Once they are in Turkey, do they cease to be refugees?
But I have never said that. Then again, if you think that a refugee after crossing the next border stops being one, you are obviously wrong. Once again: Can you back that claim up with a cite?
When they flee from Syria/Libya, they are refugees. I believe I said that several times in this thread. When they flee from Turkey, Greece, Hungary, Serbia etc. they are economic migrants. Glad I can make it clearer for you.
That’s a restatement of the same thing. You think that someone fleeing a country as a refugee is entitled to continue on to any other country because of that “refugee” status. That’s absurd on its face.
It seems ludicrous that refugees cease to be refugees when they still can’t go back to their home countries. Did Jews fleeing from Europe cease to be refugees if they went from the USA to Canada?
The problem for you is that even the European nations that do want to help are not making that distinction.
Glad to make it clear that the ones that are dealing with the issue are not getting the peculiar definitions that you mantain. They are indeed ignoring you.
Yes. Can you give me an example of Canada receiving someone as a refugee when they came from the US?
Do not tell me what I think. You do not understand me well enough for that.
I believe that if the number of refugees arriving from Syria in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey is threatening to overburden these countries’ capacity to help, the richer countries are under a moral obligation to share that burden.
They are. They are taking them as economic migrants, under special circumstances. Which is fine, it’s their choice.
The “moral obligation” to take in some economic migrants - maybe. Each country decides for itself.
You need a quote from the articles cited claiming that, I checked again and they are calling them refugees, your denial is now just a willful one.
If you must call the refugees “economic migrants” in order to justify your unwillingness to help, it says something about the confidence you have in your position.
Much to the infamy for posterity, Canadians refused to accept Jewish refugees, so that is mostly a moot point.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1174272-canada-turned-away-jewish-refugees
Incidentally just because the refugees had to stop in places like Casablanca in Morocco that did not mean that they automatically became “economic migrants”, maybe you should see the movie Casablanca, but not for the fictional example of the move, but for the real European refugees that worked in the movie. They never were called “economic immigrants” as only you prefer, but once again, historians are not like you and the countries that do want to help are not using your sorry definitions.
No, it is a legal determination. “Refugees” must be received, according to the Geneva Convention (at least by the convention’s signatories). “Economic migrants” are accepted or not accepted, depending on the good will and the needs/means of any individual country.
People clamoring for the “Syrian refugees” to be accepted as refugees in the UK, Germany and the US are trying to use the Geneva Convention weight to force them through. That’s wrong.
There are tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of refugees in the world. Have been, for decades and decades. Some living in conditions that are a hundred times worse than the conditions in which Syrian refugees live in Turkey or Greece. Yet during those decades upon decades, have you seen any kind of urgency to bring these millions of refugees into the US or the EU?
Why do you think that is?
They are not listening to guys like you as in reality you are wrong.
Like Rick in Casablanca you were misinformed.
That’s an awfully weird definition – that refugees stop being refugees even if they remain homeless just because they move from one place (that’s not their home country) to another.
That’s an awfully weird definition - that refugees, once they leave their home country, are entitled to shop for a country to go to - and that country is bound to accept them as refugees.
You keep repeating that. You also keep failing to back it up.
Here is what the UN has ro say (bolding mine):
Is anything in that definition not clear to you?
Red Herring spotted. Like your definitions it can be ignored because it also depends on what the host nations decide to do with the refugees.
[QUOTE=Casablanca]
**Ferrari:** What do you want for Sam?
**Rick:** I don't buy or sell human beings.
**Ferrari:** Too bad. That's Casablanca's leading commodity. In refugees alone, we could make a fortune, if you work with me through the black market.
**Rick:** Suppose you run your business and let me run mine.
**Ferrari: **Suppose we ask Sam. Maybe he'd like to make a change?
**Rick: **Suppose we do.
**Ferrari:** My dear Rick, when will you realize that in this world, today, isolationism is no longer a practical policy?
[/QUOTE]
I agree – that’s not my definition.