Ship of Fools: The Danish government and refugees

Thread: The Danish government and refugees Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029632

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on 26 January, 2016 15:27 :

Be interested in opinions on this proposal, which looks like it will probably become Danish law.

On the one hand, I can see the 'ostensible fairness' in putting migrants on an equal footing to Danish citizens. On the other - and this is why I've scare-quoted the ostensible fairness point - to create a truly 'like for like' scenario, the Danish government should, as a quid pro quo & inter alia, destroy the Danish benefit claimants' homes, kill a few of their family members, make them travel on foot overland and in unseaworthy vessels over water (perhaps kill a few more family members in so doing) and charge them each a few €1000s for the privilege. Plus it seems rather too similar to state-sponsored looting of the Jews in 1930s Germany (trying to skate round Herr Godwin).

Or am I over-reacting and it's all rather fair and equitable after all?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on 26 January, 2016 15:59 :

I would be very surprised if Danish citizens are required to sell all but 10,000 Kroner of their possessions before being able to claim benefits. So, unless I am wrong about that, this isn't fair - putting the same threshold on assets as Danish citizens might be.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on 26 January, 2016 16:02 :

This is the country that was so proud of how it behaved over the yellow star issue.

Snopes version

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on 26 January, 2016 16:03 :

Of course, the irony is that many migrants have already paid a high price (often with their lives) to get to safety in Europe.

The problem for me with the Danish proposal is not so much about the number of people it will affect (I'm guessing not very many will get to Copenhagen with a load of cash in their pockets) but what it says about Denmark and Europe as a whole. That we're not really interested in humanity nor in hospitality.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on 26 January, 2016 16:38 :

Quite. It seems that Germany, Denmark and Sweden have switched in less than six months from welcoming refugees to telling them to piss off. (Of course, we in the UK can't exactly be smug with our gvt's approach to the issue...)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on 26 January, 2016 16:50 :

I think they wanted to be welcoming, but the numbers have been too great and they've felt unable to cope.

It's clearly unfair that the same small handful of countries are expected to host the majority of the refugees in a situation like this. Both the refugees themselves and the rest of Europe need to accept that it's not just about what you want, but about what's reasonable.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on 26 January, 2016 17:12 :

We do I think need a co-ordinated EU-wide policy and quota system. But that ain't never gonna happen...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on 26 January, 2016 17:59 :

quote:

But Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen, of the opposition left Red-Green Alliance that opposed the bill, said it was "a symbolic move to scare people away".

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 26 January, 2016 19:03 :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would be very surprised if Danish citizens are required to sell all but 10,000 Kroner of their possessions before being able to claim benefits. So, unless I am wrong about that, this isn't fair - putting the same threshold on assets as Danish citizens might be.

You don't generally get social assistance in Canada until your bank account and savings are exhausted. Owning property may also exclude, forcing a sale. It is allowed to have a running car, but discussions would ensue if it was an expensive one. Means-tested social programs are frequent.

The previous Conservative government had decided to bill migrants for air flights to Canada, something the Liberal gov't discontinued. Now we have people arriving before one date paying and after not, subject to further discussion and I suspect not billing anyone.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on 27 January, 2016 00:19 :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You don't generally get social assistance in Canada until your bank account and savings are exhausted. Owning property may also exclude, forcing a sale. It is allowed to have a running car, but discussions would ensue if it was an expensive one. Means-tested social programs are frequent.
..

This depends upon the province and the municipality.

In my personal and professional experience, owning property or a car isn't an issue for social assistance. But, payments to cover debts related to buying a car or house are an issue.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on 27 January, 2016 11:29 :

What are the implications for the wider 'European project'? Are we talking 'Schengend'?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on 27 January, 2016 14:18 :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...
The previous Conservative government had decided to bill migrants for air flights to Canada, something the Liberal gov't discontinued. ...

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Snakehead.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on 27 January, 2016 14:29 :

One of the odd results of this could be making it harder for refugees to return home. Assuming that one day, the Syrian civil war ends (admittedly, at the moment, not looking likely), I would think that some refugees would want to return.

I suppose the ones who get a job and save up, could return, the ones on benefits couldn't. A bit odd, isn't it?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on 27 January, 2016 14:58 :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would be very surprised if Danish citizens are required to sell all but 10,000 Kroner of their possessions before being able to claim benefits. So, unless I am wrong about that, this isn't fair - putting the same threshold on assets as Danish citizens might be.
You don't generally get social assistance in Canada until your bank account and savings are exhausted. Owning property may also exclude, forcing a sale. It is allowed to have a running car, but discussions would ensue if it was an expensive one. Means-tested social programs are frequent.

In this case though I suspect that outside cash - a lot of the refugees possessions will be in the form of jewellery, which itself will have cultural significance - in the sense that some of it would have formed a bride price.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on 27 January, 2016 15:07 :

So to get benefits in Canada you have to sell your house? Then what happens? Sleeping rough?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on 27 January, 2016 16:07 :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So to get benefits in Canada you have to sell your house? Then what happens? Sleeping rough?

Well, presumably, you would sell your house, and then live off the proceeds, which includes paying rent for an apartment or whatever. Then, when the money from the sale runs out, and assuming you haven't gotten another job, you apply for social assistance.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on 27 January, 2016 16:44 :

In the UK I think if you have savings or capital over £16000 you are not entitled to any means tested benefits (housing benefit, income support etc). However your home if you own and live in it, and your personal possessions are not counted towards this. However if you deliberately spend money you have quickly to make yourself entitled to benefits you may be treated as if you still had it!

I think it is unlikely that many refugees are carrying significant quantities of assets beyond their personal possessions and when you start stripping people of these it quickly starts to look dehumanizing and cruel to people who have already lost everything else.

[ 27. January 2016, 15:48: Message edited by: Lucia ]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on 27 January, 2016 16:44 :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think they wanted to be welcoming, but the numbers have been too great and they've felt unable to cope.

It's clearly unfair that the same small handful of countries are expected to host the majority of the refugees in a situation like this. Both the refugees themselves and the rest of Europe need to accept that it's not just about what you want, but about what's reasonable.

according to world vision

"Most Syrian refugees remain in the Middle East, in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt; slightly more than 10 percent of the refugees have traveled to Europe."

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on 27 January, 2016 17:30 :

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I think it is unlikely that many refugees are carrying significant quantities of assets beyond their personal possessions and when you start stripping people of these it quickly starts to look dehumanizing and cruel to people who have already lost everything else.

It is possible that some of the refugees have savings in a Syrian bank, but they would probably not have access to it (which makes that irrelevant in respect of what they have to live on at this moment in time).

If one wants to reduce the cost to the public purse of receiving refugees then the simplest solution is to let them work - boosts the economy by more rapidly filling vacancies that arise, reduces costs to the state by having refugees earn their own way and pay taxes, and treats refugees as human beings worthy of the dignity of supporting themselves and helps them integrate into society.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on 27 January, 2016 17:48 :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I think it is unlikely that many refugees are carrying significant quantities of assets beyond their personal possessions and when you start stripping people of these it quickly starts to look dehumanizing and cruel to people who have already lost everything else.
It is possible that some of the refugees have savings in a Syrian bank, but they would probably not have access to it (which makes that irrelevant in respect of what they have to live on at this moment in time).

If one wants to reduce the cost to the public purse of receiving refugees then the simplest solution is to let them work - boosts the economy by more rapidly filling vacancies that arise, reduces costs to the state by having refugees earn their own way and pay taxes, and treats refugees as human beings worthy of the dignity of supporting themselves and helps them integrate into society.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on 28 January, 2016 02:07 :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I think it is unlikely that many refugees are carrying significant quantities of assets beyond their personal possessions and when you start stripping people of these it quickly starts to look dehumanizing and cruel to people who have already lost everything else.
It is possible that some of the refugees have savings in a Syrian bank, but they would probably not have access to it (which makes that irrelevant in respect of what they have to live on at this moment in time).

If one wants to reduce the cost to the public purse of receiving refugees then the simplest solution is to let them work - boosts the economy by more rapidly filling vacancies that arise, reduces costs to the state by having refugees earn their own way and pay taxes, and treats refugees as human beings worthy of the dignity of supporting themselves and helps them integrate into society.

You have no idea how true this is. When I dealt with refugee issues IRL some years ago, the Canadian provision to issue employment authorizations to refugee claimants was criticized (sometimes with rather vicious language) as a draw factor. Our researchers could never confirm that (although there were some lucrative contracts while they tried), but they did say that in places where there were no authorizations (as in, much of the world), claimants could only rely on social assistance or what we charmingly call the informal economy. Over the years, I had many conversations with refugees working the stalls in parking lots, cleaning walks, hefting garbage, washing floors-- they would speak of how they missed their more responsible jobs in their old countries, but that this was far better for their children. I do not think I ever met a claimant who would rather not work, no matter how humble the job.

A) they maintained themselves and their families at little cost to the state, B) they began to build new lives, C) they were not demoralized by extended period of unemployment. FTW (for the win) as my young colleagues would say.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on 28 January, 2016 05:13 :

In the US, it would (were we to actually step up and start welcoming more refugees-- which sure won't happen if Trump is elected) probably be a damned if you do/ damned if you don't sort of thing. If they didn't work, migrants would of course be denigrated as layabouts sucking the hard-working American taxpayers dry. But if they were to take a job, no matter how menial or lowly paid, they would be taking jobs away from Americans and therefore a reason why we should be slamming the doors shut.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on 28 January, 2016 08:31 :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In the US, it would (were we to actually step up and start welcoming more refugees-- which sure won't happen if Trump is elected) probably be a damned if you do/ damned if you don't sort of thing. If they didn't work, migrants would of course be denigrated as layabouts sucking the hard-working American taxpayers dry. But if they were to take a job, no matter how menial or lowly paid, they would be taking jobs away from Americans and therefore a reason why we should be slamming the doors shut.

I've heard both about the immigrants we currently have - documented and undocumented alike.

As to benefits requirements, i think it varies state by state, but here in California you are allowed to keep one home if you own one, one car and must have less than a couple of thousand dollars in the bank. Here in California even undocumented immigrants can receive benefits. However, one church here in Southern California was threatened with firebombing after they publicly announced the intent to take in Syrian refugees a few months back.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on 28 January, 2016 08:50 :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

Or am I over-reacting and it's all rather fair and equitable after all?

It's all unfair. It's unfair that people have to flee their own countries to feel safe. It's unfair that some then spoil it for the rest by behaving terribly. It's unfair on the jobless and homeless in their own coumtries.

As usual, a small minority (of both refugees and xenophobic nutters) make life hard for all good, ordinary folk who want to live well and care for their neighbour, both home grown and immigrant. [Frown]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on 29 January, 2016 16:07 :

What you said.

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In the US, it would (were we to actually step up and start welcoming more refugees-- which sure won't happen if Trump is elected) probably be a damned if you do/ damned if you don't sort of thing. If they didn't work, migrants would of course be denigrated as layabouts sucking the hard-working American taxpayers dry. But if they were to take a job, no matter how menial or lowly paid, they would be taking jobs away from Americans and therefore a reason why we should be slamming the doors shut.
I've heard both about the immigrants we currently have - documented and undocumented alike.

Ah yes, Schroedinger's Immigrant: the one who lazes about on welfare whilst simultaneously stealing the jobs of 'hard-working' indigenous types. We seem to have a lot of those in the UK...

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on 29 January, 2016 16:59 :

In Canada, I think it would be possible to complain about IMMIGRANTS taking jobs, and REFUGEES not working, without a priori contradicting oneself, since the two classes of people have different economic requirements for entry.

I'm not sure of all the details, but if you're coming as a long-term immigrant, the government has all sorts of hoops for you to jump through to make sure that you enter into the workforce, or at least make a positive contribution to the economy. Like, you have to be sponsored by someone who has the duty to make sure that you find gasinful employment, or you have to be a wealthy investor willing to throw a lot of money into the economy, etc.

Whereas refugess, being let in under ostensibly humanitarian considerations, don't have the same requirements. Mostly, I'd assume, because someone fleeing a war zone or a disaster area is unlikely to have well-heeled sponsors in the new country, or the kind of financial resources to make substantial investments.

Of course, anti-immigration types love to conflate the two classes, and so you hear a lot of griping along the lines of "These damned immigrants coming in here and going on welfare as soon as they get off the plane". But, in fact, any story about people getting government assistance was likely about refugees, not immigrants.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on 29 January, 2016 19:31 :

Stetson types:

quote:
Of course, anti-immigration types love to conflate the two classes, and so you hear a lot of griping along the lines of "These damned immigrants coming in here and going on welfare as soon as they get off the plane". But, in fact, any story about people getting government assistance was likely about refugees, not immigrants.

Quite so. Provinces determine who receives social assistance and most of them have a six-month residency requirement (although usually accepting claimants from other provinces in Canada). Moreover, sponsored immigrants (about a third IIRC) are the responsibility of their sponsor, normally a family member. Convention refugees receive a parcel of benefits for their first year, on the sensible grounds that investment in their well-being and integration in the first year will save resources in the long run. Other benefits, mainly health and therapy for those who underwent grave hardship (the Immigration Manual's gentle term for torture and abject, body-damaging, misery) go to those who need it-- while there are some holes in practice, this happens and, while Canadians are no slouches at self-righteous congratulation, on this one we deserve our pat on our back.

[ 29. January 2016, 18:32: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on 29 January, 2016 21:26 :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I think it is unlikely that many refugees are carrying significant quantities of assets beyond their personal possessions and when you start stripping people of these it quickly starts to look dehumanizing and cruel to people who have already lost everything else.
It is possible that some of the refugees have savings in a Syrian bank, but they would probably not have access to it (which makes that irrelevant in respect of what they have to live on at this moment in time).

If one wants to reduce the cost to the public purse of receiving refugees then the simplest solution is to let them work - boosts the economy by more rapidly filling vacancies that arise, reduces costs to the state by having refugees earn their own way and pay taxes, and treats refugees as human beings worthy of the dignity of supporting themselves and helps them integrate into society.

Yeah, right. Because anyone- certainly in the UK- can see the kind of dignified, fulfilled, decent jobs that migrants from poorer countries get here, can't they. And that's without even asking whether you actually need any more labour, or suggesting that while people are having their asylum claims assessed (and claims do need to be assessed as quickly as is consistent with proper due process and fairness) it might not be a good idea to encourage them to put down roots of there's a chance they'll have to leave soon.
I haven't seen the detail of what the Danes are doing. As far as actual money goes, it makes sense to expect people who have the resources to do so to maintain themselves or to contribute to their own maintenance. As far as not looking like a soft touch goes, it might be understandable to show that you're not if you're getting a share of asylum seekers that is more than your neighbours (and I don't know whether Denmark is). Matt Black is on the money when he says that we need an EU-wide asylum and quota system. That would have three advantages:
(i)It would share the task of supporting asylum seekers more equitably across the Union's members so that, for example, Greece or Malta were not getting lots and Ireland or Portugal few, just because of geography - and could also take a state's own resources into account.
(ii) It would make it much safer and less costly for the asylum seekers, who would only have to get onto EU territory for their claim to be made.
(iii) It would disentangle asylum- which is about wanting not to be somewhere specific- from economic migration- which is about wanting to be somewhere specific. If the EU said yes, we will make sure that you are somewhere safe and we will look after you until you can get back on your feet- but you'll go where we send you, not where you might choose- that meets the need for asylum while frustrating not only irregular economic migration, but also people traffickers.

[ 29. January 2016, 20:29: Message edited by: Albertus ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0