|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 15 2015 05:32 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 05:27 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:01 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 04:14 Plansix wrote:
Saudi Arabia has and will be shit for the foreseeable future. I don't know why people are expecting otherwise. This is a country that doesn't let women drive and has religious police that roam around looking for "infractions". Expecting them to help win the crisis is waiting for a ship that will never come. This all circles back around to the fact that "refugee" needs to be better defined. As you just pointed out, nearly every woman in the Middle East/North Africa may be eligible for refugee status. Which also illustrates a problem with calling the current situation a refugee crisis, as we should be seeing majority female refugees. Any woman that can get out of Saudi Arabia and to the EU/US should quality. Don't worry, we don't see a massive influx any time soon. Your second point is nonsensical. Syria isn't Saudi Arabia. Yes, but we also aren't seeing disproportionately high (compared to Syria as a whole) Christian refugees, or Jewish. None of the demographics of those reaching Europe indicates refugee status, other than being from a crappy country. Did you just shift the discussion to talking about people coming to the EU who are not from Syria? Because that was the topic until now. No. I'm talking about Syrians. If this were a refugee crisis, the demographics of the refugees would include disproportionately high levels of non-Muslims.
Syria is over 90% Muslim. Why would there be a large number of non-Muslim refugees from a country that is over 90% Muslim?
|
Aye, this is not about refugees, but about migrants. The actual refugees are all in turkey/lebanon/jordan. (mostly)
Sending more help there is what should be done.
|
On September 15 2015 05:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 05:32 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:27 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:01 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 04:14 Plansix wrote:
Saudi Arabia has and will be shit for the foreseeable future. I don't know why people are expecting otherwise. This is a country that doesn't let women drive and has religious police that roam around looking for "infractions". Expecting them to help win the crisis is waiting for a ship that will never come. This all circles back around to the fact that "refugee" needs to be better defined. As you just pointed out, nearly every woman in the Middle East/North Africa may be eligible for refugee status. Which also illustrates a problem with calling the current situation a refugee crisis, as we should be seeing majority female refugees. Any woman that can get out of Saudi Arabia and to the EU/US should quality. Don't worry, we don't see a massive influx any time soon. Your second point is nonsensical. Syria isn't Saudi Arabia. Yes, but we also aren't seeing disproportionately high (compared to Syria as a whole) Christian refugees, or Jewish. None of the demographics of those reaching Europe indicates refugee status, other than being from a crappy country. Did you just shift the discussion to talking about people coming to the EU who are not from Syria? Because that was the topic until now. No. I'm talking about Syrians. If this were a refugee crisis, the demographics of the refugees would include disproportionately high levels of non-Muslims. Syria is over 90% Muslim. Why would there be a large number of non-Muslim refugees from a country that is over 90% Muslim?
Not a large number, a disproportionate number. Such as, 20% of the refugees would be non-Muslim, because it is well known that non-Muslims face a disproportionate threat from ISIS. Basically, percentages, since you appear to not be understanding.
|
On September 15 2015 05:41 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 05:36 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:32 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:27 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:01 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 04:14 Plansix wrote:
Saudi Arabia has and will be shit for the foreseeable future. I don't know why people are expecting otherwise. This is a country that doesn't let women drive and has religious police that roam around looking for "infractions". Expecting them to help win the crisis is waiting for a ship that will never come. This all circles back around to the fact that "refugee" needs to be better defined. As you just pointed out, nearly every woman in the Middle East/North Africa may be eligible for refugee status. Which also illustrates a problem with calling the current situation a refugee crisis, as we should be seeing majority female refugees. Any woman that can get out of Saudi Arabia and to the EU/US should quality. Don't worry, we don't see a massive influx any time soon. Your second point is nonsensical. Syria isn't Saudi Arabia. Yes, but we also aren't seeing disproportionately high (compared to Syria as a whole) Christian refugees, or Jewish. None of the demographics of those reaching Europe indicates refugee status, other than being from a crappy country. Did you just shift the discussion to talking about people coming to the EU who are not from Syria? Because that was the topic until now. No. I'm talking about Syrians. If this were a refugee crisis, the demographics of the refugees would include disproportionately high levels of non-Muslims. Syria is over 90% Muslim. Why would there be a large number of non-Muslim refugees from a country that is over 90% Muslim? Not a large number, a disproportionate number. Such as, 20% of the refugees would be non-Muslim, because it is well known that non-Muslims face a disproportionate threat from ISIS.
Unless that the majority of that less that 10% of the population left much earlier due to the threat of violence and is now in turkey/lebanon/jordan. I would assume they would be the first to leave the country, as they are the most at risk.
|
|
|
On September 15 2015 05:37 zlefin wrote:
Aye, this is not about refugees, but about migrants. The actual refugees are all in turkey/lebanon/jordan. (mostly)
Sending more help there is what should be done.
No, it is about refugees. The Syrians coming to Europe are refugees. They fled their own country because they feared for their lives -- that's the definition of a refugee. The fact that they had to go through other countries to reach Europe is irrelevant to their status of refugees as it is defined in international law. According to your logic, everyone would automatically lose their status of refugee as soon as they're not in a country that borders their home country. That's not how it works.
|
On September 15 2015 05:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 05:41 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:36 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:32 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:27 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:01 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 04:14 Plansix wrote:
Saudi Arabia has and will be shit for the foreseeable future. I don't know why people are expecting otherwise. This is a country that doesn't let women drive and has religious police that roam around looking for "infractions". Expecting them to help win the crisis is waiting for a ship that will never come. This all circles back around to the fact that "refugee" needs to be better defined. As you just pointed out, nearly every woman in the Middle East/North Africa may be eligible for refugee status. Which also illustrates a problem with calling the current situation a refugee crisis, as we should be seeing majority female refugees. Any woman that can get out of Saudi Arabia and to the EU/US should quality. Don't worry, we don't see a massive influx any time soon. Your second point is nonsensical. Syria isn't Saudi Arabia. Yes, but we also aren't seeing disproportionately high (compared to Syria as a whole) Christian refugees, or Jewish. None of the demographics of those reaching Europe indicates refugee status, other than being from a crappy country. Did you just shift the discussion to talking about people coming to the EU who are not from Syria? Because that was the topic until now. No. I'm talking about Syrians. If this were a refugee crisis, the demographics of the refugees would include disproportionately high levels of non-Muslims. Syria is over 90% Muslim. Why would there be a large number of non-Muslim refugees from a country that is over 90% Muslim? Not a large number, a disproportionate number. Such as, 20% of the refugees would be non-Muslim, because it is well known that non-Muslims face a disproportionate threat from ISIS. Unless that the majority of that less that 10% of the population left much earlier due to the threat of violence and is now in turkey/lebanon/jordan. I would assume they would be the first to leave the country, as they are the most at risk.
Any evidence to support this postulate?
|
On September 15 2015 05:24 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:01 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 04:14 Plansix wrote:
Saudi Arabia has and will be shit for the foreseeable future. I don't know why people are expecting otherwise. This is a country that doesn't let women drive and has religious police that roam around looking for "infractions". Expecting them to help win the crisis is waiting for a ship that will never come. This all circles back around to the fact that "refugee" needs to be better defined. As you just pointed out, nearly every woman in the Middle East/North Africa may be eligible for refugee status. Which also illustrates a problem with calling the current situation a refugee crisis, as we should be seeing majority female refugees. Any woman that can get out of Saudi Arabia and to the EU/US should quality. Don't worry, we don't see a massive influx any time soon. Your second point is nonsensical. Syria isn't Saudi Arabia. None of the demographics of those reaching Europe indicates refugee status, other than being from a crappy country.
Patently fallacious statement. If you fled from your home country because you feared for your life (for example because there's a civil war going on), you are a refugee. The people coming from Syria are refugees.
edit: also, funny you're asking Plansix for evidence when you have provided absolutely none to support the claim you were making in the first place.
|
On September 15 2015 05:58 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 05:44 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:41 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:36 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:32 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:27 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:01 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 04:14 Plansix wrote:
Saudi Arabia has and will be shit for the foreseeable future. I don't know why people are expecting otherwise. This is a country that doesn't let women drive and has religious police that roam around looking for "infractions". Expecting them to help win the crisis is waiting for a ship that will never come. This all circles back around to the fact that "refugee" needs to be better defined. As you just pointed out, nearly every woman in the Middle East/North Africa may be eligible for refugee status. Which also illustrates a problem with calling the current situation a refugee crisis, as we should be seeing majority female refugees. Any woman that can get out of Saudi Arabia and to the EU/US should quality. Don't worry, we don't see a massive influx any time soon. Your second point is nonsensical. Syria isn't Saudi Arabia. Yes, but we also aren't seeing disproportionately high (compared to Syria as a whole) Christian refugees, or Jewish. None of the demographics of those reaching Europe indicates refugee status, other than being from a crappy country. Did you just shift the discussion to talking about people coming to the EU who are not from Syria? Because that was the topic until now. No. I'm talking about Syrians. If this were a refugee crisis, the demographics of the refugees would include disproportionately high levels of non-Muslims. Syria is over 90% Muslim. Why would there be a large number of non-Muslim refugees from a country that is over 90% Muslim? Not a large number, a disproportionate number. Such as, 20% of the refugees would be non-Muslim, because it is well known that non-Muslims face a disproportionate threat from ISIS. Unless that the majority of that less that 10% of the population left much earlier due to the threat of violence and is now in turkey/lebanon/jordan. I would assume they would be the first to leave the country, as they are the most at risk. Any evidence to support this postulate?
The exact same amount as yours, pure speculation.
kwizach: You only need proof if you are trying to prove that even some % of the people coming to the EU are real refugees from a warzone. At it looks like around 50% of them are. So the act of simply sorting through them will reduce the number of future migrants trying to slip in under the radar as refugees.
|
Are we going to have 3 pages of "mine definition of a refugee is better than yours!" discussion? I guess it's better than arguing about marxism or scientific concept of human race.
|
On September 15 2015 06:04 Sent. wrote:
Are we going to have 3 pages of "mine definition of a refugee is better than yours!" discussion? I guess it's better than arguing about marxism or scientific concept of human race.
I sort of thought it was well established that people fleeing Syria are refugees and everyone else is someone trying to take advantage of the crisis to gain residency in the EU. But apparently there is some debate about if the people from Syria are really fleeing due to the war, or something.
|
On September 15 2015 06:04 Sent. wrote:
Are we going to have 3 pages of "mine definition of a refugee is better than yours!" discussion? I guess it's better than arguing about marxism or scientific concept of human race.
There's no need to have a debate about it. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol define a refugee as someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." The people coming from Syria (and others who are in similar situations but come from other countries) are refugees. The end.
|
Well, if you like playing with words, they are not refugees but asylum seekers before they got granted their refugee status.
And they should ask to seek for asylum of the first safe country they encounter, not sweden.
|
On September 15 2015 06:35 Faust852 wrote:
Well, if you like playing with words, they are not refugees but asylum seekers before they got granted their refugee status.
And they should ask to seek for asylum of the first safe country they encounter, not sweden.
I'm not "playing with words", I'm correcting someone who incorrectly argued they weren't refugees. And they are refugees even before they're recognized as such by any single country, as long as they correspond to the definition.
|
On September 15 2015 06:01 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 05:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:01 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 04:14 Plansix wrote:
Saudi Arabia has and will be shit for the foreseeable future. I don't know why people are expecting otherwise. This is a country that doesn't let women drive and has religious police that roam around looking for "infractions". Expecting them to help win the crisis is waiting for a ship that will never come. This all circles back around to the fact that "refugee" needs to be better defined. As you just pointed out, nearly every woman in the Middle East/North Africa may be eligible for refugee status. Which also illustrates a problem with calling the current situation a refugee crisis, as we should be seeing majority female refugees. Any woman that can get out of Saudi Arabia and to the EU/US should quality. Don't worry, we don't see a massive influx any time soon. Your second point is nonsensical. Syria isn't Saudi Arabia. None of the demographics of those reaching Europe indicates refugee status, other than being from a crappy country. Patently fallacious statement. If you fled from your home country because you feared for your life (for example because there's a civil war going on), you are a refugee. The people coming from Syria are refugees. edit: also, funny you're asking Plansix for evidence when you have provided absolutely none to support the claim you were making in the first place.
I have (and others have) provided the evidence of the demographics. As you can see, the refugees in countries neighboring Syria have very similar demographics to Syria , however those going to Europe are overwhelmingly male.
On September 15 2015 06:09 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 06:04 Sent. wrote:
Are we going to have 3 pages of "mine definition of a refugee is better than yours!" discussion? I guess it's better than arguing about marxism or scientific concept of human race. There's no need to have a debate about it. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol define a refugee as someone who Show nested quote +"owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." The people coming from Syria (and others who are in similar situations but come from other countries) are refugees. The end.
Race? No. Religion? Not the majority. Nationality? No. Social Group? No. Political opinion? No. Look at the charts. You fail on your own terms.
|
On September 15 2015 05:41 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 05:36 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:32 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:27 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:01 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 04:14 Plansix wrote:
Saudi Arabia has and will be shit for the foreseeable future. I don't know why people are expecting otherwise. This is a country that doesn't let women drive and has religious police that roam around looking for "infractions". Expecting them to help win the crisis is waiting for a ship that will never come. This all circles back around to the fact that "refugee" needs to be better defined. As you just pointed out, nearly every woman in the Middle East/North Africa may be eligible for refugee status. Which also illustrates a problem with calling the current situation a refugee crisis, as we should be seeing majority female refugees. Any woman that can get out of Saudi Arabia and to the EU/US should quality. Don't worry, we don't see a massive influx any time soon. Your second point is nonsensical. Syria isn't Saudi Arabia. Yes, but we also aren't seeing disproportionately high (compared to Syria as a whole) Christian refugees, or Jewish. None of the demographics of those reaching Europe indicates refugee status, other than being from a crappy country. Did you just shift the discussion to talking about people coming to the EU who are not from Syria? Because that was the topic until now. No. I'm talking about Syrians. If this were a refugee crisis, the demographics of the refugees would include disproportionately high levels of non-Muslims. Syria is over 90% Muslim. Why would there be a large number of non-Muslim refugees from a country that is over 90% Muslim? Not a large number, a disproportionate number. Such as, 20% of the refugees would be non-Muslim, because it is well known that non-Muslims face a disproportionate threat from ISIS. Basically, percentages, since you appear to not be understanding.
Are you oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of ISIS victims are Muslim themselves, the same old if you are not with us you are against us reasoning?
|
On September 15 2015 06:42 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 06:01 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2015 05:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:01 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 04:14 Plansix wrote:
Saudi Arabia has and will be shit for the foreseeable future. I don't know why people are expecting otherwise. This is a country that doesn't let women drive and has religious police that roam around looking for "infractions". Expecting them to help win the crisis is waiting for a ship that will never come. This all circles back around to the fact that "refugee" needs to be better defined. As you just pointed out, nearly every woman in the Middle East/North Africa may be eligible for refugee status. Which also illustrates a problem with calling the current situation a refugee crisis, as we should be seeing majority female refugees. Any woman that can get out of Saudi Arabia and to the EU/US should quality. Don't worry, we don't see a massive influx any time soon. Your second point is nonsensical. Syria isn't Saudi Arabia. None of the demographics of those reaching Europe indicates refugee status, other than being from a crappy country. Patently fallacious statement. If you fled from your home country because you feared for your life (for example because there's a civil war going on), you are a refugee. The people coming from Syria are refugees. edit: also, funny you're asking Plansix for evidence when you have provided absolutely none to support the claim you were making in the first place. I have (and others have) provided the evidence of the demographics. As you can see, the refugees in countries neighboring Syria have very similar demographics to Syria , however those going to Europe are overwhelmingly male. Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 06:09 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2015 06:04 Sent. wrote:
Are we going to have 3 pages of "mine definition of a refugee is better than yours!" discussion? I guess it's better than arguing about marxism or scientific concept of human race. There's no need to have a debate about it. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol define a refugee as someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." The people coming from Syria (and others who are in similar situations but come from other countries) are refugees. The end. Race? No. Religion? Not the majority. Nationality? No. Social Group? No. Political opinion? No. Look at the charts. You fail on your own terms.
What are you trying to prove? You keep dancing around the issue like the burden is on us to prove that Syrian refugees exist. Do people fleeing a war torn country not qualify as refugees? And if they are overwhelmingly male, that may mean they are just sending one family member to try and apply for refugee status. That isn't unheard in any mass movement of people to send one family member first.
|
On September 15 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 06:42 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 06:01 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2015 05:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:01 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 04:14 Plansix wrote:
Saudi Arabia has and will be shit for the foreseeable future. I don't know why people are expecting otherwise. This is a country that doesn't let women drive and has religious police that roam around looking for "infractions". Expecting them to help win the crisis is waiting for a ship that will never come. This all circles back around to the fact that "refugee" needs to be better defined. As you just pointed out, nearly every woman in the Middle East/North Africa may be eligible for refugee status. Which also illustrates a problem with calling the current situation a refugee crisis, as we should be seeing majority female refugees. Any woman that can get out of Saudi Arabia and to the EU/US should quality. Don't worry, we don't see a massive influx any time soon. Your second point is nonsensical. Syria isn't Saudi Arabia. None of the demographics of those reaching Europe indicates refugee status, other than being from a crappy country. Patently fallacious statement. If you fled from your home country because you feared for your life (for example because there's a civil war going on), you are a refugee. The people coming from Syria are refugees. edit: also, funny you're asking Plansix for evidence when you have provided absolutely none to support the claim you were making in the first place. I have (and others have) provided the evidence of the demographics. As you can see, the refugees in countries neighboring Syria have very similar demographics to Syria , however those going to Europe are overwhelmingly male. On September 15 2015 06:09 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2015 06:04 Sent. wrote:
Are we going to have 3 pages of "mine definition of a refugee is better than yours!" discussion? I guess it's better than arguing about marxism or scientific concept of human race. There's no need to have a debate about it. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol define a refugee as someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." The people coming from Syria (and others who are in similar situations but come from other countries) are refugees. The end. Race? No. Religion? Not the majority. Nationality? No. Social Group? No. Political opinion? No. Look at the charts. You fail on your own terms. What are you trying to prove? You keep dancing around the issue like the burden is on us to prove that Syrian refugees exist. Do people fleeing a war torn country not qualify as refugees? And if they are overwhelmingly male, that may mean they are just sending one family member to try and apply for refugee status. That isn't unheard in any mass movement of people to send one family member first.
Not if they are exactly the set of people needed to end the country's "war torn" status.
|
On September 15 2015 06:42 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 06:01 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2015 05:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 05:01 cLutZ wrote:On September 15 2015 04:14 Plansix wrote:
Saudi Arabia has and will be shit for the foreseeable future. I don't know why people are expecting otherwise. This is a country that doesn't let women drive and has religious police that roam around looking for "infractions". Expecting them to help win the crisis is waiting for a ship that will never come. This all circles back around to the fact that "refugee" needs to be better defined. As you just pointed out, nearly every woman in the Middle East/North Africa may be eligible for refugee status. Which also illustrates a problem with calling the current situation a refugee crisis, as we should be seeing majority female refugees. Any woman that can get out of Saudi Arabia and to the EU/US should quality. Don't worry, we don't see a massive influx any time soon. Your second point is nonsensical. Syria isn't Saudi Arabia. None of the demographics of those reaching Europe indicates refugee status, other than being from a crappy country. Patently fallacious statement. If you fled from your home country because you feared for your life (for example because there's a civil war going on), you are a refugee. The people coming from Syria are refugees. edit: also, funny you're asking Plansix for evidence when you have provided absolutely none to support the claim you were making in the first place. I have (and others have) provided the evidence of the demographics. As you can see, the refugees in countries neighboring Syria have very similar demographics to Syria , however those going to Europe are overwhelmingly male.
The fact that they are overwhelmingly male does not in any way, shape or form support your point that they are not refugees. The reason it is predominantly men who make the journey is because that journey is in itself very dangerous, and families hope to be able to join the male member more easily once he has been granted asylum status.
On September 15 2015 06:42 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 06:09 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2015 06:04 Sent. wrote:
Are we going to have 3 pages of "mine definition of a refugee is better than yours!" discussion? I guess it's better than arguing about marxism or scientific concept of human race. There's no need to have a debate about it. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol define a refugee as someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." The people coming from Syria (and others who are in similar situations but come from other countries) are refugees. The end. Race? No. Religion? Not the majority. Nationality? No. Social Group? No. Political opinion? No. Look at the charts. You fail on your own terms.
Religious beliefs? Yes (not conforming to those of ISIS, even if they're Muslim as well). Political beliefs? Yes. You're wrong, simple as that.
|
On September 15 2015 06:41 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 06:35 Faust852 wrote:
Well, if you like playing with words, they are not refugees but asylum seekers before they got granted their refugee status.
And they should ask to seek for asylum of the first safe country they encounter, not sweden. I'm not "playing with words", I'm correcting someone who incorrectly argued they weren't refugees. And they are refugees even before they're recognized as such by any single country, as long as they correspond to the definition.
It's funny cuz in the refugee convention a refugee is defined as someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country". That doesn't sound like the people who make their way all the way to northern Europe. Or did I miss any pogroms against muslims in Italy during the last few years. Actually it doesn't even qualify most Syrians as refugees. -_-
|
|
|
|
|
|
281
EPT
