Apparently, Denmark is considering a plan (WSJ, gated) to seize valuables from migrants to offset government costs. I am sure this will work out just as fairly as do American asset forfeiture laws
Denmark’s minority government has secured cross-party backing for a plan to seize cash and valuables from asylum seekers to help meet the cost of their stay in the Nordic country despite criticism from the United Nations and some Danish lawmakers.
Details of how the plan, which could be adopted by parliament as early as next month, would be put into action remain scant.
Liberal Party lawmakers, who draw up the proposal, have provided few details other than to say that police won’t be taking people’s possessions as they enter the country. Police or other officials would appraise the value of people’s possessions as they check the identity of asylum seeks before deciding what, if anything, the new arrivals should pay.
A while back I wrote a controversial post saying that I don't see any moral difference between building a wall to keep people in a country vs. building a wall to keep them out. **
For a period of time in the late 1930's, the German government was actually encouraging Jews to leave the country -- the one requirement, though, was that the government stripped them of all their property and valuables on the way out. So I ask the same question slightly modified. What is the moral difference between stripping refugees of their assets as the leave a country vs. as they enter a country?
** Several people argued the point by analogy, saying it is OK to lock people out of your house but not to lock them in your house. Certainly, but this frequent use of exclusionary rights on private property as an analogy for an entire country is deeply flawed. Essentially, for this to be a valid analogy, one would have to adopt Marxist definitions of state ownership of all property and totalitarian views on individual rights to argue that an entire country is just like a private house.