There has been a lot of attention to a new proposal to in the Danish parliament, to seize property from refugees. Here is some context for this law legal and historical
First the law that is applicable for anyone seeking aid from the government. I know this law from personal experience, although I did not own enough to disqualify. I enter the Danish names for the laws too, in case someone in a year from now wish to find out more, because laws have a habit of changing faster than their names.
Link to the present laws:
Bekendtgørelse af lov om aktiv socialpolitik
LBK nr 806 af 01/07/2015 Gældende Offentliggørelsesdato: 02-07-2015, Beskæftigelsesministeriet
https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/R0710.aspx?id=173092#id5ae619ba-2b9c-4713-b88e-b5f63b942543
Legal disputes regarding the application of the law:
https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0910.aspx?id=173092&rg=7
The associated laws, and there are many:
Link: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0910.aspx?id=173092&rg=8
The law that includes the application of a part of the law, and also contains the rules regarding the condtions for receiving aid.
"Vejledning om Lov om aktiv socialpolitik "
VEJ nr 39 af 05/03/1998 Gældende, Offentliggørelsesdato: 20-03-1998, Beskæftigelsesministeriet
https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=87006
From the last legal paper, I have used Google to translate a section
https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=87006 said:
Guidance on the Act on Active Social Policy [In Danish: Vejledning om Lov om aktiv socialpolitik]
§ 15. The Minister can lay down rules for cases in which apart from assets in the form of capital pensions, other savings intended to retire from the labor market and life insurance, etc. with a repurchase.
Wealth excludes aid
72. The main rule is that people who have wealth, can not get help in the form of cash or activation. It therefore follows from § 14 paragraph. 1, point 1. That the municipality can not provide assistance if the applicant or the spouse has assets which can cover economic needs. This is a consequence of the law to act as the lower economic safety net.
It depends on an individual assessment of each case, what is wealth.
Examples of fortune
73. Wealth is eg
- Money, including tax refunds, and values that can quickly be converted to cash, such as stocks, bonds, other securities and gold, silver, etc.,
- Endowment,
- Precious works of art, such as paintings and carpets and furniture in addition to the normal,
- Lottery winnings, eg money, consumer goods, travel, etc.
- Cars,
- Cottages.
The municipality usually look away from the capital in the form of home ownership or housing cooperative, where the applicant / family lives there. If there is a substantial home equity, the municipality based on a specific assessment referring the applicant to obtain loans, provided that he will be able to cope with the increased housing costs that come with the loan.
Wealth limit of 10,000 kr.
74. The municipality must in accordance with § 14 paragraph. 1, point 2., Always disregard an amount of up to 10,000 kr. Per. person.
For married couples, the local authority must disregard the double. This means that the local authority must disregard 20,000 kr., Regardless of which spouse owns the assets.
The rule implies that the municipality ignores the excess tax if it along with the other assets does not exceed 10,000 kr.
The municipality's right to intervene in overpaid taxes according to § 95 paragraph. 3 precedes the rule to ignore a fortune of up to 10,000 kr. Please refer to section 12.3.
Intended fortune
75. The municipality must in accordance with § 14 paragraph. 2, disregard that portion of a property that is necessary to maintain or achieve a required standard, or which should be preserved for the sake of the applicant / family business or educational opportunities.
It is not decisive in itself, the purpose for which the applicant has made savings. It is crucial, however, whether the property is necessary based on an assessment of the applicant's and the family's standard or vocational and educational opportunities.
Housing Standard
Housing Standard includes the case in which the assets are placed in a home, as it is reasonable that the applicant maintains. It may also include the case where the current housing is so bad that it is therefore reasonable that the applicant has put an amount aside to acquire a new home or to improve existing housing.
Training
If an applicant already has an education, there is basically no chance to ignore any assets which the applicant proposes to use for an education. However, the municipality must make a lenient assessment on the amount of the assets can be preserved for the sake of their own educational choices when it comes to people who are facing rehabilitation, including a forrevalideringsperiode with cash as support basis.
Child savings
A children's savings do not affect whether parents can get help when the child's savings belong to the children. In contrast, the children's savings importance for young people to help, provided that the young can have children savings.
The municipality, in each case whether - in addition to the minimum amount of up to 10,000 kr. - Are grounds to disregard such earmarked assets, including how much there is reason to disregard.
10.000 kr corresponds to 1340.65 Euro or 1456.95 USD. http://www.xe.com I have looked into the legal disputes, in order to find out about what to consider below or above ap. 1340 Euro, but there were none.
Next come the text from Sott.net and originally from RT:
$430 fortune? Denmark defends plans to seize migrants’ cash & jewelry
RT
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 13:01 UTC
Denmark has defended its plans to strip refugees of their valuables, including cash and jewelry, and to make them pay for their stay in asylum centers. Authorities say the rules apply for all people in Denmark, whether residents or refugees.
"I can see that some foreign media are pouring scorn over [the fact] that we in the future may withdraw asylum seekers' valuables and demand that they should pay for their stay in asylum centers themselves," Integration Minister Inger Stojberg wrote on her Facebook page.
She insisted that Denmark has rules that apply to everyone, “no matter whether you have lived in Denmark throughout your life, or if you just arrived here.”
"There is no reason for criticism, since if Danes have valuables that cost over 10,000 kroner ($1,450) they are required to sell them before they can apply for unemployment benefit.”
Earlier in December, the Danish government presented a bill that included a number of different issues on asylum policy, including one on seizing valuable assets.
“The bill … provides the Danish authorities with the power to search clothes and luggage of asylum seekers – and other migrants without a permit to stay in Denmark – with a view to find assets which may cover the expenses mentioned above,” says the text of the proposal.
The new rule will only apply “to cash above approximately 3,000 kroner ($436) and tangible assets of a considerable value.”
The proposal has recently sparked outrage in social media. Many users accused Copenhagen of intolerance and even compared them to Nazis who seized gold from the Jews during WWII.
However, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said that the media is presenting "an incorrect picture of Denmark," adding that many don’t understand how generous Denmark is.
"It is in that context you should understand that we in Denmark say that before you get these welfare benefits you must, if you have a fortune, pay yourself," he said.
In the meantime, a majority of establishment politicians in Danish government have defended the proposal.
“It is not fair that taxpayers in Denmark must pay for asylum seekers who have brought a fortune,” Danish MP Naser Khader told Politiken newspaper.
According to Martin Henriksen from the Workers' Youth League, Denmark uses many resources “to house the people who come here.”
“It is very reasonable that people who come here pay for their accommodation if they have the money for it,” he added.
Comment: Right out of the Nazi Germany playbook indeed.
What is the context for this law. First of all the rule of 1340 Euro applying to citizens has been a constant for years, and has not been adjusted for inflation. Secondly the Government over the last many years have tightened the grip on the expenditures and introduced cuts in social spendings, education etc. It would not surprise me if rule of owning less than 1349 Euros as a condition for Danish citizens would one day be cut too, and perhaps to the level proposed for refugees, 400 Euros. Thirdly confiscations have been used before and have been applied pretty arbitrarily. In post WW2 anyone who had increased their wealth during the wartime had property confiscated. The argument was that they must have earned it on helping Nazis, the Occupiers and had to pay. To show how the law was applied, there is the story of a farmer, who had some cows, pigs, chickens, some fields and horses like farmes back then had. This man worked himself to exertion, perhaps he had nothing else to do, having lost his wife in childbirth just like his son less than one year old had also passed away after falling ill. The farmer worked and worked, wanted to build up the farm, repair the houses as soon as the war was over - and he did earn money because of his hard work. After the war the Government came and confiscated his additional earnings and he didn't get to make his life or the farm any better.
My conclusion is that some kind of property confiscation, perhaps hidden or disguised is a condition that is always possible in Denmark, also for Danes. Telling people that it is the way things are is perhaps a favour. The problem as I see it with this law regarding refugees, is that the amount is really low, but as I wrote earlier that may just be a precursor for a change of the law - in general. It is far from unthinkable also, that the new law is a guise for giving the police a search warrent, to look for home made weapons and illegal substances, false passports etc, but that is just a guess.
In the article from RT, there is a link to an article that gives more information about the proposed law:
http://uibm.dk/nyheder/2015-12/new-bill-presented-before-the-danish-parliament said:
New bill presented before the Danish Parliament
The Danish Government has on 10 December presented a bill before the Danish Parliament which includes a number of different initiatives on asylum policy, including an initiative on seizing valuable assets.
The bill will go through Parliamentary debate in January and will enter into force after adoption by the Parliament. The bill is expected to be effective from February 2016.
The Danish Immigration Service shall ensure that asylum seekers receive the necessary support while their asylum applications are being considered. The support includes basic maintenance, health care and accommodation.
The basic aim is to ensure, that those who are in need, also receive the necessary support.
It follows from current rules that an asylum seeker, who brings sufficient means to take care of him- or herself, should not also receive support from the Immigration Service. The asylum seeker is obliged to inform on any means that the asylum seeker brings with him or her.
The bill presented on 10 December 2015 provides the Danish authorities with the power to search clothes and luggage of asylum seekers – and other migrants without a permit to stay in Denmark – with a view to finding assets which may cover the expenses mentioned above.
It is explicitly mentioned in the bill before Parliament that the new rule on seizure will only apply to cash above approximately 3,000 DKK and tangible assets of a considerable value. Thus, foreigners will always be able to keep assets which are necessary to maintain a modest standard of living, e.g. watches and mobile phones. In other words, the general principle of a minimum amount exempt from execution also applies in this context.
Furthermore, assets which have a certain personal, sentimental value to a foreigner will not, as a main rule, be seized. However, they may be seized if, taking into account the degree of personal, sentimental value and, on the other hand, the economic value of the assets, it is deemed inappropriate not to seize the assets. In general, this implies that only personal assets with a value which is considerably higher than 3,000 DKK will be seized. Assets of a personal, sentimental value may include e.g. wedding rings and jewelry.
The proposed rule also applies to refugees already in the country.
Europe currently receives a very high number of refugees. This put a pressure on all countries, including Denmark. Denmark does take a share. However, a too high number of refugees puts pressure on the Danish society and makes it more difficult to ensure a successful integration of those who come to Denmark. The Government has therefore decided to tighten Danish refugee policies.
One thing is how the proposal is framed, another is how it will be applied. My impression from the wordings in the legislation applicable to Danes applying for finacial aid and the lack of courtcase regarding disputes about what is to be defined as more or less than 1340 Euros, is an indication that "leniency" has been shown in the past, and it could also apply to the future, at least that is a possibility.
Now let us take a look at history. First I went to find out what happened to the Jews just before WW2 in Germany, because that is the comparison being made:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007459 said:
Here are examples of anti-Jewish legislation in Nazi Germany, 1933–1939:
1933
March 31
Decree of the Berlin city commissioner for health suspends Jewish doctors from the city’s charity services.
April 7
Law for the Reestablishment of the Professional Civil Service removes Jews from government service.
April 7
Law on the Admission to the Legal Profession forbids the admission of Jews to the bar.
April 25
Law against Overcrowding in Schools and Universities limits the number of Jewish students in public schools.
July 14
De-Naturalization Law revokes the citizenship of naturalized Jews and “undesirables.”
October 4
Law on Editors bans Jews from editorial posts.
1935
May 21
Army law expels Jewish officers from the army.
September 15
Nazi leaders announce the Nuremberg Laws.
1936
January 11
Executive Order on the Reich Tax Law forbids Jews to serve as tax-consultants.
April 3
Reich Veterinarians Law expels Jews from the veterinary profession.
October 15
Reich Ministry of Education bans Jewish teachers from public schools.
1937
April 9
The Mayor of Berlin orders public schools not to admit Jewish children until further notice.
1938
January 5
Law on the Alteration of Family and Personal Names forbids Jews from changing their names.
February 5
Law on the Profession of Auctioneer excludes Jews from this occupation.
March 18
The Gun Law excludes Jewish gun merchants.
April 22
Decree against the Camouflage of Jewish Firms forbids changing the names of Jewish-owned businesses.
April 26
Order for the Disclosure of Jewish Assets requires Jews to report all property in excess of 5,000 reichsmarks.
July 11
Reich Ministry of the Interior bans Jews from health spas.
August 17
Executive Order on the Law on the Alteration of Family and Personal Names requires Jews to adopt an additional name: "Sara” for women and “Israel” for men.
October 3
Decree on the Confiscation of Jewish Property regulates the transfer of assets from Jews to non-Jewish Germans.
October 5
The Reich Interior Ministry invalidates all German passports held by Jews. Jews must surrender their old passports, which will become valid only after the letter “J” had been stamped on them.
November 12
Decree on the Exclusion of Jews from German Economic Life closes all Jewish-owned businesses.
November 15
Reich Ministry of Education expels all Jewish children from public schools.
November 28
Reich Ministry of Interior restricts the freedom of movement of Jews.
November 29
The Reich Interior Ministry forbids Jews to keep carrier pigeons.
December 14
An Executive Order on the Law on the Organization of National Work cancels all state contracts held with Jewish-owned firms.
December 21
Law on Midwives bans all Jews from the occupation.
1939
February 21
Decree Concerning the Surrender of Precious Metals and Stones in Jewish Ownership.
August 1
The President of the German Lottery forbids the sale of lottery tickets to Jews.
See also a similar list on http://yomhashoahpictureproject.com/?tag=memorials for a similar list. The above dates are somewhat empty of story, but for some background and context take a look at http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005681
I have highlighted the laws that regard confiscation of the property of Jews. Comparing the proposed Danish law of confiscating values in excess of 400 Euroes, with the confiscation laws in Germany allows one to estimate how much there is left to go, and also gives one barometer, sort of.
To find out about the future prospects for legislation etc, I look at how refugees were treated in Denmark after World War two. I have used translate.google to help out with translating excerpts from the Danish Wikipage about refugees:
https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flygtningelejre_i_Danmark_1944-1949 said:
Refugee camps in Denmark 1944-1949
The German Refugee Camps in Denmark was created after the first refugees from Germany arrived in Denmark in late 1944. Pressed by the Soviet army, the Germans conducted a huge evacuation operation, which partly aimed to get German soldiers and civilians brought to safety for the Soviet army and partly to emptying the Nazi concentration camps in Poland before the Allies arrived.
Between February 11 and May 5, 1945, about 238,000 Germans, preferably from East Prussia, Pomerania and the Baltic countries evacuated across the Baltic to the occupied Denmark. There was also an additional about 23,000 so-called allied refugees spread around 30 countries who were considered as "ex-enemy-Nationals" ie Allied refugees, despite the fact that several had fought on the German side during the war. Their registration, accommodation, food, etc. was handled by the Danish Red Cross.
The German refugees constituted in 1945 about 5% of the population of Denmark. The evacuation comprised mainly women, old people and children. Initially, the refugees were accommodated in schools, and public buildings were requisitioned for the purpose.
On 15 February 1949 the last German refugees traveled back to Germany. In 1950 Refugee Administration issued a report on progress. In this report, we read that the direct cost of having the German refugees in Denmark was 428 million.
From the end of 1944, the internment of hundreds of camps across the country, the largest of which was the refugee camp in Oksbøl (opened February 1945) and the refugee camp at Kløvermarken (opened November 1945).
[...]
Based on Law 21 of 4 February 1871, § 7 was prohibited and the punishable to socialize and connect with the interned German refugees. Moreover, the refugees on the basis of foreign law §14 "denied permanent residence in Denmark". On 24 July 1945, approximately 10,000 Danes employed to guard the camps.
[...]
Disease
The refugees had initially no help from Danish tenant or access to Danish hospitals. [1] As a result of lack of medical help mortality rate was high among the refugees, among others died around 7000 children. [1] Total died more than 13 thousand refugees of lack of basic medical care, small rations and miserable boforhold. The fugitives were under Danish medical checks and had access to admission to Danish hospitals. As time went camps infirmaries, which were largely staffed by its own doctors and nurses. There were also established workshops, schools, retirement homes and churches.
Death of refugees in Denmark 1945-1949
From 1945 to 1949 died in the Danish refugee camps 17,209 German refugees. They were distributed initially at 475 cemeteries
[...]
10000 people to guard the camps! That sounds like a prison, and it probably was, but at least the camps did not get burned down which is what has happened recently to several locations in Germany and Sweden.
For another presentation of the story about 200000 refugees being housed in Denmark in the aftermath of WW2:
http://www.graenseforeningen.dk/?q=leksikon/t/all/11040 said:
German refugees in Denmark.
During WW2 final phase fled about two million Germans to the west of the Red Army's advance. The escape took place partly over land through Schleswig-Holstein, in part through the German Baltic ports (Konigsberg, Stettin and Danzig) hoping to get a ship to the west. The ships were chased by mainly Russian planes and submarines and some of history's greatest maritime disasters occurred in this period of 20-30,000 deaths.
Hundreds of thousands of German refugees ended up in South Schleswig, where the situation was disastrous and on the brink of famine. From national Danish community were protesting against the massive inward migration of Germans from East Prussia and the Baltic states, which would upset the balance between Danish and German and make it impossible to accomplish the reunion dreams that were awakened in the aftermath of Nazi Germany's collapse.
Approximately 200,000 of the refugees came to Denmark and were interned in various camps and shanty towns, where under strict guard was recorded. The first refugees came in January-February 1945 and were accommodated in private homes with the German minority, but soon was needed for many many more places. The last refugees traveled in the spring of 1949. A number of the Occupation military camps after liberation transformed into refugee camps, including Oksbøl, Skrydstrup, Aalborg, Karup, Beldringe and Karrebaeksminde.
The camps are surrounded by barbed wire and all fraternization between Danish guards and police officers, etc. and the internees refugee becomes criminalized. The Germans were not popular after the war's atrocities, and at the same time they wanted to protect people from diseases and epidemics. Wehrmacht own doctors responsible for the medical supervision up to the liberation. Mortality was huge among children and infants. Danish doctors refused to intervene because it can be associated with charges of treason. After the liberation surpasses medical responsibility to the Danish authorities. The mortality rate is still very high due to epidemics. Only at the turn of the year 1945-46 is to control the diseases.
There are both contemporaries and posterity from a humanitarian point of view has been criticized by the Danish handling of the German refugees. International organizations who inspected conditions found not inducing significant criticism. In recent years, the literature about the German refugees has been severely criticized. It has been suggested that Danes considered the German refugees cruel and relentless, and regarded them as enemies rather than people in need - and thus was not much better than the Nazi regime, which had sent its own people on the run. Against this view, it has been claimed that the difficult situation after the liberation made the handling of the German refugees complicated because on the one hand, they belonged to the hated occupiers and on the other hand, they were fellow human beings in need, but only with time has it become easier to separate the enemy from fellow human being. Exploration in the coming year of the subject will be able to shed more light on this chapter of the history of Denmark.
For more information, photos and movies on http://oksbol1945-49.dk/.
On the above website, there was poster which I have attached. It is from the end of WW2 which expresses some of the sentiments regarding the reception of refugees from Germany, Poland, the Baltics, Prussia. The poster reads Free Southern Schleswig. It was a part which Denmark had lost to Germany following a war in 1864.
If you wish to more read about the evacuation of Germans and others from Prussia to Denmark and Germany:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuation_of_East_Prussia said:
[..]Operation Hannibal was a military operation that started on January 21, 1945, on the orders of Admiral Karl Dönitz, withdrawing German troops and civilians from Courland, East Prussia, and the Polish Corridor. The flood of refugees turned the operation into one of the largest emergency evacuations by sea in history — over a period of 15 weeks, somewhere between 494 and 1,080 merchant vessels of all types and numerous naval craft, including Germany's largest remaining naval units, transported about 800,000 - 900,000 refugees and 350,000 soldiers[22] across the Baltic Sea to Germany and occupied Denmark.[23] This evacuation was one of the German Navy's most significant activities during the war.[24]
The greatest recorded maritime disaster in history occurred during this operation, when the passenger ship Wilhelm Gustloff was hit by three torpedoes from the Soviet submarine S-13 in the Baltic Sea on the night of 30 January 1945. She sank in under 45 minutes; figures for the number of deaths vary from 5,348,[25][26] to 7,000[27][24] or 9,400.[28]The 949 survivors[29] were rescued by Kriegsmarine vessels led by cruiser Admiral Hipper,[27] although it is claimed that "the big warship could not risk heaving to, with a submarine close by".[30] Also, on 10 February, the SS General von Steuben left Pillau with 2,680 refugees onboard; it was hit by torpedoes just after departure, killing almost all aboard.[31][...]
If so many people could be moved in such a short time in 1945, we have not improved over the last 70 years. See also this German article about the rescue operation. For more on the Baltic evacuation and the tragedies:
http://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/geschichte/tid-9050/wilhelm-gustloff_aid_262897.html
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/spiegelspecial/d-22937242.html estimates that the losses in the Baltic sea to be more like 40.000, which is somewhat more that the reports from the Danish page which however mentions that the sinking of ships was done mainly by the Russians, so who else was in the game, the British - and they were cruel!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Cap_Arcona_%281927%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Thielbek_%281940%29
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n4p-2_Weber.html said:
[...]The Thielbek, struck by rockets, bombs and machine gun fire, sank in just 15-20 minutes. British planes then fired on terror-stricken survivors who were struggling in rescue boats or thrashing in the cold sea. Nearly everyone on board the Thielbek perished quickly, including nearly all the SS guards, ship's officers and crew members. Only about 50 of the prisoners survived.
The burning Cap Arcona took longer to go under. Many inmates burned to death. Most of those who were able to leap overboard drowned in the cold sea, and only some 350-500 could be rescued. During the next several days hundreds of corpses washed up on nearby shores, and were buried in mass graves. Having sunk in shallow water, the wreck of the capsized Cap Arcona remained partially above water as a grim reminder of the catastrophe.[...]
It began with a proposed law to seize the property of refugees entering Denmark if it is in excess of 400 Euro, and then we visited history to find out about the past and the possibilities for the present. Now, what will happen next in the refugee crisis? Will laws be applied like in Nazi Germany, not just confiscation but the whole list, will there be camps opened, and if so will they be burned down or guarded like prisons, will the people be treated kindly or? That is all to be seen, but I hope they will be treated kindly, and problems be solved. But in Denmark the challenges can be expected to rise in 2016, since Sweden has kind of shot the borders to Denmark. At least there is going to be much stricter control and many more fleeing refugees can be expected in Denmark.