Denmark is stealing the belongings of refugees through new law.

I disagree. I am actually quite disgusted with some of the stories about the refugees in the paper - obviously exaggerated, but they have complained about the colours of the door on their FREE housing, complained about wearing a wristband that ensures they are given free food and is not dissimilar to the kind you wear in an all inclusive holiday resort, and then today/yesterday when a 15 year old refugee stabbed a 22 year old girl working to help the refugees. This is NOT the kind of behaviour or attitude I would expect from someone who has fled a war torn country...if that was me I would be grateful for my life, grateful that someone had given me a free house and food - it's not like we don't have any homeless people sitting on the streets who we haven't housed, or poor families who are using food banks who are not being given this free 3 meals a day - they should be grateful that Denmark will take them at all and if taking their assets is in exchange then so be it. Why should they get a free ride if they've got assets worth a substantial sum anyway? I have no issue with it, good on them. Fed up with England lying down for anyone who wants to come here and giving everyone free stuff.

Ding, ding, freaking ding. You finally get it. Since the refugees are not citizens and are seeking refuge, temporarily, they should not be contributing to the economy of a country which is giving them said refuge at least not through the belongings which they carried on their backs from their war torn countries, instead how about you offer them jobs? You see, it defeats the whole purpose of offering asylum and being humanitarian when you ask said asylum seekers to sustain themselves.

I've already just said to you that I don't care about the nationality argument. They're not going to be 'normal Danes' because they are not national, they are guests in that country and if that country requires that people in Denmark need to give up assets in exchange for social assistance then that is what the refugees will have to do. Denmark, unlike the UK, actually puts its own nationals first and I am glad to see a country that isn't going to give preferential treatment to refugees when their own citizens have to give up their assets too. If you don't like my 'logic' I couldn't care less, I'm not writing an essay or taking part in a formal debate I'm just voicing my opinion.

It's not that "I don't like your logic", I'm telling you that your logic is flawed because it is inherently contradictory.


You don't need to like it but it does render your opinion invalid.

That's your opinion.

The fact that you think statements of facts are merely opinions means that I can't be bothered discussing anything further with you.

1/ I'm not sure why their being citizens or not is relevant.

2/They're not being asked to sustain themselves. They're being asked to contribute what they can. If they have nothing (or below a certain threshold) to contribute, they're not being asked for anything.

You said it yourself, these so-called stories are exaggerated and they are promulgated by the anti-immigration lot so take everything you read with a massive pinch of salt. You can't judge all the refugees by a few bad eggs, that's discriminatory and prejudicial in and of itself. There are thousands of refugees, the ones you hear about on the news are not a representation of the quality of all the immigrants. Imagine if we judged all white people by all the Dylan Roofs of the world - that wouldn't be fair or smart.

Most of these people gave entirety of their fortune to cross from Turkey to Greece. They are not Danish citizens, you can not treat them like a Danish citizen. If you want to treat them like a Danish citizen, make them Danish citizen. Using danish citizenship in your arguments is a dead end. From economical perspective, I've already addressed how useless this law is. This is a symbolic law, nothing more and motives behind it is crystal clear


The only reason why this law exist is due to Danish government's distaste towards Muslim refugees and an attempt to change people's mind over coming to Denmark. Which is why I used the word disgusting in my OP.

Are you studying AS level critical thinking or something? How big of you.

You're stating YOUR opinion and making it look like fact. Weak argument 101.

1. It's absolutely relevant to talk about citizenship, since this law applies to Danish citizens and that was the main argument of people who support the Danish government taxing destitute asylum seekers. If they are not citizens then it follows that this law should not apply to them. Most of these refugees are not staying in Denmark indefinitely, they are fleeing war. It's anti-humanitarian to make them pay when you open your borders to them and let them walk in then next thing (during the night) you steal what little stuff the could carry with them. It's disturbing to me.

2. If it's not mandatory to contribute i.e. if you are a poor, then this law makes no sense from an economical perspective. The belongings of Syrians are not going to contribute to Danish economy in any significant way. Even if we assume that 30% of the refugees (8k refugee out of 25k) have belonging worth of $10k, which is a very very very fudged figure, and the government is able to take them it, will amount to ~$80 million. This is not a significant money for Denmark government.

Thus your whole argument that people shouldn't be shocked that refugees are being asked to help pay towards their keep falls completely flat.

The only other explanation for this law and those who support it is racism and islamophobia.

One doesn't even need to attend school to see the glaring errors in your thought process.

1/ You don't have to be a citizen of a country for the law to apply to you.

If I went to Denmark tomorrow and stole a few cars, how far do you think the "I'm not a citizen so the law doesn't apply to me" argument would get me in court?

I don't see anything wrong with deterring refugees. Not all countries want a flood of people who won't benefit the country or their citizens. Denmark look after their own and put their nationals first. If you're really so terrified for your life you won't care about material possessions, you would just be grateful to be alive and safe. Can't have it both ways, you're in need of help you go by what the country taking you in tells you and if you don't like it then piss off elsewhere

Why in the world a right-wing government of a fairly rich country tries to take the belongings of already troubled and dead poor refugees in the name of "contribution"? We all know those who have valuables won't give up on them so easily. Why even waste your time in such impractical law? They know overwhelming majority of them are broke. I can think of several reasons why they are treating the refugees with contempt, chiefly because most of these people are Sunni Muslims. Sunni Muslims in Syria are the poorest. The rest is Afghani and others, again dead broke. Overwhelming majority of these refuges are really poor.

The total amount of refugees they currently have is around 25k. I believe this figure also includes people sought refuge before Syrian civil war. What could be the effect of these people to their economy?
I am not sure about work permits, but if refugees can work there, we can also assume that some of them are going be working and contributing to the economy. So it's unnecessary to take their items and money.

One doesn't even need to attend school to see the glaring errors in your thought process.

There is something absolutely wrong and anti-humanitarian about deterring refugees with taxation that makes absolutely no sense. If you don't want any refugees close your borders, don't open them then stitch the poor and war-roughened people who you take in with costs that they shouldn't be subsiding since it's your responsibility to do so not the people who you claim to be helping should be paying for themselves by giving you everything they have, which is not much.

Are you claiming this law is based on some idealistic equality paradigm or what? If that's the case, Danish government should extend the various merits to refugees. If it's all about easing the economical burden, it ain't gonna work. Core of your argument is equality and it's nowhere to be found...It's a cheap move at best, institutionalized distaste at worst.

My god. You can't and shouldn't compare the Danish treatment of the refugees to that of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis, how dare you.