Author’s note: This interview took place just around the time the policy was taken for review to exclude adoptees. Therefore, I have asked questions both relating to when the policy was active and effecting Amalie and afterwards. This was done as even though the policy has been changed, the scare and harm it has done are still present, making it crucial to discuss.
As I sat down with Amalie at an open table at our university, where fellow students and teachers constantly walked by, going about their business, and tyring to make it to their classes on time, the air was calm but nervous. There was a sense of anticipatory excitement, Amalie had never been interviewed in this manner before, and I had never conducted an interview like this. I can only imagine how vulnerable Amalie must have felt giving this interview. Talking about something so deeply personal but also so difficult to explain. I found myself draw into her words. Relating more profoundly than I thought I would at first.
Earlier this year, the Danish government announced a significant change in the welfare system. The new law, which was set to take effect from July 1st 2025, affects all individuals who have entered Denmark for the first time (or for the first time after 12 consecutive months abroad) from the 2nd of April 1968. Unless these individuals meet the requirement of having full-time employment during the past 10 years for a minimum of 2 and half years, they will receive what is dubbed as the “work obligation”.
This means that they would receive the lowest level of cash benefit from the welfare system if they become or remain unemployed, in an effort to force these groups of people onto the job market. The announcement of these changes received a lot of backlash in late February and early March of this year, particularly for the reason that adoptees are subjected to these new legal requirements. This also applies regardless of age on entry to Denmark, i.e. whether you were a child or an adult.
I had the honour of being able to interview Amalie Ibsen about this new policy. Amalie was born in the province Hunan in China, where she was found as an infant in front of a factory, when she was (estimated to be) only 2 and half months. Only a few months later, when Amalie was 7 or 8 months old, she was adopted by a Danish couple. She even celebrated her first birthday in Denmark with her found family, appearing in several local newspapers at the time (see above), as she was the first adopted child in, what used to be known as the Farvrskov commune at the time, just outside of Randers. When asking Amalie about her background, she mentions how her parents received a “tillæg” or allowance from the Danish government to help support the process, allowing her parents to adopt both her and her younger sister. While the two sisters are not biologically related, they both were born in China. Outside one semester abroad, and some holidays, Amalie has lived her whole life in Denmark and does not view herself as any different from other Danish citizens.
Question Mark on Identity
She first heard about this new law change when she woke up one morning and checked her phone, falling over a new article published by the Danish news outlet TV2, titled “Adoptees are equated with immigrants in new legislation”. In her own words:
“Of course you feel very shocked at first because this places a direct question mark towards one’s identity. Not necessarily about how one understands their own, but more of how the Danish government understands it. I felt…not miscomprehended, but that there was a lack of understanding.”
She goes on to explain how she has never questioned her own identity of whether she was ‘Danish’ or that she was not on equally footing with other Danes.
“For me, being Danish is….it’s many things, but that sensation that you feel that you are Danish is probably the most important.”
Here, Amalie brings up a recurring theme when it comes to the backlash over the policy. What does it mean to be Danish? I asked Amalie if she thought this policy was green lit due to a lack of understanding over the unique position adopted children have:
“I think the issue is that adopted children have never been the ones that yell the loudest as we have always seen ourselves as Danish, and therefore it’s never been spoken about…. It’s such a small percentage of people who are adopted abroad (outside of EU) in Denmark, and they get overlooked. And I think again, when you see yourself as a part of the Danish society, it’s not that hard to gain that understanding of being Danish.”
Amalie has never experienced anything else, she has grown up in Denmark, with a Danish family, a Danish community, and speaks Danish as her native tongue (I can even tell you that she is a big handball fan, and it hardly gets more Danish than that).
“My adoption was not my own choice, but that of course does not change that I grew up as Danish, but now it feels the state is saying I am not Danish…what am I then?”
EU Specifications
We also took some time during the interview to discuss the specifics of the policy, namely how it only affects groups of people born or who have lived in non-EU nations.
“My feeling right now is that it reflects a bigger problem about discrimination, grouping people into two boxes, either you are in or not (EU versus ‘non-EU’). They do not say that local adoptees (as in children adopted in Denmark), are different from others, it’s specifically EU countries that are grouped together….what’s the difference between a newborn in Sweden and a newborn in India? Are you saying that a newborn already has a culture?”
While of course, adoptions can occur at any age under adulthood, the average age for each child when they are adopted is 3.5-years-old according to the AdoptionUK. In China, the average is even lower, around 1-year-old. It is around 3–5 years of age that children begin to form and understand social norms, and begin speaking in a normative language (with words such as should, must, do not). As psychologist Michael Tomsalleo writes:
“Different cultural groups have created different social norms for their particular local circumstances, and so of course young children must individually learn and enforce the particular local norms of their culture…. However, in general, it would seem that from an early age, young children in all cultural contexts are equipped with a kind of norm psychology in which they not only conform to the social norms of their group but also feel obligated to enforce those norms on others…”
So while there is an argument to be made about different cultural norms and values in different countries that affect how a child grows, children learn from the environment and context they are surrounded by. Most children are adopted around or slightly before this stage, meaning the child has yet to begin learning norms. Additionally, the EU itself is home to 27 different countries and 24 different official languages, showing huge variety in social norms and culture.
A potential reason for this specification could be assumptions about these groups of people effected by the policy, with the Minister of Employment Ane Halsboe-Jørgensen stating:
“In Denmark, everyone who can must work and support themselves. It is both fair and dignified for the individual. It is a matter of right and duty. Immigrants, especially women with a non-Western background, must experience that they have something to contribute and make a difference. That they have something to get up for in the morning. We are now ensuring this with a work obligation.”
Future Implications and Retraction
As mentioned, due to the amount of backlash, the law has now been changed and taken for review to exclude adopted children from non-EU countries. I asked Amalie what she thought about this change:
“I think it’s good that it’s being looked at again, and I hope the media presence will have an impact on future policies so we don’t end up in the same situation again.”
Even though the policy has changed, it still feels like the damage is done, causing stress and anxiety in Amalie and other adoptees. And one cannot help but think how this could potentially affect future adoptions. Amalie explains how her parents and other couples that adopted children were assured by the Danish law, that their children would be “seen as their own”.
“And now suddenly they don’t have the same rights…if the parents knew this would happen, would they then have chosen to adopt?… I could be scared that it would impact my own children, even biological, because they could question my children’s Danish identity.”
A Short Personal Note
After my interview with Amalie, we had a very insightful discussion of the idea of being Danish. Like Amalie was, I am actually still subjected to this law, as I was born and raised in South Africa before moving to Denmark in 2015. And even though I have a Danish biological parent, a Danish passport, and speak Danish. This law continues to affect me. Amalie and I were able to bond over this experience and the lack of choices we had, Amalie did not choose to be adopted, nor did I choose to live abroad. It stings especially that this law is retroactive, going back in time and effecting choices made by people who had no benefit of hindsight. As Amalie mentions, if her parents knew, if my parents knew, would they have made the same choices?
Ane Halsboe-Jørgensen in an interview with DR claimed that during the political negotiations, the government “were clear about the fact that 10% of the effect group would be Danish.” That is a large percent of people, out of a 100 people, that is 10 effected. One can hope that with the backlashes occurring over the new law that more consideration will be given to the people it effects, and consider the unique circumstances. There deserves to be more reflection on the multilayered nature of identity and culture, as it is clear that when one haphazardly draws lines on what counts as Danish, many individuals are caught in the crossfire.