user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I have seen the media seriously misuse the term 'refugee', expanding to include things which in reality to not legally fall under the definition. Even in regards to escape from armed conflict in one's country, the definition of a refugee is even then much more specific than you may imagine.
Voted : No, the term should remain specific
I personally believe that the definition of a refugee should remain specific. Refugees should be specifically in regards to those that would face persecution for one of the defined reasons if they were to return to their country of origin. Keeping the definition specific is for practical reasons that the international community has unique obligations toward such defined people. That is not to say that I believe those fleeing disease, poverty or natural disasters should not also be helped. On the contrary, such 'asylum seekers' should be helped out as well, of course. But I believe that if the definition is expanded, then there will be less nations willing to devote themselves to the signatory obligations of the refugee convention and the specific needs of those whom would face real and imminent persecution upon a forced return may as a result be overlooked.
Voted : In between
A tsunami or armed conflict should qualify some for refugee assistance.
|
|