Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should Countries Taking In Refugees Confiscate their Valuables?
Countries that accept refugees must confiscate their valuables worth more than €1500.
Taking away valuables from refugees is necessary for the state to generate easy and fast income.
It is unlikely that any refugees can contribute an amount commensurate with what a native citizen of their age would have contributed over a lifetime by paying taxes in the country. Confiscation is therefore the next best possible way for them to contribute fairly to the services they will access.
Confiscating refugees' valuables would work as deterrence and help keep refugees out.
Confiscating their valuables would show that refugees have something to give in return, which would be good for their reputation.
Taking refugee's valuables makes their integration more difficult.
Exercising the right to asylum should not be tied to expenses.
There are alternative ways to have refugees contribute rather than compulsory confiscation.
Confiscating refugee valuables can lead to negative international reputation.
One of the main duties of a modern democratic state is to provide and protect the right of property. Confiscating the private property of refugees violates that important right.
The EU is wealthy enough to host refugees without taking away their posessions.
The application of this policy will put refugees from African, Middle-Eastern and Asian countries at a disadvantage.
Confiscating valuables to migrants violates the migrants property rights.
To physically search refugees for valuables has negative effects.
Should high-income countries take in refugees?
Should countries send back refugees when it is safe in their country of origin?
Should Developed Countries Reduce The Working Year?