If Refugees refuse Refuge, are they still Refugees?

Just a question.

If Refugees refuse Refuge, are they still Refugees?

I might be in the wrong forum.

a reply to: CryHavoc

No they are "Refusees". Not the joke thread? #.

a reply to: CryHavoc

I believe international law insists if you are seeking refuge or asylum, it needs to be in the first country you come to outside of the country you are fleeing.

To my knowledge the answer to your question is a resounding, NO.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Just a question.

If Refugees refuse Refuge, are they still Refugees?

I might be in the wrong forum.

Nope. They are then considered agenda driven.

No,then you’re just leaches!

It depends.

If the country of your choice is a ‘Western society’ country then, by lib logic, the answer is YES!

Not only is it ‘yes’ but if you are a ‘non-white person’ then said country MUST provide you with money, housing, food, transport, education and health care FOR LIFE at the expense of its taxpayers.

It gets better. If you decide to rape or murder or commit other crimes in your new home you can NEVER be deported.

Anyone wanting to ensure these policies get made into actual law should vote democrat all the way!

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

I believe international law insists if you are seeking refuge or asylum, it needs to be in the first country you come to outside of the country you are fleeing.

Could it be that they think it's a craphole country?

a reply to: highvein

Does it matter in international law for asylum seekers? There is still the ability to migrate legally once asylum is granted.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: highvein

Does it matter in international law for asylum seekers? There is still the ability to migrate legally once asylum is granted.

Yes, but what does that tell you about what kind of people that is. Entitled comes to mind.

I can sum up this whole event with one comment captured by the Washington Post. They asked one of the town people the caravan was passing through what they thought about it.

The person said they were fine with the caravan. Just as long as they did not "linger" in the town.

You see, they don't give a damn about these people. If they truly did the caravan would not be moving at all. What they do care about is getting these people the hell out of their towns. If that requires some food and water so be it. If it requires cheering them on to linger in someone else's town then it's a beautiful parade.

www.washingtonpost.com... -11e8-8384-bcc5492fef49_story.html?utm_term=.844a83885fc9

a reply to: highvein

You may be correct.
As I work at a University, my undergrads are great. My MFAs are entitled. My PHD candidates, do not have the logic to have been undergrads. . .

That's hyperbole, but truthful to my own experience.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Just a question.

If Refugees refuse Refuge, are they still Refugees?

I might be in the wrong forum.

Nope. Then they become illegals in the country that offers the refuge

Nope.

Not that half the country or 95% of the media cares though.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Just a question.

If Refugees refuse Refuge, are they still Refugees?

I might be in the wrong forum.

Has nothing to do with US law. Under US law it does not take in consideration another country offering and you declining. Under US law they are entitled to a hearing to make the case that they need refugee status. About 80 percent fail and are sent home.

Oh one more thing getting refugee status is not permanent and can be revoked as was recently done to honduras refugees. They were removed from the list that allowed any honduran to declare refugee status.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: CryHavoc

I believe international law insists if you are seeking refuge or asylum, it needs to be in the first country you come to outside of the country you are fleeing.

To my knowledge the answer to your question is a resounding, NO.

That would be the first "member" country, being a signee to the UN International Treaty. Mexico is a member and a signee to the treaty, but the amount of people they pledged to take is way lower than the US.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

To the OP post..not at all, no.

In reply to Sookiechacha, so What?

There is a process in place as noted by your post, deny or stay. Let them do the proper paper work.


Mg

a reply to: missed_gear


I don't know about this year, and this caravan, but I know last year Mexico was turning asylum seekers away, saying they were "full up", they met their pledged quota and shut the them down.

a reply to: CryHavoc

By law they must in Europe. In my opinion they are economic migrants at that point, aka, illegals.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: missed_gear


I don't know about this year, and this caravan, but I know last year Mexico was turning asylum seekers away, saying they were "full up", they met their pledged quota and shut the them down.

This year ...

Migrant Caravan Continues for U.S. Border After Rejecting Mexico's Offer to Stay

Orbelina Orellana, a migrant from San Pedro Sula, Honduras, said she and her husband left three children behind and had decided to continue north one way or another.

“Our destiny is to get to the border,” Orellana said.

time.com...

a reply to: CryHavoc
So, that's it? Your OP is just a single question about the status of refugees in general if they refuse (offered??) refuge?

The answer obviously depends on the actual circumstances, but you haven't given any specifics. Yet for some reason you placed your minimal OP in the US Political Madness Forum.

Yes, you closed by suggesting you might be in the wrong forum, but could you at least explain why your OP is in the USPM Forum, when you have not made any reference to the USA whatsoever?

ETA: or is this just a piece of click bait? A hit-and-run post, chasing a few stars and flags? Seeing as you have not posted anything after your OP, I have to wonder.