Confiscating migrant's valuables to fund immigrant facilities

[sgtkate]

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.

 

Well, yes and no:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safe-third-country-cases-to-consider-asylum-application-process

 

So, they can claim asylum where they like, that is true, but the chance of being granted it here if they have ignored asylum in a 'safe third country' is diminished.

[999tigger]

Well, yes and no:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safe-third-country-cases-to-consider-asylum-application-process

 

So, they can claim asylum where they like, that is true, but the chance of being granted it here if they have ignored asylum in a 'safe third country' is diminished.

 

As i said, been over this extensively.

 

You can claim where you like, but some rules exist between EU members which are meant to decide which EU country takes responsibility in the first instance. There are exceptions to this which include being reuinyed with family members and the requirement only applies for asylum seekers making a claim in the first year.

 

Dublin is pretty much a busted flush as there have been EU cases stating it wont be applied on human rights grounds if the country you are returning them M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (M.S.S} a 2011 case found against returning asulum seekers to Greece on the basis they were at risk of persecution , which is the basis ofwhy you cna seek asylum.

 

Loob posted another case on Italy being adjudged the same, so the UK doesnt deprt back to eother of these countries. Mist seekers are entering the EU via Greece.

 

If you make a claim elsewhere or you have been fingerprinted, then that pretty much nails down your claim to that country, but most seekers know about this.

[cassity]

Politicians who've lost it when dealing with the 'crisis'. Yet they have the likes of the op chomping at the bit in order to mask the issue. Crazy and draconian.

[Quik]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/12096104/Danish-government-secures-backing-for-bill-on-taking-migrants-valuables.html

 

The danish government have secured a majority in parliament for the bill today, though engagement rings and medals will also be excempt.

 

I have no issue with refugees who can afford to pay for the hospitality they are offered doing so but stripping people of jewellery seems distasteful and (as specifically referenced in the article) mobile phones are so important in day to day life and especially in keeping in touch with relatives overseas it seems harsh to confiscate them.

 

This move seems less designed to deal with the costs of providing asylum and more to stop people coming to Denmark full stop.

[GLASGOWOODS]

Using jewellery? Or other valuables. So they'll snatch your engagement ring, Or the sentimental family heirloom ring from maybe their beloved granny, or whatever but leave you with your wedding ring?..It's just plain nasty...

 

Yes make them work for their keep, or when they're 'settled' pay back the costs...

 

---------- Post added 13-01-2016 at 09:30 ----------

 

 

Hahaha...Yes I thought that...But to me, that's just what this proposal in Denmark 'smacks' of.

 

But it makes a change for it to be at the beginning of a discussion, so I'm not totally sure it applies here...

 

Nothing new this.

 

I remember someone about 30 years ago (single mum) who asked the local authority for financial assistance, when moving into a flat. The cowbag behind the desk said to her 'why don't you sell the necklace you're wearing?

[tinfoilhat]

According to an expert on 5live now, it might not be legal under international law and the party pushing it are "like UKIP but further right".

[999tigger]

The PR on this move is a disaster. It has connotations with the Nazis and the jews.

 

They have no idea if it would be workable and its probably just a warning to deter people as they are paying for adverts in the refugee camps to make them aware.

 

The problem is with the word confiscation. They should have a lower amount for asylum seekers rather than give them full benefits and at some stage they should make that means tested.

 

They could also have legislation to make the granting of some permanent visas and citizenship come with some form of repayment proposal.

[spilldig]

Nothing new this.

 

I remember someone about 30 years ago (single mum) who asked the local authority for financial assistance, when moving into a flat. The cowbag behind the desk said to her 'why don't you sell the necklace you're wearing?

 

As you say, nothing new. In the seventies the job centre asked for a friends phone number. The day after the DHSS rang him and asked how he could afford a phone.

[Berberis]

Switzerland has now followed Denmark it would appear.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/15/switzerland-joins-denmark-in-seizing-assets-from-refugees-to-cover-costs?CMP=twt_gu

[PeteMorris]

Switzerland has now followed Denmark it would appear.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/15/switzerland-joins-denmark-in-seizing-assets-from-refugees-to-cover-costs?CMP=twt_gu

 

It's a bit of a worrying trend. However the article says it's only a fraction of people who are affected.

 

Personally, I wouldn't want to be a refugee in Switzerland. It costs a fortune to exist in that country. But hey ho. Your average refugee might not know that, or it might be the only place they managed to arrive at.