The Student Room Group

Denmark is stealing the belongings of refugees through new law.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by JuliusDS92
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?


1. Not all laws of any given country will apply to non-citizens. Your example serves nothing more than to consolidate, poorly may I add, your shaky logic behind refugees paying towards a welfare system that is not intended to support them.
Original post by Danny McCoyne
[...] refugees paying towards a welfare system that is not intended to support them.


How preposterous.
Original post by Danny McCoyne
There's something wrong with 'that' when they are stealing people's assets in exchange for squalid living conditions and contemptuous treatment. Using this so-called law as a veil is extremely cowardly and anti-humanitarian.


If they don't like it, they can actually follow the rules of asylum and claim it in the nearest safe country.
Original post by Danny McCoyne
1. Not all laws of any given country will apply to non-citizens. Your example serves nothing more than to consolidate, poorly may I add, your shaky logic behind refugees paying towards a welfare system that is not intended to support them.


But when the refugees arrive the welfare system WILL be supporting them so what's the issue with them contributing to it? Like you say it's not intended for them - it's for Danish nationals who have paid relatively high taxes because Denmark looks after THEM for it, not like here where lots of our tax ends up being spent on immigrants who haven't contributed at all...
Original post by MildredMalone
If they don't like it, they can actually follow the rules of asylum and claim it in the nearest safe country.


I love that everyone forgets this! Last time I studied immigration/asylum law it was that you go into the first country that can provide asylum. So how are these people travelling through multiple suitable countries to get to ones which give them the most attractive welfare packages, and that's supposedly acceptable now?!
Original post by Danny McCoyne
1. Not all laws of any given country will apply to non-citizens. Your example serves nothing more than to consolidate, poorly may I add, your shaky logic behind refugees paying towards a welfare system that is not intended to support them.


No, my example serves to illustrate that simply saying "They're not Danish citizens so laws don't apply to them" is wrong.

You've presumably recognised this, given that you've implicitly conceded that some laws apply to non-citizens i.e. saying "not all laws apply to non-citizens" implies that some do.

So now we can move on from that and you can say why exactly you think the law in question should ONLY apply to Danish citizens and not to others.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by infairverona
Actually, I don't really care about 'equality' here - refugees are asking for help, they therefore are not 'equal' to Danish citizens with regards to the benefits a citizen would obtain. That's certainly not the core of my own view - if you read my initial post, I said it 'could' be argued that it would be discriminatory to treat refugees differently than nationals, especially in this case where failing to seize the assets of refugees when this will happen to nationals seeking social assistance would mean that refugees are receiving preferential treatment to people who actually live in and contribute to Denmark. In my own personal view I don't think refugees should be given preferential treatment in this way.

.



If the refugees are "not equal to Danish citizens with regards to the benefits a citizen would obtain" then they shouldn't be asked to contribute towards the economy of a country which is meant to be offering them refuge. It's anti-humanitarian. This is something which you keep glossing over, you continue to be contemptuous towards the refugees and even here you're outright saying that the refugees should pay up with everything they have but concede that they will not be treated equally under the same system which they are contributing towards. It makes no sense.

How is it preferential treatment to receive temporary shelter in a refugee camp and a cold meal when you're fleeing a war torn country? You have a major chip on your shoulder here. Of course refugees should be cared for but this shouldn't give the Danish citizens who claim welfare any illusions about the refugees receiving preferential treatment, that's a completely convoluted and illogical way to think about it. Your argument could be taken one step further to suggest the Danish government is giving preferential treatment to the poorest in the country compared to the richest which is absolutely how it should be - those who are most in need should be supported. There's nothing wrong with that.


You're grasping at straws and frankly pulling nonsense to veil your disdain for the immigrants. Do you have any substantial arguments for why refugees should be taxed upon entry to a EU country?
Original post by Danny McCoyne
Danish MPs have passed a law that will allow the confiscation of refugees' valuables to help pay for their stay.

The controversial legislation also delays some families being reunified for up to 3 years but has been condemned by the United Nations and other human rights organisations.

It follows similar moves by politicians in Switzerland and southern Germany, meaning police will have licence to search asylum-seekers on arrival in the country with the power to confiscate any non-essential items worth more than 10,000 Danish kroner (around £1,000) so long as they have no sentimental value.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016...ushpmg00000067

This article makes me sick. Europe has lots anything that resembles humanity....


Why should economic migrants not pay their way?
Original post by Danny McCoyne
1. Not all laws of any given country will apply to non-citizens. Your example serves nothing more than to consolidate, poorly may I add, your shaky logic behind refugees paying towards a welfare system that is not intended to support them.


No, but they can do, and the argument in this case is that they should. If a Dane has to do x to get social assistance, a non-citizen should have to do the same, especially because they are non-citizens.*

Original post by Danny McCoyne
If they are not citizens then it follows that this law should not apply to them.


This part is the core problem in your reasoning. It is true that Denmark could, if it wanted to, extend more favourable rights to non-citizens than to its own people. Whether it should is an entirely different question, and it's not one that the legal system can answer on its own, given that the conclusion will be expressed in terms of how the legal system should operate.

*edit: So it has been argued, anyway. I take no view, I just want the assumptions underlying this to be clear so I can read a reasonable debate.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Perhaps you should exchange it for a Fail?

It's rather troubling that a person who has acquired a law degree (claiming to have 2.1 in the field) displays such disregard for logic and analysis, making such poor arguments so as to render them not even worthy of discussion.


If that was the level of teaching that I was exposed to, I'd definitely be asking for my money back in whatever godforsaken institution I was taught at.


Frankly I think you're too dim to understand what I was saying, someone else has already summarised my point far more eloquently than I did:

No, but they can do, and the argument in this case is that they should. If a Dane has to do x to get social assistance, a non-citizen should have to do the same, especially because they are non-citizens.*



If you can't get that then your views on who should and shouldn't be awarded a good law degree means nothing. The 'level of teaching I was exposed to' being a top 20 Russell Group university - whereas you are coming across like a 17 year old who has just discovered politics/critical thinking AS level.
Original post by infairverona

If you can't get that then your views on who should and shouldn't be awarded a good law degree means nothing. The 'level of teaching I was exposed to' being a top 20 Russell Group university - whereas you are coming across like a 17 year old who has just discovered politics/critical thinking AS level.


I think maybe he understands the distinction but is trying to be awkward for some reason. That seems to happen quite a bit on here :dontknow:
Original post by Squirrel777
Why should economic migrants not pay their way?


Why should a relatively rich country be taxing destitute people? There's a Humanitarian perspective in all of this which no one wants to acknowledge. Even refugees have Human rights and they shouldn't be treated with contempt.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Perhaps you should exchange it for a Fail?
.


Ad hominem.

You have brought nothing to the argument but insults directed towards her. Reported.
Original post by Danny McCoyne
If the refugees are "not equal to Danish citizens with regards to the benefits a citizen would obtain" then they shouldn't be asked to contribute towards the economy of a country which is meant to be offering them refuge. It's anti-humanitarian. This is something which you keep glossing over, you continue to be contemptuous towards the refugees and even here you're outright saying that the refugees should pay up with everything they have but concede that they will not be treated equally under the same system which they are contributing towards. It makes no sense.

How is it preferential treatment to receive temporary shelter in a refugee camp and a cold meal when you're fleeing a war torn country? You have a major chip on your shoulder here. Of course refugees should be cared for but this shouldn't give the Danish citizens who claim welfare any illusions about the refugees receiving preferential treatment, that's a completely convoluted and illogical way to think about it. Your argument could be taken one step further to suggest the Danish government is giving preferential treatment to the poorest in the country compared to the richest which is absolutely how it should be - those who are most in need should be supported. There's nothing wrong with that.


You're grasping at straws and frankly pulling nonsense to veil your disdain for the immigrants. Do you have any substantial arguments for why refugees should be taxed upon entry to a EU country?


Why are you surprised by my disdain? I've stated multiple times I do not think refugees should be given preferential treatment, meaning here that I think they SHOULD have to contribute when Danish nationals must also contribute in order to get this assistance. I don't think refugees should be so picky, frankly.

It has nothing to do with Denmark being rich, if they don't want to give their funds to refugees that's up to them. Would you find it acceptable if a poor country also wanted to seize refugee assets or would you think this is equally 'anti-humanitarian'? If so what is the value of your argument at all about Denmark being a rich country?

My argument is this. Denmark asks that its citizens surrender their assets if they are to claim social assistance. These citizens will presumably have been contributing in other ways also, such as taxes. They are therefore more entitled to this welfare than refugees because they have contributed to it. If refugees are then asking for this welfare (which is not theirs to take) and they are ABLE to contribute with assets in the same way that citizens can - who are MORE entitled to the welfare than they are anyway - then they properly SHOULD contribute if they want to benefit from the welfare. Not doing so would be selfish and I can completely see why these are the kinds of refugees that Denmark would want to deter at a time when they could be staying in the country indefinitely. This is precisely why Denmark is as rich as you keep stating, because they only want people in their country who are willing to contribute when they can. You've already said that they don't force the poorer refugees to contribute, they are simply asking that the better off (for want of a better phrase) refugees who CAN afford to contribute do so. I fail to see how that is unreasonable, at all. If you disagree, that is your choice. If you don't understand my argument, I can't make it any clearer.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Danny McCoyne
Why should a relatively rich country be taxing destitute people? There's a Humanitarian perspective in all of this which no one wants to acknowledge. Even refugees have Human rights and they shouldn't be treated with contempt.


There are people in the UK and Germany who are almost as worse off than these migrants are (now they're safe in the civilised world), yet these people STILL have to pay their taxes.

Your arguments are 100% fallacious.
Original post by Danny McCoyne
Why should a relatively rich country be taxing destitute people? There's a Humanitarian perspective in all of this which no one wants to acknowledge. Even refugees have Human rights and they shouldn't be treated with contempt.


Where did you get refugees from? UN stats put the number economic migrants at 80% year, the EU commission said 75% last year and recently 60%


Recently:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/growing-percentage-of-people-arriving-in-eu-are-economic-migrants-commission-says-1453815921

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/01/60-of-refugees-are-economic-migrants-dutch-eu-commissioner/

Last year:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2015/09/21/eu-data-shows-80-percent-of-migrants-are-not-from-syria-n2055060


And do not forget, many of them are criminals, rapists, murderers and so we must not treat them and pamper them if they wish to stay
Original post by TimmonaPortella
No, but they can do, and the argument in this case is that they should. If a Dane has to do x to get social assistance, a non-citizen should have to do the same, especially because they are non-citizens.*


By the same logic just because "they can do" doesn't mean they should or that one has to agree with them. These people are not citizens they shouldn't be judged by the same standard as the citizens of the country who have amassed wealth and social status which is not available to refugees. If you're, as a country, going to be selective about how you help desperate people who are fleeing war and abject poverty the least you could do is extend them some or all of the rights which you're granting your citizens especially if you are asking them to pay with all they have just because it's more than 1000 pounds.
(edited 8 years ago)
I am aware that the law of taking assets worth more than 1000 euros applies to Danish nationals that take out Danish 'benefits'. However supposing we have ; say a refugee fleeing a besieged Syrian with money and assets worth more than the threshold, it would be safe to assume that he won't be taking out any 'benefits'. Would such people still be liable under this law to claim asylum or live with refugee status and still have their assets worth more than a 1000 euros seized, even though they do not take out the Danish 'benefits'?

If the refugee were to take out benefits then I suppose we can't complain as the law would be equal for all. However if the refugee comes and doesn't take out their benefits then this is a different situation entirely.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Perhaps you should exchange it for a Fail?

It's rather troubling that a person who has acquired a law degree (claiming to have 2.1 in the field) displays such disregard for logic and analysis, making such poor arguments so as to render them not even worthy of discussion.


If that was the level of teaching that I was exposed to, I'd definitely be asking for my money back in whatever godforsaken institution I was taught at.

I personally think any degree apart from STEM degrees should be called banter degrees. So if you study a social science (Law, Economics, History etc) you have a degree in banter. Seems good to me and that's how I see it.
A countries own citizens come first, if you're not Danish you have no right to whine about how they run their country. If you want to change something do it at home although I suspect you're going to have a hard time doing that because most people are beginning to open their eyes. Also, they're doing this in an attempt to stop more refugees from entering the country, not just for financial gain if you read the article. Whilst it may not be a problem now it surely will be if it continues.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you