Seizing Migrants' Assets
By marcyaz
@Marcyaz (35316)
United States
December 29, 2015 6:58pm CST
I was reading on the BBC site that Denmark wants to seize (by the police) the assests of asylum seekers so they can pay for their housing, healthcare and education although things like wedding rings, watches and such.
This law would only apply to items worth more than four hundred and thirty dollars or tangible assets of a considerable value.
What do you think of this should migrant's have to pay if they have funds?
Picture by Free Images
14 people like this
15 responses
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
30 Dec 15
I do fully condone this action because they claim to be searching a peaceful and safer life for their families, which is now being offered to them. To expect the country's present population to finance this is the migrants have available funds is quite unfair.
However, I have to feel that a wedding ring should be exempt from this because it is not just valuable financially but also of major significance to the parents concerned.
7 people like this
@Fleura (34962)
• United Kingdom
23 May 16
@Asylum as soon as this was known people would immediately rush out and buy the most expensive diamond-encrusted wedding rings and claim they were exempt. Some people don't wear wedding rings so they would not be subject to this exemption.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
23 May 16
@Fleura If a family from a poor country has a very expensive wedding ring then it should not be exempt since it is clearly bought for one reason. Such people should be deported because they travel here requesting asylum and their first act is to secrete their wealth and attempt to scrounge off the country's workforce. We have enough parasites of our own.
1 person likes this
@troyburns (1405)
• New Zealand
30 Dec 15
Non-essentials like watches could be forfeited, perhaps, but wedding rings are another matter. I don't like the idea. Superficially it makes sense but it does seem like an administrative nightmare if we're talking about refugees.
3 people like this
@Marcyaz (35316)
• United States
30 Dec 15
@troyburns
At least it is something since they originally did not want to let any refugees in their country until Germany stepped in about it and they changed their mind.
3 people like this
@Marcyaz (35316)
• United States
30 Dec 15
Why do people seem to think all refugees are destitute, there are some who have enough and this way it helps with the expenses that they incur in their new country. @troyburns
4 people like this
@troyburns (1405)
• New Zealand
30 Dec 15
@Marcyaz - I don't think anyone supposes that all refugees are destitute, but enough of them are to make this policy more trouble than it's worth. The assets recovered probably won't cover much more than administering the search and sell procedures. Denmark's idea is primarily to deter potential migrants - There are far better ways of making money from them.
3 people like this
@moffittjc (128832)
• Gainesville, Florida
30 Dec 15
I think it is only fair to ask them to contribute something, but I'm wondering how successful the government will be in collecting. I would think that most migrants probably arrive in the country with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. I could be wrong, but that is how I envision most immigrants to a country. I'm sure there are wealthy or middle class immigrants, so they should contribute something, I just hope the government doesn't take all of a family's assets!
3 people like this
@Marcyaz (35316)
• United States
30 Dec 15
the government has not said they would take everything just some assets to help cover their expenses. Not all immigrants are poor. @moffittjc
2 people like this
@moffittjc (128832)
• Gainesville, Florida
30 Dec 15
@Marcyaz It's nice that they don't plan to take everything. I just can't fathom the magnitude of the government trying to track down and verify the assets of each and every immigrant who comes into the country. That's going to take a lot of resources to do (which means even more tax dollars spent on immigrants)!
3 people like this
@Fleura (34962)
• United Kingdom
23 May 16
@moffittjc Presumably they have to track down all those who claim benefits in order to pay them, If they don't claim they won't need to hand over any assets.
1 person likes this
@just4him (323168)
• Green Bay, Wisconsin
31 Dec 15
@Marcyaz Wisconsin has stopped paying welfare checks unless it's different if you have kids. When I lost my job and couldn't find another for over two years, I only got foodshare and healthcare. I didn't get any money to pay any housing bills - mortgage or utilities. So my home is in foreclosure. It would have been nice if I would have gotten a job, but that didn't happen no matter how many I applied for. I was very happy when I turned 62 and could apply for Social Security. It's made a world of difference to me. All my bills are paid on time, and the only thing I'm still working on is saving my home.
2 people like this
@Morleyhunt (21741)
• Canada
30 Dec 15
If they are truly refugees, how much of value would they have. Wedding rings should be exempt. Significant 'family' jewelry should may be be 'pawned' so they can redeem it when they are self sufficient and solvent.
3 people like this
@Marcyaz (35316)
• United States
30 Dec 15
Some refugees flee with their valuables not all are destitute. Why not take the family jewelry now to help out with the cost of housing, feeding, etc. @Morleyhunt
1 person likes this
@troyburns (1405)
• New Zealand
31 Dec 15
@Auntylou - Exactly. Major public works can offer both opportunity and community for migrant workers. Australia's post-war Snowy Mountains Scheme employed almost 100,000 immigrants, for example.
2 people like this
@suzzy3 (8341)
•
30 Dec 15
Depends on the level of wealth . I think most refugees or asylum seekers would be only to happy to donate towards the cost as they are not looking for any easy ride they are looking for a safe place to live. Bearing in mind most of these people fled their country quickly giving most of their money to people smugglers.
2 people like this
@scheng1 (24649)
• Singapore
30 Dec 15
I think a better idea is to get them to work, and then pay for the accommodation.
Seizing assets is not a good idea.
It is like legalized theft, and if you get corrupted police officers who take items for personal use, nobody will dare to report them.
2 people like this
@GreatMartin (23670)
• Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
31 Dec 15
How many of them will have such assets? Most of them have lost everything just getting across to Denmark. Foolish politician grandstanding.
2 people like this
@Marcyaz (35316)
• United States
31 Dec 15
I don't believe that just like other people don't believe it either. What makes you think no one in that country has anything. It is not foolish politician grandstanding. They are lucky Denmark is even willing to take them in and provide for them so why not see if they can recoup something.
1 person likes this
@DeborahDiane (40845)
• Laguna Woods, California
30 Dec 15
I do think that a migrant who has been invited into a country and will be cared for, should be willing to contribute whatever they can to their care. I hope that the migrants are also being given the opportunity to get jobs and rebuild their assets.
2 people like this
@Marcyaz (35316)
• United States
30 Dec 15
I do agree that the migrants should contribute whatever they can and I am sure they will be looking for work as soon as possible. @DeborahDiane
2 people like this
@DeborahDiane (40845)
• Laguna Woods, California
31 Dec 15
@Marcyaz - I am sure that you are right!
2 people like this
@TiarasOceanView (70020)
• United States
1 Jan 16
Those that can contribute, I see nothing wrong in it.
