George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

by Katiedot Sat 13 Feb 2016, 18:43

And here's his comments about Denmark which has had some Danish fans up in arms:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

George Clooney criticizes Danish smykkelov: "I am concerned"

February 13th. 2016

Kristian Ruhe Thorsen & Nikolaj Albrectsen

Movie star uses interview with TV 2 to criticize the Danish asylum law.

See the full interview with George Clooney in the video at the top [Katiedot: I can't embed the video so you need to see it at the link].

A visit by the big film festival in Berlin is not just used to smile and tell good stories for actor George Clooney. He is not only known for his skills in front of a camera, but also for his great commitment to the social debate.

And he is taken quite seriously. Friday he used so one hour along with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, where the two among other things, discussed the refugee situation in Europe.

It continued Clooney as also when TV 2 a little later in the day met the actor. And here he soon started to talk about Denmark's response to the flood of refugees.

- There are some decisions that will not be popular in the long term, says George Clooney to TV 2 of the Asylum Act, popularly known jewelry Act, which has meant a lot of criticism of Denmark for many foreign media.

This is the fundamental legislation that meets criticism of the actor:

- I do not like to take people's belongings to pay for the refugee crisis.
Criticism of homeland

George Clooney elaborates in the interview sent in a feature in 19 news that the group of refugees should be seen as victims.

- They are victims. It is not that they go to Denmark to sweeten their lives. They try to escape death, he says.

The American actor believes, however, nor that his own country has taken its responsibilities in the matter. It is mainly about the economic situation and therefore feel the actor that it can be difficult to go out with a critique of Denmark.

- I know it's hard for me to criticize it because the United States does not provide its part of the aid in the refugee situation.

The problem to be solved in Syria

During the meeting with Angela Merkel spoke among other things about how Clooney and all others can help with the refugee crisis.

- You can not deal with the situation here, it will be like putting a plaster on. It must be stopped at the source, it must be stopped in Syria.

The film 'Hail Caesar' who have been Clooney to the German capital's film festival.

George Clooney has previously shown its commitment to society by working actively to raise funds for victims of the 2004 tsunami, the earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the September 11 terrorist attacks.

In addition, diplomats given his work in South Sudan part of the credit for the country to secede in 2011.

- In emergency situations it does not matter to ask everyone a contribution. It is a good thing, he says.

George Clooney kritiserer dansk smykkelov: Jeg er bekymret
13. feb. 2016

af Kristian Ruhe Thorsen & Nikolaj Albrectsen
Filmstjernen benytter interview med TV 2 til at kritisere den danske asyllov.
Se hele interviewet med George Clooney i videoen øverst.
Et besøg ved den store filmfestival i Berlin bliver ikke bare brugt på at smile og fortælle gode historier for skuespilleren George Clooney. Han er ikke bare kendt for sine evner foran et kamera, men også for sit store engagement i samfundsdebatten.
Og han bliver taget ganske seriøst. Fredag brugte han således en time sammen med den tyske kansler Angela Merkel, hvor de to blandt andet diskuterede flygtningesituationen i Europa.
Se også
LISTE: Her er sagerne, der kan skade Danmarks ry i udlandet

Det fortsatte Clooney da også med, da TV 2 lidt senere på dagen mødte skuespilleren. Og her begyndte han hurtigt at tale om Danmarks reaktion på flygtningestrømmen.

- Der er taget nogle beslutninger, der ikke vil være populære på længere sigt, siger George Clooney til TV 2 om asylloven, der populært kaldes smykkeloven, og som har betydet stor kritik af Danmark i mange udenlandske medier.
Det er det grundlæggende i lovgivningen, der møder kritik hos skuespilleren:
- Jeg bryder mig ikke om at tage folks ejendele for at betale for flygtningekrisen.
Kritik af eget hjemland

George Clooney uddyber i interviewet, der sendes i et indslag i 19-nyhederne, at gruppen af flygtninge skal ses som ofre.
- De er ofre. Det er ikke sådan, at de tager til Danmark for at forsøde deres tilværelse. De prøver at undslippe døden, siger han.
Den amerikanske skuespiller mener dog heller ikke, at hans eget hjemland har taget sit ansvar på sig i sagen. Det handler primært om den økonomiske situation, og derfor føler skuespilleren, at det kan være svært at gå ud med en kritik af Danmark.
- Jeg ved, det er svært for mig at kritisere det, fordi USA ikke yder sin del af støtten i flygtningesituationen.
Se også
Danmarks smykkelov rammer forsiden af The New York Times

Problemet skal løses i Syrien

Under mødet med Angela Merkel talte de blandt andet om, hvordan Clooney og alle andre kan hjælpe med hensyn til flygtningekrisen.
- Man kan ikke afhjælpe situationen her, det vil være som at sætte et plaster på. Det skal stoppes ved kilden, det skal stoppes i Syrien.
TV 2 Play
Se mere i Nyhederne på TV 2 og TV 2 PLAY klokken 19.00

Del af æren for løsrivelse

Det er filmen 'Hil Cæsar', der har fået Clooney til den tyske hovedstads filmfestival.
George Clooneys har tidligere vist sit samfundsengagement ved at arbejde aktivt for at samle midler til ofrene for tsunamien i 2004, jordskælvet i Haiti i 2010 og terrorangrebet 11. september.
Desuden har diplomater givet hans arbejde i Sydsudan en del af æren for, at landet kunne løsrive sig i 2011.
- I de nødsituationer gør det ikke noget at bede alle om et bidrag. Det er en god ting, siger han.

by party animal - not! Sat 13 Feb 2016, 19:21

Maybe the Danish Government need to do a bit of PR.

They are treating the refugees, or sometimes economic migrants, exactly the same way that they treat their own citizens. The figure in money and jewellery is exactly the same for the Danish people if they want to claim the (very generous) social welfare payments there

by Donnamarie Sat 13 Feb 2016, 20:37

I don't understand what George is criticizing. What is the Jewelry Act exactly?

by carolhathaway Sat 13 Feb 2016, 20:41

party animal - not! wrote:Maybe the Danish Government need to do a bit of PR.

They are treating the refugees, or sometimes economic migrants, exactly the same way that they treat their own citizens. The figure in money and jewellery is exactly the same for the Danish people if they want to claim the (very generous) social welfare payments there

PAN,
in general I would say it's fair to treat refugees the same way as Danish people.

In Germany it depends on the federal state if refugees need to give away their money and values and how much they are allowed to keep. This isn't consequent at all, but they also don't get the same social welfare payments as Germans.

One thing that isn't the same as well: Somebody who's Danish or German will normally stay in his country for the rest of his life and gets these payments as long as he needs it - up to his funeral. Most of the refugees will return to their countries when there's peace. And when they had to give away all their values, how should they build up a new existence? When their homes are destroyed? Their businesses don't exist anymore?

I'm quite sure that those refugees who are really rich aren't treated like other refugees, they don't have to give away all their money and can live in Switzerland or Liechtenstein...

by carolhathaway Sat 13 Feb 2016, 20:49

Donnamarie wrote:I don't understand what George is criticizing. What is the Jewelry Act exactly?

Donna,
it means that the police has the right (or duty) to frisk every refugee and confiscate money and values above a certain amount. It also means that the police has to value jewelry, watches etc. which surely isn't easy and the police is not trained at.

by Katiedot Sat 13 Feb 2016, 21:14

party animal - not! wrote:Maybe the Danish Government need to do a bit of PR.

They certainly do. When the law was first reported in the UK (or do I mean misreported?) I was horrified. The UK media made it sound like every refugee coming into Denmark was going to be stripped down and have all their valuables taken off them to pay for their refugee accommodation etc.

Obviously nothing of the sort is happening and it took a couple of days for the real facts of the law to become known.

by party animal - not! Sat 13 Feb 2016, 21:25

Yep, and maybe His Nibs would do well to look at that particular bit 'background'(!) too......

I wonder if his view is a bit coloured by the thought that he and Amal may not have met had it not been etc............ don't think so. Think he's just standing by his principles but it's possible I guess

by LizzyNY Sat 13 Feb 2016, 23:02

Now I'm confused. Could someone please explain just what the Danish law really is? I don't think it's what I thought it was.

Also, PAN, "had it not been, etc............" - for what?

by party animal - not! Sat 13 Feb 2016, 23:09

Oh, sorry, Lizzy, just following through with the fact that Amal had to come to the UK from Lebanon, and if she had stayed in Beirut through the war there, then she may not have had the same education, university, career etc and they may not have met........

by Donnamarie Sun 14 Feb 2016, 00:12

Thanks carolhathaway for the explanation. Does the Jewelry Act applies to Danish citizens and immigrants?

So George's criticism is for the refugees being stripped of many of their valuables when they enter Denmark before they can get housing? And when or, if ever, the refugees can return to their homeland they will be without the benefit of any valuable belongings that could be used to re establish themselves?

I'm still confused. Embarassed

by party animal - not! Sun 14 Feb 2016, 01:16

Donnamarie, my understanding is that the rules in Denmark say that for ALL those applying for all the social benefits, their total assets including jewellery - tho not as I understand it wedding rings - have to be worth not more than £1000. That is because they have an extremely high level of benefits and access to all of the services.........

by LizzyNY Sun 14 Feb 2016, 01:30

PAN - Thanks. I kind of thought that's what you meant. Just wanted to make sure. Thumbs up!

I'm still confused about the Danish law, though. It sounds like you're saying that anyone in Denmark who has more than 1000 pounds is not eligible for government assistance. ( Very Happy

Sorry -don't have a "pounds" key on my keyboard!) If that's the case, how does anyone get access to the benefits and services you mentioned? scratch

In our welfare system and Medicaid if you have more than a certain amount of money you aren't eligible and have to get services on your own.Most people have benefit plans through their employers, but it really is expensive.

by party animal - not! Sun 14 Feb 2016, 02:08

Doesn't work like that here. Things like the social services and the National Health Service can be applied for by any UK resident or someone on a visitor's visa. This is paid for by all those in work who pay taxes and is described as being 'free at the point of delivery'. Obviously if you want to you can go to a private doctor or hospital and pay for it. And if, say, you were on a flight and you were taken ill you would be taken to a hospital with no questions asked. (Or though that is starting to change because some feel it's being taken for granted). These services also apply to someone seeking political asylum.

And if you are over a certain age and receiving a government pension you also get all your medicine free of charge.

And this is part of the reason that countries like the UK, Denmark, Germany and Sweden are so very attractive to many..........

by carolhathaway Sun 14 Feb 2016, 10:52

In Germany (and I think Denmark is quite similar) we've got a quite complicated sotz of national insurance:

1. Health insurance:
Everybody who's employed pays a certain percentage of his income for health insurance coverage (and the employer pays nearly as much for every employee's health insurance to the health insurance coverage). This allows free medical treatment for you and your family.

2. Social pension fund:
Every employee also pays a certain percentage of his income to a social pension fund. The employee also pays the same into this fund. Pays for your pension when you're retired, based on your average income.

3. Unemployment insurance:
Works like no. 2. If you loose your job and don't find another one directly afterwards you'll get a certain percentage of your income by this insurance. Also pays for your health insurance as long as you're unemployed.

4. Statutory accident insurance:
The employee pays for this. If you get hurt or killed while working - or when you're on your way to work or from work to your home - this insurance pays for your income, your medical treatment, things you may need after an accident like rebuilding on your house because you can't walk anymore. They also pay money to your descendants if you're killed.

These insurances were already established in the 19th century.

5. Compulsory long term care insurance:
This was added a few years ago. Works like no. 2. If you need long term care you get money to pay for that. Just to give you an example: My kids are handicapped, therefore I can't work full time and have to take my kids to therapies etc. As a sort of compension I get about 240 Euros for each child per month, and the insurance also pays a certain amount to my pension fund so I - hopefully - will get a higher pension once I've retired.

Okay, that's the theory. Of course they don't use YOUR money to pay for YOUR medical treatment, they use ALL employers' money to pay for EVERYBODY'S medical treatment. Because everybody gets the same medical treatment, even if he's not employed, is retired or doesn't pay any money into the insurance at all - no matter if he had ever paid any money into this insurance. Somebody with a low income and ten children pays less than a single person with a high income.
The money that's paid to the social pension fund will not be saved for YOUR pension but will be spend to pay other people's pensions now. The idea is that the future generations always pay for their ancestor generations. Now people become older than in former times and get their pensions for a longer time. People don't get as many children as they had in former times so there are less employers who pay for them. This makes it a bit more difficult to finance it. We also had big problems after the reunification of Germany because those who had lived in the GDR hadn't paid any money into this fund but of course had the right to get their pensiin. And because the GDR was quite broke arüt that time there was no money left to be put into this fund.

I think all of it seems to be a quite communist idea but it has worked for a long time.

by carolhathaway Sun 14 Feb 2016, 11:06

Wanted to post everything I'd written because posts sometimes just disappear while I'm still writing, mostly when I'm opening another window to check the dictionary.

We also pay taxes - of course.
If you're unemployed you get money from the unemployment insurance for one year. If you don't get a job within this time or if your pension is below a certain amount you get money from the government. But therefore you need to sell your properties first, you get money after you've spent your fortune. Of course you can't get money from the government and have millions of Euros at your bank account.
And that's what they do with refugees. Although I'm pretty sure that a refugee from Syria with millions on the bank is treated differently in countries like Switzerland where refugees have to give away their values as well...

I hope I was able to clarify it a bit.

by carolhathaway Sun 14 Feb 2016, 13:35

I think one real problem on this issue is to say why someone who lives on social welfare benefits should be treated differently than a refugee. They both benefit from our welfare system. So why should a German be reduced to sell his house and a refugee shouldn't?

Well, at first the refugee won't have a house in Germany but in his country so if he's leaving his country he won't be able to sell his house. Then, if he has lived in a region now where there's fighting and bombing the house may not be there anymore.
If a refugee has jewelry with him someone has to be able to estimate its value. Plus, if you just think about diamonds, they are very small. So everybody has to be strip-searched. With the number of refugees we have this will not be possible (they still have problems to register all of them).
The easiest thing is if they have cash with them.

But as I said before the difference is that somebody who lives in Germany will be able to receive social welfare benefits for the rest of his life. Everybody (even Angela Merkel) said that refugees are expected to return to their countries once tge war is over. So we want them to leave with nothing to rebuild their country? This won't work, I guess...

by oldweston Sun 14 Feb 2016, 14:07

I have refrained from posting - as I seem to just court trouble Very Happy

So briefly coming back just to express that very serious concerns are raised when governments adopt measures such as this. Refugees are not migrants. "No one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land." Actions such as this promote both hatred and racism. They fuel the narrative that refugees are fleeing to rather than fleeing from. This is particularly dangerous when it comes as government policy. The Danish government's action has been widely condemned by the international community and in particular the UNHCR which has cited violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UN Refugee Convention. I believe that Mr. Clooney is dead right on this one. And he stands with the angels.:-)

by party animal - not! Sun 14 Feb 2016, 14:32

Hi, oldweston. You put it very well, and it's a brilliant principle.

Peoples' and governments' concerns are though that thousands of these people are not necessarily refugees per se, that there are many unknown factors, and up to now many have been deported back to their own country e g Morocco when it is realised that they are economic migrants.

So the only way to start to establish who everybody is, is to do it through paperwork and beuracracy - unbelievably time- and people-consuming.

And in doing that it has been discovered that many passports are forgeries and it is well known that as Daesh overtook and flattened many cities, they also sacked the banks, passport offices, oil supplies etc, so that it is extremely difficult to establish who is who. Early in 2014 they also issued a threat that the Mediterranean would be used to invade Europe.

The iconic photo of the little boy on the beach swept the world. But I understand that his father, who had been resident in Turkey for some time and had failed to get into Canda, was then thought to be the smuggler.........

It's unbelievably complicated and many fear that it could start a Shia-Sunni war but there are many anomalies. For instance I remember that President Assad freed many jihadis in a prison amnesty in 2013/2014 - and it's still not clear why.

And into all of this mess step the innocent and the desparate.......paying smugglers thousands to get into unseaworthy dinghies.......

by carolhathaway Sun 14 Feb 2016, 14:47

It drives me mad that some very right-wing politicians and journalists constantly call these people 'immigrants' instead of 'refugees'. You do have more sympathy with a refugee than with an immigrant, and the word 'immigrant' also implies that you do have a choice. And I absolutely agree with oldweston, nobody would put his children in a boat to cross the Mediterranean Sea or to cross mountains in the winter if they would see an alternative...

by Nicky80 Sun 14 Feb 2016, 15:04

party animal - not! wrote:
The iconic photo of the little boy on the beach swept the world. But I understand that his father, who had been resident in Turkey for some time and had failed to get into Canda, was then thought to be the smuggler.........

Just a little correction. I don't think he was the smuggler. The smuggler left the boat before the boat sunk. The father how was on the boat with his two children and wife took over to drive the boat otherwise the boat would have been guideless. That's how smugglers work. They leave the boat go back to the Turkish coast and leave the people in the boat to themselves. If someone can drive the boat they are lucky if not well....
But the other refugees who lost family members too that night accused him to be his fault because he was driving the boat. That's why for a moment the media thought he was the smuggler. But he was not arrested. Obviously if the smuggler leaves the boat someone has to drive the boat. The father went back to Syria to bury his children and wife.

by oldweston Sun 14 Feb 2016, 15:31

party animal - not! wrote:

The iconic photo of the little boy on the beach swept the world. But I understand that his father, who had been resident in Turkey for some time and had failed to get into Canda, was then thought to be the smuggler.........

I agree that it is unbelievably complicated.

I just want to correct some information with respect to the Kurdi family. The sister is a Canadian citizen. She had applied to sponsor one brother and his family. That application had been blocked and delayed by our previous government which was notoriously anti-refugee - actually anti everything that the majority of Canadians value and cherish. That application had been in the system for years. Under our previous government it would have been futile to attempt to bring both brothers in at the same time. So the plan had been to bring one family at a time. The brother who is now here with his family did not have his application denied - it was blocked and delayed and and and. Part of the problem was that in desperation the brother had fled to Europe and this fact was used to delay the legitimate processing of the application. I say without hesitation that this has been a shameful period in Canada's history.Within months of our change in government the brother and his family were in Canada. Alan Kurdi's family never had a chance. And this rests in large measure on Canada's shoulders.

There is absolutely no evidence linking the Kurdi family to smugglers. This is sadly part of the internet troll network spreading their usual hate. To do this to a man who lost his family to me is unspeakable ...

Canada is trying to make amends. We are nowhere close to having done so. Maybe we never will be. In the meantime I want to say that of all the countries in the world Germany deserves the world's gratitude and admiration. Not only because they have accepted a disproportionate share of the burden that belongs to the entire international community - but because they have done so with grace, compassion and integrity.

It is not at all unusual for refugees to travel on false passports or no passports. Those fleeing political oppression will not have access to passports. In the case of Syria many of those fleeing would have either not had passports in the first place or would have lost passports as the result of the destruction they are fleeing. Given the current situation in Syria there is really no place to get a passport. And again those who flee for their lives and the lives of their children don't stop to make sure their paperwork is in order.

Those who chose evil and destruction want us to be afraid of those fleeing war, terror and destruction. Again Germany stands out as a beacon of hope. Choosing compassion and understanding over fear and hate.

Sorry guys. Can ya tell I feel pretty strong about all this Very Happy

by party animal - not! Sun 14 Feb 2016, 15:57

No, I understand completely, oldweston.

And I so hope that Justin Trudeau does a much better job.

Yes, ruining economies and spreading the word in extremely ingenious ways on social media is absolutely Daesh's raison d'etre, and they employ the best for vast sums of money to do that.

And yes, George is absolutely right that the US are likely to take more refugees..

It is a tragic situation that the world community did not seem to see this coming, given that large numbers of Daesh were formerly Sadam Hussein's Republican Guard from the Ba'ath Sunnis, and that the Iraqi government left in charge after the war were Shias........

Here in Europe, this all seems very close sometimes.........

by Donnamarie Sun 14 Feb 2016, 16:25

old weston it is so good to hear from you. I am thoroughly engrossed in reading here this morning. As an American I am not as fully engaged or informed in what is actually happening in Europe with the refugee situation. I actually have gotten a much better feel for what's happening from reading comments from our COH posters. Especially those of you living in Europe.

All the rhetoric in the U.S. is about our vetting system which is currently being criticized for not tough enough on allowing refugees into our country. After the attack in San Bernadino, California so many people, and especially the far right are doubling down on severely limiting any additional refugees into our country.

There is so much confusion and misinformation about the European refugee crisis. It's hard decifering the facts from inaccuracies and downright lies. And it is so sad that this tragic situation will not be resolved anytime soon.

I think Merkel did the right thing and I do believe she and Germany should be commended for standing up and doing what is just and compassionate . But unfortunately it has created a whole new set of problems for Germany.

But thank you all for your thoughtful comments.

by oldweston Sun 14 Feb 2016, 16:42

party animal - not! wrote:

And I so hope that Justin Trudeau does a much better job.

Here in Europe, this all seems very close sometimes.........

Thank you PAN.

Re Trudeau - we do too. Comforted very much by the significant change in tone. We'll have to see however - and we have a lot of amends to make.

Europe is absolutely on the front lines. And I believe that this geographic reality puts an heavy burden on the rest of the world to lift its weight. I also think about what Greece has been able to do. This tiny country - with its profound economic problems. Myself I would like see Greece and Germany share next year's Nobel Peace Prize Very Happy

Before anyone else - Canada and the US have to do more. Both countries have a lot of catching up to do to meet their international obligations. There are also some countries in Europe that need to do more.

I believe however that this will have to be driven also by citizens standing up and demanding that their governments do more.

by party animal - not! Sun 14 Feb 2016, 17:07

Well, I think, one of most astonishing outcomes of all of this is the apparent lack of co-operation in terms of helping the refugees by countries like Saudi Arabia, who are of course waging their own war on Yemen........

To many this would seem like the obvious step but it's very, very quiet on that front, while relatively small countries like Jordan and Lebanon seem have taken the burden of something like four million refugees, if not more in their country and are at breaking point.

I think the idea of Germany and Greece getting the Nobel Peace Prize jointly is a noble one (sorry!), but Greece has just been given an ultimatum by the EU to get its act together about properly registering all who enter within the next three months, or they won't be part of Shengen........

Greece still deeply resents Germany for everything that happened in World War 11 and blames their ever increasing economic woes on them.

If you should ever get the opportunity, you should watch Simon Reeve's documentary on the state of Greece right now on BBC2.....says it all really

by carolhathaway Sun 14 Feb 2016, 18:56

It's just so very complicated. And that also shows me that no country is able to seperate from this crisis. It only worls when we work together. It's incredible how many refugees relatively poor countries like Lebanon and Jordan took.

About the Nobel Prize: I think we should wait what happens during the next months. It would surely help Angela Merkel to be confirmed in her politics. But if you remember that the EU won the Nobel Prize just a few years ago - I think the EU should return it to the Nobel Prize Committee if they won't find a solution... In my opinion it's just a shame how some countries treated refugees (like Hungary who didn't look after the refugees at the main station in Budapest for days and others who deny to take muslim refugees - or refugees at all).

by Katiedot Sun 14 Feb 2016, 19:43

Donnamarie wrote:Thanks carolhathaway for the explanation. Does the Jewelry Act applies to Danish citizens and immigrants?

In effect, yes. The point being that if you have money or valuables you can use to support yourself, you have to use that first before receiving tax payer money. Danish people have to do the same too.

LizzyNY wrote:I'm still confused about the Danish law, though. It sounds like you're saying that anyone in Denmark who has more than 1000 pounds is not eligible for government assistance. ( Sorry -don't have a "pounds" key on my keyboard!) If that's the case, how does anyone get access to the benefits and services you mentioned? :scratch.

from what I understand, you use up your savings first, and once you fall below the threshold you qualify for the benefits and services.

party animal - not! wrote:And if, say, you were on a flight and you were taken ill you would be taken to a hospital with no questions asked. (Or though that is starting to change because some feel it's being taken for granted).

Definitely changing. As a non-resident Brit, I can't get healthcare from the NHS. They do check.

oldweston wrote:Refugees are not migrants.

Very true. But not really relevant as far as the Danish law is concerned: their point is that if you have the money to support yourself, you have to use that first before claiming benefits from the government. The Danes aren't really expecting to get much money from the refugees, but the principle stands: if they have valuables, they should use them.

party animal - not! wrote:If you should ever get the opportunity, you should watch Simon Reeve's documentary on the state of Greece right now on BBC2.....says it all really

Oh yes, I've really enjoyed it. Did you see the episode where the boatloads and boatloads of refugees were landing on the beach while he was standing there?

by LizzyNY Sun 14 Feb 2016, 21:29

I just want to thank everyone for all the information you've given us on this situation. As Donnamarie said, here in the US the focus is on other issues right now. Sadly, we have a lot of catching up to do as far as helping solve the refugee problem and I'm afraid it might be a while before our government does anything really meaningful.

by Katiedot Sun 14 Feb 2016, 22:17

LizzyNY wrote: I'm afraid it might be a while before our government does anything really meaningful.

Sadly not just your government; I can't see anyone (outside of Germany) doing much meaningful.

by Sponsored content

George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

LISTE: Her er sagerne, der kan skade Danmarks ry i udlandet

Kritik af eget hjemland

Danmarks smykkelov rammer forsiden af The New York Times

Problemet skal løses i Syrien

Se mere i Nyhederne på TV 2 og TV 2 PLAY klokken 19.00

Del af æren for løsrivelse

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law

Re: George Clooney upsets Denmark by criticising their asylum law