Some German states seize the money for refugees

After Switzerland and Denmark also in two regions of Germany, Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, it was decided to keep money in cash or valuables, to bear the cost of the reception. The measure concerns a variable amount, depending on the country, heritage, with which the refugees manage to arrive in these countries. Following the establishment of the procedure in Denmark and Switzerland, they had raised controversy in Germany, for a practice determined contrary to the regulations on asylum and the same opportunities moral of that choice, but now, with the adoption of similar measures, states Germans that apply defending gold lal choice according to the sovereignty conferred by federal law. It is, without doubt, a hypocritical attitude, probably dictated by strong domestic disputes, even with the government of Berlin, who criticize the indiscriminate reception of refugees, an unmistakable sign that the policy of Chancellor Merkel is not shared and is, within his own party, a cause of deep heavy friction. The manner in which withdrawals are made from the assets of migrants, reminiscent of the episodes very sad story: asylum seekers, in fact, are checked at the entrance of shelters and if their heritage, not only in cash but also in valuables exceeds a certain amount in euro, 350 in Baden-Wurttemberg, Bavaria in 750, takes the requisition, which according to press reports, in the month of December, in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg would have amounted to about a thousand euro on average for each refugee. The first consideration that can not stand is how these European states to apply a sort of entrance fee to people who are already stretched thin from a long and exhausting, due to situations of war and famine, after having already paid almost all their belongings to the professionals of human trafficking, who were both convicted just by Western nations; a comparison of these forms of collection appears inevitable, as it is difficult to put nearly on the same level traffickers and actually state that seize the assets of refugees. The practice is humiliating both for those who put in place, both for the sufferer; but, while the latter must comply, so forced, nth oppression, the choice for sovereign entities to apply these methods, it calls into question the legitimacy, a speech that should be addressed in the larger premises of the European Parliament, which should provide the appropriate sanctions. It is understandable that this requisition is purely demagogic benefit of a certain political party, that governments, obviously, does not want to alienate, while the actual effectiveness of cost containment, these requisitions have certainly an important impact. The practical effects, that is, in addition to not exist, do not compensate for the hardness of a rule that you could save by avoiding, above all, a very bad figure, not worthy of the fundamental principles of Europe. But the fact that these measures have been taken in some German states richest seems perfectly in line with the severity with which Germany intends to deal with issues that would require a higher tolerance, as previously happened with Greece, a country already crippled who They were imposed even harsher economic conditions not only to obstruct the line of economic austerity in Berlin, line, and for another, albeit in a more subdued was imposed on the entire European Union, stifling the recovery for the benefit of industry German. Once again Brussels is notable for its absence from expressing its own conduct, that knows how to distinguish itself from the absurd decisions of some of its members, denouncing a state of inferiority and inability to find a synthesis that can handle problems, even the most relevant. The only strategy designed by the European Union remains that of finance, not to field its facilities abroad, the countries that mainly take charge of the Syrian refugees, as Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, pouring into their coffers substantial contributions capable silencing the conscience of Brussels, this despite evidence that this practice has not stopped the continuous influx of refugees. Now the hope is that the practice of seizure of assets of migrants does not spread, especially in the silence of the European institutions, a factor which should reflect the countries of Southern Europe on the real affinity with other people with whom they share the old continent.