999tigger Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Assuming you're talking about Denmark, rather than having an AK47 shoved up your chuff, I have no idea if it would be worthwhile. It's up to the Danes to work out for themselves what their parameters are for a "worthwhile" outcome. I can see how it could stop lots of economic migrants from heading there which would be very worthwhile for Denmark. Not really. You would simply arrive with no money or make sure its untraceable if Denmark was your destination. You seem to have a think for AK47 and chuffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Ridiculous proposal that will only achieve that refugees are immediately stripped of any chances to add to society once they have been granted asylum. How are they expected to find housing? To pay for basics like washing machines etc. if all their money is stripped as soon as they come in? Pathetic reactive nationalism is what I call this sort of policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I didn't quantify a reason for or agains, I just pointed out how Max was incorrect. However, a refugee is not someone who chooses the best place for themselves to live. You cease to be a refugee once you leave the first safe location for a better place to live. You are a economic migrant which means you are no longer entitled to the kinds of support a refugee should receive, thus, paying for your life by any means available is acceptable. This isn't about penalising refugees, its about asking economic migrants to support themselves, which is reasonable. That is actually a fair point Berberis. And one that must be solved by the EU as a whole. In effect forcing Greece/Turkey to take in nearly all refugees, and the for other countries to treat them as economic migrants must change otherwise we risk total meltdown in Greece/Turkey (even more so than now). I've long supported to idea of relocating refugees to the 'best' country for them based on things like their skillset, family or friends already in another country, cultural links and economic state of EU members so no one country is unfairly burdened. For some reason the EU seem to constantly vote this down even though it seems like sensible suggestion. Once the refugee has been placed, they then become an normal economic migrant if they decide to move on and must then abide by whatever rules their 'new, chosen' country has on immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) Not really. You would simply arrive with no money or make sure its untraceable if Denmark was your destination. As I said, it's for Denmark to work out if it's a worthwhile proposal for them, which I can see it might be. Having said that, how would economic migrants hide money and valuables legally? You seem to have a think for AK47 and chuffs. It's a literary tool to highlight the stark difference between economic migrants and refugees. Obviously not a very good one since you seem to have missed the point. ---------- Post added 13-01-2016 at 11:29 ---------- Ridiculous proposal that will only achieve that refugees are immediately stripped of any chances to add to society once they have been granted asylum. How are they expected to find housing? To pay for basics like washing machines etc. if all their money is stripped as soon as they come in? Pathetic reactive nationalism is what I call this sort of policy. You have mixed up refugees with migrants. Schoolboy error for a foreigner. Edited January 13, 2016 by Eric Arthur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 You cease to be a refugee once you leave the first safe location for a better place to live. Not actually true. You might wnat to look up the rules about what defines a refugee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 On the surface it sounds a petty thing to do by the Danish Government . However , many of these refugees have paid thousands of euros to smugglers in order to make boat trips etc so it's reasonable to assume some of those seeking asylum have considerable assetts . When this news story first broke at the end of last year there was a report that some Danish people had to sell assets before they could claim unemployment benefit and there were Danish Government claims that benefit rules applied to everyone living in Denmark . Denmark has only a small population and it's easy to understand how an high number of immigrants , refugees or asylum seekers can be a big problem for the country . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lottiecass Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The thing is,that no country wants the migrants now they've got them and the reality has sunk in.The problems are starting to grow and things will not get better for the genuine refugees.Immigration is a red hot topic in Europe now,it needs a complete overhaul. I do not agree with taking valuables off them that is a low thing to do to someone who is starting a new life in a different country,it smacks of token gesture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Not actually true. You might wnat to look up the rules about what defines a refugee. Probably the wrong word. Asylum is the key term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Probably the wrong word. Asylum is the key term. You cease to be an asylum? Wouldnt make sense. You need to explain it better. I think you mean you cease to be in danger once you enter a safe country. This argument has been done to death. There is nothing which dictates where an asylum seeker has to claim asylum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SqueakyPete Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 It would be nothing but a silly token gesture. Lets say this actually happened,how hard would it be to hide your valuables/money when the law comes in? If a migrant came through with a ton of cash then fair enough,but I just can't see the majority of migrants having a "ton of cash" on them. Maybe Denmark could start taking gold teeth and spectacles while their at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now