Denmark’s Revolt Against Refugees Includes Plan to Seize Gold and Cash
Um, well, this is one way to deter immigration
In September, the Danish government placed ads in Lebanese newspapers portraying Denmark as an undesirable local for potential refugees. The intent of course, was to deter would-be refugees from choosing Denmark as a potential home.
Fast forward to December and the Danes have upped the ante. New legislation would seize gold and cash from Syrian refugees.
The Washington Post reports:
The government is considering a law that would allow authorities to confiscate jewelry from refugees entering the country. The proposal is almost certain to pass Parliament.
“It is pretty telling about the current Danish policies that [some] are not quite sure whether this is a hoax or not,” said Zachary Whyte, an asylum and integration researcher at the University of Copenhagen. In this case, it’s real.
“The bill presented on 10 December 2015 provides the Danish authorities with the power to search clothes and luggage of asylum seekers — and other migrants without a permit to stay in Denmark — with a view to finding assets which may cover the expenses,” the Danish Ministry of Integration said in an email to The Washington Post.
Not limited to incoming refugees, the law would also apply to those already in the country.
It is included in an asylum policy bill that is expected to pass Parliament in January and would be set to take effect by next February. Police authorities would be allowed to seize valuables and cash amounts they deem expensive enough.
According to the Integration Ministry, “the new rule on seizure will only apply to assets of a considerable value.” Foreigners are expected to be able to “keep assets which are necessary to maintain a modest standard of living, e.g. watches and mobile phones. Furthermore, assets which have a certain personal, sentimental value to a foreigner will not, as a main rule, be seized unless they have [considerable] value.”
There were discrepancies in how the two main political parties are interpreting the proposed law. “Absurdly, the minister of justice initially explained the law on television by saying that it would apply to a hypothetical asylum seeker arriving with a suitcase full of diamonds. This prompted the Danish People’s Party to point out that items of smaller value should also be impounded,” Whyte said.
He thinks there is no need for the law. “Asylum seekers generally do not arrive in Denmark with large amounts of cash and jewelry,” he said.
The proposal “has been branded petty and cruel, and some opponents have asked whether the government would also be taking out asylum seekers’ gold fillings,” Whyte said. The idea of seizing jewelry from people who are fleeing has a particularly bitter connotation in Europe, where the Nazis confiscated large amounts of gold and other valuables from Jews and others.
The Danish Integration Ministry emphasized, however, that current rules already required refugees with sufficient financial means to pay for their stay themselves. Although the seized valuables are supposed to pay for refugee-related expenditures, the financial impact could be of less consequence. Experts say the Danish government is more interested in sending a message.
Danish officials in favor of the controversial legislation argue the pressure large numbers of refugees place on Denmark’s social systems as well the difficulty integrating those individuals are reason enough to deter more immigrants.
“Refugees who have been granted a residence permit can make full use of the free Danish school, education (including tertiary education) and health system on the same level as everyone else in Denmark,” the ministry said. Denmark also provides integration procedures that run up to three years and include language as well as job training, for instance. “The aim of the Danish integration effort is to support refugees in order for them to become participating and financially independent citizens,” the statement emphasized.
In an interview with Danish TV channel TV2 on Friday, Integration Minister Inger Støjberg refuted criticism of the proposal and said those drawing parallels to Nazi practices were wrong. The station also quoted Martin Lidegaard, a foreign affairs expert for the Social Liberal Party, as saying that the policy proposal could damage the country’s international reputation.
More discussion here:
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Put ads in Middle Eastern newspapers saying: We will take your gold and cash and use it to build Gay Bars. Then actually do it.
Where have we seen that before? Tell us, please.
Surely you aren’t comparing this to the seizing of gold, property, money – everything material – by the Nazis, who expelled or slaughtered the Jews in the Holocaust, are you? (History is rife with such anti-Semitism in Europe, dating all the way back to the Spanish Jewish purge ordered by Ferdinand and Isabella, actually.) Is that what you’re implying, really?!
These refugees choose to come to a country (in this case, Holland), seeking to live off the welfare state in Europe; they can go anywhere, and choose where they go, where they settle.
If the Dutch vote to allow officials to seize valuables to pay for the welfare they will inevitably receive, is that the same thing? Really?!
It’s Danes. Not the Dutch.
Can’t speak for Kemberlee, but Duh Donald has suggested “impounding remittances” from anyone in the US who is a Mexican.
Which could not possibly be legal.
I have heard that Trump said he would make renumerations effectively illegal, generally by banning things like bank transfers and Western Union transfers.
Of course if a person were to try such a transfer using fake information, the cash would be subject to confiscation like cash in any other illegal transaction.
Read “his” immigration paper. I have.
Raghead can’t defeat Trump with ideas so, like Hillary, she has to tell lies about him.
You a lawyer? Seem to remember that you said something before.
You must lose a list of cases. I can’t imagine any judge letting you get away with that.
“Yeah your honor. It’s in the record.” “Where?” “Someplace in X’s testimony.”
Where exactly in his immigration policy does he claim that? You’re the one claiming it not me.
I am a lawyer, you’re not a judge, and this isn’t a trial.
I have a simple rule: I never pour information into empty skulls on demand. I point to sources, and leave it to people to learn for themselves. Or wallow in their ignorance.
@Maximillian: you are the liar.
“Read “his” immigration paper. I have.”
No you haven’t. You cannot read. Otherwise you would back up your words. Just more lies from the #1 user of the word “lie”.
Read his paper, you lying sack of shit, Barry.
Here’s a pro-tip: ctrl-F, then enter the word “imbound”.
Here’s another: suck me.
You’ll bet better results by using “impound”.
Or you can use “remittance”.
And you can still suck me.
If you have an once of integrity, you’ll very publicly apologize.
But I won’t expect anything but more bullshit from you, being a Trump-sucker.
As is usual, you leave out the full story in your pathetic attempt to mislead.
Here is what you said:
“Can’t speak for Kemberlee, but Duh Donald has suggested “impounding remittances” from anyone in the US who is a Mexican.
Which could not possibly be legal”
Here is the pertinent part of Trumps immigration policy:
“…impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages”
Bolded the pertinent part for you. Money that is illegal has always been subject to impoundment.
I’ll wait for your apology, “you lying sack of shit”.
“Here’s a pro-tip”
You ain’t no pro.
As predicted. You have no integrity. What a lying SOS.
“Money that is illegal has always been subject to impoundment.”
“Illegal” money??? ALWAYS….???? That’s ANOTHER TWO lies, and you’re a liar.
Integrity bit you in the ass and you don’t know it.
Are you now going to say the government does not already confiscate money gained illegally? Let’s see how you twist this one. Hell, I might not like it, but they can and do confiscate money without an arrest.
You’re lying. Again.
There’s NOTHING “illegal” about paying someone wages. Cite me the statute that says otherwise, lying SOS. (BTW, T-rump does it.)
Now, CITE TO ME THAT HAS “ALWAYS” been the case, you lying SOS.
THEN, you can apologize to me for LYING about the FACT that I read the T-rump paper and used its OWN terms.
FINALLY, you can cite to me where REMITTANCES have EVER been “impounded”, or ANY legal support for doing that.
You’re WAY out of your depth, and you demonstrate that you have NO integrity.
“Are you now going to say the government does not already confiscate money gained illegally?”
Of course not. They ALSO seize money that is totally gained LEGITIMATELY.
Conservatives DEPLORE that. You used to pretend you were one.
Let’s start here:
“Conservatives DEPLORE that. You used to pretend you were one.”
As I said, if you could read:
“Hell, I might not like it, but they can and do confiscate money without an arrest.”
I didn’t say it was illegal to pay wages. Wages can be earned illegally. There is a difference, Mr. Lawyer. Drug “wages” are confiscated all the time, earned illegally.
Which is Trumps statement “…impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages”
“FINALLY, you can cite to me where REMITTANCES have EVER been “impounded”, or ANY legal support for doing that.”
Never said they had. The support for doing so is already stated.
Back to your original statement which I responded to:
“Can’t speak for Kemberlee, but Duh Donald has suggested “impounding remittances” from anyone in the US who is a Mexican.
Which could not possibly be legal.”
He suggested impounding illegaly gotten wages, which you left out. It could certainly be legal given we already confiscate illegal wages from other avenues.
It’s an immigration possition statement. It does not preclude passing a new law to make it possible.
“Drug “’wages’” are confiscated all the time, earned illegally.”
Keep twisting, liar.
You can’t answer my challenges. And no wonder. You are FULL of shit. And we all know it.
Here’s a question: if the “wages” from which “remittances” come are “illegal”, and we know that the earner IS an illegal (which is currently impossible), WHY are we just picking off what they send their families?
And what kind of YUUUUUUUGE new BIG GOVERNMENT bureaucracy be required to do that?
And how long would “remittances” follow the traditional routes?
And that’s going to build the “wall”? How stupid are you?
Correction: Denmark, Danes. My apologies.
Same points, regardless.
Well now! Recall that the Danes were the first to go Viking, IMMIC, at least on a HUGE scale. Recall that they took Iceland, then Greenland, which is either a Danish territory or was recently.
So, the Danes have always liked other people’s gold and jewelry, as did the other Nordic Peoples when they went Viking. Heck, they even liked the Russian Rivers, so, they took them too.
Wonder how the rest of the EU will respond to this Danish endeavor and more to the point to the new Muslim invasion. Who will defend Vienna these days? And, Obama 1st wants the USA to be more like the Euros? Really?
Cash and gold. Don’t leave home w/o it.
Yes, Jews know that lesson well.
That’s an obscene comparison.
The Danes are not putting migrants on trains to extermination camps. They’re just taking the position that migrants should not expect to be supported by Danish citizens until they’ve first used their own resources for their own sustenance.
Why is such an obvious difference so hard for you to see?
That is a blatant lie. How are you not ashamed to lie like that?
The Danes are taking the exact opposite position: rather than expecting people to support themselves, they’re proposing to rob people of the means to do so.
This is outright theft, and impossible to justify. No, it isn’t exactly like what the Nazis did, since it’s the destination country doing it, not the country of origin, and if they know in advance that if they go to Denmark they will be robbed then they will stay away from Denmark, which is the objective. But it’s nearly as bad. The excuse that the money will be used to pay for refugee services is specious; what right do you have to confiscate one person’s life savings to pay for someone else’s services? This is all the person has with which to start a new life; how can you take it from him? If someone comes in with a suitcase full of diamonds, they are unlikely to qualify for welfare, so exactly what are you making them pay for?
Come ON, Milhouse, you’re being hyperbolic again!
It is NOT a “theft”, but a voluntary exchange in the circumstances, and NOTHING like the confiscation of property by the Nazis all over occupied Europe.
NOBODY is compelling any “refugee” to settle in Denmark, and NOBODY is compelling them…or their assets…to stay.
None of the “refugees” have a right to a freehold on Danish soil, and they’re put on notice of the new law.
They have choices, and they can make a “market” decision.
“Voluntary exchange”?! What are they getting in return for all their wealth? Refugees are looking for somewhere, anywhere, to live in safety, and aren’t in a position to bargain. All this is telling the world is that Denmark would like to be known as a nation of armed robbers, and not a safe place where people can find refuge. What would you think of a country that demanded sexual favors in return for allowing refugees to settle there?
Milli, you seemed to be forgetting that they carry a book, the Koran, that has rules. If you convert to Islam and castration, you are allowed to live and serve them as a slave if they feel merciful. Your female friends will be raped as long as any of Muslims want to do that. That is the rule. If you burn their Koran, their rule, they try to kill you. Yet, you complain about taking their cash and jewelry?
I’d say that they would have no refugee problem. Unless Achmed decided to use one of his four wives as payment.
It’s simply false to say that all those people are looking for “somewhere, anywhere to live in safety.”
A great many of the migrants are coming from places that are not at war. And most of them are NOT stopping in the first safe place they reach. They’re mostly trying to go to Germany or Sweden — the most generous welfare states.
The bargaining power they’ve been using is to complain bitterly when the lodgings don’t please them, throw away food that isn’t to their liking, set fire to their temporary housing, refuse to get off the buses if they’re driven to a scenic village that isn’t cosmopolitan enough, riot now and then, and harass the locals.
What right do all those people have to make material demands on others before using their own resources first?
The people the Danes propose to rob are making no demands of anybody. By definition they are able to support themselves, and there is no reason to believe they are in any way reluctant to do so. They are no more responsible than you or me for the support of other refugees.
“The people the Danes propose to rob are making no demands of anybody.”
Seems they’re demanding to live in Denmark.
No more than any refugee demands to live in the country he alights in.
They are demanding it. They have no “right” to demand anything. And they are not refugee’s, they are invaders.
“What are they getting for all their wealth?”
Sanctuary? Safety? Economic opportunity? Freedom of religion?
If the immigrants want to a make the case that what they’re leaving behind is so dangerous and/or intolerable that the Danes (or anyone else) must let them in for moral or humanitarian reasons, then I’d think they’d be grateful for being let in under any circumstances. If their situation isn’t so bad that they’re not willing to trade some cash and valuables for the relief, then they don’t really need sanctuary, they’re just looking for a free ride and a place to spread their religion.
Just because it’s been traditional to allow people into a country free of charge doesn’t mean the immigrant has a right to barge into a country for nothing. It just means that up until now, the host country hasn’t seen fit to levy a fee. If the immigrant thinks what that country offers is valuable enough, he’ll gladly pay. If not, he can stay home, or go somewhere else.
“What are they getting for all their wealth?”
Sanctuary? Safety? Economic opportunity? Freedom of religion?
And the Nazis offered the right to leave, in return for all you owned. This is no different.
There are costs. There is no free lunch: If a family of 3 or 4 wanted to migrate to Australia the cost would be roughly 30 – 40 000 AUD or 21,564.47 to 28,753.32 USD
It takes money to feed and house migrants and medically care for migrants.
Yes, there are costs. Why should the victims of this proposed robbery pay those costs? How is it more their responsibility than anyone else’s? People of means can and should be expected to pay their way — but that is the exact opposite of what the Danes are doing.
Does the theater owner rob you when you go to see a movie? Nobody compels you to go to any specific movie – you choose which you want to see. When you go to the theater, you make what you must believe is an even or fair trade – your cash for admittance to the theater, for the pleasure of seeing a film.
If refugees come to the border and believe what you have within your borders is worth their while, they will pay and be glad to do so. If not, then they want something (refuge, food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, etc.) for nothing. In the past, that “something” was “assimilation.” Today, this country doesn’t even charge that. Also in the past there were no freebies – immigrants came here for one thing – work. The cost of entrance here was a willingness to do hard, low-pay, and thankless work. It may not have been great, but it was better than what they were escaping, or they wouldn’t have come.
Nobody is forcing Denmark to hand out any freebies. If it chooses not to do so, or to do so only to those who have no means of their own, that’s it’s business. But that does not give it the right to loot the arrivals, any more than my giving someone a sandwich gives me the right to then mug him “in return”.
“what right do you have to confiscate one person’s life savings to pay for someone else’s services?”
So you’re saying the government of Denmark shouldn’t be able to say, tax the entire taxpaying population of Denmark in order to pay for the services being provided to refugees?
That wouldn’t be fair, right? Why should the government be allowed to take somebody’s property and use it for somebody else’s benefit?
The Danes are dealing with a crime wave. Maybe they have gotten sick of it.
And are responding by turning into criminals themselves.
Uh, how is passing a law criminal? I think you’ve lost your balance, good buddy.
Robbery is no less a crime because a legislature endorses it.
Nobody is robbing anyone. The deal is “you come here, you pay a fee equal to your ability to pay.” If you don’t like the deal, don’t go. A robber offers nothing to his victim, Denmark offers much.
If you still insist this is robbery, make your argument that Denmark offers nothing in return for what they propose to charge. (I do not say “what they propose to take” because it’s not a “taking”; they are setting rules for people who are choosing to come to their country – people who can make a choice to go elsewhere, so there’s no compulsion involved.) If Denmark offers anything in return for cash, it’s not robbery, it’s a demand for consideration in return for what is offered.
“Everything you have” is not “a fee equal to your ability to pay”. Fees must be reasonable, or they are not fees but confiscation. Which is exactly what this is, and you know it. Refuge should be free, and nobody is forcing Denmark to give them more than refuge. If you disagree then explain why the Nazis were not justified in charging such a “fee” for the right to leave in one piece?
Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, the last refuge of a man with a baseless argument.
Get back to me when you can make a case that people were trying to get into Nazi Germany and having their possesions confiscated.
Otherwise, your full of it.
Any cash or jewellery must be confiscated and used to pay for the costs of deportation back to wherever it was they came from. It is immoral to make Danish taxpayers pay for that.
The U.S. government has been confiscating part of my earnings for as long as I’ve been working to redistribute it to someone else. I never had any say in the matter. I could not opt out and choose not to pay. It’s just that sometime before I was born 535 people in Washington D.C. voted to steal part of my lifetime earnings so they could give it to someone else and pretend that THEY are the compassionate ones.
You refugees may think you are having your property stolen from you, but it’s really just politicians voting to be compassionate with your property. It’s what they do. Welcome to the West!
Part of your earnings. Not all of them.
They are trying. They just haven’t gotten there yet.
It is taken as a matter of course that any refugee who settles in Denmark and earns money there will be taxed at the same rate as any other Dane. Nobody imagines otherwise, and of course no legislation is needed for that. This is not about that; it’s about blatant robbery, and if any US government tried such a thing it wouldn’t last 30 seconds in court.
Why do you assume they will be?
Literally millions of illegal immigrants to the US don’t pay takes.
They either work in the underground economy or they fake credentials until caught and then move on with new fake credentials.
Citizens have rights with respect to their own governments that immigrants and refugees do not have. In this country, citizens are here by right, while refugees and immigrants are here by civil law – i.e., permission or leave of the government – and are subject to rules that don’t apply to citizens.
Danegeld, an old Danish tradition. The barbarians are coming to Islamicize Europe and expect to live off of th European taxpayer while they do it. Levy a hefty danegeld, cast them out if they cannot pay. They are not refugees; they are invaders. Milhouse, there is a difference between the two.
Danegeld is indeed an old Danish tradition, from when the Danes were barbarians. So were murder, rape, and slavery.
These people are refugees, and you have no foundation for your claim that those with enough means to be worth confiscating expect to live of anyone.
The people should confront the individuals and institutions that advocate for anti-native policies, including Obama et al who enabled the Islamic State to develop, sustained the conditions for a refugee crisis, and, now, instead of helping people reclaim their lives and homes, are shifting responsibility for its resolution.
It started with premature evacuation from Iraq. It progressed with the disastrous social justice movement, “Arab Spring”. It reached a milestone with a denial of responsibility and backing of terrorist and “rebel” factions. It was exacerbated with the implementation of anti-native policies, including shifting the resolution to communities around the globe.
I can’t help but wonder if elective abortion, and, apparently, clinical cannibalism, lobbied by Planned Parenthood et al was simply an effort at population control and voluntary exploitation. It created a human deficit that would be filled through excessive, illegal, and refugee immigration to progress an anti-native agenda. Class diversity schemes deny the moral principle and biological fact of individual dignity and uniqueness, respectively. Elective abortion is a second choice normalized by a quasi-religious doctrine, “pro-choice”, pulled from a penumbra.
You said: “I can’t help but wonder if elective abortion, and, apparently, clinical cannibalism, lobbied by Planned Parenthood et al was simply an effort at population control and voluntary exploitation.”
Of course Planned Parenthood was started as an effect to control populations, especially of those people that Margaret Sanger did not like, and that especially meant the Black peoples, perhaps also Slavs, perhaps also other ethnic groups she didn’t like, including Romas (Gypsies). Sanger also wanted to rid people she thought were undesirable genetically. She believed in eugenics, a crass and inhumane system belief in removing what she deemed mistakes of nature.
Sanger was known to frequent KKK rallies and they were supporters of her activities. Sanger had support from many on the Socialist spectrum, her thoughts and beliefs were highly admired by many like minded Europeans and by some in the Woodrow Wilson Administration.
It truly boggles the mind that Sanger has been included of the 100-most influential Americans! She is still honored by Democrats today. Realize also that her concept of Planned Parenthood was to locate those offices close by Black majority neighborhoods; in NYC very recently, more Black babies were aborted in a year than born; she was very successful in reaching her goals, to America’s everlasting shame.
These fake Refugees who come from poor countries and expect the host country to give them money ,an Apartment, an income for ten years , and now in the USA, they demand a car. We pay a lifetime paying Social Security Taxes. They come here and Obama signs them up for SS., after not even ever having paid into it. They all immediately sign up for all the children and add to them every year.THEY ARE INVADERS, THEY ARE NOT REFUGEES.