Should asylum seekers be forced to give up their valuables in order to pay for their stay? The asylum process can be a lengthy one, and some countries argue that applicants should finance their upkeep with any valuables or other assets they bring with them.

Critics counter that the policy is not really about raising money, and is instead more about ‘looking tough’ and scaring away new applicants. The approach has been condemned by the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and other organisations. Yet several countries already have such schemes in place, including Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Objects of sentimental value, such as wedding rings (but not other jewellery), are usually exempt from confiscation.

In order to take a closer look at the local impact of the refugee crisis, we recently launched our ‘Cities & Refugees‘ project – aimed at fostering a Europe-wide dialogue between citizens, refugees and asylum seekers, NGOs, politicians, and European leaders. The emphasis will be on connecting local, everyday life at the city level to decisions made in Brussels and national capitals.

This week, we’re looking at Copenhagen, Denmark. A law introduced in January 2016 mean that asylum seekers arriving in Denmark can have valuables and other assets worth more than 1,340 euros confiscated in order to cover their housing and food costs while their applications are being processed. The law also requires asylum seekers to wait three years before their relatives can join them.

Curious to know more about Denmark’s policy of seizing refugee assets to pay for food and housing? We’ve put together some facts and figures in the infographic below (click for a bigger version).

We had a comment from Maia, who argued that the policy is just a practical solution to a real problem, due to the large number of asylum seekers arriving and lack of resources to address their needs. She rejected criticism that this was a ‘far-right’ policy.

To get a response, we spoke to Kristian Jensen, a postdoc at Aarhus University whose research focuses on the different integration policies in Scandinavian countries. What would he say to Maia?

I’m not so sure it’s a practical solution. It hasn’t actually brought in much money, and has only been used once so far. In fact, the policy has probably cost more than it has brought in. Some people argue that unemployed Danish citizens are also required to give up their assets to fund their benefits, but Danes don’t need to give up jewellery or cars. It’s a token law, just to signal to asylum seekers not to come to Denmark.

Next up, we put the same question to Jonas Christoffersen, Executive Director of the Danish Institute for Human Rights. How would he respond?

First of all, from a human rights perspective, I don’t have any concerns about the seizure of assets from those who can pay for their own stay, because what they seek is protection. They don’t seek publicly-funded support, that’s not why they come.

On the other hand, I don’t think it has much of a practical aspect, at least not in Denmark. We have used the new rules only once, in the summer of 2016, and I think the total amount that was seized was estimated to be around 10,000 euros.

So, on the one hand, the act was grossly misrepresented in the media, who over-exaggerated the nature of the interference in the asylum seekers’ life. But in terms of the practical value of the law, it is next to nothing.

Finally, we put Maia’s question to Eugenio Ambrosi, Regional Director at the International Organization for Migration (IOM) for the EU, Norway and Switzerland. What would he say?

I think it’s important to recall that we have an international legal framework that deals with refugees and asylum seekers. This framework was recognised by the international community at the time of the signing of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, and it makes clear that there are a category of people who engage our collective responsibility in terms of assistance and protection… I do not believe we should put in place any policy that jeopardises our national and international responsibilities to protect people who are running away from persecution or war.

It’s also worth remembering that over 84% of the world’s refugee population resides in the global south. I seriously doubt that Europe as a whole does not have enough resources to take care of the number of refugees that are reaching our own territories, when the poorest countries in the world are looking after so many more… So, I think the moral and ethical principle of protection of refugees and assistance to those in need should take precedence over anything else.

Should refugees’ assets be seized to pay for their housing? Or is it just a token law that won’t actually bring in much money, but will make thee government ‘look tough’ on refugees? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsi­ble for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.