SURVEY: Do you believe European countries are justified in seizing asylum-seekers assets?

[billd766]

I voted yes but want to nuance my vote.

I would say "No" for asylum seekers who just require asylum and nothing else, i.e. they have the means of paying for themselves.

For asylum seekers who need aid, then yes.

To those who say asylum seekers should be allowed to keep their assets, please consider that a country's own nationals have to use up their wealth before they can be granted welfare. Allowing asylum seekers to keep their assets would give them an advantage over nationals, which is not acceptable.

I do not believe that a genuine refugee would have any assets with them, so how could they be seized?

Illegal economic immigrants should be deported straight away.

We are always hearing that asylum seekers have everything stolen on the journey, so how could they have any assets- are the governments planning to extract gold teeth?

Whatever, asylum seekers should not be given welfare. Put in a camp and given food medical treatment, but no money. Citizens are living on the streets and begging- take care of your own first.

But all you have suggested comes at a price.

First a camp has to be built to a fairly high standard, then it needs to be equipped, electricity, gas, water sewage laid in, roads built, medical facilities built and staffed, canteens etc to be built and staffed and the correct type of food provided, educational and teaching facilities to be supplied and staffed, translators will be needed, religious facilities to be supplied and staffed, security, communications etc will all need to be supplied and all at the expense of the host country. If this is not done correctly all the PC, human rights, tree huggers and what ever will be screaming about it and taking their own country to court.

How long will the refugees be expected to live in those camps and how many camps will need to be built every year to cope with the ongoing influx of "refugees"?

The money will have to be found from somewhere and that will come at the cost of the people of the host nations by either raising taxes or cutting other budgets.

Whichever way you look at it the people of the host nation will lose and the refugees will win.

What's the role of the UNHCR, if not to spend UN funds for this purpose?

The UN has no money or country of its own. It has to to rely on fund and donations from many countries.

Where does the UNHCR get its funds from?

From the "rich" western countries and where will they place those refugee camps?

In the same "rich" western countries who now have to perhaps pay double, fisrtly to the UN and secondly to build and staff the camps etc.

As an aside have you noticed that so many of the UN vehicles are Toyota Land cruisers. Big, heavy, expensive, gas guzzling monsters.

[manarak]

the thread is only about asylum seekers and about seizing assets.....

So all you YES voters will justify robbery and crime by seizing their assets (if there are any)?

Shame on you. They risk their life to flee murder, bombs and terror and you want to take some belongings.....Do you think they leave their home country just for fun???

They can keep their assets if they can sustain themselves.

Aid should only be granted to persons unable to provide for themselves, as is the case with nationals.

I can't understand why you want to force nationals to sell their assets and use up their wealth before being eligible for welfare, but asylum seekers should be granted the right to keep their assets?

Some come in with several tens of thousands worth of jewelry and gold - this is of course only a very small minority, but still...

[Friendly Stranger]

Why is it that western, non Moslem countries seem to be taking in huge numbers of largely, Moslem men of fighting age, and very few women, children or Christians. Surely they are the ones that are the real refugees in need of help. Just as there are Moslem Islamic countries within walking distance of Syria, (Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Yeman and even Iran, that have refused point blank to accept any people.....

Facilitating millions of men of fighting age leave their country, and agueably their woman and children behind, is nothing more than facilitating in the murder of those woman and children. Why not send 50,000 well armed and trained troops to completely overwhelm the barbaric savages of ISIS, and train and assist these men of fighting age, is the only answer to ever regaining control of the country.

A large number of these, so called Asylum seeking refugees, are in fact ISIS, as they stated in Apr 2015, that they would send their murderous troops into western countries amongst the refugees to carry out jihad in all western countries, by the end of 2015. And a large majority of the rest are economic invaders... The war is now in our countries......

I hear this a lot. Glad that Canada has decided to only take in families. No single men. Unsure of the future but glad this was at least decided upon.

A little off topic but you should see how the media is covering this as if these ppl landed on the moon. Lets see what summer brings that this has played through and that no one gets caught up on the dark side.

[landslide]

Let them keep their assets, but make it clear that there will be no financial support from the governments. Zero. Immigrants are fighting to get to Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Britain especially, because they know that they will be given a financial and housing stipend, medical paid by governments, and with no obligation on their part to attempt to learn the culture and language of their adopted country, much less showing respect for.their proposed adopted country. Those that are allowed to enter the country must have documents from their home country. Too many of these economic migrants are destroying their papers so that they cannot be sent back to their home countries if denied entry. European countries have the rule of law, and the migrants must show respect for those laws, or they must not be allowed to stay.

[mopar71]

Edited January 17, 2016 by mopar71

[arjunadawn]

Most of these people are not fleeing any conflict but use that as an excuse to get to the west.

You're gotta give a reference for this.....otherwise it's just xenophobic paranoia.

Actually, the quote remains true with or without the link. The ridiculous provide a link or you are a __________(name your pejorative) reflects the poster, not what is responded to. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/615542/Staggering-interactive-map-shows-wave-of-migrants-flocking-to-Europe-each-day

Of course its "an excuse to get to the west."

[arjunadawn]

The rapes will continue and worsen. The basest desires cannot be suppressed by some especially when it is justified by doctrine. Expect a constant stream of increased offenses aimed at the host populations. Expect governments to respond to this by oppressing those who object to their destruction. Expect a rise in groups opposed to this invasion. Expect increased calls of "defensive" attacks by invaders. Expect governments to side with the arrivals. Expect a non stop fracturing of society and realigning mores based on islamic tenets.

[puukao]

When you come to Thailand, can your assets be seized??

I vote they should be seized!!!

good to get off on the right foot

[Scouse123]

Do unto others....like they will do to you.

They wouldn't even accept Christians into most of their countries, let alone give financial assistance and housing etc.

Make no mistake, the ones at the front of these queues for asylum are not the weakest and most needy either!

They are the strongest with set agendas!

[Scouse123]

When you come to Thailand, can your assets be seized??

I vote they should be seized!!!

good to get off on the right foot

They've been getting seized for years and years by all the hookers in Thailand.!

[simple1]

the thread is only about asylum seekers and about seizing assets.....

So all you YES voters will justify robbery and crime by seizing their assets (if there are any)?

Shame on you. They risk their life to flee murder, bombs and terror and you want to take some belongings.....Do you think they leave their home country just for fun???

Everyone knows what the thread is about, you just protest they say things you disagree with. The State should not seize their assets because they should not be there.

If the alternative to "fun" is hard work, industry, social cohesion, assimilation, moral virtue, then yes, I think the vast majority do arrive for "fun." What is it supposed these majority military age men did in these places before coming to EU? The majority of these men, military age and single, would likely have never worked or participated in any social contract/context other than the Shaira/Islamic covenant. They most definitely are spinning the roulette wheel for free stuff and anyone who speaks arabic can hear many of their early claims to this point in Greece, Hungry, Austria, Germany, and Sweden. Sounds like "fun" to me.

Others' pain, real or not, does not constitute our suicide. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/european-migrant-crisis-most-refugees-9980670

Before posting I'm sure you're capable of doing some research on facts on why military age men from the likes of Syria and Eritrea flee their countries.

The MP quoted in the linked article is a prat, the large majority of refugees are not located at and supported in 'camps' in Turkey and elsewhere, the guy is making a fool of himself and his readers uninformed

Edited January 17, 2016 by simple1

[mmh8]

I am English and I hate to see peop.le treated unfairly.. Equal treatment I say. so I voted no.

However, when in England I pay a shit laod of money on taxes around half my wages, then I spend half of whats left on mortguage investments. left with a paltry bit after that.

so might as well let the migrannts know what life is gonna be like if they gonna move into the country. yes our government will not be trying to bomb you. instead they want you to be like livestock on a farm, a bit of milking like everyone else.

[bangon04]

An "Asylum Seeker" is not necessarily destitute.

It is quite possible for a billionaire ex-telecom owner to seek asylum in a European country in order to escape what they claim as political persecution by a regime they ran away from.

However if the European government requires its own citizens to run down their assets BEFORE receiving state aid, then there is no possible reason to give handouts to overseas citizens unless they have done the same.

Give them a passport maybe, let them buy a football team, flats in the city, but NO handouts.

and please Europe - the BBC, Euronews etc stop calling them refugees if they are economic Migrants

[manarak]

I am English and I hate to see peop.le treated unfairly.. Equal treatment I say. so I voted no. However, when in England I pay a shit laod of money on taxes around half my wages, then I spend half of whats left on mortguage investments. left with a paltry bit after that. so might as well let the migrannts know what life is gonna be like if they gonna move into the country. yes our government will not be trying to bomb you. instead they want you to be like livestock on a farm, a bit of milking like everyone else.

If you wanted equal treatment, you should have voted "yes" (see my previous post as to why)

[Rhys]

At certain refugee camp in this country.. that seem the sop.. they take whatever..

[Sutty]

Most of these people are not fleeing any conflict but use that as an excuse to get to the west.

You're gotta give a reference for this.....otherwise it's just xenophobic paranoia.

Look at the papers enough refreshes there however I don't have to re fence anything if you belive diffrent up to you oh and I have lots of mates from Syria/Egypt so xenophobic I ain't.

[NongKhaiKid]

I voted yes but want to nuance my vote.

I would say "No" for asylum seekers who just require asylum and nothing else, i.e. they have the means of paying for themselves.

For asylum seekers who need aid, then yes.

To those who say asylum seekers should be allowed to keep their assets, please consider that a country's own nationals have to use up their wealth before they can be granted welfare. Allowing asylum seekers to keep their assets would give them an advantage over nationals, which is not acceptable.

A Danish MP from the party backing the proposal pointed out that if he wanted to claim state welfare he would have to sell anything of value he had but it's all laid on for unwanted migrants. As many posters have pointed out so many arrivals are economic migrants pure and simple and are looking for the best deal they can get.

Maybe it's just me but in the main the negativity I see regarding migrants is in the print media or on the internet whereas the television news is all about sympathy and the sob story aspect and adverse comment is avoided like the plague.

[superal]

Why is it that western, non Moslem countries seem to be taking in huge numbers of largely, Moslem men of fighting age, and very few women, children or Christians. Surely they are the ones that are the real refugees in need of help. Just as there are Moslem Islamic countries within walking distance of Syria, (Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Yeman and even Iran, that have refused point blank to accept any people.....

Facilitating millions of men of fighting age leave their country, and agueably their woman and children behind, is nothing more than facilitating in the murder of those woman and children. Why not send 50,000 well armed and trained troops to completely overwhelm the barbaric savages of ISIS, and train and assist these men of fighting age, is the only answer to ever regaining control of the country.

A large number of these, so called Asylum seeking refugees, are in fact ISIS, as they stated in Apr 2015, that they would send their murderous troops into western countries amongst the refugees to carry out jihad in all western countries, by the end of 2015. And a large majority of the rest are economic invaders... The war is now in our countries......

Once these asylum seeking men have settled in their new chosen country they will then send for their families , all legal and above board in the UK . So for every successful asylum seeker you can multiply by at least 4 . I believe you are right when you say send in the troops and sort out the problem at source / their country of origin . To try to assess their assets would not be easy as much of their wealth is spread within their families . A nightmare to unravel with so many sharing the same name i.e. Mohamed or Patel etc . Let's be realistic , there is hardly any racial integration , they all stick together in their communities i.e. birds of a feather . I am bewildered by western governments to allow this mass migration to continue . Where is it going to end ? they have not thought it through for sure . They will work for peanuts and undercut the honest hard working , financially committed established citizens who stand to lose their living standards . Something serious will happen soon as many people have had enough as is shown at the moment in Germany . All going to end in tears .

I very much admire the foreign students who paid for their uni education and went on to make a contribution to society by becoming a doctor / engineer etc and an important part of the UK society .

[nuananddon]

Yes, because that amount of people will drain the assets from these countries that are allowing them in. I really feel for the people of Germany having to accept over a million people whom they know nothing about. The future there does not look good for the Germans. Give it 10 plus years and then ask the question whether it was a good idea or not.

[retarius]

Stealing their assets simply makes life harder as they try to build a new life in a new country.

[reggaebkk]

We shouldn't accept to be led by governments who actually create terrorists to invent wars, pillage, create refugees.

The great debate about who should pay for the bowl of soup is so useless when the real problem is to stopping the refugees by not making war by not having terrorists made by our secret services by not voting for them, by not voting at all because all the candidates work for the same devil and because we make a revolution and put a halt to all that nonsense.

[wabothai]

The main problem in Europe is how to separate the bad ones from the good ones. There is no solution.

My vote: help those in honest need.

This whole affair will divide Europe with some very dangerous consequences, and then the tables will be turned.

I will be asking for asylum in Thailand, where my assets have already been kind of prepaid.

[micmichd]

NO. Assets might be needed for investments, maybe investmens in the countries where the refugees come from. Maybe refugees' assets could be kept in Europe for a while and given back to refugees that return.

[Transporter]

Any person given free refuge in another country should expect to start from the beginning and automatically lose any assets they may have to cover some or all of the costs to that country.

[Transporter]

Stealing their assets simply makes life harder as they try to build a new life in a new country.

So you would expect to move to any other country with nothing and that country to pay all your living fees whilst you keep all your assets would you?

[Credo]

I think it's been stated before, but the seizing of assets is not much more than a public relations exercise. Few people would have attempted such a long and dangerous journey bringing anything with much financial value. Of those who may have some things of value, it will not be wasted; it will go toward getting themselves situation in a new country.

It's rather amusing that a lot of posters don't want to refer to them as refugees, but suddenly they all have assets which should be ceased. That doesn't sound like economic migrants to me.

[bangon04]

I voted yes but want to nuance my vote.

I would say "No" for asylum seekers who just require asylum and nothing else, i.e. they have the means of paying for themselves.

For asylum seekers who need aid, then yes.

To those who say asylum seekers should be allowed to keep their assets, please consider that a country's own nationals have to use up their wealth before they can be granted welfare. Allowing asylum seekers to keep their assets would give them an advantage over nationals, which is not acceptable.

A Danish MP from the party backing the proposal pointed out that if he wanted to claim state welfare he would have to sell anything of value he had but it's all laid on for unwanted migrants. As many posters have pointed out so many arrivals are economic migrants pure and simple and are looking for the best deal they can get.

Maybe it's just me but in the main the negativity I see regarding migrants is in the print media or on the internet whereas the television news is all about sympathy and the sob story aspect and adverse comment is avoided like the plague.

The BBC is currently running a blatant propaganda piece about how 27 Muslim graves in the UK have been lovingly restored by community do-gooders to reflect the gratitude of the British Raj for the self-sacrifice these Muslim soldiers made during the World War.

They would have us believe that these conscripts made an informed decision to travel half way around the world to show their loyalty to the British Raj, not that they were dragged over as cannon fodder in the 2nd battle of Ypres to fill the gaps left by the British victims of inbred General staff incompetence.

Muslims Gooood, Haters Baaad, as Orwell might have put it....

[Prbkk]

Many of the arguments presented here are the same as those about Jews and others fleeing The Nazis in the 30s and the Vietnamese and Camodians in the 70s. Shameful.

[mopar71]

When you come to Thailand, can your assets be seized??

I vote they should be seized!!!

good to get off on the right foot

Maybe if the people coming to Thailand expect to live off the Thai taxpayers. But all the non-Thais I've known are paying into the system not taking out.

[mopar71]

Why is it that western, non Moslem countries seem to be taking in huge numbers of largely, Moslem men of fighting age, and very few women, children or Christians. Surely they are the ones that are the real refugees in need of help. Just as there are Moslem Islamic countries within walking distance of Syria, (Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Yeman and even Iran, that have refused point blank to accept any people.....

Facilitating millions of men of fighting age leave their country, and agueably their woman and children behind, is nothing more than facilitating in the murder of those woman and children. Why not send 50,000 well armed and trained troops to completely overwhelm the barbaric savages of ISIS, and train and assist these men of fighting age, is the only answer to ever regaining control of the country.

A large number of these, so called Asylum seeking refugees, are in fact ISIS, as they stated in Apr 2015, that they would send their murderous troops into western countries amongst the refugees to carry out jihad in all western countries, by the end of 2015. And a large majority of the rest are economic invaders... The war is now in our countries......

Once these asylum seeking men have settled in their new chosen country they will then send for their families , all legal and above board in the UK . So for every successful asylum seeker you can multiply by at least 4 .

Multiply by at least 4? I think that number is probably at least 10-15.

Plus, if the "refugees" don't have all their documents, how will the host country know who is family and who isn't?