Denmark approves controversial migrant assets bill

[MowCowWhoHow III]

Source: BBC

The Danish parliament has backed a controversial proposal to confiscate asylum seekers' valuables to pay for their upkeep.

Denmark says the policy brings migrants in line with jobless Danes, who must sell assets above a certain level to claim benefits.

MPs also backed plans to delay family reunions for asylum seekers.

The bill was expected to be approved even though it had been criticised by human rights groups.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35406436

[HassleCat]

1. If you can support yourself, you should do that.

What is the problem here? It's not as if this will affect a large number of refugees.

[pampango]

4. "I left with nothing. ... If I had jewelery, I would not be here."

Indeed, "this will not affect a large number of refugees".

But it does give the RW its anti-refugee talking point to impress its base.

[Yo_Mama]

6. Well - refuge doesn't mean offering a better deal than Danes get.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Certainly it would not deter anyone who really needed refuge.

The large issue is family reunification - this with the assets is just a diversion.

[pampango]

9. Few refugees will be affected anyway by this law but it does portray refugees as 'welfare queens'.

Well - refuge doesn't mean offering a better deal than Danes get.

I don't see anything wrong with this.

Agreed. And Danes have a good safety net. It should be good enough for refugees as well.

Passing a law like this, while there is substantially nothing wrong with it, allows the right to portray refugees not only as a burden (as Reagan did with his "welfare queen" portrayals back in the day) but as a dishonest burden. "Not only are they a burden on our welfare system, but they are cheating us by keeping large sums of money and jewelry rather than using that to support themselves.

If this is the only anti-refugee law that the right passes in Denmark it will not be a big deal since it affects few people. I suspect this law is just one step in the right's continuing campaign against refugees. There will be more.

[w0nderer]

2. K & R for visibility of this N/T

[FLPanhandle]

3. If Danish citizens have to live with that rule, then so should any refugee

Why should the Danish people have to not only pay for the refugees but have stricter requirements?

[inanna]

5. Kicking. n/t

[Quantess]

7. Smart move for Denmark politicians.

Voters will love this.

[LittleBlue]

8. Wealth seizures from the poorest people

You there! Yeah you, grandma! Hand over the necklace.

Just another day in enlightened and superior Scandinavia.

Imagine the reaction if we did this to immigrants.

[w0nderer]

10. you mean like having k-3 fiancees post a bond

so their fiancees won't become a liability === you do! (ie, if i had asked for cash welfare it'd have come out of my fiantees' bond

or having the immigrants not able to receive any cash welfare the first 5 or so years.....you do! (it will affect immigration status and renewal of greencard)

i guess....the "reaction" is "none" since the rules have been in effect more than 12 years

[LittleBlue]

11. Don't you think that is a bit different?

Asking someone who is marrying a foreigner to make bond is a bit different than asking refugees for their valuables. Their net worth is measured in whatever they stashed in grocery bags. It has virtually no value. Unlike you where you presumably have an American salary and disposable income.

[w0nderer]

24. actually you don't get to work on a k-3 k-4 visa

until you get a work-permit OR a greencard (has built in workpermit) (neither come automatically, ie have to be applied for and frequently take 1-2 years to get once you are state site) so NO, no US salary and disposable income to start with, except what you brought, if you brought some.

please notice one still pay US taxes before one can make money if one have income bearing interests outside of the US (bank account, investment, rent income) also notice the US taxes are calculated on the full value even if one is taxed in country of origin as well. most country tax on where a transaction is done or domicile is,US does it based on Citizenship or Immigration status (not filing taxes is considered a revocation/abandonment of immigration status).


---

Many of them(Migrants in Europe) aren't refugees, not by the Dublin agreement, not by the time they've passed 2-4 safe countries and they reach Germany, Denmark or Sweden.

at that point they are economic migrants 'shopping for the best deal'

Please make a distinction between:
refugee --runs from war, torture, persecution -- once applies for asylum becomes -- asylum seeker
migrant/immigrant -- anyone moving somewhere for any reason including 'love' or 'economy' (me for instance 'love' )

i know the press rarely makes the distinction, but without the distinction the discussion becomes meaningless

---

you >> Their net worth is measured in whatever they stashed in grocery bags. It has virtually no value.
if it has no value, then there is no problem, they get to keep the same amount a Danish citizen seeking (living benefits)gets to keep: 10 000 DKR and Cellphone and 'nostalgic value items' (wedding rings).

ie, only if they are carrying more than $1000+ per person in their 'grocery bags' will they get it taken away before they get money to pay fully for 'housing, power, heat, food, clothing, dental, health' which probably runs more than $1000 per month....wouldn't you say?

i know they do for me
and did for me in country of origin
even living cheap in both places

[pampango]

12. "Imagine the reaction if we did this to immigrants." Quiet! Don't give Trump any ideas!

[24601]

13. Poor, but not the poorest. To be supported by the Danes, some of which have even less than the

refugees, they need to meet the same [lack of] wealth limits. Without that requirement, it really would be the poorest Danes contributing to support the less poor refugees.

And we do have similar rules in the US - but for our elderly regardless of whether they were born here or immigrated. If you are relying on everyone else to pay for your nursing home via medicare, your assets can't be above a certain level. And if you think you are going to give everything you have to your kids and then be supported, you have miscalculated relative to the clawback provisions.

[Little Tich]

14. F**king racists.

This is just another move to try to demonize refugees. Patting down refugees for valuables gives the wrong message. Meanwhile, in Denmark:

Danish town makes pork mandatory in public institutions, pleasing anti-Islamic lobby
Source: ABC Australia, Updated 20 Jan 2016

Danish town makes pork mandatory in public institutions, pleasing anti-Islamic lobby

A Danish town's decision to make public institutions serve pork has won praise from the anti-immigration lobby, which cited its own "fight against Islamic rules and misguided considerations".

The move has drawn mixed reactions and been dubbed the Nordic country's "meatball war".

The town council of Randers in central Denmark said it wanted to ensure municipal institutions such as childcare centres provided "Danish food culture as a central part of the offering — including serving pork on an equal footing with other foods".

It said the aim was not to force anybody to eat anything that "goes against one's belief or religion".

However, the move was welcomed by the anti-immigration Danish People's Party (DPP), which said it was "unacceptable to ban Danish food culture".

Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-20/randers-denmark-makes-pork-mandatory-pleasing-anti-islamic-lobby/7100832

[bdwker]

15. Just my opinion but...

I think a lot of Europeans are tired of putting up with demands, threats , attacks and being forced to change their OWN culture.

[Little Tich]

17. Calling for measures to save the majority culture from "foreign" influences is often just a way to

mask racism.

[christx30]

27. And that kind of attitude from the left

is why the right keeps getting power. People are tired of having to give things up for people that supposedly need help. The word "racism" loses all power.
What changes in culture would you allow to keep the refugees happy? "We don't really approve of women voting". Or "women that don't wear much deserve anything that happens to them". Or "know what would be great? Banning alcohol and pork products!"
Where exactly are you willing to draw the line to avoid being called racist? What are you willing to give up?

[FLPanhandle]

16. Good for the Danes.

It's about not putting up with stupid religious rules. I wish the US would do a better job of confronting crazy Christians or other stupid religious demands.

[Nihil]

18. The only "F**king racists" on this thread are the supposedly progressive ones attacking the Danes.

Like the "f*cking racists" who turn "serving pork on an equal footing with other foods"
into "makes pork mandatory" ...

And the ones who think that matching behaviour in their own country is "a bit different"
whilst slagging off the same "enlightened and superior Scandinavia" that has accepted
way more of the current crop of refugees than the US has managed ...



As noted by others apaprently concerned about it being the thin edge of the wedge,
"there is substantially nothing wrong with (a law like this)" and "few refugees will be
affected anyway by this law".

Only someone seriously bigoted against the very Europeans who've been bending over
backwards to try to help this problem would accuse them as being "f*cking racists".

Oh, that sounds like you doesn't it? (Bless your heart!)

[Little Tich]

19. I'm just very sensitive to racism.

Denmark has a huge problem with racism, and the current political climate is very much hostile towards refugees. This new law about the assets of refugees doesn't reflect a real need to do something about it, rather, it reflects the feelings of hostility towards refugees that some politicians have chosen to give in to.

My opinion that those who pushed this law through are bunch of f**king racists still stands.

[Quantess]

20. What "race" would that be?

Muslims come in all skin colors, you know...

[smirkymonkey]

26. +1000

[w0nderer]

25. Pretty much a non issue

from article:"It said the aim was not to force anybody to eat anything that "goes against one's belief or religion"".
---

In both Denmark and Sweden (and I've gone to school in both places) (already as far back as 1975 when an older friend of mine started school) Parents of children could and can just like in the US hand in 'dietary observance' papers

looked something like:
---
This child is a:
vegan
vegetarian
Muslim
Jew
Won't eat for reasons of ethics: list of foods
Can't eat for reasons of allergy: list of foods
(parents name, students name, class student is in, date, signature)
---

Now if a US school was told to stop serving beef because the Indian Hindu population of the US was offended by it (beef being almost as central to US culture of food as pork is to the Danish (nordic actually))...would the US be racist for stating: 'no, we'll keep serving our local dishes and if you want an exception, we'll make separate plates for you with other food that you CAN eat when ever we serve what you can't eat'

or would the correct thing to do be, give up the local food culture, and adapt to the minority?

[PersonNumber503602]

28. This is something Denmark seems to do with anyone who seeks assistance

They don't seem to be doing it only to migrants. It doesn't seem to be based on xenophobia or racism, but rather just how they do things there.

[closeupready]

21. Despicable.

[closeupready]

22. The US should send Denmark a Marhshall Plan bill for $3B.

After all, if they can repay the US what they spent in their hour of need, then they should.

[pampango]

23. The "refugee agency UNHCR claiming it violates the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UN Refugee Convention.

But Rasmussen, whose Venstre party won a June 2015 election after promising an "immediate slowdown" of Denmark's refugee influx, has been unfazed, arguing that the UN Refugee Convention may need to be changed if refugees keep pouring into Europe.

Danish lawmakers last week also passed a resolution pushing the government to look into the consequences of building temporary housing complexes outside cities for refugees, like the country did during the Balkans war in the 1990s.

The move is backed by the anti-immigration Danish People's Party, which sees it as a first step towards building state-run camps where refugees would stay without integrating into Danish society.

http://www.thelocal.dk/20160126/danish-parliament-to-vote-on-controversial-migrant-bill

The far-right claims the refugees do not want to assimilate into Danish society then the far-right wants to build distant refugee camps to make it difficult for them to integrate into society.

The center-right government disagrees that this law violates the international agreements that the UNHCR claimed.

Liberal and left-wing European Union parliamentarians criticised the proposed bill and took aim at a new provision in Danish law that would delay family reunification for up to three years for people in need of temporary protection.

"This law ... goes completely in the wrong direction," Cornelia Ernst, a far-left German politician, said on Monday.

Cecilia Wikstrom, a Liberal Swedish politician, said: "You will never, ever convince me that this is either responsible or proportionate.

"It does not matter how serious the situation or how strong the pressure [is], we are the richest region on the planet. And if we are not taking responsibility, tell me who should do it then?"

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/danish-mps-vote-seizing-valuables-refugees-160126055035636.html