Profile photo of

Thanks for the UN reference, Toby C. According to a document on that page, the United Nations defines “refugees” and “migrants” as follows, and says that not understanding the difference between the two “can have serious consequences for the lives and safety of refugees.” It is reasonable and even quite useful to use these two official UN definitions, by the way (just not the way they use them):

“Refugees are persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution. … Their situation is often so perilous and intolerable that they cross national borders to seek safety in nearby countries, and thus become internationally recognized as ‘refugees’ with access to assistance from States, UNHCR, and other organizations. They are so recognized precisely because it is too dangerous for them to return home, and they need sanctuary elsewhere. These are people for whom denial of asylum has potentially deadly consequences.”

— but (more of the UN definition) —

“Migrants choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but mainly to improve their lives by finding work, or in some cases for education, family reunion, or other reasons. Unlike refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants face no such impediment to return. If they choose to return home, they will continue to receive the protection of their government.”

That same UN document goes on to say:

“For individual governments, this distinction is important. Countries deal with migrants under their own immigration laws and processes. Countries deal with refugees through norms of refugee protection and asylum that are defined in both national legislation and international law. Countries have specific responsibilities towards anyone seeking asylum on their territories or at their borders. UNHCR helps countries deal with their asylum and refugee protection responsibilities.”

Notice how the UN “allows” us to use our own laws when it comes to “migrants,” but imposes “norms of refugee protection and asylum that are defined in … international law.” They go on to say that we have “specific responsibilities” pertaining to “refugees.” And that’s all we hear about is the massive numbers of “refugees.”

The UN document goes even further:

“Politics has a way of intervening in such debates. Conflating refugees and migrants can have serious consequences for the lives and safety of refugees. Blurring the two terms takes attention away from the specific legal protections refugees require. It can undermine public support for refugees and the institution of asylum at a time when more refugees need such protection than ever before.”

So any discussion of whether we’re dealing with a primary refugee crisis, or an invasion by potentially dangerous illegal immigrants is “politics,” and by so doing, we’re putting “the lives and safety” of all these refugees at serious risk, with even “potentially deadly consequences?”

Then let us use the UN’s own statistics, as of September 15, 2015, pertaining to the composition of the “refugees” that are “fleeing” such awful conditions:

men = 72%
women = 13%
children = 15%

And where are they coming from? The vast majority (74%) of these “refugees” are coming from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, and Pakistan.
[from Toby C’s original link]

At the risk of being accused of playing “politics,” one might logically ask the following questions. If things are so horrible in the originating countries, why are all these able-bodied, almost all young men, leaving their wives, children, sisters, parents, and grand parents behind to fend for themselves? What happened to the “serious consequences for the lives and safety of” those women, children, and old folks left behind to fend for themselves? Why do these young men not stay at home and join whatever opposing forces OUR military are attempting to train to take back their countries? Why are nearly 3/4 of the massive wave of “refugees” young males, of potential military age? And if conditions are so horrible back home, how did they afford the €10,000 (roughly $11,300 US) fee – often MUCH higher – paid to the smugglers to get them up to Europe? How did they come with already-established cell phone accounts and working cell phones in many cases? Where did the nice designer-label clothing come from? Who’s paying for the ongoing cell phone accounts so many of them have?

This is NOT (with obvious but relatively few exceptions) a “humanitarian” or “refugee” crisis. This is an invasion my mostly young, male, Muslim men of military age, who are NOT choosing to fight for their own countries, while US and European Soldiers and Marines are losing their lives every single day to help liberate these nations from oppressive conditions. These are what the UN itself defines as “migrants” of the illegal variety – young, Muslim men with cell phones and enough money to travel to Europe (and beyond). What could possibly go wrong?

How about another beheading at a previously peaceful workplace in the US by an Islamic fundamentalist? How how about another group of innocent US Army Soldiers being gunned down in a processing center at Ft. Hood by an Islamic fundamentalist masquerading as a military officer and psychiatrist? How about another “underwear bomber” on another airliner about to land in Detroit? How about more planes flown into buildings or stadiums? Or bombs placed in strategic locations (not just the Boston Marathon, but malls, large sports events, church services, etc.)? ISIS and Al Qaeda have told us they’re coming, and that many are already here, with instructions and the intent to do more of just those very types of things.

And to Malgus and MountainBiker, another “Amen!” The news media in this case is the mouthpiece of the UN – including “fair and balanced {choke!} Fox News. Why should we think this current wave of illegal immigrants in Europe is any less calculated and coordinated than that which has been imposed on the US? (Obviously, a rhetorical question.) We’ll be getting our “moral share” of them all too soon.