Side Bar: Why do all the articles about the "jewelry law" have quotes around the phrase "jewelry law"? For example: "Denmark faces backlash over 'despicable' 'jewellery law'"
Because it's not officially called that. The law itself is about confiscating valuables from people who enter the country seeking protection, and it's been dubbed the "jewelry law" by media to make it easier for people to imagine what its effect will be (stealing people's jewelry as they enter).
They are not stealing peoples jewelries not sure where you got that from.
This is exactly the kind of unfortunate misconceptions about that law and it requires context to understand what the point of it is.
Denmark is one of the countries who both take most and provide the most social benefits to immigrants and asylum seekers.
There is almost no difference what a citizen and an asylum seeker/immigrant gets in social welfare from the government. They have access to free healthcare, free education, free housing and so on.
Denmark is one of the countries who accept the most too.
A system like that requires a lot taxation to even be possible and so Denmark is one of the most highly taxed countries in the world.
What the law is attempting to make sure is that immigrants or asylums seekers who come to Denmark and ask for the government to provide all these things to them don't have any wealth. I.e. before the danish government starts giving you access to the social welfare system you need to have spent your own wealth first.
This is the same way they treat their own citizen btw.
And on top of that. This is something that Germany, Holland and Switzherland is already doing. The law is much bigger than that and holds all sorts of adjustments to deal with the underlying system. Someone just managed to polemically pick some of this up and interpret it in a way that made it sound like they where literally pulling gold teeth out of peoples mouth.
They aren't taking any of affectional value either.
So no they are not steal peoples jewelry as they enter.
The contention is whether the valuables are being traded voluntarily for welfare, or whether they are being taken by force (i.e. stealing). Presumably Danish citizens can choose whether to claim welfare or not.
Also, while a normal person might suppose that all jewellery must be of "affectional value", I doubt the Danish state sees it the same way.
The law was never intentioned at taking jewelry or taking it by force. The law was intended to make sure that you didn't have people showing up with lots of valuables and collecting money from the system. Again the Danish system is extremely giving. And lets put something in context here. People traveling through several countries to get to Denmark seeking asylum do have a choice. Many of them are men and left their family behind btw.
And yes the Danish state sees it that ways since it's explicitly in the law.
The whole thing is much to do about nothing. A bunch of danish people venting their political opinions about danish domestic policy in international media.
That is their right but this leaves a lot of room for gross simplifications and lack of context when discussing the law.
This started with people claiming the government would take peoples wedding rings which is ironic since wedding rings is mostly a western tradition and muslims aren't even allowed to wear gold wedding rings.
This is just one example of how absurd the whole discussion is and the level of manipulation that have gone into framing Denmark as an especially bad nation.
The fact still remains that Denmark is one of the countries that gives most of it's GPD to immigration and refugees, one of the few countries who live up to the goals set by the UN on how much a nation should be spending on aid.
It's beyond any rational claims to portray Denmark the way it's being done right now. At the end of the day though it will mean absolutely nothing.
This is a much bigger discussion than some anal focus on some minute part of that law.
The intention of a law and how it enforced can be quite different. This law could be abused, I think that's the issue.
>> "People traveling through several countries to get to Denmark seeking asylum do have a choice. Many of them are men and left their family behind btw."
There's a reason the men are leaving their families behind. Travelling across Europe can be very dangerous - I'm sure some of the men who lost children to drowning off the coast of Greece wish they'd left their families behind. The men take the dangerous journey, get some shelter for their family in a new country, and then move the family there safely. Not all asylum seekers have had their homes destroyed/are at immediate risk of being killed. You would typically start trying to get out before your city is being bombed so it makes sense to leave your family in relative safety where they have shelter/food/a community to help them.
>> "muslims aren't even allowed to wear gold wedding rings."
Not all people seeking asylum in Europe at the minute are Muslim.
Denmark have no history of treating it's refugees or asylum seekers that way. They are just doing what Germany, Holland and Switzcherland is already doing. And you should turn it on it's head. The law was made to make sure people don't misuse the danish wellfare system. It's the same rule that apply to it's own citizens.
It is estimated that more than half of the refugees are economic immigrants/refugees not actually refugees. Sweeden is sending back up to 80.000 for exactly that reason. They aren't in any danger.
Claiming that it can be dangerous traveling across Europe is so absurd I don't even know what to say. Is it more dangerous than what they escaped? If thats the case why travel to Denmark? You are contradicting yourself.
Most people who seek asylum are actually muslims so yes.
Europe is more dangerous than living under ISIS?:) Well, looking at how things are going it might just be the case very soon. Back in the days before the collapse of Soviet Union there was an attempt by the party to turn the tide by claiming "to fix the socialism's shortcomings we need more socialism!". Now Europe is trying to fix refugees and ISIS problem by calling for "more refugees! more ISIS!"
The law involves confiscating valuables and money, but it does so much more than that, including, but not limited to, increasing the waiting period for family reunification.
People put it in quotes, because they think it gives them an excuse to use the misnomer, which is bad journalism on their part.
It’s basically in the interest of the administration that people only thought the bill concerned jewelry confiscation, as it distracted from all the other heinous things in the text.
The former bill, which has since become law, is L87 (ie Bill 87).
"In the Netherlands, asylum seekers are supposed to declare their assets, and deductions can be made if this exceeds €5,895 for an individual or €11,790 for a family."
Neither will you in Denmark. It's the same approach.
This is what's so sad about this whole story. It's taken completely out of it's context and presented as if danish police are standing there waiting to strip people of their values before they enter the country.
I accept that the situation may be misrepresented, but your own link states otherwise:
Police can seize cash over 10,000 kroner [..] as well as individual items [..] such as watches, mobile phones and computers
money and valuables will be confiscated on arrival [..] Assets discovered at a later stage [..] may also be taken
So if the BBC article is inaccurate about the Danish situation, I don't think you should assume it is any more correct about the Swiss, Dutch or German situation.
