What is a Refugee?

[Robert Greene]

Can someone people explain to me what's a refugee? Is it someone who shows up at your border, and say's "Excuse me Canada. I'm trying to flee poverty, and I'm looking for a better life for my children." 

Does this qualify as a "Refugee"

What's about someone who ditches their neighbors, and says they "saw too much violence". Does this qualify as a "Refugee"?

What if a volcano wipes out a tiny pacific Island, and one of the residence needs a new home. Does this qualify as a "Refugee"?

I would argue that the only legitimate refugees, are the people who have to flee an extreme natural disaster. 

Someone who's leaves their neighbors behind to die in war, are not refugees. They are cowards, who didn't stand their ground and defend their own country. They should never be awarded citizenship in a new country.

We should only be accepting people from natural disasters.

 

Perhaps, if we changed the definition of a refugee, we wouldn't have so many parasites showing up at our border.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Robert Greene

[egghead]

Fleeing the war shall be fine. However, all of the them did not stop after they reached the safe zone. At the end, they all turned out to be "economic refugees".

[Robert Greene]

19 minutes ago, egghead said:

Fleeing the war shall be fine. However, all of the them did not stop after they reached the safe zone. At the end, they all turned out to be "economic refugees".

No, Why 40 000 Syrians get a bailout, when they allowed turned a blind eye to Radical Islam? Why should they get sympathy when they sat idle, and let their country fall apart?

Shouldn't they have to face the consequences of their stupidity?

If we ever allowed Tribal warfare in Canada, Do you think the Americans should buy the rest of us homes, and give us free food for a year?

Nobody has control over a volcano, but at with war, you can stand your ground, and protect the livelihood of your neighbor.

Deserters are not refugees, they're parasites.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Robert Greene

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

Can someone people explain to me what's a refugee?

We should only be accepting people from natural disasters.

Perhaps, if we changed the definition of a refugee, we wouldn't have so many parasites showing up at our border.

Yabut how do you define natural disaster? Human beings are natural, too many humans are a disaster. Ergo people fleeing overpopulated areas are refugees fleeing a natural disaster.

Perhaps if we changed the definition of human being we wouldn't have so many.

[Argus]

Found this on the European Parliamentary Services site

Refugees are a special class of migrants who under international law deserve specific protection by their host state. According to Article 1 of the 1951 UN Convention, as modified by the 1967 Protocol, a refugee is defined as a person who ‘owing to 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.’ This definition implies that several qualifying conditions apply to be considered a refugee: (1) presence outside home country; (2) well-founded fear of persecution (being at risk of harm is insufficient reason in the absence of discriminatory persecution); (3) incapacity to enjoy the protection of one’s own state from the persecution feared. The definition of refugees was actually intended to exclude internally displaced persons, economic migrants, victims of natural disasters, and persons fleeing violent conflict but not subject to discrimination amounting to persecution.

Now the problem is that Canada goes well beyond this. First of all, it accepts as refugees people fleeing violent conflict even though they're not subject to persecution. For example, Yazidis or Christians from Syria would qualify under this definition. Most Muslims would not. Likewise most people from Somalia, Haiti, Dominican Republic, etc. would not qualify, let alone those from Nigeria, who are flying to the US and then showing up at our border.

The problem is that the Left sees this as a moral issue. Anyone in need of help, they want to help, without much thought to the cost or future consequences for Canada. There's always been a distaste among the Left for talking about cost when "people are in danger!". The problem is, first, few of these people are actually in personal danger, and second, the definition above was set so that only those with no alternatives would qualify, not hundreds of millions of people.

When Trudeau had us scoop up tens of thousands of Syrians already safe in Turkish refugee camps, that was nothing but virtue signalling. It had nothing to do with helping refugees. And even this was mostly an election ploy. The death of a small child, and the pictures of his body, allowed the Liberals to claim that somehow or other it was the cold-hearted Harper at fault, never mind that he was safe in Turkey before his family took him on a dangerous raft ride across the sea to his death. He, like they, was an economic migrant, not a refugee.

https://epthinktank.eu/2015/10/27/refugee-status-under-international-law/

Edited April 2, 2019 by Argus

[cannuck]

While my neck is pretty red on the subject of immigration, it is not right to simply lump all Syrian and other nearby battle zone "refugees" together as cowards.   We are talking about a population that was barely armed, untrained and not financed at all being assaulted by a government force of professional soldiers backed 100% by Iran and Russia.  A significant number put up one hell of a fight against impossible odds for several years.  Others, such as the Yazidi were victims of an intense campaign of genocide.

With no serious effort to verify regugee claims, however, the real heros and victims are not likely being sorted out from the cowards, opportunists and embedded terrorists.

[egghead]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

While my neck is pretty red on the subject of immigration, it is not right to simply lump all Syrian and other nearby battle zone "refugees" together as cowards.   We are talking about a population that was barely armed, untrained and not financed at all being assaulted by a government force of professional soldiers backed 100% by Iran and Russia.  A significant number put up one hell of a fight against impossible odds for several years.  Others, such as the Yazidi were victims of an intense campaign of genocide.

With no serious effort to verify regugee claims, however, the real heros and victims are not likely being sorted out from the cowards, opportunists and embedded terrorists.

Same here, I have no issue with refugees, but I have issue with economic refugee 

[taxme]

On 4/2/2019 at 4:17 PM, cannuck said:

While my neck is pretty red on the subject of immigration, it is not right to simply lump all Syrian and other nearby battle zone "refugees" together as cowards.   We are talking about a population that was barely armed, untrained and not financed at all being assaulted by a government force of professional soldiers backed 100% by Iran and Russia.  A significant number put up one hell of a fight against impossible odds for several years.  Others, such as the Yazidi were victims of an intense campaign of genocide.

With no serious effort to verify regugee claims, however, the real heros and victims are not likely being sorted out from the cowards, opportunists and embedded terrorists.

As far as I know bleeding heart liberal Trudeau did not bring in any Yazidis into Canada. No doubt because they were Christian and Christians are not welcomed in Canada. Well, at least not with the leftist liberals anyway. The tens of thousands of so called refugees that are being brought here by Trudeau, or who have crossed into Canada illegally, I doubt very much that even 5% of them are what one would call a real refugee. Canadians are being a fed a pot of crock that they are now having to pay hundreds of billions of their tax dollars and sending those tax dollars down the drain. These so called Arab refugees have so many other Arab countries to run too, why do they have to come to Canada? I think I know why? It is called benefits. 

Canada is well known for it's great social and medical benefits, and the world knows about those benefits, and they want to come here and take advantage of the piece of the action of those benefits. If I lived in a country that offered no benefits and looked like downtown Bangladesh and found out that there was a country that gave away free benefits, I would try and scramble my ass over there as fast as I could. This has to be why most of these so called refugees come to Canada. To suck off the fools like you and me who will hand money over to them willy-nilly.

I say close the bloody border gates now and do not let anyone in for a very long time. Enough already of this madness. It's time for some tough talk and tough love and action here in Canada. The world is lucky that I am not the PM of Canada. They won't be flocking to our gates anymore like they are doing today and taking advantage of Canadians. They will be sent packing as soon as they are apprehended at the border and sent back from whence they came. This bleeding heart leftist liberal nonsense needs to come to an end, now. My opinion.

[QuebecOverCanada]

A refugee in Canada is too often a 20 something male migrant who doesn't care about our immigration laws and our society in general and claims to flee some kind of oppression or danger, most of the times repeating/reading out loud a draft made by a lawyer to an immigration officer. 

[Owly]

15 minutes ago, taxme said:

As far as I know bleeding heart liberal Trudeau did not bring in any Yazidis into Canada. No doubt because they were Christian and Christians are not welcomed in Canada. Well, at least not with the leftist liberals anyway. The tens of thousands of so called refugees that are being brought here by Trudeau, or who have crossed into Canada illegally, I doubt very much that even 5% of them are what one would call a real refugee. Canadians are being a fed a pot of crock that they are now having to pay hundreds of billions of their tax dollars and sending those tax dollars down the drain. These so called Arab refugees have so many other Arab countries to run too, why do they have to come to Canada? I think I know why? It is called benefits. 

Canada is well known for it's great social and medical benefits, and the world knows about those benefits, and they want to come here and take advantage of the piece of the action of those benefits. If I lived in a country that offered no benefits and looked like downtown Bangladesh and found out that there was a country that gave away free benefits, I would try and scramble my ass over there as fast as I could. This has to be why most of these so called refugees come to Canada. To suck off the fools like you and me who will hand money over to them willy-nilly.

I say close the bloody border gates now and do not let anyone in for a very long time. Enough already of this madness. It's time for some tough talk and tough love and action here in Canada. The world is lucky that I am not the PM of Canada. They won't be flocking to our gates anymore like they are doing today and taking advantage of Canadians. They will be sent packing as soon as they are apprehended at the border and sent back from whence they came. This bleeding heart leftist liberal nonsense needs to come to an end, now. My opinion.

"As far as I know" is the most relevant part of your blather. Beyond that it just becomes a description of how much you don't know.