First of all, since these people entered illegally they didn't pass through customs. Therefore, they could theoretically have entered with enough money or gold jewelry to support themselves for years, and according to what is explained in this article, this law provides for confiscating money or property they may have entered with if the number of months they stayed times the minimum wage doesn't add up. This is obviously improper on the face of it, and likely to be rejected if tested in court. A proper rule of law does not provide for two types of legal tender or property ownership, one of which can be interfered with and one of which can not be, depending on the class of person that owns it. Next, even if this statute survives a legal challenge how exactly is this going to be enforced? There are lots of ways to get money out of the country from the low tech version of mailing it out or sewing it in clothes to the high tech versions like paypal, bitcoin, and mobile phone payment systems, to buying jewelry. Is the government going to start watching everyone's emails, opening all mail and stationing seamstresses to rip open clothes and jewelers to evaluate gold karats at the airports?
UN agency warns school may be delayed for Palestinian refugees due to lack of funding (AP)