When does a refugee become an immigrant?

[Endus]

From my perspective to be a refugee you need to either:

- flee your country to neighbour country because of war or safety reasons;

- flee your country to another country (not neighbour coyntry) where you have friends and/or family that could help you, same reasons as before;

If you flee to a western country, crossing over at least 12 countries to get there with no future support from relatives or friends there, then you are not a refugee just an illegal immigrant that want free stuff!

The thing is, your perspective isn't just irrelevant, it's factually incorrect. It doesn't matter what you consider to be a "refugee", what matters is what international treaty law says is a refugee. All you're doing is refusing to admit that some people are refugees, and you really have no grounds whatsoever to do so.

[Deleted]

The thing is, your perspective isn't just irrelevant, it's factually incorrect. It doesn't matter what you consider to be a "refugee", what matters is what international treaty law says is a refugee. All you're doing is refusing to admit that some people are refugees, and you really have no grounds whatsoever to do so.

So how does a somali refugee get to Sweden? Like logistics.

The law is broken and abused by people trying to circumvent their place in the world. Third world people can't become first world people by saying they are refugees. Sure they get there but they don't integrate and just behave like 3rd world citizens in a first world country, while getting welfare that they never paid into and will never cover, generations in the future!

[Deleted]

Whilst Asylum Seekers are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country they get to, failing to do so does not an Economic Migrant make. That would be you choosing to label someone as such, legally they are still an Asylum Seeker and will be treated as such by the law. Any questions?

Yes. You forgot to mention they have NO way to check where people are from. Hence they can never establish refugee status except for those that didnt toss their passports. And reports say 4/5 are NOT from syria, so they arent refugee's.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...orn-Syria.html

- - - Updated - - -

Unless they became citizens of that new country immediately, your entire argument here has no basis. As long as they can't return home, they're a refugee. It has nothing to do with how comfortable their current conditions may be.

And thats where the discussion stagnates doesnt it. "its official term is". Totally ignoring true intentions.

[Kronik85]

Yes. You forgot to mention they have NO way to check where people are from. Hence they can never establish refugee status except for those that didnt toss their passports.

Tossing your passport makes it harder for the authorities to verify your story, they still assess, investigate and make a judgement on a case by case basis For instance a good way to find out if someone is actually from Syria is if they speak North/South Syrian Arabic, a passport is just one way to check an Asylum Seekers claim. You realise that there is such a thing as a failed Asylum Seeker yes? A failed Asylum Seeker can't work (legally and it's illegal for an employer to employ them) nor can they claim benefits.

All I did though was lay out what a Refugee is in the only context that matters, the legal one. I'm not exactly sure what kind of point you're trying to make by bringing up Passports, dropping your passport does not guarantee you Refugee status.

- - - Updated - - -

And thats where the discussion stagnates doesnt it. "its official term is". Totally ignoring true intentions.

There is no discussion to be had, it's a clearly defined legal term. Your own personal beliefs have no bearing or influence on the matter. You may aswell be arguing that Water actually means Lemonade.

[Deleted]

Tossing your passport makes it harder for the authorities to verify your story, they still assess, investigate and make a judgement on a case by case basis For instance a good way to find out if someone is actually from Syria is if they speak North/South Syrian Arabic, a passport is just one way to check an Asylum Seekers claim. You realise that there is such a thing as a failed Asylum Seeker yes? A failed Asylum Seeker can't work (legally and it's illegal for an employer to employ them) nor can they claim benefits.

All I did though was lay out what a Refugee is in the only context that matters, the legal one. I'm not exactly sure what kind of point you're trying to make by bringing up Passports, dropping your passport does not guarantee you Refugee status.

- - - Updated - - -



There is no discussion to be had, it's a clearly defined legal term. Your own personal beliefs have no bearing or influence on the matter.

With millions waiting in line? Ofcourse it will. Have you never worked anywhere?

- - - Updated - - -

There is no discussion to be had, it's a clearly defined legal term. Your own personal beliefs have no bearing or influence on the matter. You may aswell be arguing that Water actually means Lemonade.

This discussion wasnt "gimme the textbook definition of". I couldve googled that.
Im asking what you believe deserves refugee status. And if someone is obviously an economic immigrant, should he still have refugee status?

[Endus]

So how does a somali refugee get to Sweden? Like logistics.

It's not relevant. Though I'm reasonably sure they aren't walking there.

The law is broken and abused by people trying to circumvent their place in the world. Third world people can't become first world people by saying they are refugees. Sure they get there but they don't integrate and just behave like 3rd world citizens.

Right. There's where you delve into the xenophobia I mentioned.

Groups of people don't have a "place in the world" to which they are expected to stay. They're just people. They aren't any different than you or I. Plus, the "law" in question is an EU regulation, not one with any wider bearing; there is no international expectation that refugees should stay close to their homelands and not be able to seek better care further from home. Even within the EU, they're not "breaking the law", so much as not abiding by a regulation (Dublin III, specifically), and plenty of allowances are made for them to do so. And it only applies to the EU country they first entered; if they fly to Germany, or take a boat, that is the first country they entered, and the number of countries between them and their homeland is fundamentally irrelevant.

[Kronik85]

With millions waiting in line? Ofcourse it will. Have you never worked anywhere?

Every Asylum Seeker has to have their claim processed. Volume doesn't change this.

[Hyve]

It's actually quite simple, as it's entirely in the names ...

A refugee has sought refuge in your nation, on a clearly temporary basis to escape whatever hardships they're suffering. A migrant has chose to migrate and settle in the nation.

[Endus]

And thats where the discussion stagnates doesnt it. "its official term is". Totally ignoring true intentions.

Because there is no "discussion". It's like asking why the color a stop sign is painted isn't called "blue". The answer is "because that's the color red". There's no discussion or debate to be had, because the names of colors aren't disputed. Neither is the definition of "refugee".

What we have is a lot of people who don't like refugees, and wish the EU nations (in particular, but not exclusively) weren't signatory to international treaties like the Geneva Convention. That's not the same thing, at all.

[Kronik85]

With millions waiting in line? Ofcourse it will. Have you never worked anywhere?

- - - Updated - - -



This discussion wasnt "gimme the textbook definition of". I couldve googled that.
Im asking what you believe deserves refugee status. And if someone is obviously an economic immigrant, should he still have refugee status?

I believe the word "Refugee" means what "Refugee" means, not what you or I would like it to mean.

[Endus]

This discussion wasnt "gimme the textbook definition of". I couldve googled that.
Im asking what you believe deserves refugee status. And if someone is obviously an economic immigrant, should he still have refugee status?

Which is like asking "what colors do you think we should call 'red'? Should we call green 'red'? How about blue?" That's the point we're making. There's no real debate over what the term "refugee" means. It isn't based on how far they've traveled. It isn't based on how wealthy they are. It isn't based on how comfortable their lifestyle may be. These are nonsensical grounds on which to contest refugee status, because they simply aren't relevant.

Particularly since even in the EU, with Dublin III in effect, asylum seekers who leave the first country they enter do not stop being refugees. All Dublin III does is allow that they be sent back to that first EU country, for processing.

[zorkuus]

Every Asylum Seeker has to have their claim processed. Volume doesn't change this.

Volume puts pressure to handle each case faster, and in turn possibly with less scrutiny.

[Hyve]

Volume puts pressure to handle each case faster, and in turn possibly with less scrutiny.

It does, but it shouldn't.

[Kronik85]

Volume puts pressure to handle each case faster, and in turn possibly with less scrutiny.

Indeed, wouldn't dispute this. I would dispute that it stops them being scrutinized at all though.

[zorkuus]

It does, but it shouldn't.

Well we don't live in a perfect world. It's particularly problematic in small countries that already have very limited resources for handling the situation.

[Vilendor]

They become (economic) migrants right after they leave the first safe country and head towards Germoney & Sweden & other western countries.

this
/10char

[Endus]

Well we don't live in a perfect world. It's particularly problematic in small countries that already have very limited resources for handling the situation.

That's a valid argument for standing against the Dublin III Convention, which established this "first country you enter takes care of your asylum" system in the EU. Might be "better" to be able to move them along to other countries, if the one they enter is overloaded already. It was set up to prevent "orbiting" asylum seekers, where they'd be rotated through countries with everyone refusing to process them, but there's other ways to deal with that issue.

[Kuntantee]

Apparently, when they enter Europe

[zorkuus]

That's a valid argument for standing against the Dublin III Convention, which established this "first country you enter takes care of your asylum" system in the EU. Might be "better" to be able to move them along to other countries, if the one they enter is overloaded already. It was set up to prevent "orbiting" asylum seekers, where they'd be rotated through countries with everyone refusing to process them, but there's other ways to deal with that issue.

There should be better communication between countries to share the load. Moving from one overloaded country to another, while passing a more stable one in the pursuit of higher welfare doesn't help.

[Endus]

There should be better communication between countries to share the load. Moving from one overloaded country to another, while passing a more stable one in the pursuit of higher welfare doesn't help.

Right. The EU's big issue is that it's a conglomeration of relatively sovereign nations, so there's a lot more dispute about overarching legislation like CEAS and the Dublin Conventions.

I'm just making the point that Dublin III was set up mostly to eliminate "orbiting" refugees, who were caught in a trap like you describe, but their solution was "first country you're in, that's where you stay", rather than a resource-based allocation system. Revamping this and coming up with a better-suited Dublin IV is the right solution, complaining about refugees existing really isn't.