0

Returning Danes cause 6km 'corona queue' at Swedish border - The Local

While Danes can enter Sweden without restrictions, Swedish citizens are not allowed to cross into Denmark unless they work there, or have another "worthy reason".

I know "nothing stops Sweden from closing the border. It seems like they want the Danish money too much to do more than grouse about the Danish tourists." But if Denmark is fretting over Sweden's higher COVID19 infected and death rates, why would it allow its citizens to travel to, and return from, Sweden? Isn't it obvious that returning Danes can get infected while in Sweden, and infect others in Sweden upon return?

James K
  • 120,320
  • 22
  • 366
  • 478
  • 1
    There are a ton of exemptions and corner cases like that: cross-border workers, transportation workers, healthcare specialist even seasonal worker in agriculture. Any contact or movement entails a risk but border closures are seldom absolute, restrictions have to be balanced against other concerns (here a state duty towards its own citizens). – Relaxed May 29 '20 at 23:09
  • 1
    This kind of situation happens in lots of countries. – Golden Cuy May 29 '20 at 23:16
  • 2
  • 2
    Also https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/52525/why-didnt-india-stop-incoming-flights-in-early-feb-2020-to-prevent-covid-19-inf https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/50787/covid-19-why-are-countries-still-introducing-quarantines-for-travelers-from-aff https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/51225/which-right-has-priority-in-a-shut-down-in-states-of-emergency-the-emergency-la https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/52322/why-have-some-governments-banned-outbound-international-flights-in-response-to-c – the gods from engineering May 30 '20 at 08:57
  • 2
    I’m voting to close this question because this is too much of a dupe and this is not suitable for this site as well. –  May 30 '20 at 13:22
  • 3
    I upvoted the question, I don't see how it's a duplicate, none of the question mentioned specifically address the main issue. It's not about the benefits of curtailing international travel but about the asymmetry: why are Danish citizens but not Swedish citizens allowed to enter? – Relaxed May 30 '20 at 19:15
  • I voted to reopen. Perfectly valid question to ask. Being Swedish I found this puzzling as well. What's also interesting, the region adjacent to Denmark is called Scania. And, despite having no lockdown like the rest of Sweden, it has the same fatality rate as Denmark. – dan-klasson Jun 01 '20 at 15:58
  • @Relaxed, why do they have to accept swedes? Their citizen are danes... – vonbrand Oct 12 '21 at 15:09
  • @vonbrand Who said they had to? I actually made that point in my answer below. But it still makes sense to ask why that would be, from a public health perspective. Incidentally, there are in fact some legal reasons why they have to accept Swedish and other Nordic and EU citizens, outside of specific limited cases (which include public health). – Relaxed Oct 12 '21 at 20:32

1 Answers1

7

The risk is present (although not necessarily strictly equivalent) but it has to be balanced against other concerns:

  • The right for everybody to enter their own country. Some countries have effectively stopped the return of their own citizens by curtailing air traffic but it would be legally, politically and diplomatically highly problematic to flatly deny them entry, certainly in Western Europe. In spite of their long association (historically and then through the Nordic Council and the EU), Denmark doesn't have the same concern with respect to Swedish citizens.

    What other countries have done is impose some sort of mandatory quarantine or other restrictive measure to strongly disincentivize (leisure) trips abroad while formally safeguarding citizens' rights to return home. Some islands (New Zealand but also French overseas territories) even paid for accommodation during this quarantine period as another compromise between supporting the right to come back home and public health restrictions.

  • The right for everybody to come and go as they please. Outside of a temporary lock-down or individual measures (e.g. for people under criminal investigation), blocking people from leaving is associated with police states like the former East Germany. Denmark has announced some time ago that they were coming out of lock-down and presumably does not want to arbitrarily restrict its citizens' freedom any longer. Western Europeans obviously feel no compunction about blocking people from entering so there is no mirror concern about restricting Swedish (let alone non-EU) citizens freedom of movement in Denmark.

Generally speaking, it also seems clear that during the Covid-19 pandemic, European countries have prioritized domestic concerns and constituencies over anything else, perhaps to a larger extent than expected by some observers. This might stem from a feeling of distrust and lack of control on policies in neighboring countries, from a sense of national belonging during a crisis or even from a disregard for “other” people's needs and feelings. Thus, you are currently seeing countries allowing restaurants or hairdressers to reopen, large movements between regions, etc. all the while making it impossible for family members to see each other across borders, which doesn't necessarily make sense from a pure risk management or global welfare perspective. Denmark focusing exclusively on its own citizens rights and wishes fits this pattern.

Relaxed
  • 30,938
  • 2
  • 75
  • 109
  • It makes sense not limiting people's freedom of movement by allowing them to go to any country they want. But it doesn't make sense because they were forcing them to stay at home before that. Which is even more authoritarian and most likely unconstitutional. – dan-klasson Jun 01 '20 at 16:05
  • @dan-klasson I don't know about Denmark but, interestingly, while treaties (UN treaties, European Convention on Human Rights) and national constitutions in Europe often list a number of human rights, this notion is entirely absent from the US constitution and legal thought. The Bill of Rights has been deemed to protects citizens and “US persons” (including permanent residents), another example of the kind of dissymmetry I mentioned. – Relaxed Jun 01 '20 at 16:14