Throughout the Western world, three terms are commonly misused and misunderstood: ‘Refugee’, ‘Asylum Seeker’, and ‘Migrant’. Invariably, all three are used to describe the same persons, and this makes a big difference, whether the observer is in the USA and Mexican border, Europe, or elsewhere. Journalists in particular tend to use all three interchangeably and indiscriminately, usually so that readers feel an emotional affiliation to Islam. To put it in ordinary language, the wrong use of these words defies their use in international law.
A ‘migrant’ is simple someone who moves from one country to another. To qualify as a ‘refugee’ and then an ‘asylum seeker’ the migrant MUST meet the definitions given in law. In Europe, for example, over 85% of all migrants who claim to be refugees or asylum seekers, are very obviously not, but are ‘economic migrants’ who have no legal status enabling them to enter another country freely. And, when Obama wants to import many thousands of migrants from Syria, and says they must be fast-tracked, he is (as usual) ignoring international law and forcing the USA to accept people who have not proved themselves to be ‘refugees’, thus placing Americans in potential mortal danger.
Those who think they are clever, argue that these distinctions are invalid because the Orlando killer was ‘home-grown’. His actions do not invalidate the argument one little bit – it simply means that home-grown terrorists who are known to the police and FBI (which he was) must come under internal evaluation and arrest, as must the foundations of their religion, which teaches terroristic activity against non-Muslims.
Trending: Exchanging One Master For Another
The Definition of a ‘Refugee’
How many people understand that the international rules concerning ‘refugees’ were NOT made for today’s ramshackle and often ridiculous migrant situation, but for the INTERNAL movement of people in Europe displaced by Hitler’s war? And the aim was to send the refugees back to their own countries, if not their home towns, as quickly as possible. The rules have NOT been updated to include unchecked and terroristic people from Islamic countries who hate the host country! Nor do they take into account the movement of people who have no wish to work, but only to bleed a host country of its welfare benefits (another aspect of jihad).
One should also note that the original ‘refugees’ were from a Christian, white background. I have no problem with persons of ANY race, but I do object when the people of my own country pay their taxes diligently only to have them squandered on foreign people of a foreign religion whose stated aim is to force upon the host country their version of ‘religion’, and to impose it with great violence. This is social engineering on a grand scale, changing a country from one ethos and culture into another alien one, by reason of threat and wicked behaviour, and by rejecting the rules of international law.
So, what, REALLY is a genuine ‘refugee’? He is someone 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; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence … is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” (1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, amended by the 1967 protocol to the convention).
Does this rule mean we must accept anyone from a foreign country because they claim there is, say, war? No, it does not, for the details then come into force. For example, merely coming from a country that is at war internally, does not automatically mean the migrant is a ‘refugee’. To qualify, his own life must be in immediate, personal danger. With this in mind, most do not qualify. For example, if the person is of the same Islamic ‘brand’ as that of the killers, then he is in no danger at all, whereas Christians, say, are automatically covered by this rule, so can be ‘refugees’. This is why some EU countries are willing to accept the persecuted Christians, but not the Muslims, whose claims are mostly bogus, and whose Islamic ‘brand’ is the same as that of ISIS.
To qualify as an asylum seeker, a migrant must firstly show himself to be a genuine ‘refugee’. But, most cannot show this, because they are ‘economic migrants’. It is said by socialists that these people only want a better life. But, this does not qualify them as either refugees or asylum seekers! In Britain, for example, this search for a better life fills the country with people who are of a radically different culture that wants to replace our own, who do not wish to work, are without skills, who demand sharia law, and hate their host! These must be paid for by the taxes of hard-working British people, whose own quality of life becomes lower with every non-refugee migrant who enters the country… they sap the taxes by not working and claiming vast sums in social benefits, and having ‘free everything’ (education, housing, transport, health care, and so on).
Refugees almost always claim to be ‘asylum seekers’ from Syria, but almost none are proved to be from Syria. Most are from Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. (from official EU figures). For this single reason they do not qualify to be ‘asylum seekers’ even though they insist on claiming this status! Because they claim it, the West is bound to go through the process, wasting valuable time, money, and effort.
So, a migrant must prove he is a ‘refugee’. If this is proved, he can then apply to be an ‘asylum seeker’. But, there’s the rub, for, in Europe for example, all the migrants throw away their identity papers and passports! They lie about where they come from and why they came (thanks to the Islamic practice of taqiyya/lying). Virtually all the migrants are fit young men, who obviously have money. And, as I have shown in articles elsewhere, most ‘families’ are not actual families, and almost all ‘unaccompanied children’ are anything but. Lies built upon lies upon lies. In any age of common sense, those without papers should be deported immediately, along with those who lie about their country or aims. But, stupidity reigns, binging terrorism in its wake! Even if terrorism did not occur, the fact that a country pays for an increasing number of shiftless and unskilled migrants, means that its own people will suffer. And crimes will increase rapidly, as Germany and Sweden have discovered.
This subject is complex, but it is also ignored. The people must learn the truth and apply common sense, before their country becomes a caliphate – an aim already boasted of by ISIS and other Islamic leaders. Obama and Europe seem to think it is great to ignore these aims (threats). And so the West sinks with the sun. It is vital for readers to know the difference between ‘migrant’, ‘refugee’ and ‘asylum seeker’.
(See article on my website for more details: ‘Refugees and Asylum Seekers)Tags: EU Islam President Barack Obama Terrorism
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.