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:
maybe those who made the threats should be persecuted, rather than all "refugees".
typical case of a few bad apples making the whole barrel look bad.
by LCD on Tue Sep 18, 07 3:11pm
[+]
I think they should really screen them though. The refugees should also really try to assimilate when in the West. As for that 'bad apples' comment, mainstream has just a bad effect. Doing nothing hurts the cause too
by aya on Tue Sep 18, 07 3:15pm
[+]
Voted : yes
But they should try to abduct and convict those guilty of death threats.
$150, 000?? eh? Anyone know where he is? 
Voted : yes
aya- That depends what you mean by 'refugee'. In reality, the terminology under international law is much more specific than the way it is used in every day language and in the media.
For example, the following cannot be used as claims for refugee status:
- Simply being poor or in famine.
- Escaping from the devasation of a natural disaster (eg, flood, tsunami, drought, disease)
A refugee must be outside their country of origin, have a reasonable fear that they will suffer an unjust political persecution based either on their race, ethnicity, nationality, social group, religion or political opinion. Even then, it is complicated- The first thing is one cannot be considered a 'refugee' unless the fear of persecution is ongoing, that is, simply being at risk of persecuted in the past is not enough, the risk of the persecution must be ongoing for the forseeable future. If it is a government doing the persecution it is a bit more of a clear case, however, often claims will be made that it is not the government but the society which persecutes on such grounds- but here one making a claim to the 'refugee' title has to do so under the premise that the government of their country is not or cannot stop the society from severely persecuting the group in question.
In terms of fleeing from a war, the definition once again of being a 'refugee' owing to something along such lines is very strict. For example, simply being from Afghanistan is not enough really to claim to be a refugee- the claim should show that the area one lives in is directly affected by the conflict and that there is no safer plcae to go within the country without being targeted. If armed conflict is officially over, but the country in question is still devastated in terms of economics and infrastructure- then one cannot really claim a 'refugee' status without making other claims of persecution (which I mentioned were race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, social group or political opinion).
In regards to gender- that alone is not really grounds under international law to claim the title of 'refugee'. Simply being a woman in a patriarchal society alone is not enough- more specifics are needed- in particular a political opinion (which I mentioned a few times above) such as expression of feminist or individualist beliefs which would lead to persecution.
To add to all this, of course an applicant to the 'refugee' status in Europe would have their claims checked and double-checked, and any evidence would be closely inspected. Criminal background checks and even health inspections of course occur.
In reality, while there are a HUGE number of 'immigrants' and 'asylum seekers' in Europe, the number of 'refugees' that Europe officially grants protection to is a much smaller number than people seem to think. In answer to your question: should they be able to stay if they trouble-makers? That depends. If it is a severe case, such as they face execution if returned to their country (Iran for example) of origin for simply being gay, then in such a case no matter what, they should not be sent back.
It is indeed cruel and cold-hearted to send a Falun Gong practitioner back to China, an open homosexual back to Iran, etc, simply because they have not yet assimilated.
'Refugees' are a distinct group and should be given more patience than other 'immigrants'. But of course, they should be expected to follow the law of the land that has granted them protection. And obviously most refugees do not do what you described. And the ones that do should be dealt the appropriate punishment for the particular crime being talked about. But to stop granting protection, both permanent and temporary, to all 'refugees' is wrong.
Voted : yes
And give them all your food, women and money.
"
'Refugees' are a distinct group and should be given more patience than other 'immigrants'. But of course, they should be expected to follow the law of the land that has granted them protection. And obviously most refugees do not do what you described. And the ones that do should be dealt the appropriate punishment for the particular crime being talked about. But to stop granting protection, both permanent and temporary, to all 'refugees' is wrong."
You know, a guy who was involved in a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia tried to apply for refugee status here, but was rejected (thank God). But of course, the moronic officials ACTUALLY allowed in a guy accused of terrorist activities in France, he was ACTUALLY jailed, but b/c he had Canadian citizenship, he was allowed in. Even after saying "killing anyone doesn't bother me."
by aya on Wed Sep 19, 07 2:50pm
[+]
aya- The problem I think with stopping refugees from getting protection on the grounds that they are wanted for 'terrorism' by their government is that what that government regards to be 'terrorism' might not be. For example, pro-democracy activists in China are unjust labelled as terrorists by the PRC. So I think when it comes to refugees and 'criminal' backgrounds:
1) This needs to be considered on the individual level of analysis- each individual refugee being judged on their own merits and demerits and not judging all refugees at once as a whole
2) We need to make sure that they are 'terrorists' and 'criminals' by our definitions of the terms and not just because some barbaric government somewhere is loosely throwing around the label.
3) Where they are indeed terrorists and war criminals by our country's understanding of the term- of course we should have reconsiderations and try to balance out the weight of their wrong-doing against how badly they will be persecuted if returned to their country of origin- and try to make the wisest decision as possible from this.
4) If a person granted protection as a refugee commits a crime in the country that gave them that protection- then that country should apply the appropriate punishment according to what the crime was.
5) If the guy you mentioned already had Canadian citizenship, then he is Canada's responsibility to deal with. France would certainly have had the right to request he be tried and punished in France- but as a whole it would be up to Canada to decide what to do with him if he made his way back on to Canadian soil. And I would hope that Canada would take the allegations of an accountable country like France into serious consideration and hold him into account for it in and under Canadian law (by the way, was he recognised as a refugee?)
|
|
