https://ground.news/article/sweden-79-per-cent-of-refugees-have-vacationed-in-country-they-fled_e64350
According to a recent poll published in the Bulletin newspaper in Sweden, almost 80% of those claiming "refugee" status in Sweden have chosen to return to the countries they sought refuge from for vacation. Now, what's interesting to me is not the high percentage, although that is interesting. It's the fact that they apparently feel safe enough to vacation in the countries they fled from, but not safe enough to move back. I would be fascinated to see what the numbers for US refugees/asylum seekers are.
I vividly remember a conversation with a refugee who was forced to flee his home country. He was forced to flee because he had the temerity to share the Gospel of Jesus with Muslims. The local representatives of the religion of peace were so happy with him that they issued a fatwa against him, which would have resulted in his death. I can't imagine him ever going back for a vacation.
6 comments:
That seems incredibly suspicious, but at the same time unsurprising. But if we know one thing...and it's an absolute because it's what Dan says...if one claims they're fleeing danger, they absolutely are. It's like "believe all women", but instead it's "believe all refugees claims".
I'll have to read your link, because I'd like to know how they got these liars to admit they vacation from the dangerous place from which they fled. And clearly, if they are no longer in danger, why haven't they returned?
I think I addressed this point in the post, sort of. I'm not sure that the percentage matters as much as the principle. If you leave a country, claim asylum because it's unsafe, then going back for vacation should be grounds for losing your asylum.
Those who truly need asylum should have the opportunity to receive it, those who game the system should not be allowed to benefit from it.
Your "believe all women" example is accurate, even though they never really did believe all women.
I am moving toward the position that asylum claims should be reviewed on a regular basis and assessed based on the current risk.
It seems to me that I read that asylum/refugee status lasts as long as the threat which drove them from home lasts. If that threat was a hurricane or some such for example, then those fleeing return after the damage is cleaned up. I don't believe the concept of providing asylum or refuge was automatic citizenship or unlimited refuge.
That seems reasonable to me. If one is fleeing a legitimately dangerous situation, and that situation is eliminated, then the danger that prompted them to seek refuge would be gone which would eliminated the need for refuge.
I can see that there might be a point where asylum would become permanent if the danger isn't removed, or becomes permanent. For example, my friend who left Africa because of a fatwa is unlikely to ever be safe as long as Muslims control things. It seems ridiculous to have his asylum be temporary after 5-10 years of Muslim control.
In the case of your friend, I would think that being allowed to go through the legal process of citizenship would be OK, or to have his temp status renewed while the threat remains. Despite his troubles, he should have to decide if his fealty to his home is more important than his life. Despite his desire to go home some day, to remain in limbo seems irrational. He was welcomed, so why not turn to the welcoming nation and become a full citizen who's allegiance is to the welcoming nation over that of his home? Seems reasonable to me if he's going to stay here indefinitely. It's not like there's no precedent for it. Many who fled the nazis in the 1930s an 40s didn't want to leave home, but became Americans nonetheless.
I agree that his situation should be one that gets him either citizenship or permanent residency. I'd argue that a direct death threat from the religion of peace never really expires.
Ultimately it's his decision to make. My point is that if he started vacationing in his home country every year, that would be evidence that the threat he faced was not a threat anymore and that he should go home.
It should be obvious that vacationing in the place you needed refuge from because it was dangerous for you, is evidence that it's either not dangerous any more or it never was dangerous.
Post a Comment