level will be a little below thelevel of the naturalisation test and the number of questions will be only 15 –10 of which must be answered correctly. Thus, there is reason to believe thatthe cost-based fee will not exceed the naturalisation test fee (660 DKK orabout 90 euros).

According to the preparatory work for the latest reform of the Aliens Act, thepurpose of the amendments is to make it possible for ‘well integrated immi-grants’ to acquire a permanent residence permit earlier than was previouslythe case, i.e. after 4 years’ residence instead of (previously) 7 years.48More-over, the reform is intended to send a signal regarding what Denmark ex-pects from its new co-citizens. The message is that foreigners have a personalresponsibility for their integration and active citizenship and that foreignerswishing to integrate in Denmark and demonstrate goodwill as regards activecontribution and respect for Danish culture and democratic values can be-come part of Danish society and obtain a permanent residence permit. On thecontrary, foreigners who do not ‘demonstrate goodwill to integrate’ will beexcluded from acquiring a permanent residence permit. The focus hasmoved to ‘the result of the will to integrate’.The new strict and inflexible integration requirements give some causefor concern. After the Bill was presented in Parliament, the organisations andinstitutions consulted, etc., warned against repeated changes of the alien leg-islation and the uncertainty this created among immigrants. Furthermore,many organisations, etc., warned that many immigrants would not be able to4748See below, however, in section 4.1.This possibility did already exist, but was not often used, cf. above under 3.1.3. This hasnot been extensively discussed in the recent debate in Denmark.

fulfil the requirement concerning on full-time employment combined withthe educational requirements – regardless of their goodwill. In particular,unskilled workers may find it hard to allocate the necessary time to studying,and immigrants undergoing of training will have to wait for a number ofyears before they can (hopefully) fulfil the requirement of full-time employ-ment. Vulnerable immigrants, among others traumatised refugees, will faceeven bigger problems than before. They may be exempted from fulfillingsome of the requirements, but, as already mentioned, only in so far as re-quired by ‘Denmark’s international obligations, including the UN Conven-tion on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (cf. section 11, paragraph 12) –and it is up to the applicants to prove that they have a disability that entitlesthem to exemption.The media dealt with the criticism; for instance, a debate between theMinister for Integration and the Director of the Danish Institute for HumanRights (DIHR) was brought into focus. The DIHR had criticised the strictercriteria for permanent residence as being exclusive and unjustifiable with aview to integration. The Minister for Integration stated that she was inter-ested in advice regarding possible violations of Denmark’s human rights ob-ligation, but characterised some of the criticisms raised concerning whetherthe criteria applied were ‘justifiable’ and ‘promoting integration’’ as ‘ entirelyinappropriate political viewpoints’.

3.3.1 Analysis of StatisticsVirtually no literature or public statistics exist on the effects of the tests.However, the Ministry for Integration has, upon request, conducted a statis-tical survey of permits and refusals of permanent residence from 2003 – 2009.The survey only covers applicants with a residence permit issued for eitherasylum or family reunification. It has not been possible to perform a similarsurvey for applicants with a residence permit issued for work or study dueto the fact that the ‘aliens register’ is established as a journal and a case- han-dling system – rather than as a genuine statistical database. Since there is nocurrent validation, figures regarding access to permanent residence must beinterpreted cautiously.

The statistics show that thenumber of applicationsfor permanent residence hasdropped dramatically from 2006 (by more than half). This development maybe seen in the light of the fact that immigrants who were issued a residencepermit before 27 February 2002 were subject to the rules applicable until thenand, thus, when applying for a permanent residence permit they only had tofulfil a residence requirement of 3 years – while immigrants who have beenissued a residence permit since 28 February 2002 have to fulfil a 7-year resi-dence requirement for permanent residence.Moreover, the statistics show that thenumber of permanent residence per-mits issuedhas dropped even more since 2006. Information on the reasonsgiven for the refusals is not available, but an obvious conclusion may be thatthe lower number of permits has to do with the introduction of the languagetest requirement and the ‘integration examination’ requirement. While appli-cants for permanent residence who had been issued their first residencepermit before 28 February 2002 did not have to fulfil a language test re-quirement (they only needed to have completed their introductory pro-gramme before 29 November 2006), applicants who had been issued theirfirst residence permit during the period 28 February 2002 – 1 April 2006 wererequired to pass a language examination for the language course in whichthey had enrolled (D1E, D2E or D3E). Only applicants who had not com-pleted an introduction programme and/or passed a language examinationbefore 29 November 2006 and applicants who had been issued their first

residence permit after 1 April 2006 had to fulfil the ‘integration examinationrequirement’ (D2E + full-time employment for 2.5 years out of last 7 years).Yet, due to the general residence requirement of 7 years, the full effects of theintegration examination had not been seen (or evaluated) before the new andeven more restrictive requirements were introduced in 2010.Developments for refugees and foreigners reunited with families havenot been the same; see Table 3.Table 3: Applications for permanent residence granted and denied, 2003–2009; totalnumbers and percentage of refusals for refugees and family reunified immigrants*RefugeesTotal number ofdecisionsPercentage of refusals200339425.3200452296.7200549709.02006190219.8200751713.52008154253.8200991254.2

Refugees account for the majority of the refusals and have, in general, beenmost affected by the changes. Thus, until 2006 less than 10 per cent of therefugees’ applications for permanent residence were refused. In 2006 the to-tal number of decisions fell to less than half, and the percentage of refusalsmore than doubled (from 9 per cent to about 20 per cent). However, the effectof the changes is most dramatic in 2008 and 2009, when more than half of allapplications were turned down.Tables 4 and 5 show that when the statistics are broken down by agegroup, a considerable number of (successful) applications originate fromchildren and 18-year-old applicants. However, as of 26 March 2010, accord-ing to the 2010 amendments, children can not longer apply for a permanentresidence permit and by the age of 18, they must be continuing their studiesor working full-time since they completed primary and lower secondaryschool in order to be exempt from the requirement regarding having beenemployed full-time employed for at least 2.5 years out of the last 3 years.Thus, due to these constraints, it is very likely that from now on the numberof permanent residence permits will decline further.

No general statistical information is available about the number of applicantsfor permanent residence who have taken part in the language test, etc., howmany failed/passed and how many times they have taken the test. However,the Ministry for Integration collects, processes and disseminates general sta-tistics concerning Danish language education; according to these statistics,37,833 students followed a Danish course in 2008; of these, some participatedin more than one Danish course, which means that this year the number ofeducational courses was 38,901. The distribution of students in percentageswas 8 per cent at DC1, 38 per cent at DC2 and 53 per cent at DC3.49The educated guess from the language school representatives inter-viewed during this research is along the same lines since it is estimated thatin 2010, 30-40 per cent will enrol in DC2 and 50-60 percent in DC3, while therest, about 6 -10 per cent enrol in DC1.More than half of all the students are self-supporting immigrants. In2008, 38.6 per cent of the students were self-supporting and paid a fee, and21.7 per cent were self-supporting but did not pay a fee. In particular, theself-supporting students following DC3 (in 2008 72.4 per cent of students inDC3 were self-supporting and, among them, 47 per cent paid a fee to followthe course).50

In 2008, more than half of the students came from a non-Western country(55 per cent). The share of non-Western migrants is highest in DC1; in 2008the percentages of non-Western migrants were 94 in DC1, 61 inDC2 and 46 inDC3.Women are generally in the majority at the language schools. In 2008,women made up 60 per cent of total students (a little less than in 2006) andthey are especially over-represented in DC1; both in DC1 and to a certain ex-tent in DC2 women face more difficulties when it comes to learning Danishbecause in general, they have had less previous schooling than men. More-over, women over 35-40 are normally in a weaker position than youngerwomen, and it is more likely that women from non-Western countries orwith partners from non-Western countries will interrupt or fail to attend acourse. Also, employment has a negative influence on whether the studentspass a Danish language examination. According to a survey of four languagecentres, it may be difficult to complete a Danish course and to work at thesame time.51In the first examination period of 2008, 3,298 students were enrolled forthe final examinations (for D1E, D2E and D3E levels); 90 per cent sat themand, of those, 88 per cent passed the examination. In the second examinationperiod, 3,033 students were enrolled, 89 per cent took the examination and,of those, 86 per cent passed. The pass rate was highest for D1E (99 per cent)and lowest for D3E (81 per cent).52These figures are in line with the educatedguesses of the language school representatives interviewed for 2009 – 2010;they explain the relatively smaller pass rate for D3E by the fact that many‘private students’ (students who have not taken a language course) enrol inD3E and they are not always aware of the examination requirements.The average examination marks in 2008 were 6.1 – 6.9 (highest in D3E).As for the 2010 results, one of the language school interviewed has providedus with its results from the June 2010 examination, when the average markfor 67 students at level D3E was 5.54 (6 students failed and 4 dropped out theexamination); the average mark for 58 students at level D2E was 6.88.In conclusion: those who enrol in DC1 and those who do not pass theexamination on the other courses have a problem when it comes to fulfillingthe language requirement for permanent residence. In terms of numbers,3,258 immigrants enrolled in DC1 in 2008 (some, however, may have en-rolled in more than one course). The same year in the first examination pe-riod, out of 988 enrolled students 863 passed level D2E and in the second ex-amination period, out of 807 enrolled students 713 passed level D2E. Thus,this year, roughly 3477 of the language course students did not fulfil the lan-51See Leif Husted, Inge Storgaard Bonfils, Helle Bendix Lauritzen and Solvej Blatzer Niel-sen:Indvandrerkvinder i danskuddannelsen(Immigrant women learning Danish), AKFWorking paper 2010.Due to some technical difficulties, no statistics from 2007 or 2008 are yet available.

3.3.2 Analysis of the Interviews3.3.2.1 What do migrants think of the integration examination?Migrants’ motives for applying for a permanent residence permit range fromthe desire for a secure life with their families and especially their childrenwho often are born and/or raised in Denmark, to the acquisition of rights, se-curity regarding residence status and social security. Additionally, somemention that renewing a temporary permit every few year puts them in aprecarious situation.When describing their attitudes towards the integration examination,migrants focus on the legislation, the integration examination requirementand especially the language requirement (fairness and level). Moreover, theyrelate to the question of whether the integration examination has an impacton their integration in Denmark.When analysing migrants’ attitudes towards the integration examinationsome analytical reservations must be made. It is our impression that some re-spondents do not distinguish betweenlearning Danish at a language schoolandtheDanish language requirement for permanent residence:e.g. when asked aboutwhether the language requirement for permanent residence was a reason forthem to learn Danish, it is our perception that some respondents refer to thelanguage courses at the Danish language schools. Many newcomers havesigned an integration contract, specifying the sanctions applicable to the leg-islation in situations where they fail to appear or reject one or more of the ac-tivities agreed upon (or decided) in their contract, including participation ina Danish language course. These requirements may easily be mixed up withthe language requirement for permanent residence.Therefore, the analysis focuses primarily on the respondents explicitlystating that the permanent residence requirements have or have not fur-thered their Danish language learning and/or contributed to their integra-tion. In cases where there is uncertainty as to the meaning, the interview iscategorised as unclear on the matter. In some interviews, however, uncer-tainty about a statement may be ‘overruled’ by other; more considered anddetailed answers later in the same interview. As already mentioned in the in-troduction, the language skills of the respondents have an impact on the va-lidity of the answers since lack of a profound knowledge of the Danish lan-guage may lead to misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations as regards53Migrants who pass D1E and migrants who fail D2E in one year may of course improvelater on, so some may subsequently be able to fulfil the language requirement.

both the respondent and the interviewer. The language skill problems seemto be more salient in interviews with respondents applying for permanentresidence than with respondents applying for naturalisation. The results andstatements from the respondents who have the best language skills may tendto dominate the results.Table 6: Overview of opinions expressed by migrants.Do migrants thinkthe languagecourse was goodpreparation for thelanguage testand/or other pur-poses?12What do the mi-grants think of (a)the language re-quirement as acondition for per-manent residence?13 (relatively posi-tive, find languagerequirement fair,OK or fine)What do the mi-grants think of thelanguage level re-quired for perma-nent residence?Has the languagerequirement forpermanent residencecontributed moreknowledge of Dan-ish language and so-ciety?3 ( one says that mi-grants automaticallylearn about Danishsociety during theirstay in DK)

In spite of the analytical reservations some trends are clear. A majority of therespondents, 12 out of 14, think the language course was good preparationfor the language test and an even larger majority, 13 out of 14 respondents,think that a language requirement of some kind is fair. However, concerningthe required level for permanent residence (B1) slightly fewer, 10 out of 14,find it acceptable.The answers to the question about whether the language requirement forpermanent residence has led to improved knowledge of the Danish languageand society are less clear. While half of the respondents explicitly state thattheir language skills are not a result of the requirement – they would have38

learned the Danish language and learned about Danish society in any case –the rest of the answers raise some doubts. Four respondents did not answeror answered ambiguously, and even some of the answers from three respon-dents who did answer in the affirmative may cause doubts. As already men-tioned the uncertainty may be explained by the fact that the obligation to fol-low a language course in accordance with the integration contract can easilybe confused up with the requirement regarding passing a language test as acondition for permanent residence.In any case, it is note worthy that a general appreciation of languageschool education is evident. There are various reasons for this, but the mostconspicuous is that language school is a good preparation for life in Den-mark; several respondents consider knowledge of Danish useful, easing theirway to finding a job, reading a newspaper, understanding the content ofhomepages and the television, etc. Only one respondent is sceptical and criti-cises the language course as focusing more on integration than languageteaching. This respondent would also have liked more flexibility allowingher to complete the course more quickly.To summarise, generally the respondents are positive about the Danishlanguage education as a very useful offer for newcomers and they think it isfair to require some form of language requirement for permanent residence.However, three or four out of the 14 respondents believe that required level(B1) is too high and at least 50 percent say that they would have learned Dan-ish language and about Danish society, whether or not this was a require-ment for permanent residence.Focusing on alien law as such and the integration examination in particu-lar, it appears from the interviews that the general opinion is rather negative.Nine of those interviewed emphasise that the legislation is strict, harshand/or is excluding people. The problems highlighted are the number of re-quirements, the standardised legislation and its frequent changes. Table 7gives an overview of the most commonly voiced opinions and the number ofrespondents who have drawn attention to the respective problems, etc.Table 7: Migrants’ opinion of alien law and especially the integration examination.The legislation is very strict, hard, harsh, excludes peopleThe frequent changes form a negative element, partly because thechanges always lead to more strict legislationRequirements too standardised /lack of flexibilityThe residence requirement is too longThe system is difficult, too many different regulationsThe legislation requires a certain lifestyleUnclear legislation and practiceLong and bureaucratic case- handlingExclusion (‘feels like the government does not want us’)Too much paperworkThe legislation prevents a free and well-established life in Denmark95533332211

The combined requirements as such constitute a problem. In particular therequirement regarding active participation at the language school combinedwith the requirement of 2.5 years of full -time work over the last 7 years be-fore an application are stressed as problems by a number of respondents (6out of 14). One respondent, who was not been able to fulfil the active partici-pation requirement (85 per cent participation at the language course) becauseof his work, has chosen to close down his business in order to release moretime for this. Similarly, other respondents explain why a full- time job and anactivity level of 85 per cent at a language course can be problematic.54Four respondents feel that the language requirement is the most prob-lematic requirement to fulfil while just as many think that the employmentrequirement is the most difficult. It is worth mentioning that some of the re-spondents have a high educational background and have a residence permiton the basis of their employment, but their language belongs to languagefamily other than the Indo-European family, to which Danish belongs, whichinfluences their opinion of the language requirement. There are several rea-sons why the respondents refer to the employment requirement as the mostproblematic. One respondent, who is an artist, says that his work does notmatch the required ‘full-time employment’; one woman says that she needsto take care of her home and other respondents have experienced difficultiesfinding a job.Three respondents find the required residence period (then seven years)too long. One respondent who settled in Denmark for family reunificationstresses how frustrating it is to live in a country for 7 years without an indi-vidual right of residence – hereby referring to the fact that her residencepermit is dependent on her marriage.The frequent changes to the legislation cause great insecurity and a feel-ing of ‘hopelessness’ among the respondents. Some mention that the re-quirements become so all-encompassing that ‘they take up one’s whole life’.One respondent who can not fulfil the full-time employment requirementsays that she constantly follows the media because she fears that newchanges to the requirements will make it even more difficult for her to obtaina permanent residence permit. In general, many of the respondents point outthat the legislation always changes in a more restrictive direction.The respondents are critical in other respects as well. One respondentstresses that, even though she fulfilled all the requirements very quickly, shecould not obtain a permanent residence permit after three years.55In heropinion, the legislation should reward immigrants who work hard to inte-grate. Another respondent is frustrated because a change to the basis for her5455The respondents deal with the requirement of active participation in the introductory(language) course – a requirement which has been repealed in the 2010 reform.This possibility did exist until recently, according to the Aliens Act, section 11(5), butaccording to information received it has not been used in practice.

residence permit extends the required residence period.56Others find the leg-islation unclear, e.g. regarding when a person has a special attachment toDenmark and therefore is in a position to acquire permanent residence afterthree or five years.57Several respondents think that the legislation is complicated and say thatthere are ‘too many different regulations’. It appears from the interviews thatthe respondents regard alien legislation as ‘one package’ and that the differ-ent requirements, for instance for family reunifications and permanent resi-dence, are easily confused. This is understandable since the rules and the laware interrelated; for instance, if a migrant (not a refugee) cannot fulfil a lan-guage requirement and thus cannot be granted a permanent residence per-mit, this migrant do not fulfil the requirements for family reunification, sinceone of the requirements for migrants (not refugees) is permanent residence inDenmark for three years.Three of the respondents see the legislation as a way of forcing peopleinto a certain lifestyle. One mentions that she has to take care of the homeand her children, etc., and that the integration examination is forcing her tolive as Danes do. The respondent who works as an artist finds that the re-quirement of 2.5 years full- time employment is forcing him to integrate in acertain way.Table 8: The requirements that migrants find most problematicFulfilling both the language and the employment requirement at thesame timeThe language requirement (level and active participation)The employment requirement644

As a part of the interview, the respondents are asked explicitly whether therequirements have improved their integration into Danish society. At least 50per cent state that they have integrated as a result of factors other than therequirements. They point to their family, friends and work as factors thathelp them integrate. One respondent says ‘you can fulfil all the requirementsand still not be integrated’. He emphasises that it is about willingness to in-tegrate and that willingness cannot be enforced. Another respondent sees itthe other way around and says that ‘just because you cannot pass a test, itdoes not mean that you are not working towards being integrated’. A thirdrespondent says that he still fells like a stranger even though he works and56Until the 2010 reform, it was a requirement that the applicant have been issued a per-manent residence permit on the same basis throughout the whole residence period, forinstance work or family reunification; however, according to the 2010 reform, migrantsno longer need to have had the same type of residence for the entire residence period.The possibility of access to permanent residence after five years (instead of seven) ex-isted before the 2010 reform according to the Aliens Act, section 11(4), and the rule hasbeen applied in special situations.

speaks the Danish language; he feels that ‘he is holding himself back becausehe does not have a permanent residence permit’.Four of the respondents see the legislation as exclusive and two of themsay that it is as if ‘Denmark does not want us here’. This feeling is expressednot only by respondents who have problems fulfilling the requirements; it isshared by other respondents as well.Although a definition of ‘integration’ is lacking, some common under-standing of the term seems evident. ‘Integration’ seems to be associated withhaving a job, a family and a secure life in Denmark. Many respondents stressthe importance of being able to speak the Danish language and the impor-tance of willingness to and motivation for integrating into Danish society.We also asked the respondents whether they are familiar with the 2010reform of the rules on access to permanent residence which was debated inParliament while some of the interviews took place.58Six of the respondentscommented on this issue. Three were nervous and confused because thechanges may influence their chances of acquiring a permanent residencepermit. One of them is the woman who constantly follows what is said in themedia about the alien legislation. Another says that she and her mother werein contact with a lawyer for information about the consequences; her reactionto the new requirements is that ‘the only thing foreigners live for then is toacquire permanent residence’; she herself has already obtained a permanentresidence permitIt is clear from the interviews that new rules are perceived as new hin-drances. One respondent mentions how the new changes will seriously affectfamilies since it is now even harder to adapt to all the requirements for per-manent residence. Finally, one respondent says that she has heard on the ra-dio that the new legislation does not attach as much importance to educationas to work in terms of points awarded; in this respect, she mentions that shecould only get poorly-paid jobs when she arrived in Denmark and that theemployment requirement can force people into jobs that do not match theirskills. She feels that foreigners are treated as second class citizens, especiallywhen working is rewarded more than studying.3.3.2.2 Do migrants adjust their choices and behaviour to meet the integration re-quirements?Not a great deal was said about how the integration examination, includingthe language requirement, influences migrants’ behaviour and choices, sincethe question about adjustment was not explicitly included in the question-naire. From the interviews it appears, however, that migrants regard thepermanent residence permit as essential and therefore make an effort to do58In the period when the interviews were conducted, a Bill regarding a reform of the con-ditions for permanent residence was presented in Parliament (on 26 March 2010, seeabove under 3.1.2).

as required.59One respondent who cannot fulfil the employment require-ment will continue to apply, however, since she cannot leave Denmark be-cause of her family, especially since her children were born in Denmark. An-other respondent stresses, in relation to the language requirement that, ‘ifnecessary, I will manage’. Two of the respondents applied for a permanentresidence permit after three and five years of residence, respectively, butboth found that their applications were denied. One respondent mentionsthat she knows of many people who prioritise work over language school at-tendance. The most drastic example of adjusting one’s choices and behaviouris, as already mentioned, the respondent who decided to sell his shop in or-der release the necessary time to study to fulfil the language requirement.3.3.2.3. What do other respondents think of the tests?Language school teachers’ view of the Danish language education, etc.As mentioned in the introduction, the Danish language courses were intro-duced as part of the integration programme for newcomers – later, passingsome of the language tests was made a requirement for access to permanentresidence and naturalisation. When language school representatives areasked about the language tests, they give their view of language educationand the tests, including their opinion of the use of (specific) tests as a condi-tion for permanent residence and naturalisation. It has not been possible tosplit their viewpoints up in such a way that what is said in Chapter 3 onlycovers permanent residence and what is said in Chapter 4 only covers natu-ralisation. Therefore, in this Chapter on permanent residence, viewpoints onnaturalisation may occur and thus, Chapter 4 on naturalisation is to be readin conjunction with Chapter 3 (3.3.2.3).All five language schools representatives (teachers/leaders) are very posi-tive in their evaluation of the language school system and the opportunitiesit offers to migrants. According to the respondents, the system is transparentand healthy and much-appreciated by the students. It is described as a sys-tem which is necessary, flexible and based on individual needs. One of therespondents sum up by stating that, ‘the students love the system’. However,some respondents also stress that the system has resulted in more ‘teaching59In line with this is the summary on ‘motivation’ in the AKF working paper on immi-grant women in the Danish education system (Indvandrerkvinderi danskuddannelsen(AKF Working paper 2010 www.akf.dk ) p. 82, states that that the students are high mo-tivated as a result of ‘the Danish education’s direct relevance’; they sense a difference intheir daily life and find education appropriate for their future in Denmark. All expect tostay in Denmark and for some, access to a permanent residence permit become a pri-mary motive for completing a Danish course. (Some examples are given concerningwomen who return after having interrupted their education; it is emphasised, however,that the legal motivation cannot stand alone, but must be seen in relation to women’sdesire to stay in Denmark with their families.)

for the test’ due to the introduction of tests (examinations) after each coursemodule – which leaves fewer possibilities for the language teachers to influ-ence the content of the language courses.Asked about who enrol in the language courses several respondents em-phasise that the student composition has changed in recent years. Earlier, thelanguage courses were dominated by refugees, but now, the majority of stu-dents are self-supporting migrants. The respondents estimate that today be-tween 75-90 per cent of the students are self-supporting migrants who are inDenmark for work purposes or family reunification. The language schools inthe big cities in Denmark account for the highest estimates and the respon-dents emphasise that university students and employees working in largecompanies are a central source of the new distribution of migrants in the lan-guage schools. Many language schools have experienced an increase in thenumber of students from the new EU Member States, and all languageschools have experienced an overall increase in the number of students fol-lowing a language course.An effect of this development has been a drastic decrease in the numberof students following DC1 (cf. above under 3.1.1). At the same time, a num-ber of schools are finding that that their evening courses are gaining in popu-larity.60Table 9: Language school representatives’ estimates of why migrants follow a lan-guage courseEstimates of percentages who would follow alanguage course if they were not obliged to so---------60 %80 %90 %80-85 %Most of themIt is necessary and migrants needDanish language skills for work etc.Employers want their employees tolearn the languageMore focus on the requirementsSome people will lose their benefitsif they do not follow the languagecourse

and not because of the requirements for permanent residence/naturalisation.As already mentioned, the majority of the participants are self-supportingmigrants and as such not obliged to follow the courses.One respondent stresses that, often, students are not enrolled becausethey want to take a specific examination, but because they want to learn thelanguage, but after a while they become more integrated into the languageschool system and more oriented towards the module tests and the languageexaminations. Some of the respondents mention that due to the residence re-quirement for permanent residence (then seven years) and naturalisation(nine years), migrants are typically not oriented towards the requirements forobtaining these statuses during their (three-year) period in a languageschool. Normally, their orientation towards the requirements starts when itbecomes possible for them to apply for a permanent residence permit ornaturalisation. However, one respondent mentions that there is increasingawareness of the requirements among students at the language school.It is a fact that the students ‘come and go’ on the language courses. Ac-cording to one respondent’s estimate, only around 50 per cent of the studentsparticipate continuously in a course over the allocated three–year period; an-other respondent estimates that only 25 per cent of the students follow acourse continuously. Many students leave for a while if they are taken out bythe municipality for other activities, find a job, become pregnant or for otherreasons. The language school and the module system make such flexible usepossible. However, for statistical use, it makes it more difficult to estimatehow long migrants take to complete a course and how many drop out orleave the courses for other reasons.Thus, it is difficult to measure the average time migrants take to reachthe required language level (for permanent residence D2E/B1 and for natu-ralisation D3E/B2). Two of the respondents say that many students reach therequired level within 2-3 years; other respondents say it is impossible toknow for sure. However, in general the ‘right to three years of free Danishlanguage tuition’ forms a limit. The three-year limitation is something thatmany migrants become aware of during their time at the language school, af-ter which they become more focused on completing their course within thethree-year period. If migrants exceed this limit they may have to pay for theadditional education – and according to the respondents almost nobody doesso.Another ‘statistical problem’ emerges when the respondents are askedabout the percentage of students who reach the level required for permanentresidence (D2E) or naturalisation (D3E). The language schools do not keeptrack of this (they offer education; students are not obliged to take the ex-aminations). From their educated guess (disregarding statistical validity) weobtain a somewhat varied picture: regarding the number of students whonever pass an examination, guesses range from 5-10 per cent to 20 per cent.As for the percentage of students who pass the different courses, estimates

range from over 90 – 95 per cent at level D2E and 65-80 per cent at level D3E(many private students are not aware of the exact requirements). The reasonsmentioned for not taking the examinations are that people become sick; theygive up and then postpone their examination until they need it or that theyare nervous about not being able to pass. One respondent mentions as aproblem that, when students become sick, there is no option to sit a ‘make-upexamination’, so they then have to wait another six months before they cansit for an examination.The placement of migrants on the different language courses (DC1, DC2and DC3) is carried out by screening taking into consideration the migrants’educational background, linguistic skills, ability to learn and other social fac-tors. One respondent explains that apart from enrolling the students at thedifferent levels, each course is tailor-made to specific groups of migrants. Forinstance some migrants are able to take very intensive courses; others areworking long hours and may need an evening course, while others are bestsuited to self-tuition and/or e-learning courses. In general, the languageschools offer a range of different language courses at each language level.Some respondents mention the problems associated with making diag-noses and obtaining recognition, for example for dyslexia.61One respondentsays that the language school system is not good at handling this problem,and several mention that making diagnoses is specifically complex in relationto persons with a foreign mother tongue; one respondent stresses that it iseven more difficult to document and make a diagnosis for a person with psy-chological problems.Language school teachers’ viewpoint of the test requirements for permanent residenceLanguage school teachers call our attention to the problems they faced in re-lation to migrants who are seeking information about the conditions for ac-quisition of a permanent residence permit (or naturalisation). Due to the fre-quent changes to the legislation and a lack of transparency in relation to thepossibilities for exemption, the language school representatives find it hardto give any guidance at all - and they do not even know where to refer mi-grants for assistance.Disabled migrants and migrants with dyslexia face particular problems.Furthermore, one respondent emphasises that a ‘quite a large’ group of mi-grants with no disabilities are ‘stuck’ in the language school system simplybecause they lack the abilities to pass the DC2 examination required for issueof a permanent residence permit. This group of migrants is not characterisedby a lack of willingness to learn the Danish language; they simply do nothave the necessary abilities. According to one respondent this is a problem,61Questions regarding students with particular needs were not part of the INTEC ques-tionnaire for language course teachers, but the topic was dealt with since it arose duringthe interviews.

for instance, for migrants who ‘lack a linguistic instinct’ which does not nec-essarily have anything to do with their educational background. Another re-spondent stresses that ‘this group’ will, eventually, ‘give up’ achieving lan-guage level D2E and thus never be able to obtain a permanent residencepermit – and the solution is not to let these people continue in the languageschool system’. The viewpoint is that some migrants are not able to reach therequired level and extending their time on the language course will not solvethe problem.This relates to the question of whether any one migrant group faces moreproblems fulfilling the requirements than others. Several respondents em-phasise that the fulfilment of the language requirements very much dependson the student’s educational background and, in some cases, also on his orher national origin, age or disabilities.In general, the less well educated immigrants face the most problems andare to a certain degree excluded from reaching the required language levels.However, as already mentioned, this is not the only group of migrants ex-periencing difficulties. The same applies to migrants with no linguistic in-stinct and migrants from countries with a language from language familyother than the Indo-European language family, to which Danish belongs, forinstance East Asian countries. Traumatised and sick people are singled asother groups with particular problems regarding to the fulfilment of the re-quirements.Asked about the current test requirements compared to the requirementspreviously in force, most respondents state that the new requirements are ex-clusive: ‘the human aspect has gone’, the required language levels are toohigh and the requirements are aimed at assimilation. Representatives fromonly one language school state that the required levels are reasonable andfair, but, at the same time, they emphasise that it is a pity that not all Danishcourses are ‘door openers’ – a statement that refers to the problem that D1Edoes not grant access to any ‘rights’.Table 10: Language teachers’ views of the language requirements for permanent resi-dence and naturalisation.----The requirements will isolate Denmark – outdated, we live in a globalised world.They do not want people who are different.The human aspect has gone. Previously the individual and the individual situationwere taken into consideration.The restrictions are aimed at excluding people from obtaining permanent residence ornaturalisation – and this objective has been attained.The requirements are over-dimensioned – it is completely ridiculous.Much of the current legislation is aimed at assimilation.The requirements constitute a barrier.

the required levels for permanent residence and naturalisation are unrea-sonably high.One of the respondents in particular emphasises that the requirementsconstitute barriers that do not necessarily provide motivation to learn thelanguage, especially not among migrants who have difficulties fulfilling therequirements.Three of the language school representatives point out that the requiredlevel for permanent residence (D2E) is too high. One has doubts as towhether the requirement is ‘correct’ since the difference between Danish 1and Danish 2 relates only to the richness of the vocabulary; she stresses thatit is difficult to define ‘the right level’ taking into consideration the fact thatthis is to be decided on an individual basis. However, one language schoolrepresentative finds the required level ‘fair’.It has been mentioned that the requirements may lead to polarisationsince one group of migrants may be motivated by the requirements whileanother group – the most vulnerable and the less well-educated – may bedoubly de-motivated. This understanding is confirmed by another respon-dent who stresses that some migrants are excluded from ever acquiring apermanent residence permit simply because they cannot fulfil the requiredlevel – and this is not because they do not try hard. This respondent talksabout a ‘residual group’. Migrants belonging to this group have poorly livingconditions; they have a feeling of insecurity and of not being approved orrecognised which are normally significant elements in successful integration.To summarise: all respondent believe that the language courses are apositive factor for integration. Access to the courses is easy and free andknowledge of the host country and its language is useful for migrants. Fur-thermore, migrants meet other people on the courses, including other mi-grants in comparable situations. However, the required language levels forpermanent residence and naturalisation are perceived as unreasonable highby the majority of respondents. A couple of the respondents stress that as aresult, groups of migrants are excluded from obtaining a permanent resi-dence permit and/or Danish citizenship.Migrant organisations’ viewpoints on the integration requirements in general andthe influence of the requirements on integrationThe organisations interviewed differ as to their mandates and practices.Some organisations have experiences with migrants from consultations con-cerning refused applications, etc., others meet migrants seeking advice andguidance before applying for permanent residence, etc., and lastly, others donot give any guidance to migrants at all, but operate on a more general po-litical level. The different backgrounds regarding when and why the organi-sations meet migrants influence their answers to the questions (for instanceregarding migrants’ knowledge of the requirements). Moreover, the focus ofthe organisations differs. Some have a broad migration focus, while others48

focus on either special procedures (for instance naturalisation) or a particulargroup of immigrants.According to the organisations, migrants want a permanent residencepermit or naturalisation in order to feel secure and accepted and manifesttheir decision to settle permanently in Denmark; thus, their motivation is asmuch emotional as legal in nature.Almost all the organisations stress that the requirements have becomevery strict and it is striking that almost all of them point out that the re-quirements have divided the migrants into two groups: one group withstrong resources and one group with fewer resources. The organisations notethat the vulnerable migrants are excluded and suffer from the use of tests asa requirement for permanent residence and naturalisation. However, one re-spondent stresses that she is not sure that this is an effect of the new tests re-quirements. Other respondents call the requirements an ‘indirect exclusionmechanism’ and a negative factor for the integration of migrants in Den-mark.According to two organisations migrants do not have an overview of thedifferent requirements and find them very confusing; this statement coversboth the requirements for permanent residence and naturalisation. The im-pression stems from both the many different requirements and the frequentchanges to the requirements. However, organisations that are in direct con-tact with the applicants stress that the migrants’ information level range fromvery high to very low and that the migrants who seek advice are often thosewith the most resources. Two organisations stress that migrants often askabout how to understand or interpret the integration concept.Some of the organisations have the impression that migrants perceive thetest requirements as a ‘living condition’ and that the acquisition of eitherpermanent residence or naturalisation is so important to them and their fami-lies that they will very often continue applying, regardless of any barrier.Many migrants feel that they have ‘no other choice but to stay in Denmark’,especially when their children have been born in the country. However, oneorganisation says that migrants who ‘give up’ may leave Denmark.As already mentioned, the majority of the organisations’ experience isthat migrants are split into two groups: one group consists of resourceful mi-grants and another group consists of those with fewer resources. The re-quirements may be a positive and/or motivating factor for the first group anda negative, excluding factor for the second group. The immigrant groupswho face the most problems consist of persons who are less educated, trau-matised and sick, refugees and stay-at-home wives. One respondent statesthat ‘there are two groups, the strong and the weak – and the weak gives up’;another respondent says ‘there are two groups, one that becomes more inte-grated and another that is completely lost’. It is worth noting that the last re-

spondent mentioned emphasises that she does not know whether this has todo with the new requirements.62According to all organisations, the question regarding the effect of therequirements on integration is a crucial question. Since the effect of not ac-quiring a permanent residence permit and/or becoming naturalised is a lackof security, this can, according to some respondents, result in lack of willing-ness to invest and engage in Danish society. Furthermore, the lack of securitymay cause frustration and lead to a lack of confidence in the Danish system.One respondent emphasises that this may not only lead to immigrants’ isola-tion, but also influence on their children, since unsuccessful integration andlack of confidence in society may be transmitted to immigrants’ descendants.Another organisation states that the tough requirements may curb the inte-gration process because persons without security may feel that their lives are‘on standby’. The same respondent adds that the requirements do not im-prove integration because they give migrants a feeling of never being goodenough and of not being welcome in Denmark – which is felt not only by mi-grants who have problems as to the fulfilling of the requirements.One organisation emphasises that in particular refugees, who often be-long to the more vulnerable group of immigrants because of past trauma,etc., have a special need for (emotional) security, since they need to ‘close aterrible chapter of their lives’. With the current requirements, people with re-sources and a strong will to integrate are prioritised. Refugees often have avery strong will to integrate but many lack resources and consequently, theyexperience feel excluded. According to one respondent, the tightening of therequirements makes migrants’ life more difficult and increases the level offrustration and may even lead to radicalisation instead of integration. Finally,one organisation emphasises that the requirements may not only affect theintegration of migrants who cannot obtain permanent residence or citizen-ship, but may also negatively influence the integration of the more well-educated migrants who feel offended or alienated because of the require-ments.During the interviews, the respondents’ focus is mainly on the morenegative effects of the legislation and the requirements; however, it is notice-able that several respondents emphasise that the possibilities for fulfilling thelanguage requirements through language school education are very strong.According to one organisation the political goal for the new requirementsis to attract well-educated migrants and establish a cost-free immigrationprocess. Two other organisations see the requirements as a way of satisfyingthe Danish Peoples’ Party while a fourth organisation sees the requirementsfor naturalisation as a way of preventing more people from being natural-ised. As to whether these goals are attained or not the organisations answer62During the interviews, it is sometimes unclear whether the respondents refer to the re-quirements for permanent residence and/or the requirements for naturalisation.

either, ‘Yes, a fewer people are becoming naturalised today, the goals havebeen attained to some extent’ or ‘No - the tightening will continue becausethe Danish Peoples’ Party is still dissatisfied’. Lastly, the respondent whothought that well-educated people may also be offended and feel alienatedadds that, ‘the requirements are too high’.Regarding the possibilities of influencing legislation, one respondentsays that the organisations have ‘given up’ because the legislation has be-come too complicated and impossible to influence for NGOs; this last view-point is also voiced by another organisation.With special reference to permanent residence the organisations do nothave much to say; they are concerned with the requirements as such. Theydo, however, emphasise that a permanent residence permit is important be-cause it contributes to a secure life with social and psychological security;furthermore, it is important for the ‘unity of the family’.Officials’ experiences with the integration requirementsThe officials interviewed in relation to permanent residence are employees oftwo municipalities63and the Immigration Service’s Office for Family Reunifi-cation, Passports and Extension of Residence Permits (‘the Immigration Ser-vice’).According to the respondents, the reasons for applying for a permanentresidence permit are that migrants need security, want to live in Denmarkwith their families and, as one respondent mentions, are afraid that theirtemporary residence permit will expire or be revoked. Refugees in particularmay be afraid of being sent back to their country of origin if the conditions inthat country improve. Furthermore, migrants want to be able to travel freelyand have an independent residence permit (independent from their spouse’sresidence permit, especially in cases of family reunification).One respondent represents a smaller municipality where they for usuallymeet migrants during the first three years of their stay in Denmark (duringthe ‘introductory period’). Most of the questions asked by these migrants areabout the employment requirement. This respondent thinks that migrantsare ‘maybe more insecure’ since the introduction of the integration examina-tion and she stresses that ‘people are well aware of the new requirements’.Two respondents (interviewed at the same time) from the other municipalityfeel that most migrants arriving in the commune are well-informed. Still,some are not aware of the requirements and ‘some are shocked and do notunderstand why the legislation excludes them’; others are confused becausethey receive conflicting information about the requirements when they cometo Denmark, and they may face problems through not having oriented them-63One of the municipalities has no experience with refugees since it does not receive anyrefugees due to a Danish quota system that distributes refugees among municipalities.

selves towards the requirements. Also this municipality mainly receivesquestions about the employment requirement and the different ways to fulfilit. This is also the experience of the Immigration Service which receives ques-tions about ‘what the Immigration Service defines as ‚work‛’. The munici-pality also receives questions about absence from the language courses(questions about the ‘participation requirement’ previously in force) andquestions related to the new procedural change where migrants themselvesmust obtain the necessary documentation for their application.According to the Immigration Service, some migrants do not understandthe concept of an ‘integration examination’; they think it is a single examina-tion and not – as is the case – two cumulative requirements (employmentplus Danish language skills at level B1). The municipality and the Immigra-tion Service both stress that migrants are, in most cases familiar with the lan-guage requirement but, according to the municipality, they are not familiarwith the required level for permanent residence (perhaps because the re-quirements had changed many times and their application depended onwhen the migrant in question first applied for a residence permit andwhether that person had completed an introductory course before or after 29November 2006, see above, section 1.3.1).When the respondents are asked which of the requirements the appli-cants find most problematic, both the employment and the language re-quirement are mentioned. The Immigration Service explains that differentgroups face different problems. Some women have never worked and forthem both the language and the employment requirements may be difficultto fulfil. Some men have worked but have not learned the Danish language.The latter group of migrants may, however, find it easier to learn Danishthan the former because of their labour market relations. This corresponds tothe perception in one of the municipalities, where the representative pointsout, however, that this group of migrants is in trouble now because theyused to think that working and being self-supporting was the most impor-tant issue. During one of the interviews, it is stressed that the number of ap-plicants facing problems will increase when the legislation is fully imple-mented (interview conducted 10 March 2010; therefore, the statement refersto the provisions regarding the ‘integration examination’ in force before 2June 2010). The respondents state that it is difficult to fulfil all the require-ments at the same time; often migrants need to prioritise the requirements.All the respondents find that immigrants with few resources and little educa-tional background face more problems than others when it comes to fulfillingof the requirements.All the respondents emphasise that the Danish language requirement isdifficult to fulfil for particular groups of immigrants. According to one of themunicipalities, a large group of immigrants have been working and support-ing their families in the belief that, ‘that was what they had to do’. Now theyfind difficult to have to work and take a language course at the same time. In52

particular, those with little education, refugees and some women have prob-lems fulfilling the requirements. One respondent from a municipality esti-mates that out of 160 students, between four and ten are enrolled in DC1 andwill have problems following DC2. The representative from the ImmigrationService agrees that some immigrants, including stay-at-home mothers and il-literates, cannot pass level D2E; however, it may be possible for them to im-prove their language skills through work.Asked about experiences regarding exemption, the Immigration Servicerepresentative explains that the possibilities for being exempted from the re-quirements are limited; exemption is only allowed in cases where psycho-logical or physical disabilities prevent the applicant from (ever) fulfilling therequirements. She adds that the burden of proof is difficult to lift, since theapplicants’ health or mental situation may improve. Applicants who havebeen in the country for many years may want to be exempted from the lan-guage requirement because they were sick at the time when they arrived andthus not able to follow a language course; but as a rule this is not a valid rea-son for being granted exemption. The main reasons for applying for exemp-tion from the language requirement are health problems and ‘work’. Appli-cants are, however, rarely exempted for the latter reason – except when thelanguage skills required for the job in question are the same as the languageskills required for permanent residence. Both municipalities find that therules regarding exemption lack in transparency. One respondent says that ‘itis not clear how serious a disease has to be and this is confusing for the ap-plicants’. This respondent also stresses that it is very difficult to be grantedexemption.Concerning the reasons to support the introduction of the new 2010 re-quirements, the Immigration Service stresses that the intention is to make therequirements more transparent and that the changes mean that that all aretreated equally, whether they are here for work purposes or for family reuni-fication. Another respondent emphasises that the new requirements havebeen introduced in order to prevent immigrants from staying in the countrywithout learning the language as was the case with many of the (older) mi-grants who arrived in the 1970s. Finally, one respondent says that the reasonfor changing the requirements is ‘politics’.Two respondents think that migrants’ knowledge of the Danish languagehas improved since the introduction of the language requirement; others areless convinced. All agree that other factors play an important role in mi-grants’ integration. The composition of migrants is different now; more of themigrants are better educated and in more cases, both men and women areworking. One respondent says that integration is about an open and welcom-ing reception and that the new requirements signal some very negative ex-pectations of immigrants. Furthermore, according to one respondent, manymigrants with few resources now have difficulties fulfilling of the require-ments - not because of their lack of will, but because of their lack of ability.

The stated aim of the integration examination was, according to the prepara-tory work to the Bill, to urge migrants, to an even greater extent, to seek andobtain employment.64This goal has been reached as migrants have increas-ingly obtained employment since 2006 when the employment rate started toincrease again and the unemployment rate started to decrease.65Based onstatements from migrants, migrant organisations, language teachers and offi-cials it is, however, not possible to claim that the increase in the migrants’employment rate must be seen as an effect of the integration examination re-quirement. The answers given indicate that for many reasons,work as suchisimportant for most migrants. It is, however, demonstrated that the require-ments have had some effect but, at the same time, the cumulative languageand work requirement may have had an adverse effect. Migrants as well aslanguage school representatives, migrant organisations and civil servantshave referred to the problem that some migrants face difficulties when itcomes to fulfilling both requirements at the same time.What clearly matters is the changed composition of the Danish immi-grant population. An increasing number of residence permits have been is-sued for work and study – at the same time as the number of permits issuedto refugees and migrants seeking family reunification has decreased.Among the more general motivations behind the Danish language andemployment requirements is the government’s wish tosend a signalthatmakes it clear ‘what is required in Denmark of new co-citizens’: responsibil-ity, active participation and a will to integrate.66Without any doubt, this goalhas also been obtained. It is documented in the interviews that migrants arevery well aware of the requirements, they follow the debate and seek infor-mation in the media – to such an extent that dealing with the requirementstakes up a substantial part of migrants’ lives. Migrants who have settled inDenmark want a permanent residence permit often out of consideration for6465See http://www.ft.dk/samling/20061/lovforslag/L93/som_fremsat.htm#dok.Ibid.See also IntegrationStatus (2009), p. 43 andTal og fakta, Indvandrere og efterkommerestilknytning til arbejdsmarkedet og uddannelsessystemet,December 2009, Immigration Ser-vice. Since 2001 55,000 immigrants and their descendents from non-Western countrieshave found work and the employment rate has increased from 45 per cent to 57 per cent(among women, the increase is 80 per cent).See preparatory comments to the 2010 reform: http://www.ft.dk/samling/20091/lov-forslag/L188/som_fremsat.htm#dok.

their families and especially their children, who have often been born and/orraised in Denmark. Therefore, on the whole, migrants seeking permanentresidence are very receptive to signals sent and, in general, they make everypossible effort to fulfil the requirements for permanent residence, includingthe ‘integration examination requirement’.However, as also stated by several respondents – migrants and others –the requirements divide migrants into two groups: those who can fulfil therequirements and those who cannot – in spite of all their efforts. Both groupsare affected by the requirements. The first group may be motivated (althoughmany statements indicate that these migrants would often have learned theDanish language and found a job, etc., in any case), while the latter groupmay feel ‘lost’.This leads to the question about other potential results of the require-ments. Migrants may read between the lines of the ‘signals’. Some respon-dents say that, it ‘feels as if the government does not want us’ or does not‘want people who are different’. Migrants may feel insecure, not approved ofor recognised, which may have a negative bearing on their integration, in-cluding regarding the lack of willingness to invest and engage in Denmarkand a lack of confidence in the Danish system. These feelings may even betransmitted to second and third generation – together with a general feelingof not being good enough and not being welcome in Denmark. As some re-spondents have indicated, such feelings among migrants may negatively in-fluence integration – broadly speaking.This consequence is not significantly reflected in the preparatory work tothe Acts introducing the increasingly strict requirements. The Danish gov-ernment has not related directly to these potential results of the requirementsand no in-depth analysis of this issue has been conducted.In the preparatory work to the latest reform of the Aliens Act, the gov-ernment refers to the positive experiences and results achieved, mentioningfor instance the decrease in the number of residence permits issued to refu-gees and migrants in Denmark for family reunification and the increase inthe number of permits issued for work and studies. It is stated that the ‘firmand fair’ foreigners policy has served the integration purpose, referring to theincrease in the employment rate and the fact that more immigrants feel wellintegrated in Denmark and more young foreigners are receiving education.No doubt, these positive effects are to be welcomed. Still, the unansweredquestion is how the government relates to the selective effect of its aliens pol-icy and its consequences? How should it deal with the consequences in termsof (better) integration, etc., for the residual group of immigrants who cannotfulfil all requirements (at the same time), who cannot therefore be considered‘well- integrated’ and who cannot therefore acquire a permanent residencepermit?

4.1.1 Applications for Naturalisation and the Language RequirementAccording to the Danish Constitution, foreigners can only acquire Danishcitizenship by statute. A practice has developed, according to which appli-cants for naturalisation must submit their application in person to the localpolice, who examine the application (the completed application form and theenclosure) and ensure that the applicant understands the significance of therequired oaths and declarations, etc.; afterwards the police certifies the appli-cations with the addition of some notes and forward the application etc. tothe Ministry responsible for naturalisation (currently the Ministry of Integra-tion). The Ministry drafts Bills on naturalisation and includes applicants whofulfil the legislature’s requirements for naturalisation; all the general re-quirements are stated in a naturalisation circular. When a naturalisation Billis adopted in Parliament, the applicants listed in the Bill are granted naturali-sation (by the adopted Act). In principle, decisions on naturalisation are atParliament’s discretion.The naturalisation criteria have never been included in a Citizenship Act;instead, the criteria are agreed upon by the (majority of) political parties inParliament and afterwards published in the naturalisation circular by theMinistry of Integration.67A fee of 1000 DKK (about EUR 134) is payable when the applicant sub-mits the application to the police. The fee is only to be paid once; renewedapplications (after refusals) are free of charge.Traditionally, it has been a requirement that applicants for naturalisationmust be issued a permanent residence permit and fulfil a number of integra-tion criteria, including being able to speak and understand the Danish lan-guage. The applicants’ language abilities were until recently assessed by the(local) police during its preparation of cases for naturalisation. Based on aninformal interview with the applicant, a police officer made a statement as towhether the person concerned was able to speak and understand Danish.In June 2002, however, the language requirement was tightened. TheLiberals, the Conservatives and the Danish People’s Party entered into anagreement regarding the naturalisation criteria, providing for a number ofnew elements. Among other things, it was agreed that if an applicant had notpassed the lower secondary school leaving examination (9thor 10thgrade)with a mark of 6 or higher in each Danish discipline (where a mark of 7 - 867See also Circular letter no. 61 of 22 September 2008.

was considered average) or another comparable or higher examination, as arule, he or she had to pass a language test set by a language school.68Fur-thermore, it was decided that applicants for naturalisation had to sign a dec-laration of faithfulness and loyalty to Denmark, fulfil extended residence re-quirements (extended by two years – from normally 7 years to normally 9years) and tighter conduct requirements.69After a year or so the required Danish language level was fixed at D2E(level B1) but, in December 2005, the government and the Danish People’sParty reached a new agreement on the naturalisation criteria, including a re-quirements of Danish language ability at level D3E (ALTE 3/CEFR B2)70and,in November 2008, the language requirement was further raised. Thus, sincethen the general language requirement is that the applicant must be in pos-session of a certificate of a pass at level D3E with an average mark of at least7 (on a 13-point scale) or 4 (on a 7-point scale) or another comparable exami-nation.71As a rule, the language requirement applies to all applicants for naturali-sation, regardless of age and regardless of which ‘immigrant generation’ theybelong to: first, second, third, etc. A former exemption for persons over theage of 65 was repealed in 2002 and a provision on entitlement to citizenshipfor immigrant descendants was repealed in 2004. Consequently, for immi-grant descendents who have not acquired Danish citizenship as children(normally) by extension of their parents’ naturalisation, there is no possibilityother than naturalisation as an adult (having reached the age of eighteen)under the general conditions.72

See Circular no. 55 of 12 June 2002 on naturalisation, section 25, listing a number ofother tests administered by language centres and other educational institutions that sat-isfy the condition. Regarding possible costs for taking the examination, see above, sec-tion 3.1.8.Renunciation of the nationality of origin has always been a Danish naturalisation re-quirement.See Circular no. 55 of 12 January 2006 on naturalisation.Adequate language skills may still be demonstrated by a certificate of lower secondaryschool graduation after 9th or 10th grade, with an average mark of at least 6 (on the 13-point scale) or 2 (on the 7-step scale) in the Danish disciplines; these are reading com-prehension, written presentation, listening comprehension and oral communication (forcalculating an average mark for D3E, oral communication carries double weight); seeCircular no. 61 of 22 September 2008. The restriction concerning D3E resulted from anagreement of 22 September 2008 between the government and the Danish People’sParty on the handling of the EU legislation on free movement.Until 2004, second-generation immigrants who had spent 10 years in Denmark and hadnot been convicted of crimes were entitled to Danish nationality; however, pursuant toAct no. 311 of 5 May 2004, this right was repealed (with the exception of second-genera-tion immigrants from other Nordic countries).

The exemption criteria are restrictive. In 2005, it was decided that the ex-emption possibilities for mentally or physical disabled applicants would bereduced. Thus, today, exemption from the naturalisation criteria may only begranted by the Naturalisation Committee of the Danish Parliament and onlyunder exceptional circumstances, such as documented physical or mental ill-ness of a very serious nature, resulting in the applicant being unable to (orhaving no reasonable prospects of) satisfying the language requirement.According to a note to the naturalisation circular’s provision on exemp-tion from the language requirements, etc. (section 24(3)), it is assumed thatthe Ministry of Integration submits applications for exemption from the lan-guage requirement to the Naturalisation Committee in cases where the ap-plicants, for example, suffer from severe physical disabilities (such as Down’ssyndrome), are brain damaged, blind or deaf or suffer from severe mentaldisorders such as (paranoid) schizophrenia, psychosis or severe depression.The note explicitly mentions that it is assumed that the Ministry refuses ap-plications from applicants who suffer from PTSD.73For the Naturalisation Committee, exemption is a matter of discretion;decisions are taken behind closed doors (in camera) and in principle givenwithout justification. No public guidelines or appeal possibilities exist.

4.1.2 Societal Knowledge Test (Naturalisation Test)While foreigners who enrol on the Danish language courses learn about Dan-ish society, culture and history, etc., the examinations that round off a lan-guage course do not test societal knowledge, but only Danish language skills.Against this background, the Liberals, the Conservatives and the DanishPeople’s Party agreed, in December 2005, that applicants for naturalisationshould demonstrate their knowledge of Danish culture, history and societyby taking a naturalisation test.74The Act was adopted on 31 May 200675andthe naturalisation test was implemented in May 2007.76The test is administered by the language schools across Denmark as amultiple-choice test with a list of potential answers to each question – mod-elled on the Dutch societal knowledge test that formed part of the Dutch73According to the note, the Ministry of Integration is ‘further assumed to refuse applica-tions from applicants who suffer from PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), includingin cases where the condition is chronic and this is documented by a certificate from amedical professional’. The rule has been strongly criticised by various experts, organisa-tions and others as providing grounds for discrimination; see Eva Ersbøll (2006), p. 132.The test was introduced under the provisions of section 24(2) of the naturalisation circu-lar of 12 January 2006Act 487 of 7 June 2006.Regulated by Act no. 487 of 7 June 2006 on the citizenship test; cf. the citizenship testorder of November 2006.

naturalisation test, with a total of 40 questions to be answered. For each ex-amination, a commission draws up suggestions for the 40 questions. Amongthem, five concern current events, etc., in Danish society; the remaining 35questions are based on a text book.77The book gives an overview of Den-mark’s history from the beginning of the Viking Age (750) to the present(Denmark in the Global society); furthermore, it includes thematic referencesto Danish geography, population and language, immigration to Denmark,the royal house, the flag, the national community (Greenland, the Faroe Is-lands), Christianisation, faith and the church in Denmark, customs and na-tional holidays, youth culture, the Danish ‘folk high school’ movement,schooling and education, family and family life, sport, the 2006 CultureCanon, literature, art, music, architecture, film, science and media. Otherchapters deal with Danish democracy, the Danish welfare system and Den-mark and the surrounding world. The book can be bought or viewed anddownloaded (free of charge) from the Ministry’s website. Furthermore, it ispossible to listen to the text by downloading an MP3 file. In addition, sup-plementary literature for preparatory purposes may be downloaded from theMinistry’s web page.Until June 2008, 35 out of the 40 questions were selected from a questionbank of 200 questions (in Danish). The question bank was made public on thewebsite of the Ministry of Integration, where the applicants could read boththe 200 questions and the corresponding correct answers. Once enrolled forthe test, the applicants had 60 minutes to answer the 40 questions, 28 ofwhich had to be answered correctly.Based on this arrangement, in which the applicant could learn all the an-swers to the questions in the test bank by heart, about 97 per cent of thosetaking the test were successful. However, in November 2008 the naturalisa-tion test was changed.78Now, questions and answers can no longer be foundon the website of the Ministry of Integration; only sample questions are ac-cessible.79In addition, 32 out of the 40 questions (instead of 28) must be an-swered correctly in order to pass the test and candidates have only 45 min-utes (instead of an hour) to finish the test.All applicants for naturalisation have to pass the naturalisation test, in-cluding those holding a Danish school-leaving certificate (9thor 10thgrade orgrammar school equivalent). Thus, the naturalisation test differs from the77Danmark for og nu – læremateriale om historie, kultur og samfundsforhold til indfødsretsprøve(Denmark past and present – study material for the citizenship test on history, cultureand society).See Circular no. 61 of 22 September 2008 on naturalisation, and concerning the back-ground to the amendments, Eva Ersbøll: On trial in Denmark, in van Oers et al:A Re-definition of Belonging?Seehttp://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/27762F99-7055-49F1-B068-2B0AFAF-40480/0/eksempler_paa_sporgsmaal_til_indfodsretsproven_nov_2008.pdf.

In 1998, almost all the political parties agreed on the importance of consider-ing the possibility of acquiring citizenship as an essential positive element inthe process of foreigners’ integration in Denmark, but that harmony hascome to an end. Today, the governing parties reject – as the Danish People’sParty has constantly done – the idea of access to citizenship as a means of in-tegration. The attitude of the government is expressed as follows by the(former) Minister for Integration:‘The acquisition of citizenship presumes that the applicant is already integrated intoDanish society; this means that the applicant can speak, read and understand Danish,participates in the democratic process through local elections, association activities,school boards, etc., and on the whole gets along in Danish society.’80

The 2005 agreement on the strict language and societal knowledge require-ments has given rise to severe criticism from different organisations andfrom language school teachers. The viewpoint is, in brief, that the high re-quirements exclude less well-educated permanent resident immigrants frombecoming Danish citizens.81Besides, level D3E provides a poor basis forgranting citizenship partly because it does not focus on knowledge that isuseful in normal everyday life (while more abstract issues such as the envi-ronment, globalisation, developing countries, ecology, etc., may be dis-cussed).82More criticism emerged once the new citizenship test rules had beenpublished in November 2008, especially when it turned out that they entered

into force on 10 November 2008 and applied to applicants who had alreadyregistered for the December 2008 test before the registration deadline, 5 No-vember 2008, under on the old conditions.83As a result, a number of thoseregistered withdrew their registration and, of those who took the test on 10December 2008, the majority failed.Experts in history, political science and other branches of science havealso criticised the test and more than once it has been established that none ofthe three multiple choice answers to a question gave the correct answer. As aresult, the Minister for Integration has informed that she will considerwhether the test system should be changed again providing for individuallydrafted answers to the questions (instead of multiple choice answers).

Most of the transitions to Danish citizenship have occurred through naturali-sation. The numbers of persons listed in naturalisation Acts increased con-siderably during the late 1990s and until 2002; in 2003, however, the numberdecreased due to the implementation of the stricter 2002 rules, but in 2004and 2005 the number increased again since, by then more and more immi-grants had taken the necessary language examinations. However, with the(gradual) implementation of the 2005 requirements, a decrease is again evi-dent and this time, it seems to be of a more permanent character.In order to understand the figures, it must be borne in mind that, in 2002,only 1,045 cases out of 17,727 were dealt with after the new 2002 Circular.Therefore, the statistics for 2003 are the first to reveal the impact of the 2002Circular’s stricter criteria for naturalisation. As mentioned, the tighter criteria– and especially the language requirement – resulted in a decline in naturali-sations, but to a large extent it was caused by the new documentation re-quirement that forced many applicants to put their applications on hold untilthey had passed a language examination. However, there is every probabilitythat the stricter of the language requirements introduced in 2005 and 2008will form an insurmountable barrier for many applicants and, therefore, thatthe decline in the number of naturalised persons will be more permanent. It85Source:Numbers and facts, population statistics on foreigners (Tal og fakta),August 2008, p.10.

As is evident from Table 15, that there was a proportionally significant in-crease in the number of refusals in 2002-2003; however, in subsequent yearsmany applicants passed a language examination and the percentage of refus-als decreased. However, with the gradual implementation of the 2005/2006requirements, a more permanent increase in the percentage of refusals seemsto have materialised. Undoubtedly this has to do with the renewed strength-ening of the language requirement but, as can be seen from Table 16, refusalsgiven due to a lack of Danish language proficiency now form a smaller per-centage of the total numbers of refusals. Two new important grounds for re-fusals are the requirement of passing a naturalisation test (1016 refusals in2008 = 12 per cent) and the requirement of being self-supporting (617 refusalsin 2008 = 7 per cent).Not only has the percentage of refusals of applications for naturalisationincreased; so has the number of refusals of applications for exemption fromthe language requirement. As previously mentioned, all applications for ex-emption shall be submitted to the parliamentary Naturalisation Committeethat makes its decisions ‘behind closed doors’, and the Committee’s practicewith respect to granting exemption from the language requirements has beenrestricted in parallel with the restrictions of the requirements for naturalisa-tion, as appears from Table 17.87Target persons listed in a naturalisation Bill one year, may be naturalised the followingyear (by the Parliament’s adoption of the naturalisation Act, see Table 14). Moreover, itshould be pointed out that the annual shifts to Danish citizenship is entirely different,since in many cases naturalisation is granted conditional upon the applicant’s being re-leased from a former citizenship within a certain time limit; in such situations, the ac-tual shift may occur up to two years later.

requirement entered into force and December 2008, an average of around 97per cent of all participants passed the naturalisation test. However, in De-cember 2008, when the test conditions were made stricter, out of 5,636 en-rolled, 4,684 remained registered for the test and only 1,103 passed. Thus, thepass rate in December 2008 was 23.5 per cent. Since then, the pass rate in-creased to 42.1 per cent in June 2009 (2,809 registered, 2,566 remained regis-tered and 1,081 passed), and to 54.5 in December 2009 (2,968 registered, 2,750remained registered and 1500 passed). At the last test, in June 2010, 3134 hadregistered for the naturalisation test and there is reason to believe that thepass rate rose to well over 60 per cent).

4.3.2 Analysis of Interviews4.3.2.1 What do migrants think of the language and naturalisation tests?Before dealing with migrants’ opinions of the requirements for naturalisa-tion, it is important to outline some of the characteristics of the twelve re-spondents who were asked about their experiences with naturalisation.Four out of the twelve respondents were born in Denmark and two respon-dents came to Denmark as children. Thus, 50 per cent of the respondentshave a school-leaving examination from Danish lower secondary school anddo not consider the Danish language requirement a problem since, as a resultof passing this examination, they (automatically) fulfil the Danish languagerequirement for naturalisation – and may not even be familiar with the lan-guage school examination D3E (level B 2). As a result of their lack of experi-ence with the language school courses, their answers regarding the languageand naturalisation test-requirements may, almost subconsciously, focusmainly on the naturalisation test.Almost all of the six respondents born and raised in Denmark are study-ing at high school, university or Business College – or having just finishedtheir studies. Only one of these young respondents has no further education(apart from the degree from lower secondary school). Among the six respon-dents without Danish schooling, three have pursued higher education andtwo a lower level of education; the educational background of the last re-spondent is unclear.Five of the respondents passed the naturalisation test at the first attempt,one respondent had to take the test twice before passing and another re-spondent had to take the test three times before passing; four respondentshave not yet taken the naturalisation test, and the last respondent has notgiven a clear answer to this question. Five of the respondents prepared forthe test by taking a preparatory course, one paid for access to a website thathelps migrants prepare for the test, while the remaining five respondentsprepared for the test on their own; the last respondent did not have the lan-guage skills to understand or to answer this question.

As already mentioned, five of the interviews were conducted at a policestation. It is our impression that this location did influence on the respon-dents’ openness during the interviews. It is likely that some respondentswere nervous about whether their answers would have an impact on theoutcome of their application for naturalisation. During interviews at the po-lice station we explicitly stressed the purpose of the interviews and the re-spondents’ anonymity and we tried to avoid that police officers entered theroom where the interview was taking place. Nevertheless, some of the inter-views conducted at the police station may reflect this special situation.During the interviews, we asked what the respondents thought about therequirements for naturalisation; this issue is dealt with below followed by anoutline of the migrants’ experiences with the naturalisation test and their re-flections on the integration requirements.In general, migrants think it is ‘OK’ that they need to fulfil some re-quirements in order to be naturalised. However, almost all the respondentshave some objections to either the test or the language requirement. Onlytwo of the respondents (both interviewed at the police station) were mainly‘uncritical’ and said explicitly that the requirements are ‘OK’ or ‘fair’. All ofthe remaining respondents had some comments about the requirements, in-cluding that they are ‘very harsh and demanding’ and/or that they shouldnot apply to persons born and raised in the country. One respondent saidthat in her opinion the requirements and the naturalisation test in particular‘are designed only for well-educated people’. Another respondent thoughtthat the possibilities for exemption were ‘too limited’.If we leave out the six respondents who graduated from a Danish schooland who speak Danish fluently, the rest respond differently to the questionabout their opinion of the language requirement. Two respondents werecritical; one thought the level and the required grade too high, while theother accepted the level but criticised the sudden increase in the requiredgrade. A third respondent answered ambiguously; a fourth had no commentwhile the last two respondents thought the required level was acceptable.The educational backgrounds of these respondents varied. One of the morecritical responses came from a person with a short formal education whilethe other critical response came from a highly educated refugee who, how-ever, may have been traumatised. Also, the two mainly positive responseswere given by a highly educated and a less well-educated respondent, re-spectively.Asking about the naturalisation test we received much more critical an-swers. In order to obtain a more accurate picture of the respondents’ opin-ions, the different viewpoints are examined in Table 19.

Table 19: Migrants’ opinions of the test requirementsIt is OK to have some requirementsOpinions of the requirements (can referto both language and naturalisation re-quirements, some of the respondentsare more concerned about the naturali-sation test)11 are1 did not answerpositive2 respondents are uncritical and 1 has verylimited language skills.-It is important to test people, before it wastoo easy to obtain citizenship9 respondents are quite critical regarding therequirements:-There should be requirements, but integra-tion should not be tested the way it is;-The requirements in Denmark are specifi-cally harsh;-The requirements are hard and demand alot from people;-The requirements impose pressure; lan-guage teaching should be voluntary;-The requirements are very difficult to fulfilespecially for disabled and elderly people;-Why has it become so difficult to becomenaturalised?-It is unreasonable, I was born here in Den-mark7 respondents say that the language require-ment is fair/no problem/ OK (5 of these re-spondents are born in Denmark and/or have aDanish school-leaving qualification).3 respondents stress that the language re-quirement is ‘not OK’ or that the required level(and grade) is too high2 respondents give no clear answer or do notgive an answer to this question (one of the re-spondents thinks the requirements are unnec-essary for people born in Denmark but it is notclear whether this respondent finds the re-quirements ‘OK’ in relation to immigrants)2 respondents find the naturalisation test ‘OK’8 respondents do not find the test ‘OK’/’fair’ orthink that the test should be administered inanother way (five of these are born in Den-mark and/or have a Danish school-leavingqualification)2 respondents give no answer or do not give aclear answer (one of these respondents findsthe requirements ‘unnecessary’ for peopleborn in Denmark but it is not clear whetherthis respondent finds the requirements ‘OK’ inrelation to immigrants)

The interviews show that eight of the twelve respondents think that the testis either unnecessary, unfair or does not measure what it is intended tomeasure. It is worth noting that some of these respondents think some kindof test should take place, but they think that it is either unfair that they haveto take the test or that the test is held in a ‘ridiculous’ way. Two respondentssay that the test is ‘good’. All the respondents born in Denmark and one ofthe respondents who came to Denmark as a child and attended Danishschool stress that the requirements should not apply to persons born and/orraised in Denmark or, at least, that the requirements should be different forthem.As is evident from Table 20, it is widely believed that the naturalisationtest itself is difficult. One respondent thinks that the test is designed ‘only forhighly educated people – doctors and lawyers’, not for the less educated.Four respondents mention that the questions in the test are formulated in adifficult way which makes them hard to understand; some say that the wordorder (normal/inverse) causes difficulties. One respondent says that the testis formulated in a ‘difficult style’ and says that ‘even though I am born andraised in Denmark my language will never be as good as a native Dane’s be-cause I have to speak and learn five different languages: Danish, Turkish,Kurdish, German and English’. Others say, in relation to the language style,that ‘it is like they want us to fail’ or, as said by a respondent with a low edu-cational background that ‘the test is designed in a way that makes it evenmore difficult’; this last mentioned respondent compares the Danish testswith the Canadian test ‘which is illustrated with pictures that make it easierto understand the questions’.As to the effect of the naturalisation test seven out of the twelve respon-dents state that their knowledge of Danish society has improved as a resultof the naturalisation test; among them, two are born in Denmark, one hasDanish school-leaving qualification, two have a higher education and twohave a short-cycle education. Three respondents say that the knowledge ac-quired was quickly forgotten; one respondent (who did not find the test dif-ficult) mentions that the test only functions as a repetition of things he previ-ously learned in school, while another respondent says that, during herpreparation for the test, she learned about new issues she had not beentaught during her schooling in Denmark; she says that she has also acquiredmore knowledge about Danish society because of the test. Four of the re-spondents with Danish schooling (two are born in Denmark and two havelived most of their lives in Denmark) do not think that the test measureswhat (they believe) it is intended to measure. One says ‘it only tests rotelearning and historical knowledge’ and ‘the content of the test does not makeanyone Danish’; the same person says the test ‘is superficial’ while anotherrespondent says, ‘the test is not about integration, it is not about Danish soci-ety, but only about history’.

Table 20: Migrants opinions on the naturalisation testThe requirement should not ap-ply to persons born in Denmark(it is unfair)The naturalisation test is difficult5 respondents think that persons who are born inDenmark or who have attended elementary school inDenmark should not be required to pass the test (all 5have Danish school-leaving qualifications).7 respondents think that the test is difficult (many ofthem refer to the formulation and the content of thequestions while some only refer to the knowledge re-quired). Two of these respondents were born in Den-mark, yet another two have Danish school-leavingqualification; among the remaining three respondentstwo are poorly educated and one well-educated.4 do not find it difficult (2 are born and studying inDenmark, another is highly educated while the last isless well-educated.1 is unclear (this respondent did not speak much Dan-ish, was traumatised and had probably not taken thetest)4 (3 have Danish school-leaving qualifications; thefourth is very good at Danish and has a higher educa-tion)3 (all are born in Denmark). Two find these kinds ofquestions difficult; the third says that the questions areuseless.A fourth respondent finds today’s questions most dif-ficult. This respondent is not born in Denmark but hasa school-leaving certificate from Danish lower secon-dary school.

cal dates (exact years) while elderly respondents find questions on historymore important. One respondent, who generally is positive regarding thenaturalisation requirements, says that the test should not include questionson art since ‘it is OK not to be interested in art’.Table 22: Migrants opinions of the nature of the test questionsThe questions:-----are superficial and useless and do not reflect commonknowledgeare so difficult that even Danes cannot answer them;are irrelevant(respondent born in Denmark, studying at university)are so difficult that it as if they want us to fail, (respon-dent born in Denmark, studying at high school level)are not about integration or the Danish society; it is onlya history test (respondent has been in Denmark most ofher life and educated at Business College)are not all ‘OK’ e.g. questions about art - it is OK not tobe interested in art (well-educated respondent)contemporary and more relevant themes (respondentswell-educated or still studying, born in Denmark)something all Danes know about (respondent born inDenmark studying at university)the constitution, rights and duties, more practical mat-ters such as information about different institutions, un-ions etc.(respondent young student, born in Denmark)history (history is important), (well-educated)politics and the constitution; important knowledge sinceone acquires the right to vote with citizenship – ‘and itis not important to know which building King Christian4thhas built’(well-educated)historical dates (respondents are young, two are well-educated and two are students. Three out of the four re-spondents were born in Denmark)current events; she does not follow the media (respon-dent is 18 years old, has lived in Denmark most of herlife)‘list of kings’ (respondent is well-educated)art (respondent is well-educated)

station, etc. The young men say that this is also a concern for some of theirfriends. It is also stated that it can be a problem that the naturalisation test isonly held twice a year, because those who do not pass the test at the first at-tempt may forget all the knowledge they have acquired over the next sixmonths that they have to wait before they can take the test again.Ten of the respondents comment on the ‘price’ of applying for citizen-ship; half of them think the costs are fine, while the remaining five respon-dents are more critical. One respondent lists all the different costs related tobecoming naturalised88and, because her application was denied, she is afraidthat she ‘will have to pay for the interview with the police again’ (which isnot a requirement, cf. above under 4.1). She is also afraid that the test re-quirements may change again. Another respondent mentions that it is ‘a highprice overall’ and it is unfair since she pays taxes. A third respondent stressesthat applying for citizenship becomes very expensive if one has to take thetest several times. It is worth mentioning that four of the respondents havenot completed their application for naturalisation and thus, have not been tothe police station yet, which may affect their answers. Finally one respondentwho has problems fulfilling the requirements mentions that it is odd that she‘has to pay for the interview with the police’ since she does not fulfil the re-quirements and the police know about this. Also statements from other ap-plicants reflect possible lack of understanding of the task of the police.It seems to be a general perception that applicants have to pay for ‘an in-terview with the police’, which is not the case. The 1000 DKK (EUR 134) is anapplication fee that has to be paid once (when submitting the applicationwhich is done at the police station). Many applicants wonder why the policedo not tell them whether they fulfil (all) the requirements and why the police‘require a fee’ in cases in cases where it is obvious that the requirements arenot fulfilled and thus, that the applicant cannot anticipate being naturalised.Applicants do not se the ‘passivity’ on the part of the police as somethingwhich has to do with the particular Danish naturalisation process, where de-cisions on naturalisation lie exclusively with the Parliament.89It is clear from the interviews that three of the respondents find it verydifficult to fulfil the requirements. All three are women from Iran, Lebanonand Iraq, respectively; one is 35 years old, while the other two respondentsare in their late 50s. One of them is not able to express herself in Danish or881000 DKK (EUR 134) for making an application for naturalisation and 660 DKK (EUR89) for taking the naturalisation test – plus, for some, an additional 1000 DKK for takingthe language test at a language centre and maybe an (unknown) amount for taking apreparatory course – privately arranged.The root of this problem seems to be that the Naturalisation Circular states that in con-nection with their examination of applications for naturalisation or otherwise providingguidance for persons who wish to apply for naturalisation, authorities (like the police)may not ‘seek to cause the persons to abandon their desire to have their applications ex-amined’, see also Circular Letter no. 61 of 22 September 2008, introduction, par. 5.

English and her educational background was therefore not cleared up; of theother two respondents, one is less educated while the other is a well-educated refugee who may, however, be traumatised. Two of these respon-dents express confusion and frustration as to the role of the police in terms ofguidance. They have both felt a need for guidance that the police could notprovide.90When asked about the purpose of integration, most migrants feel that therequirements did not make them feel more integrated into Danish society,see Table 23.Table 23: Migrants’ opinions of whether the test requirements promote their integra-tionYes the requirements make me fell more in-tegrated into the Danish society1(this respondent is referring to the languagerequirement not the naturalisation test re-quirement)74

Two of the respondents who were born and raised in Denmark emphasisethat their being born in Denmark is what allow them to integrated into Dan-ish society, another respondent who has lived most of her life in Denmarkendorse the view, that growing up in Denmark makes one integrated. Onerespondent asks the interviewer (who is Danish) how she will describe herown ‘integration’’ (indicating that he cannot see the difference between him-self and a ‘native’ Danish person). Alongside this, the reasons given for be-coming integrated are school, work, family and a ‘welcoming country’.According to one of the respondents, the mere acquisition of Danish citi-zenship may influence her integration – but not the requirements as such: ‘Ido not think the requirements will make me integrated. What would help meintegrate would be to become naturalised. ‘If I pass the test I will becomeeven more integrated than many Danish people’. This respondent was bornand raised in Denmark. It is important to note that almost half of the respon-dents (second generation) probably only refer to the naturalisation test whentalking about the effects of the requirements.4.3.2.2 Do migrants adjust their choices/behaviour due to the requirements?As was the case with the interviews concerning permanent residence, littlewas said during the interviews concerning naturalisation about whether mi-

grants change or adjust their behaviour as a result of the requirements, sincethe question about adjustment was not included in the questionnaire.It is clear that the acquisition of naturalisation is very important for therespondents and – as has been the case for applicants for permanent resi-dence –they are very persistent and tend to do everything possible in orderto become naturalised even if they fail examinations or tests or have a veryhard time fulfilling the requirements.Several respondents, both young and old, state that ‘if that is what ittakes, I will do it’ or ‘I will keep trying until I pass’. However, one respon-dents whose application for naturalisation was refused, says that she willonly give it one more try, and if she does not succeed then she will give up;however, at the end of the interview she says: ‘but what if they change thelegislation, then they may throw out people who have only a permanentresidence permit’ – signalling that she may go on applying for naturalisationeven though it may be difficult to obtain.In a mini- survey we conducted at two language schools on 3 June (whenthe June 2010 naturalisation test was held) we asked 240 migrants three ques-tions about the naturalisation test – after they had taken the test; 175 out of240 answered the questionnaire.91The questions included whether they hadtaken the test more than once and, if so, how many times. Their answersclearly illustrate that failing a naturalisation test is no reason to give up ap-plying for naturalisation. Almost half of the respondents had taken the testmore than once. One third of the respondents had taken the naturalisationtest twice, 11 per cent had taken the test three times and some had taken thetest four and (even) five times. Furthermore, a significant number of the re-spondents had taken preparatory courses and paid for them, see Annex 2.4.3.2.3. What do other respondents think?Language school teachersAccording to four out of the five language school teachers interviewed, thelanguage level required for naturalisation is too high; only one languageschool representative feels that the level is reasonable and fair. The majoritybelieve the level to be so high that mainly well-educated migrants are able topass.Language school teachers’ views of the naturalisation test are very nega-tive. First of all, the naturalisation test is perceived as a political project, notin line with the normal language school methods; furthermore, the test in it-self is considered superficial, useless and without positive effects. Accordingto one language school representative, the ‘politicians just lend premises atthe language school’; this respondent would prefer it if the test were held inthe city hall.

The knowledge tested is criticised for various reasons. All of the five lan-guage school teachers interviewed express to varying degrees the view thatthe required knowledge is not meaningful for migrants. The knowledge is re-ferred to as knowledge applicants must have at their fingertips – ready andavailable to use very easily (‘knowledge at one’s fingertips’) – or knowledgeone would normally look up in a dictionary. According to two of the respon-dents, the knowledge that ought to be tested - if there should be a test at all –is knowledge of the Constitution, legislation, rights, duties and welfare andtaxation systems.Furthermore, the ways the questions are drawn up as well as the designof the test are criticised. It is said that one has to be very good at Danish inorder to understand the questions correctly, for instance the word order andnegatives in particular are used in a difficult manner; moreover what is beingtested is ‘whether the applicant has learned the textbook by heart’. It is an‘unnatural way’ to learn because there is no teaching leading up to the testand, according to one respondent, this is not the way people learn some-thing.Finally, factors such as the repeated changes to the legislation and theadministration are stressed as problematic. The frequent changes preventmigrants from fulfilling the requirements in a systematic way, in so far asthey cannot start at one point and then, step-by-step, fulfil all the require-ments; for instance, they cannot take the naturalisation test at the appropriatetime if the test is expected to become obsolete when new changes areadopted (as has been the case once). Additionally, it is emphasised that thechanges to the test have a de-motivating impact because migrants fear thatthey may be forced to take the test several times. Also, the administration ofthe tests is criticised for not being effective enough in terms of preparationpossibilities.According to one respondent, politicians do not ‘respect’ to the legisla-tion in this area. The rules change constantly and the changes are unfair, forexample the sudden increase in the passing grade at level D3E to 4 from 2;‘something similar could never happen in other areas of education’.It is widely accepted that the naturalisation test excludes people, espe-cially unskilled migrants and migrants at levels DC1 and DC2. Several re-

spondents insist that, due to the changes to the test, it is difficult to identifyany clear effect or pattern that poses particular problems for migrants.None of the language school representatives points to potential integra-tion potential of the naturalisation test; one says that it may not do any harm,but the remaining respondents’ attitudes are unambiguously negative. Onesays that ‘remembering facts has nothing to do with integration’ and the factthat even university students and other very self-confident young peopleborn in Denmark cannot pass the test is a negative factor for integration.Immigrant organisationsThe organisations’ representatives emphasise that, first of all, immigrants at-tach important emotional and psychological meaning to acquiring Danishcitizenship, partly because they perceive the acquisition of Danish citizenshipas proof of their acceptance in Denmark. At the same time, it is pointed outthat Danish citizenship is not considered a status everybody wants to ac-quire.In terms of the legislation some of the organisations note that some ap-plicants find it very frustrating not to receive any explanation as to why theirapplication has been refused.92One organisation mentions that people feelthey have very few legal rights regarding naturalisation, for instance becauseof the lack of complaint possibilities. The same respondent says that the leg-islation on naturalisation is more ‘black and white’ than the legislation onpermanent residence, which includes possibilities for complaint and broaderexemption possibilities. All the organisations find that being granted exemp-tion is almost impossible and some stress that the rules are rather unclear.Three of the respondents mention that they have never experienced a casewhere a person was exempted; one says that he has seen even blind people’sapplications for exemption being refused. Exemption seems possible only incases involving serious health problems. Several of the respondents call ourattention to the need for more grounds for exemption, especially regardingPTSD.One positive aspect is the standardisation of the language requirement –which removes the discretion of the police; however, as previously men-tioned, the majority of organisations think that the language requirement fornaturalisation is too strict. One respondent mentions that the requirementregarding passing D3E (level B2) is the strictest in Europe. Three organisa-tions mention that the language requirement is the most difficult require-ment to fulfil. One respondent says that migrants tend to focus too much onthe naturalisation test instead of the fulfilment of the language requirementwhich is the most difficult, especially the written part. This respondent says92This respondent is probably referring either to refusals of applications for dispensationor to refusals of applicants who are considered a danger to national security; other re-fusals are normally motivated

that the fulfilment of all the requirements at the same time can be particu-larly difficult, especially for migrants who are not used to going to school.Another of these respondents points out that the naturalisation test and thelanguage test are linked together, because it is not possible to pass the natu-ralisation test without having Danish language skills that match D3E or levelB 2. Therefore, instead of talking about the language requirement as beingthe most difficult, it should rather be seen as an (equally difficult) precondi-tion for passing the naturalisation test.Finally, one of the respondents says that the high requirements for natu-ralisation reflect the government’s desire to limit the number of naturalisa-tions. The same respondent says that if people are going to live in Denmark,they should become citizens – making the comparison that they should belike ‘owners – not just permanent tenants’.OfficialsThe two officials interviewed in relation to the requirements for naturalisa-tion represent the police and the Naturalisation Office in the Ministry of In-tegration, respectively. As previously mentioned, it is the task of the police toreceive applications for naturalisation and to go through the completedforms, etc., with the applicants before forwarding the cases to the Naturalisa-tion Office in the Ministry of Integration for further consideration.The Naturalisation Office representative stresses that there are differentmotivations for immigrants to apply for naturalisation. Apart from the wishto obtain a Danish passport, be able to vote in parliamentary elections andobtain security from expulsion from Denmark, it is often a question of at-tachment to Denmark and a desire to become part of Danish society, Danishculture and to feel like a ‘full member’. The police mainly highlight the im-portance of acquiring a passport and having personal security.The impression among the police is that the majority of applicants arewell aware of the naturalisation requirements when they apply for naturali-sation; the Naturalisation Office representative feels the same, emphasisingthat migrants usually apply when they are certain that all the requirementshave been fulfilled – which also has to do with the information given in theapplication package, which states that applications from migrants who donot fulfil all the requirements will be refused.The police think that the majority of the applicants find that the naturali-sation test is the most difficult requirement, while the Naturalisation Officepoints out that most refusals are given to applicants who do not fulfil thelanguage requirement and the societal knowledge requirement; apart fromthat several refusals are given because the applicant cannot fulfil the re-quirement of being self-supporting (cf. Table 16 and the related text). TheNaturalisation Office feels that most of the questions they receive relate tothe language requirement. Often, the applicants know about the general lan-guage requirements but ask questions about whether another language ex-78

amination (from an educational institution other than a language school)with a certain grade is sufficient to fulfil the language requirement.93TheNaturalisation Office also receives practical questions related to the languageexamination and the naturalisation tests, including questions about the pos-sibilities for preparatory courses and the deadline for registering and, fur-thermore the Naturalisation Office is asked about the possibility for immi-grant descendants to be exempted from the naturalisation test requirement.According to the respondent from the Naturalisation Office, most appli-cants document their Danish language skills with examinations in types ofeducation other than the Danish language courses (other educational institu-tions than the language schools) (70 – 80 per cent). Among the police, it is feltthat most applicants document their language skills using the Danish school-leaving examination.Applications for exemption from the language requirements are oftensubmitted on the grounds of ill-health – physical or mental - or dyslexia. TheNaturalisation Office notes that only very serious health problems that pre-vent the person from fulfilling the requirements constitute valid grounds forexemption (it is not possible to establish which functional disorders may leadto exemption, since decisions on dispensation seem to be ‘overall decisions’based on overall impressions of the individual cases – and no reasoning isgiven).According to the Naturalisation Office, political desire was behind the in-troduction of the formalised language requirement and the requirement re-garding passing a naturalisation test. The basic idea was that immigrantswho want Danish citizenship and citizens’ rights must have a knowledge ofDanish that allows them, as far as possible to follow developments in Danishsociety, partly through the media, and thus to participate in Danish democ-racy on an equal footing with the rest of the population. In the politicalagreement of December 2005, it was seen as important to point out the greatimportance the political parties attach to the ability to speak, read and writeDanish and the ability and the will to do well in Danish society.The Naturalisation Office representative says that migrants who applyfor naturalisation today have a rather better knowledge of the Danish lan-guage than former applicants. It is, however, difficult to judge whether this isdue to the 2008 increase in level D3E/B2 to level B3E/B2with grade 4;so farthere have been no analyses of the development. Furthermore, it is importantto point out that fewer immigrants apply for naturalisation, probably due tothe stricter language requirement. This perception is shared by the police93A central reason for contacting the Naturalisation Office is that many applicants wantrecognition for their examination from an educational institution that is not listed inschedule 3 to the naturalisation circular. As appear from Table 18 and the related text,most of these applications are met.

The primary goal to be achieved by the Danish language and societal knowl-edge requirement for naturalisation is, as mentioned above, to ensure thatnew Danish citizens have sufficient knowledge of the Danish language andculture, etc., that they can get by in Danish society, follow developments anddebates and thus participate in Danish democracy on an equal footing withthe rest of the Danish population. As is the case with the permanent resi-dence requirements, this goal has been achieved because the (reduced num-ber of) migrants who naturalise fulfil the language and societal knowledgerequirements at level B2, which presumes fairly high intellectual skills and‘integration’ as measured by the requirements. Besides, this cannot be dis-connected from the fact that a substantial share of recently naturalised citi-zens is immigrant descendents who are born and/or raised in Denmark andthus ‘socialised in Denmark’.However, the goal seems to have been achieved at the expense of the ex-clusive and selective effect of the requirements. After the latest amendmentsrelatively few people have become naturalise per year. As to the effect of thenaturalisation requirements on the integration of these migrants and theirdescendants, there is reason to believe that they, would probably get by inDanish society regardless of whether they were subjected to the naturalisa-tion requirements or not. This presumption is substantiated by the inter-views.None of the respondents has pointed to the potential integrating effect ofthe naturalisation test. On the contrary, it is suggested that it may have an‘anti-integration effect’, since many applicants may feel offended and/oralienated and some of the immigrant population is excluded from acquiringDanish citizenship.The government has not seen the selective effect as a reason to facilitatethe acquisition of Danish citizenship. The government’s view is that citizen-ship is something valuable that must be earned and, as a rule, should only begiven to applicants who are ‘integrated in Denmark’; as mentioned above,the language and societal knowledge requirements serve this aim as proofthat those who are naturalised can speak, read and understand Danish and80

participate in the democratic process and on the whole get along in Danishsociety.Improved immigrant integration as such does not seem to be the primarygoal of the test requirements. Nevertheless, the government tend to presumethat the naturalisation test contributes to integration, since immigrants andtheir descendants, during their preparations for the test, acquire deeperknowledge of Denmark and Danish society, culture and history. In this con-nection, however, consideration should be given of the fact that the strict re-quirements prevent some migrants from applying for naturalisation, and thateven those who do apply may not learn as much as anticipated. Althoughsome respondents say that (preparation for) the test has taught them some-thing new about Denmark and Danish culture and history – many of theiranswers suggest that this knowledge might soon be forgotten. We shouldadd here that this knowledge is widely regarded as useless and, moreover, ctthat immigrant descendants who have been raised in Denmark and considerthemselves ‘Danish’ are offended by the fact that they have to prove their‘Danishness’ by taking a test – even more so by the fact that they have to passa test that many native Danish people cannot pass.To summarise, migrants generally make every possible effort to fulfil thenaturalisation requirements and so far, the requirements may have an inte-grating effect, but when it comes to ‘immigrant integration as such’, a con-clusion that immediately presents itself is that the strict requirements’ nega-tive side effects outweigh the possible advantages.

It is expected that the latest tightening of the requirements for permanentresidence will lead to fewer migrants (including refugees) being issued apermanent residence permit and, therefore, fewer migrants will qualify fornaturalisation. In the 2010-reform of the Aliens Act, it was explicitly spelledout that one goal was to make it more difficult for migrants who are not‘well-integrated’ to obtain a permanent residence permit. The concept of ‘notwell-integrated migrants’ seems to be equivalent to ‘migrants without thewill to integrate’. The preparatory report does not say much about to theproblems of migrants who are not able (for physical, socio-economical, edu-cational reasons, etc.) to fulfil the requirements for permanent residence (re-gardless of their ‘will to integrate’), and no solution has been presented to theproblem that, while migrants with resources may be motivated by the re-quirements, migrants without the necessary resources may – as one respon-dent has expressed it – be doubly de-motivated.The government’s view is that, to a larger extent, foreigners’ rights topermanent residence and naturalisation must be associated with their inte-gration in Denmark. As the Liberal spokesperson said during Parliament’sreading of the last amendments to the Aliens Act, ‘we will reward immi-grants who demonstrate their will to integrate’, while ‘those who turn theirbacks on Denmark must accept waiting for a longer period before being ableto acquire a permanent residence permit – or maybe not being able to acquiresuch a permit’.94Here too, it is necessary to ask whether integration can bemeasured exclusively by ‘the fulfilment of strict, rigid integration require-ments’? As is pointed out by many of the migrants interviewed in the INTECproject, they have not become integrated because of the integration require-ments but because of other factors such as family, friends, work and a wel-coming environment. And as some respondents have rightly pointed out, itis possible to fulfil all the requirements and still not be integrated, just as it ispossible to be well-integrated and still not be able to pass all the require-ments.The main conclusion concerning the effects of the test requirements forpermanent residence and naturalisation is that they have a clear selective andexclusive effect, while the integration effect is ambiguous.In general, migrants are very accepting and it is widely accepted thatsome requirements for permanent residence and naturalisation are requiredand that migrants must make an effort to comply with them. However, as therequirements become excessive, the understanding and acceptance of mi-94Negotiations of 20 May 2010.

grants as well as others involved, including language school teachers andmigrant organisations, diminish or vanish.Denmark has a very good education system with extensive languagecourses at no cost for adult foreigners, maybe even the best in Europe, and itis very much appreciated by migrants and other stakeholders and is ac-knowledged as an important factor in integration. Statements by actorswithin this field corroborate that, in general, migrants’ knowledge of Danishlanguage and society has improved considerably, partly thanks to the lan-guage school education. Most migrants take the language courses of theirown free will, because they need the language training for their daily life andwork. More could possibly be achieved by building on this system. To the ex-tent that societal knowledge tests are required, it may be possible requiringthat the test be passed on the language course where the individual immi-grant is enrolled (depending on that person’s previous schooling, etc.) – in-stead of a citizenship test detached from the normal educational system andwithout preparatory courses.Both Danish politicians and Danish civil society are greatly concernedabout social cohesion and immigrant integration. To this end, the focusshould be on how to avoid the negative side-effects as described above insections 3.4 and 4.4 and on how to introduce reforms to the Aliens Act andIntegration Act leading to better integration. In this respect, as previouslymentioned, it is noteworthy that none of the respondents claimed during theinterviews conducted that the naturalisation test has clearly positive effect interms of improved integration (resulting from the test). It indicates that betterways have to be found.This is not to say that immigrants’ integration has not improved in recentyears, on the contrary, but the improvement seems to be due to other factors,as explained in the interviews. Even more significantly, some immigrants donot feel better integrated, but increasingly insecure due to repeatedly stricterrequirements. The uncertainty regarding whether they can acquire a perma-nent residence permit and/or Danish citizenship may have an anti-integration effect. The interviews reflect the fact that immigrants are ready tofulfil the requirements and that they will make every possible effort – ‘ifthat’s what it takes’ as stated in an interview. This seems to be a valuableplatform to build on while giving due consideration to the rights of thosewho have (already) settled in Denmark and whose children have been bornand/or raised here.Strict integration requirements may serve the purpose of recruitinghighly qualified labour migrants to Denmark. However, with respect to thelawfully and habitually resident immigrant population, their human rightsmust be respected and they must not be excluded from the possibility of ac-quiring a safe residence status and full and equal rights because of test re-quirements with a pass level that is beyond their capabilities.

During the Parliament’s reading of the last amendments to the AliensAct, the governing parties’ spokespersons said that acquiring a permanentresidence permit and being naturalised is a privilege to be earned – not aright. Still, account must be taken of the principles of equal treatment and tothe needs of special groups such as refugees and non-citizens born andraised in Denmark who may, in reality, not have another country of theirown; account must also be taken to the human rights presumption that eve-ryone has a country in which the enjoyment of all human rights are secured,including political rights and the unconditional right of residence. The provi-sion of Article 6 (3) of the European Convention on Nationality, according towhich states shall provide for the possibility of naturalisation of persons law-fully and habitually resident on their territory, is to be seen in this light.Moreover, some important rights are dependent on permanent residence, in-cluding the right to family reunification for immigrants (to whom the re-quirement is ‘permanent residence for three years or more’ (Aliens Act, sec-tions 9 (1)(1) and 9 (1)(3)).95Although the right to family life is not a humanright, questions on family reunification may fall within the ambit of ECHRarticle 8, and the exclusion of certain groups from the enjoyment of this right(for instance the group of uneducated migrants) may raise questions con-cerning the right to equal treatment in the enjoyment of the right to familylife; cf. the ECHR 14 taken together with article 8. Last, but not least, there isreason to bear in mind that resident third country nationals in Denmark can-not be granted an EU long-term resident status due to the Danish opt-outsfrom the Justice and Home Affairs.Thus, both the general interest in immigrant integration and migrants’individual interest in integration call for the adoption of flexible integrationrequirements that make it possible for all immigrants groups to demonstrateintegration and integration-will regardless of their different abilities and ap-titudes.

Loca-tion ANumber of respondentsNumber of respondentswho has taken the natu-ralization test more thanone timeNumber of respondentswho has taken the natu-ralization test 2 timesNumber of respondentswho has taken the natu-ralization test 3 timesNumber of respondentswho has taken the natu-ralization test 4 timesNumber of respondentswho has taken the natu-ralization test 5 timesBeen up more than onetime, but not registeredthe number of timesNumber of people whohas taken the test onetime between June 2007-june 2008Number of people whohas taken the test twotimes between June2007-june 2008Number of respondentswho have taken a prepa-ration course for thenaturalization testPaid for the preparationcourseNumber of respondentswho think they havepassed the naturalisationtest10050