The mayors of two towns in southeast Norway have asked the government to consider new restrictions on where some refugees can move after being settled in the country.
Arne Sekkelsten, mayor of Fredrikstad, and Magnus Arnesen, mayor of neighbouring Sarpsborg, say their municipalities are under growing pressure because many refugees first settled elsewhere in Norway later move to their towns.
The two Conservative Party mayors are not calling for a general ban on refugees moving around Norway. Instead, they want stricter conditions before refugees who are not self-sufficient can relocate to municipalities already facing major integration challenges.
Their proposals have been sent to Norway’s Ministry of Labour and Inclusion, and the government says several of the ideas are under consideration.
Concerns In Fredrikstad And Sarpsborg
Fredrikstad and Sarpsborg are neighbouring municipalities in Østfold, close to the Swedish border and within commuting distance of the wider Oslo region.
According to NRK, the mayors argue that many refugees and immigrants have moved to the area from other parts of Norway over several years. They say this has placed pressure on housing, schools, welfare services, and local integration work.
Sarpsborg has been the focus of particular concern. A local review previously reported by NRK found that four out of every five kroner paid out in financial social assistance by Sarpsborg municipality in 2024 went to refugees.
The mayors also warn about the risk of “parallel societies” developing if too many people with major welfare and integration needs become concentrated in the same places.
What Are The Mayors Proposing?
The mayors have put forward four main proposals.
The first is stricter self-sufficiency requirements before refugees can move freely to another municipality. This could include requirements relating to work, housing, and Norwegian language skills.
The second is a possible limit on which municipalities non-self-sufficient refugees can move to. In practice, this could mean that municipalities with a high proportion of refugees or major living-condition challenges would not have to accept further relocation unless the person moving can support themselves.
The third proposal is a “traffic light” model for refugee settlement. Under such a system, municipalities would be assessed according to factors such as employment outcomes and how many refugees later move away. Those struggling with integration could be asked to take fewer refugees, or none at all.
The fourth proposal is financial. The mayors argue that if a refugee moves before becoming self-sufficient, the original settlement municipality should remain responsible for social assistance costs for a period after the move.
Their argument is that some municipalities receive state funding when refugees are first settled, but the longer-term costs can later fall on other municipalities if people move.
How Refugee Settlement Works In Norway
Refugees who receive permission to stay in Norway are normally settled in a municipality through a national system involving the Directorate of Integration and Diversity, known as IMDi.
Municipalities that agree to settle refugees receive state grants to help cover the costs of housing, services, language training, and integration support.
Refugees settled through this system are usually offered an introduction programme. This includes Norwegian language training, social studies, and measures intended to help people enter work or education.
However, people in Norway generally have freedom to move between municipalities. The political dispute is about what happens when refugees move from the municipality where they were first settled to another municipality, especially before they are financially independent.
This is known as secondary relocation, or secondary settlement.
Government Considering The Proposals
Labour and Inclusion Minister Kjersti Stenseng told NRK that the government is looking at several of the proposals from the mayors.
She said she would not close the door on any of the ideas at this stage, but added that any measures must be proportionate, targeted, and not unnecessarily bureaucratic.
The issue is politically sensitive. Supporters of tougher rules argue that some municipalities are carrying an unfair share of long-term integration costs. Critics are likely to raise concerns about freedom of movement, equal treatment, and the risk of cancreating a two-tier system for people who have legal residence in Norway.
The debate also comes at a time when many Norwegian municipalities are under pressure from high refugee settlement numbers in recent years, especially following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
