|
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 06:56 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 06:41 kwizach wrote: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. -_-
Except it does qualify most Syrians as refugees. I don't think there are many Italian refugees in Northern Europe -- in fact, I know there are none.
|
On September 15 2015 06:53 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote: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.
Well we all know that refusing people refugee status will instantly give them military training and the ability o fight a better armed regime and terrorist group. And there is almost no chance that won't end in resentment toward the western governments and their requirement into some hostile group towards the west. Lets ignore the fact that Russia is currently arming the Assad. But Syria should pull itself up by its bootstraps and end the war.
I cannot think of a dumber plan if I tired. Reject and refuse aid to the exact population that the EU and West don't want joining terrorist groups. Flawless logic. Literally no way that won't work out.
|
On September 15 2015 06:58 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 06:56 dismiss wrote:On September 15 2015 06:41 kwizach wrote: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. -_- Except it does qualify most Syrians as refugees. I don't think there are many Italian refugees in Northern Europe -- in fact, I know there are none.
So you're saying they still rightfully fear to be persecuted on those grounds while traipsing through several EU countries?
|
On September 15 2015 07:02 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 06:58 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2015 06:56 dismiss wrote:On September 15 2015 06:41 kwizach wrote: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. -_- Except it does qualify most Syrians as refugees. I don't think there are many Italian refugees in Northern Europe -- in fact, I know there are none. So you're saying they still rightfully fear to be persecuted on those grounds while traipsing through several EU countries?
I addressed your point on the previous page. Let me quote myself:
The fact that they had to go through other countries to reach Europe [or specific parts of 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.
They are refugees because they had to flee their home country. They remain refugees from their home country even after crossing other countries. You don't suddenly stop being a refugee after going further away than the immediate neighbour of the country you're fleeing from.
|
I concede that a fair portion of the incoming people are refugees according to the language of the relevant convention.
However I note that:
"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. (Article 31, (1))
so that they chose to keep going after they were safe changes things considerably.
From a colloquial standpoint, it is far more accurate to call them economic migrants than refugees, it is a more accurate term. In this case the technical definition of the convention (which only applies to the convention itself by its own statement), is at odds with the accurate definition.
Minor technical quibble: people fleeing from the general devastation of war are not refugees under the terms of the convention.
|
On September 15 2015 07:05 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 07:02 dismiss wrote:On September 15 2015 06:58 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2015 06:56 dismiss wrote:On September 15 2015 06:41 kwizach wrote: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. -_- Except it does qualify most Syrians as refugees. I don't think there are many Italian refugees in Northern Europe -- in fact, I know there are none. So you're saying they still rightfully fear to be persecuted on those grounds while traipsing through several EU countries? I addressed your point on the previous page. Let me quote myself: Show nested quote +The fact that they had to go through other countries to reach Europe [or specific parts of 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. They are refugees because they had to flee their home country. They remain refugees from their home country even after crossing other countries. You don't suddenly stop being a refugee after going further away than the immediate neighbour of the country you're fleeing from.
But that's not the case. European law states according to the Dublin regulation that the very fact they're moving around without having sought asylum in the first safe country is illegal.
|
On September 15 2015 07:08 zlefin wrote:
I concede that a fair portion of the incoming people are refugees according to the language of the relevant convention.
However I note that:
"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. (Article 31, (1))
so that they chose to keep going after they were safe changes things considerably.
From a colloquial standpoint, it is far more accurate to call them economic migrants than refugees, it is a more accurate term. In this case the technical definition of the convention (which only applies to the convention itself by its own statement), is at odds with the accurate definition.
Minor technical quibble: people fleeing from the general devastation of war are not refugees under the terms of the convention.
Article 31 §1 does not refuse them the status of refugees if they decided to keep going after they escaped their home country. "Economic migrants" is not a more accurate term. "Refugee" is the accurate term, based on the reason they left their home country - it was not for economic reasons but for their safety. If they had left their home country for economic reasons, they would be economic migrants.
The terms of the convention have been interpreted broadly to apply to people who fear for their lives in a civil war (or in a war in general). This broad interpretation is part of customary international law (and in some parts of the world, specific legal instruments have been agreed upon to codify this expanded definition).
On September 15 2015 07:08 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 07:05 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2015 07:02 dismiss wrote:On September 15 2015 06:58 kwizach wrote:On September 15 2015 06:56 dismiss wrote:On September 15 2015 06:41 kwizach wrote: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. -_- Except it does qualify most Syrians as refugees. I don't think there are many Italian refugees in Northern Europe -- in fact, I know there are none. So you're saying they still rightfully fear to be persecuted on those grounds while traipsing through several EU countries? I addressed your point on the previous page. Let me quote myself: The fact that they had to go through other countries to reach Europe [or specific parts of 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. They are refugees because they had to flee their home country. They remain refugees from their home country even after crossing other countries. You don't suddenly stop being a refugee after going further away than the immediate neighbour of the country you're fleeing from. But that's not the case. European law states according to the Dublin regulation that the very fact they're moving around without having sought asylum in the first safe country is illegal.
That is the case. First, the Dublin regulation has been criticized from a legal standpoint with regards to how it can result in practice in the rights of refugees not being respected (see for example the M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (2011) ruling by the European Court of Human Rights). Second, even if refugees behave illegally in Europe and violate some of their obligations, they are still refugees. They don't stop being refugees for violating a particular law (and they can be condemned for their violations despite the fact that they are refugees).
|
As with many human actions it's fair to assume that there's probably a plurality of motivations spurning on the people fleeing from Syria. For our conversation the relevant ones are their desire to avoid war and their desire to better their lot in life, of course these are interwoven as well.
I would argue that if they did not have any economic incentive, why flee all the way to the rich, northern European nations? It's quite evident there's more to it than just trying not to get their heads chopped off.
In the light of this we should examine the spirit of the Dublin regulations. Was this law put into place to over proportionally burden EU border states? If this was the case, why would they agree to it? Or was the reason that the lawmakers recognised people who flee further than they need to are not de facto refugees anymore?
Also the EU court ruling does not criticise the Dublin regulations per se, but rather the fact that Greece didn't take care of the asylum seekers properly. Actually another interesting part here is that they didn't find a general obligation by the host states to provide for shelter and financial assistance as long the refugee is not in need of special protection due to his economic status. I wonder in how far this is applicable to people who are able to pay $10k+ for smugglers.
|
You can cite as many laws as you want, it won't change the fact that large portion of Europe dosn't want em here, Eastern Europe can't afford to have em here and Germany tried and failed cause the numbers are just too high and no one actually respects even Dublin regulation when it comes to registration. You call em refugees, and some of em for sure are refugees. But big portion isn't, guys that destroy their documents, all those healthy adult males they are nothing more than economic immigrants and cowards who are afraid to fight for their own country and familes and just choose to flee. Germany can have em if they do really want so, i for sure tho don't want cowardness mixed with potential religious freaks in my already messed up country(not like they want to come here anyway, our social too low i guess).
Europe can and should give shelter for those that need aid the most - kids, females, old and sick people till conflict is resolved, not accept tons of people without any kind background check just cause Germans still feel guilty for WW2, needs more workers and try to force that "solidarity" over rest of EU.
|
kwiz -> you should read my post more carefully; my case was already presented there, so some of your responses are redundant or irrelevant to it. (note the part where I conceded the point on definition under the convention)
I maintain that by colloquial usage, they are more accurately called migrants, not refugees; here we simply disagree, and both have a reasonable case. Also, they can be penalized for their actions even if they are refugees, since they moved around illegally and unnecessarily.
|
It doesn't sound very resonable at all to the honest, it simply sounds like you wish to deny them refugee rights because - like mr Narw above you - you don't want the pesky muslim in your country. To be honest I'm quite astounded that several here are even trying to make the argument. I mean common, shit like this:
You call em refugees, and some of em for sure are refugees. But big portion isn't, guys that destroy their documents, all those healthy adult males they are nothing more than economic immigrants and cowards who are afraid to fight for their own country and familes and just choose to flee.
|
On September 15 2015 08:11 blomsterjohn wrote:It doesn't sound very resonable at all to the honest, it simply sounds like you wish to deny them refugee rights because - like mr Narw above you - you don't want the pesky muslim in your country. To be honest I'm quite astounded that several here are even trying to make the argument. I mean common, shit like this: Show nested quote +You call em refugees, and some of em for sure are refugees. But big portion isn't, guys that destroy their documents, all those healthy adult males they are nothing more than economic immigrants and cowards who are afraid to fight for their own country and familes and just choose to flee.
The best part is that they will call them cowards for not fighting, but but upset if they return to fight and join a group that is unfriendly to EU nations and the West. Get back in there and fight for your country, but remember that the West should be your ally after all this is over. By the way, Russia is giving the arming regime and the West won't give you shit. Good luck.
This who terrorist recruit, disenfranchised people who don't have any hope and/or support.
|
Why it's shit, cause you don't agree with it? You will prolly have our muslims anyway, social in this country is like 150 euro so they will move fast.
EDIT: I coudl't give a shit to whom they are allied, i don't have police officer of the world syndrome. You might consider letting your guvernment know tho that breaking working dictuatures in that region generally leads to instability on quite a big scale and they could for example not do it anymore or at least try to clean their mess afterwards instead of sitting silent like you are doing now and look how Europe struggles.
|
On September 15 2015 07:40 dismiss wrote:
As with many human actions it's fair to assume that there's probably a plurality of motivations spurning on the people fleeing from Syria. For our conversation the relevant ones are their desire to avoid war and their desire to better their lot in life, of course these are interwoven as well.
I would argue that if they did not have any economic incentive, why flee all the way to the rich, northern European nations? It's quite evident there's more to it than just trying not to get their heads chopped off.
In the light of this we should examine the spirit of the Dublin regulations. Was this law put into place to over proportionally burden EU border states? If this was the case, why would they agree to it? Or was the reason that the lawmakers recognised people who flee further than they need to are not de facto refugees anymore?
Also the EU court ruling does not criticise the Dublin regulations per se, but rather the fact that Greece didn't take care of the asylum seekers properly. Actually another interesting part here is that they didn't find a general obligation by the host states to provide for shelter and financial assistance as long the refugee is not in need of special protection due to his economic status. I wonder in how far this is applicable to people who are able to pay $10k+ for smugglers.
I am not arguing against the idea that the refugees coming to Europe are coming here because they think they will live in better conditions than in the overcrowded and undersupplied camps set up in Lebanon and elsewhere. That is not the point. What I have been arguing about from the start is whether or not the people we're talking about are refugees. By definition, if they fled their home country for the reasons I quoted earlier, they are refugees. The fact that they crossed other countries before arriving in Europe, and that they came to Europe (or to specific European countries) instead of staying on the territory of intermediate countries is irrelevant: they remain refugees by definition. This is a fact. If you want to call them "refugees who would rather live in Germany than in a camp in Lebanon", be my guest, but you will be factually wrong the moment you refuse to call them refugees.
On September 15 2015 07:58 zlefin wrote:
kwiz -> you should read my post more carefully; my case was already presented there, so some of your responses are redundant or irrelevant to it. (note the part where I conceded the point on definition under the convention)
I maintain that by colloquial usage, they are more accurately called migrants, not refugees; here we simply disagree, and both have a reasonable case. Also, they can be penalized for their actions even if they are refugees, since they moved around illegally and unnecessarily.
See above. You do not have a reasonable case to deny them the designation of refugee.
|
It may not sound reasonable to you blom; but that does not change that it is reasonable. If you can't see the reasonableness I can't help you, because ample and sufficient evidence for that has already been provided;
Also, making unfounded racism claims just means you lose, since you don't have a substantive case.
edit:
kwiz, you are a liar. You have lied, so I will discuss with you no more. The case I have presented is clearly reasonable, one might disagree with it, but it does not satisfy the grounds for unreasonableness.
Article 1 clearly states that that definition applies FOR PURPOSES OF THE CONVENTION. Not for colloquial use of the term.
|
On September 15 2015 08:21 Narw wrote:
Why it's shit, cause you don't agree with it? You will prolly have our muslims anyway, social in this country is like 150 euro so they will move fast.
EDIT: I coudl't give a shit to whom they are allied, i don't have police officer of the world syndrome. You might consider letting your guvernment know tho that breaking working dictuatures in that region generally leads to instability on quite a big scale and they could for example not do it anymore or at least try to clean their mess afterwards instead of sitting silent like you are doing now and look how Europe struggles.
It is painfully obvious that you don't give a shit. It doesn't change what you are advocating is an incredibly stupid idea, since you are advocating that they Syrian refugees go join groups that most likely want to attack EU.
Edit: LoL zlefin declares victory and can now use the word migrant. The internet will take note that all refugees that leave their arrival country have been denied refugee status in zlefin's posts from here forward.
|
plansix, it is not helpful to respond if you're not going to read what was written. As you obviously have not since I EXPLICITLY stated that they were refugees under the terms of the convention on this very page.
I also remind you that it is legal to prosecute nearly all of the ones going to europe under the terms of the convention for illegal entry.
|
I'm a little confused as to why you want to make common and colloquial the use of a term that you also declare is factually incorrect for purposes of the convention.
|
That is why I limited my finding to your posts and not the wide world. Legal these folks are refugees and even if they violate some laws by moving around the EU, the penalties for those crimes are not denial of refugee status. And since you are talking about accuracy and colloquial using of the term "migrants", one would assume that it is painful obvious that the term is used to discredit the refugee claim. A refugee has left their country against their will due to fear for their own safety. A migrant has not. Although every use of the term migrant isn't not malicious, one cannot argue that it is the intent of some groups to use it to discredit every Syrian refugees claim. The fact that the discussion in this thread constantly dragged to the topic of "economic migrants" over and over evidence of that.
Because in politics and propaganda if you say a lie out loud enough times, it becomes the truth.
On September 15 2015 09:01 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:
I'm a little confused as to why you want to make common and colloquial the use of a term that you also declare is factually incorrect for purposes of the convention.
If you call them migrants enough, people will forget they are refugees. You can deny migrants access to the country, unlike refugees.
|
On September 15 2015 08:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 08:21 Narw wrote:
Why it's shit, cause you don't agree with it? You will prolly have our muslims anyway, social in this country is like 150 euro so they will move fast.
EDIT: I coudl't give a shit to whom they are allied, i don't have police officer of the world syndrome. You might consider letting your guvernment know tho that breaking working dictuatures in that region generally leads to instability on quite a big scale and they could for example not do it anymore or at least try to clean their mess afterwards instead of sitting silent like you are doing now and look how Europe struggles. It is painfully obvious that you don't give a shit. It doesn't change what you are advocating is an incredibly stupid idea, since you are advocating that they Syrian refugees go join groups that most likely want to attack EU. Edit: LoL zlefin declares victory and can now use the word migrant. The internet will take note that all refugees that leave their arrival country have been denied refugee status in zlefin's posts from here forward.
Ahh, the famous lets quote something, make a conclusion from deep ass that was never even suggested and then lets call it stupid idea.
The fact that the discussion in this thread constantly dragged to the topic of "economic migrants" over and over evidence of that.
Or it might be the evidence that in world where people think for themselfs and don't gather all their information from Internet wiki's there is something terribly wrong about seeing groups consisting largely of healhy adult males to be called refugees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
