|
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. |
re: plansix
That it is the intent of some groups is irrelevant to the issue of my posts, which you stated you were limiting yourself to. So make up your mind whether you're focusing on my use or on the more general topic.
Also, the discussion goes back to that because on a practical level, they are economic migrants. They are also refugees from their home country. One can be both, with respect to different places.
Also, you can deny refugees access; IF they are coming from a place that is already safe. The convention is clear on that.
|
On September 15 2015 09:14 zlefin wrote:
re: plansix
That it is the intent of some groups is irrelevant to the issue of my posts, which you stated you were limiting yourself to. So make up your mind whether you're focusing on my use or on the more general topic.
Also, the discussion goes back to that because on a practical level, they are economic migrants. They are also refugees from their home country. One can be both, with respect to different places.
Also, you can deny refugees access; IF they are coming from a place that is already safe. The convention is clear on that.
If you continue to use the term "economic migrants" to refer to refugees from Syria when you fully know it will confuse the issue as to who you are referring to, that is your problem. And people will continue to correct you on your choice to use language that you are well aware confuses the discussion since there is a large group of other economic migrants that are not refugees. Don't blame people for pointing it out, since you know what the result will be.
And they can be denied access, but that doesn't make them not a refugee. They are not going to be sent back to Syria just for trying to cross the wrong border.
|
On September 15 2015 08:26 zlefin wrote:
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.
What a ridiculously dishonest attempt to discredit me -- at no point in this discussion did I lie. My statement: "You do not have a reasonable case to deny them the designation of refugee". Of course the refugee definition applies "for purposes of the convention" -- that's what every treaty stipulates when specific terms need to be defined and agreed upon in the context of the provisions of the treaty (and these provisions apply in our case). The point is that this is how refugees are defined in international law, and that you therefore have no "reasonable" case whatsoever to deny them this designation. You can coloquially call them "tennis balls" if you want to, they will still be refugees, just like the president of the U.S. will be the president of the U.S. because he's defined as such by law even if you call him "da supremez authoritah" colloquially. Whatever the words you want to employ colloquially, you will be wrong whenever you will assert that they are not refugees.
It is also inaccurate to use the term "economic migrant" to characterize them, because that term is used to characterize people who have left their own country (not the country they had temporarily sought refuge in as refugees) for economic reasons.
A Syrian who has arrived in Germany after leaving Syria because he was fearing for his life due to the civil war is a refugee. A Moroccan who has arrived in Germany after leaving Morocco because he decided he would be able to build a better life for himself by working in Germany is an economic migrant.
|
It does not confuse the discussion. It is highly relevant to the discussion. It is an essential part of solving the underlying issues. These details and fine distinctions are very important. It is vital to distinguish genuine refugees, from those who are not refugees.
Also, I never mentioned, nor implied returning them to syria.
And they could be jailed for trying to cross the wrong border. That is abundantly clear. They may not be sent to syria, but they could be sent back to the other country that they came from; or imprisoned.
Are you somehow unaware that the things I've said do not apply to those in the camps in turkey/lebanon/etc?
|
So what you are saying is that people who are traveling to the EU from Syria are not refugees because they could stay in Turkey?
|
In the colloquial sense yes, they are not refugees. That is indeed what I am saying. I am not referring to the legal sense. It is common for words to have different meanings in the legal sense and the colloquial sense.
To be more precise, it is not because they could, in principle, stay in turkey; but because they already had entered turkey and were safe.
|
On September 15 2015 09:35 zlefin wrote:
In the colloquial sense yes, they are not refugees. That is indeed what I am saying. I am not referring to the legal sense. It is common for words to have different meanings in the legal sense and the colloquial sense.
To be more precise, it is not because they could, in principle, stay in turkey; but because they already had entered turkey and were safe.
See above for a fuller rebuttal, but it's funny to note that even the Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn't agree with you. Refugee: "someone who has been forced to leave a country because of war or for religious or political reasons" ; "one that flees; especially : a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution". They qualify.
Or did you mean "in the sense that I have personally decided to use with no regard to accepted definitions, and that I'm going to describe as 'colloquial' even though it's really my own use, they are not refugees"?
|
Basically he wants his local colloquial definition to be accepted as colloquial on the forums and by other people elsewhere.
|
On September 15 2015 09:35 zlefin wrote:
In the colloquial sense yes, they are not refugees. That is indeed what I am saying. I am not referring to the legal sense. It is common for words to have different meanings in the legal sense and the colloquial sense.
To be more precise, it is not because they could, in principle, stay in turkey; but because they already had entered turkey and were safe.
Right. So you are using the term to throw shade on their claim as a refugee. They are trying to see refugee status because they can't live in Turkey or their quality of life is so low there it isn't a threat health and well-being. And your response is that they are doing so for "economic reasons" when really they could be reasons related to their survival. And there is no end in sight for the war and they can't live in a camp, jobless and without income for like 3-5 more years. Calling them a "economic migrants" is a naked attempt to question their motives because you know you can't win an argument disputing their legal claim as a refugee. Its disingenuous and ignores the numerous of reasons why refugees cannot stay in Turkey, including that there are already 2 million refugees there.
On September 15 2015 09:50 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:
Basically he wants his local colloquial definition to be accepted as colloquial on the forums and by other people elsewhere.
He wants to call them what he believes their motives are and frame the discussion around them based on that.
|
I feel this syrian refugee crisis is a great stress test for the crowd who likes to confuse entitlements as fundamental human rights. Are the beliefs that social safety nets compatible with the belief in the right to life regardless of birth circumstances? Can they coexist? I find the accusations of racism, assertions that others aren't doing their "fair share" and appeals to morality as signs that reality is conflicting with these untested world views.
|
as far as i'm concerned a refugee changes his status based on his actions.
when he flees from the war he's a refugee but then when he applies for residency, welfare or whatever social benefices you have there, he becomes a migrant/immigrant.
|
On September 15 2015 17:23 xM(Z wrote:
as far as i'm concerned a refugee changes his status based on his actions.
when he flees from the war he's a refugee but then when he applies for residency, welfare or whatever social benefices you have there, he becomes a migrant/immigrant.
That is literally what a refugee is. Someone attempting to obtain legal status to work in another county because they can't go back to theirs.
|
On September 15 2015 19:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 17:23 xM(Z wrote:
as far as i'm concerned a refugee changes his status based on his actions.
when he flees from the war he's a refugee but then when he applies for residency, welfare or whatever social benefices you have there, he becomes a migrant/immigrant. That is literally what a refugee is. Someone attempting to obtain legal status to work in another county because they can't go back to theirs.
The logic is mindblowing.
So a refugee is a refugee until he tries to get the right to stay permanently. Now he is no longer a refugee but an Immigrant (wtf, why?).
Now, if he gets declined, what do you do with him? Send him back? No, his country is still unsave so this is impossible/against the law. But, according to you, he is no refugee anymore. This leads to the question, what is this person now? Most likely an illegal Immigrant, an illegal immigrant you can't send home because he hasn't anywhere to go?
So to "solve" the refugee/immigration Problem you propose to create more illegal immigrants/sans papiers.
This is so smart, please write a book about it.
|
On September 15 2015 19:43 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 19:30 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2015 17:23 xM(Z wrote:
as far as i'm concerned a refugee changes his status based on his actions.
when he flees from the war he's a refugee but then when he applies for residency, welfare or whatever social benefices you have there, he becomes a migrant/immigrant. That is literally what a refugee is. Someone attempting to obtain legal status to work in another county because they can't go back to theirs. The logic is mindblowing. So a refugee is a refugee until he tries to get the right to stay permanently. Now he is no longer a refugee but an Immigrant (wtf, why?). Now, if he gets declined, what do you do with him? Send him back? No, his country is still unsave so this is impossible/against the law. But, according to you, he is no refugee anymore. This leads to the question, what is this person now? Most likely an illegal Immigrant, an illegal immigrant you can't send home because he hasn't anywhere to go? So to "solve" the refugee/immigration Problem you propose to create more illegal immigrants/sans papiers. This is so smart, please write a book about it.
I think you quoted the wrong person.
|
As I know there are many who read threads without posting:
I have not conceded on the points I have raised (other than those I explicitly conceded upon); but I am no longer talking or responding to kwizach or plansix, as they have, in my opinion, violated the decorum of discussion. As such there is no longer anyone at present debating/discussing with me; if anyone wants more details/discussion from me, I will be around, and can be pm'ed or talked to in thread.
|
- you give food, shelter, protection(plus some other stuff to make the whole thing more civilized) to a refugee until he can go back(i.e. after the war), because he would want to go back.
- you give that, plus every right your citizens have to an immigrant, after approvals, because he wants to stay/remain there.
that want is a loaded word because it implies a lot of stuff both from the immigrant and from the country that received it.
|
On September 15 2015 20:13 xM(Z wrote:
- you give food, shelter, protection(plus some other stuff to make the whole thing more civilized) to a refugee until he can go back(i.e. after the war), because he would want to go back.
- you give that, plus every right your citizens have to an immigrant, after approvals, because he wants to stay/remain there.
that want is a loaded word because it implies a lot of stuff both from the immigrant and from the country that received it.
My home town has 2 families of refugees from the Bosnian crisis. They were in the country for over a decade before they self safe going back. Refugees might never be able to return to their country. That is the point. And they can't go 5-10 years just waiting without doing anything.
|
On September 15 2015 09:30 Plansix wrote:
So what you are saying is that people who are traveling to the EU from Syria are not refugees because they could stay in Turkey?
"From turkey to the EU" is a nice way of saying - "travel through Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary and Austria to get to Germany"
|
On September 15 2015 17:23 xM(Z wrote:
as far as i'm concerned a refugee changes his status based on his actions.
when he flees from the war he's a refugee but then when he applies for residency, welfare or whatever social benefices you have there, he becomes a migrant/immigrant.
It is really simple. If you come to a European country you can apply for asylum. If you are granted asylum you are allowed to stay until your asylum status is terminated, which for example in Germany can happen at the earliest after three years. If you haven't obtained citizenship at that point you may have to leave the country.
You don't lose your right to asylum because you apply for social benefits, that wouldn't make any sense as social security isn't magically going to make your homeland any more safe.
|
On September 15 2015 19:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 17:23 xM(Z wrote:
as far as i'm concerned a refugee changes his status based on his actions.
when he flees from the war he's a refugee but then when he applies for residency, welfare or whatever social benefices you have there, he becomes a migrant/immigrant. That is literally what a refugee is. Someone attempting to obtain legal status to work in another county because they can't go back to theirs.
That's what I'd label as a migrant. A refugee is someone who has to flee his country of origin because his life is no longer safe, and settles down in the nearest safe country.
People who go through multiple safe countries - and willfully try to avoid registration in the safe countries along the way - in order to reach one particular destination that has better welfare and (maybe) employment chances are hardly refugees in my opinion.
I think we are nearing the point where the EU will just set up refugee camps along the borders of the EU, and that people who are granted refugee status will not be granted permanent residency and full access to social security. In order to be sure that after they were granted asylum don't all just move to Germany or Sweden, they will also not be allowed to leave the country they were asigned to. It's basically limiting free movement of persons to EU citizens and holders of normal visa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
