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

[i claudius]

From the first few replies I read I can see that some people have little knowledge of a lot of the refugee's backgrounds. There are many professionals amount them like...doctors, lawyers, teachers, dentists etc., with considerable assets behind them. I do not think those assets should be confiscated but I do think all migrants should be "meanstested" before being helped...just like a national of that country is.

If they are indeed doctors ,lawyers and dentists ,then they should be in their own country helping their own people , not in the west .

[trogers]

A good policy. A genuine refugee would not have much of an asset on them for seizing whereas an economic migrant in all probability does.

Level the playing field so that they become real refugees...to feed on taxpayer's money.

Edited January 17, 2016 by trogers

[sawadee1947]

Some European countries either are planning

I don't know any

[i claudius]

Nothing new! Switzerland has taken the assets from Jews running away from Hitler Germany and seeking sanctuary in Switzerland.

Even today, Bank Accounts from (deceased) Jews are frozen and held by Swiss Banks.

You better believe it!!

[sawadee1947]

TO ALL YES VOTERS:

There was a time Jews were fleeing their countries (most out of Germany). The Nazis seized their properties in e.g. Germany. Many of them still carried money, Gold, paintings and all other belongings.

When they arrived in e.g. Switzerland or US the govt. should have been allowed to take it all from them?

All you YES VOTERS, go to see a doctor....but I'm not sure there is a remedy for that twisted kind of thinking!

[i claudius]

A guy gets his home bombed and drags his family across the the ocean in a rubber raft and walks halfway across Europe to find somewhere safer and now you want to 'seize' his worldly belongings. Help him or don't help him but taking what's left he's got in this world is just wrong.

But why has he crossed from safe country's ,floated across the sea in a rubber raft risking his childrens lives ,then walked halfway across Europe? he was already safe. if its not for the benifits and freebies ?

sorry the moment he was safe he became an economic migrant the moment he left .

Edited January 17, 2016 by i claudius

[MAJIC]

I am sorry to say I was right soon these poor fools who were so stupid to go to Europe will be in work camps if lucky or worst

Europe has not not changed

It's one of two things you know nothing about Europe or a poorly written Troll Post!

[arjunadawn]

The danger in seizing these assets is loaning legitimacy to the fantasy that [they] are asylum seekers- they are not! When the people rally and support taking possessions to pay for [their] arrival and maintenance the people inadvertently condone the invasion; its similar to "take the king's shilling do the king's bidding." It is a typical bait and switch. Don't take their possessions and do not take these people.They are not refugees, they are opportunists. They WILL make their next place look exactly like the last place.

[Rob13]

But why has he crossed from safe country's ,floated across the sea in a rubber raft risking his childrens lives ,then walked halfway across Europe? he was already safe. if its not for the benifits and freebies ?

sorry the moment he was safe he became an economic migrant the moment he left .

And economic migrants should have their assets seized?

[arjunadawn]

TO ALL YES VOTERS:

There was a time Jews were fleeing their countries (most out of Germany). The Nazis seized their properties in e.g. Germany. Many of them still carried money, Gold, paintings and all other belongings.

When they arrived in e.g. Switzerland or US the govt. should have been allowed to take it all from them?

All you YES VOTERS, go to see a doctor....but I'm not sure there is a remedy for that twisted kind of thinking!

Fallacy. False analogy. Jews were not raping their way across the world. Jews were not the sole if officially denied source of 99.8% of terrorist/homicide attacks. Jews were not instigating sedition across the entire globe with a divine mandate to subjugate others, etc., ad infinitum. There is no comparison. This is happening because the unspoken nod is to the self evident fact that these are freeloaders and are not in fact refugees (by and large). Jews fled persecution. It is intuitive that persecution comes from those with the belief system of the invaders.

I agree that all YES voters are not thinking this through, but not for the absurd reason you offer. A yes vote loans legitimacy to the invasion. This act is offered to placate outrage and make it seem just social mechanics are in place and the people are protected. They are not. Say NO to the people coming outside normal immigration means.

NOTE: Its not necessary you make a direct insult to the people you disagree with. If you are confident in your point insulting others only shows the weakness of your view.

[sawadee1947]

TO ALL YES VOTERS:

There was a time Jews were fleeing their countries (most out of Germany). The Nazis seized their properties in e.g. Germany. Many of them still carried money, Gold, paintings and all other belongings.

When they arrived in e.g. Switzerland or US the govt. should have been allowed to take it all from them?

All you YES VOTERS, go to see a doctor....but I'm not sure there is a remedy for that twisted kind of thinking!

Fallacy. False analogy. Jews were not raping their way across the world. Jews were not the sole if officially denied source of 99.8% of terrorist/homicide attacks. Jews were not instigating sedition across the entire globe with a divine mandate to subjugate others, etc., ad infinitum. There is no comparison. This is happening because the unspoken nod is to the self evident fact that these are freeloaders and are not in fact refugees (by and large). Jews fled persecution. It is intuitive that persecution comes from those with the belief system of the invaders.

I agree that all YES voters are not thinking this through, but not for the absurd reason you offer. A yes vote loans legitimacy to the invasion. This act is offered to placate outrage and make it seem just social mechanics are in place and the people are protected. They are not. Say NO to the people coming outside normal immigration means.

NOTE: Its not necessary you make a direct insult to the people you disagree with. If you are confident in your point insulting others only shows the weakness of your view.

wrong answer:

Look at the head line!

[sawadee1947]

^

The madness of Merkel shows the disconnect between normal people and their politicians.

B.S. It shows only that SOME right wings articulate louder than the majority of the Germans.

[White Christmas13]

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.

Well they all have smart phones

[sawadee1947]

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???

[i claudius]

But why has he crossed from safe country's ,floated across the sea in a rubber raft risking his childrens lives ,then walked halfway across Europe? he was already safe. if its not for the benifits and freebies ?

sorry the moment he was safe he became an economic migrant the moment he left .

And economic migrants should have their assets seized?

No he should be deported

[stander]

The look when it hits you that you've ruined a continent:

[trogers]

But why has he crossed from safe country's ,floated across the sea in a rubber raft risking his childrens lives ,then walked halfway across Europe? he was already safe. if its not for the benifits and freebies ?

sorry the moment he was safe he became an economic migrant the moment he left .

And economic migrants should have their assets seized?

Sure, when they falsely declare themselves as poor refugees fleeing for their lives.

Much like those pseudo beggars on the streets of London, driving home after a day of begging...

[Rob13]

But why has he crossed from safe country's ,floated across the sea in a rubber raft risking his childrens lives ,then walked halfway across Europe? he was already safe. if its not for the benifits and freebies ?

sorry the moment he was safe he became an economic migrant the moment he left .

And economic migrants should have their assets seized?

Sure, when they falsely declare themselves as poor refugees fleeing for their lives.

Much like those pseudo beggars on the streets of London, driving home after a day of begging...

What about the ones who have bank accounts and don't lie about it but are still fleeing a war at home? Are you going to seize their assets too?

Edited January 17, 2016 by Rob13

[trogers]

But why has he crossed from safe country's ,floated across the sea in a rubber raft risking his childrens lives ,then walked halfway across Europe? he was already safe. if its not for the benifits and freebies ?

sorry the moment he was safe he became an economic migrant the moment he left .

And economic migrants should have their assets seized?

Sure, when they falsely declare themselves as poor refugees fleeing for their lives.

Much like those pseudo beggars on the streets of London, driving home after a day of begging...

What about the ones who declare their net worth but are still fleeeing a war at home? Are you going to seize their assets too?

They need to just stop at the first country of refuge... Or else they may get lost and wander into China...

[Rob13]

Fair 'nuff

[Sutty]

TO ALL YES VOTERS:

There was a time Jews were fleeing their countries (most out of Germany). The Nazis seized their properties in e.g. Germany. Many of them still carried money, Gold, paintings and all other belongings.

When they arrived in e.g. Switzerland or US the govt. should have been allowed to take it all from them?

All you YES VOTERS, go to see a doctor....but I'm not sure there is a remedy for that twisted kind of thinking!

To all no voters watch the real videos coming out of Europe rape/intimidation/beating of old people for a couple of Euros. Most of these people are not fleeing any conflict but use that as an excuse to get to the west. You are totally out of your mind to relate this to Hitlers master plan. The only similarity is a World War which is a heart beat away. Another crusade as it will be called

[Asheron]

Not a single person from... lets say Syria and Afghanistan is a real refugee. Every single of them has travelled through Europe (many safe countries) to get to Sweden (or Germany).

Reason is extremely simple: in Sweden a person that has a so called "asylum residence permit" will get enough money without any kind of effort to live a quite comfortable life. For instance a single mother with three children and an apartment will get more money (taxfree) and without effort into her bank account than a majority of the workers in Sweden (about 22 000 SEK net).

[Rob13]

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.

[arjunadawn]

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

[Colabamumbai]

If you were the refugee, would your thoughts still be the same? This is the question??

[trogers]

If you were the refugee, would your thoughts still be the same? This is the question??

And if I am an economic migrant, would my thoughts be the same as one heading for the nearest refuge?

[oneday]

Not an easy question so the two black and white choice are not good for me.

Yes, I tend to agree, but it depends on what they are taking, how much they are taking and what the person(s) are left with.

[maoro2013]

Many of these people may or may not be real asylum seekers, they are certainly seeking a better way of life. I guess they are seizing part of someone else's country so I think fair enough. There is now a huge move to escape from various countries, why should the ones that have been governed OK be penalised?

[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.

[trogers]

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?