So Denmark passed a law that police can confiscate property of more than 1500 dollars from refugees
Options
Elzo69Renaissance
Members Posts: 50,708 ✭✭✭✭✭
They claim this is to help pay for the rising cost of hosting such individuals...what are yall thoughts?
Comments
-
That's stupid as ? , them ? gonna be out there stealing cuz they can. I see violence in the near future.
-
Refugees can keep their property.....by staying the ? out of Denmark. otherwise, they need to contribute.
-
not_osirus_jenkins wrote: »That's stupid as ? , them ? gonna be out there stealing cuz they can. I see violence in the near future.
Is it the government job to provide support free of charge to refugees who honestly should at this very moment be fightin for their homeland. -
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
But what if its there money an they not taking government subsides
-
US has laws like this.
DEA Steals $16,000 In Cash From Young Black Man, Because He Must Be A Drug Dealer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/dea-asset-forfeiture-joseph-rivers_n_7231744.html05/07/2015 04:43 pm ET | Updated May 08, 2015
Nick Wing
Senior Viral Editor, The Huffington Post
ASSOCIATED PRESS
After scraping together enough money to produce a music video in Hollywood, 22-year-old Joseph Rivers set out last month on a train trip from Michigan to Los Angeles, hoping it was the start of something big.
Before he made it to California, however, Rivers fell victim to a legal form of government highway robbery.
Rivers changed trains at the Amtrak station in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on April 15, with bags containing his clothes, other possessions and an envelope filled with the $16,000 in cash he had raised with the help of his family, the Albuquerque Journal reports. Agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration got on after him and began looking for people who might be trafficking drugs.
Rivers said the agents questioned passengers at random, asking for their destination and reason for travel. When one of the agents got to Rivers, who was the only black person in his car, according to witnesses, the agent took the interrogation further, asking to search his bags. Rivers complied. The agent found the cash -- still in a bank envelope -- and decided to seize it on suspicion that it may be tied to narcotics. River pleaded with the agents, explaining his situation and even putting his mother on the phone to verify the story.
No luck.
“These officers took everything that I had worked so hard to save and even money that was given to me by family that believed in me,” Rivers told the Journal. “I told (the DEA agents) I had no money and no means to survive in Los Angeles if they took my money. They informed me that it was my responsibility to figure out how I was going to do that.”
Rivers, who has since returned to Michigan, fell victim to civil asset forfeiture, a legal tool that has been criticized as a violation of due process and a contradiction of the idea that criminal defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Asset forfeiture allows police to seize property they suspect is related to criminal activity, without even charging its owner with a crime. The charges are filed against the property itself -- including cash, jewelry, cars and houses -- which can then be sold, with part of the proceeds flowing back to the department that made the seizure.
“We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Sean Waite, the agent in charge at the DEA's Albuquerque's office, told the Journal. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”
The burden of proof lies with those whose property is taken, who often are forced to wage costly court battles to prove they came by their possessions legally.
That's where Michael Pancer, a San Diego attorney who now represents Rivers, comes in.
“What this is, is having your money stolen by a federal agent acting under the color of law,” Pancer told the Journal. “It’s a national epidemic. If my office got four to five cases just recently, and I’m just one attorney, you know this is happening thousands of times.”
Pancer is challenging the DEA asset forfeiture on Rivers' behalf, and wrote in a letter to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), obtained by The Huffington Post, that Rivers' race "played a role in the incident." Conyers' office wouldn't comment on active litigation.
A February report by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group that focuses on civil liberties, showed how widespread civil asset forfeiture has become. The federal program led to nearly $6.8 billion in seized cash and property from 2008 to 2013, the report says. A series in The Washington Post published last year showed that since 2001, $2.5 billion had been seized in cash alone -- all from people who were never charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued.
While law enforcement officials argue that civil asset forfeiture is an important weapon for fighting the drug trade, stories like Rivers' emerge regularly, suggesting that plenty of innocent people have become collateral damage.
Take the case of Matt Lee, 31, who in 2011 was pulled over by police in Nevada while on the last leg of a cross-country move from Michigan to California. In an ensuing K-9 search, police discovered $2,400 in cash, loaned to Lee by his father. Though officers had no proof of any connection to a crime -- Lee had never even been arrested before -- they seized the cash and left Lee with $151. Lee later hired a lawyer, and the county eventually agreed to return his money. By then, his legal fees had reached $1,269, leaving Lee with less than half of the money that had been taken from him.
Civil asset forfeiture isn't just being used to take down big-time drug dealers. A recent study by the Drug Policy Alliance on the practice in California found that the average value of a state forfeiture in 2013 was $5,145, adjusted to 1992 dollars. This number has changed little since 1992, when 94 percent of state forfeitures involved seizures of $5,000 or less.
A DEA list of recently seized property, released on Thursday, reflects this trend, listing seizures of a few hundred dollars alongside high-value items and cash.
Growing criticism of civil asset forfeiture has led to calls for change in some states. In New Mexico, where Rivers' money was seized, Gov. Susana Martinez (R) signed a set of reforms last month that will effectively end the most controversial use of the practice by police at state level. In Montana, a new law will scale back civil asset forfeiture by state and local police.
But these reforms don't affect the ability of federal agents to seize property under federal rules, meaning we will likely continue to see stories like Rivers'. -
ThaNubianGod wrote: »Refugees can keep their property.....by staying the ? out of Denmark. otherwise, they need to contribute.
Makes no sense -
In 20 years time there will be war all over europe or there will be a rise of far right governments
-
Yeah there is no coordination, wir schaffen das turned into wir schaffen das nicht and Schengen is in danger...the division is amazing as usual within the EU, next 6-8 weeks are crucial regarding this refugee ordeal.
Denmark is a small country but relatively large for its population(+- 4 million people)...
even here in Holland people are rioting, small azz towns with a population of 1200 people get 500 refugees, they dont like those numbers.
there is no spread, no coordination, germany, holland, belgium etc want to halt the amount and spread them all over the eu without the refugees choosing where they want to go
but yeah wll see what happens -
Like i have always said the european union will not exist in the near future because even if the situation in the middle east gets better those refugee muslims living in europe will not want to go back.
There will be ethnic and racial tension in europe once again AND WE ALL KNOW how that ended the last time. meanwhile america will be sick of fighting all these wars and will go back into it's shell causing the rest of the world to go to hell in a hand basket. -
I don't know the details of this or whether or not I think it might be justified, and this could be slightly off topic, but I don't understand the mentality that immigrants shouldn't complain about being mistreated if they're not in their home country. Leaving aside the fact (?) that countries with low birth rates, or just an underdeveloped economy, can benefit from immigration (which is completely besides my point) if an immigrant woman does or should have a right to not be ? then she should complain about being ? if she is and it can't be 'context'ed away by the fact that she chose to leave India, Saudi Arabia or Tanzania for Holland or Brazil or wherever. The natives don't have a right to ? her just because she's a foreigner, either a citizen doing that to her was wrong or it was not wrong.
In short, I completely disagree with the idea that governments are fundamentally justified in caring more about the rights or interests of citizens over those of permanent residents, tourists, foreigners or even illegal immigrants. I would think it was wrong even if people could choose where they were born but the fact that they don't, you'd think most people would see it as 'unfair' that some people aren't granted certain rights and privileges by a government because of where they were born. That's not to deny that there aren't certain practical considerations that justify currently making a distinction between people born in this area vs. that but giving either more or less consideration is wrong. -
I don't know the details of this or whether or not I think it might be justified, and this could be slightly off topic, but I don't understand the mentality that immigrants shouldn't complain about being mistreated if they're not in their home country. Leaving aside the fact (?) that countries with low birth rates, or just an underdeveloped economy, can benefit from immigration (which is completely besides my point) if an immigrant woman does or should have a right to not be ? then she should complain about being ? if she is and it can't be 'context'ed away by the fact that she chose to leave India, Saudi Arabia or Tanzania for Holland or Brazil or wherever. The natives don't have a right to ? her just because she's a foreigner, either a citizen doing that to her was wrong or it was not wrong.
In short, I completely disagree with the idea that governments are fundamentally justified in caring more about the rights or interests of citizens over those of permanent residents, tourists, foreigners or even illegal immigrants. I would think it was wrong even if people could choose where they were born but the fact that they don't, you'd think most people would see it as 'unfair' that some people aren't granted certain rights and privileges by a government because of where they were born. That's not to deny that there aren't certain practical considerations that justify currently making a distinction between people born in this area vs. that but giving either more or less consideration is wrong.
? governments only exist for their citizens survival. -
In 20 years time there will be war all over europe or there will be a rise of far right governments
The left already won. By making education mandatory and making it the government's responsibility we have ensured that leftism will win the ideological war. Most teachers are on the left, most professors are on the left, and they will continue to expose impressionable young people to leftist ideals ensuring that with each generation liberalism becomes more common.
-
powerman 5000 wrote: »US has laws like this.
DEA Steals $16,000 In Cash From Young Black Man, Because He Must Be A Drug Dealer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/dea-asset-forfeiture-joseph-rivers_n_7231744.html05/07/2015 04:43 pm ET | Updated May 08, 2015
Nick Wing
Senior Viral Editor, The Huffington Post
ASSOCIATED PRESS
After scraping together enough money to produce a music video in Hollywood, 22-year-old Joseph Rivers set out last month on a train trip from Michigan to Los Angeles, hoping it was the start of something big.
Before he made it to California, however, Rivers fell victim to a legal form of government highway robbery.
Rivers changed trains at the Amtrak station in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on April 15, with bags containing his clothes, other possessions and an envelope filled with the $16,000 in cash he had raised with the help of his family, the Albuquerque Journal reports. Agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration got on after him and began looking for people who might be trafficking drugs.
Rivers said the agents questioned passengers at random, asking for their destination and reason for travel. When one of the agents got to Rivers, who was the only black person in his car, according to witnesses, the agent took the interrogation further, asking to search his bags. Rivers complied. The agent found the cash -- still in a bank envelope -- and decided to seize it on suspicion that it may be tied to narcotics. River pleaded with the agents, explaining his situation and even putting his mother on the phone to verify the story.
No luck.
“These officers took everything that I had worked so hard to save and even money that was given to me by family that believed in me,” Rivers told the Journal. “I told (the DEA agents) I had no money and no means to survive in Los Angeles if they took my money. They informed me that it was my responsibility to figure out how I was going to do that.”
Rivers, who has since returned to Michigan, fell victim to civil asset forfeiture, a legal tool that has been criticized as a violation of due process and a contradiction of the idea that criminal defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Asset forfeiture allows police to seize property they suspect is related to criminal activity, without even charging its owner with a crime. The charges are filed against the property itself -- including cash, jewelry, cars and houses -- which can then be sold, with part of the proceeds flowing back to the department that made the seizure.
“We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Sean Waite, the agent in charge at the DEA's Albuquerque's office, told the Journal. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”
The burden of proof lies with those whose property is taken, who often are forced to wage costly court battles to prove they came by their possessions legally.
That's where Michael Pancer, a San Diego attorney who now represents Rivers, comes in.
“What this is, is having your money stolen by a federal agent acting under the color of law,” Pancer told the Journal. “It’s a national epidemic. If my office got four to five cases just recently, and I’m just one attorney, you know this is happening thousands of times.”
Pancer is challenging the DEA asset forfeiture on Rivers' behalf, and wrote in a letter to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), obtained by The Huffington Post, that Rivers' race "played a role in the incident." Conyers' office wouldn't comment on active litigation.
A February report by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group that focuses on civil liberties, showed how widespread civil asset forfeiture has become. The federal program led to nearly $6.8 billion in seized cash and property from 2008 to 2013, the report says. A series in The Washington Post published last year showed that since 2001, $2.5 billion had been seized in cash alone -- all from people who were never charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued.
While law enforcement officials argue that civil asset forfeiture is an important weapon for fighting the drug trade, stories like Rivers' emerge regularly, suggesting that plenty of innocent people have become collateral damage.
Take the case of Matt Lee, 31, who in 2011 was pulled over by police in Nevada while on the last leg of a cross-country move from Michigan to California. In an ensuing K-9 search, police discovered $2,400 in cash, loaned to Lee by his father. Though officers had no proof of any connection to a crime -- Lee had never even been arrested before -- they seized the cash and left Lee with $151. Lee later hired a lawyer, and the county eventually agreed to return his money. By then, his legal fees had reached $1,269, leaving Lee with less than half of the money that had been taken from him.
Civil asset forfeiture isn't just being used to take down big-time drug dealers. A recent study by the Drug Policy Alliance on the practice in California found that the average value of a state forfeiture in 2013 was $5,145, adjusted to 1992 dollars. This number has changed little since 1992, when 94 percent of state forfeitures involved seizures of $5,000 or less.
A DEA list of recently seized property, released on Thursday, reflects this trend, listing seizures of a few hundred dollars alongside high-value items and cash.
Growing criticism of civil asset forfeiture has led to calls for change in some states. In New Mexico, where Rivers' money was seized, Gov. Susana Martinez (R) signed a set of reforms last month that will effectively end the most controversial use of the practice by police at state level. In Montana, a new law will scale back civil asset forfeiture by state and local police.
But these reforms don't affect the ability of federal agents to seize property under federal rules, meaning we will likely continue to see stories like Rivers'.
The moral of the story is don't consent to a search without a warrant. -
In 20 years time there will be war all over europe or there will be a rise of far right governments
The left already won. By making education mandatory and making it the government's responsibility we have ensured that leftism will win the ideological war. Most teachers are on the left, most professors are on the left, and they will continue to expose impressionable young people to leftist ideals ensuring that with each generation liberalism becomes more common.
the left is already in control but things are changing, there will be revolution all over europe in some form or another be they just political or military REVOLUTIONS they will happen. One thing history has shown is that the young eventually rebel against the establishment, the white youth of liberal europe will rebel against leftism. The shift is already happening with the rise of more right leaning groups and politicians in europe.
If there is more terror attacks in WESTERN europe during an election season the left can forget about staying in power. -
I don't know the details of this or whether or not I think it might be justified, and this could be slightly off topic, but I don't understand the mentality that immigrants shouldn't complain about being mistreated if they're not in their home country. Leaving aside the fact (?) that countries with low birth rates, or just an underdeveloped economy, can benefit from immigration (which is completely besides my point) if an immigrant woman does or should have a right to not be ? then she should complain about being ? if she is and it can't be 'context'ed away by the fact that she chose to leave India, Saudi Arabia or Tanzania for Holland or Brazil or wherever. The natives don't have a right to ? her just because she's a foreigner, either a citizen doing that to her was wrong or it was not wrong.
In short, I completely disagree with the idea that governments are fundamentally justified in caring more about the rights or interests of citizens over those of permanent residents, tourists, foreigners or even illegal immigrants. I would think it was wrong even if people could choose where they were born but the fact that they don't, you'd think most people would see it as 'unfair' that some people aren't granted certain rights and privileges by a government because of where they were born. That's not to deny that there aren't certain practical considerations that justify currently making a distinction between people born in this area vs. that but giving either more or less consideration is wrong.
? governments only exist for their citizens survival.
Do you think that governments should consider themselves as having a responsibility to (grant and) protect the rights of foreigners on 'their' land? Would you agree with me that Americans assaulting Haitians in the U.S is morally just as wrong as Americans assaulting Americans in the U.S?
In my opinion, the governments of the world should be working toward open borders and a planet wide government that considers all people to be citizens of the world (under a shared ideology of egalitarianism and universal empathy). Different federal governments would still exist, though, just like there are provincial and state governments in every country.
Is the concept of state's rights so that people can live in societies with laws that reflect their values and still be free to travel to other states if they disagree with those laws in a way that most of them don't have the option of doing if it's the federal laws of their country that they disagree with? I never knew that could be a justification until I watched a YT video where someone mentioned something like that or something that I thought implied that. -
I don't know the details of this or whether or not I think it might be justified, and this could be slightly off topic, but I don't understand the mentality that immigrants shouldn't complain about being mistreated if they're not in their home country. Leaving aside the fact (?) that countries with low birth rates, or just an underdeveloped economy, can benefit from immigration (which is completely besides my point) if an immigrant woman does or should have a right to not be ? then she should complain about being ? if she is and it can't be 'context'ed away by the fact that she chose to leave India, Saudi Arabia or Tanzania for Holland or Brazil or wherever. The natives don't have a right to ? her just because she's a foreigner, either a citizen doing that to her was wrong or it was not wrong.
In short, I completely disagree with the idea that governments are fundamentally justified in caring more about the rights or interests of citizens over those of permanent residents, tourists, foreigners or even illegal immigrants. I would think it was wrong even if people could choose where they were born but the fact that they don't, you'd think most people would see it as 'unfair' that some people aren't granted certain rights and privileges by a government because of where they were born. That's not to deny that there aren't certain practical considerations that justify currently making a distinction between people born in this area vs. that but giving either more or less consideration is wrong.
? governments only exist for their citizens survival.
Do you think that governments should consider themselves as having a responsibility to (grant and) protect the rights of foreigners on 'their' land? Would you agree with me that Americans assaulting Haitians in the U.S is morally just as wrong as Americans assaulting Americans in the U.S?
In my opinion, the governments of the world should be working toward open borders and a planet wide government that considers all people to be citizens of the world (under a shared ideology of egalitarianism and universal empathy). Different federal governments would still exist, though, just like there are provincial and state governments in every country.
Is the concept of state's rights so that people can live in societies with laws that reflect their values and still be free to travel to other states if they disagree with those laws in a way that most of them don't have the option of doing if it's the federal laws of their country that they disagree with? I never knew that could be a justification until I watched a YT video where someone mentioned something like that or something that I thought implied that.
The only rights refugees deserve are human rights. We don't want worldwide government or any of that fuckery. Because it's a way to strip people of freedom and sovereignty. Worldwide government would be corrupt as ? . ? egalitarianism. It's a fantasy the real world is not start trek. Some cultures are better some nations are better.
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/15efd8efe08bb34aae25f1808aaf5018.svg)
