Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and
asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed please?
After the Rwanda bill got through there was an MP on the news trying to distinguish between then and saying once a refugee reaches a place of
safety he has no right to go elsewhere. I think he meant as a refugee and
he quoted an Act that I missed. Presumably if said refugee wants to go elsewhere it would be as an immigrant not a refugee?
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and
asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed please?
After the Rwanda bill got through there was an MP on the news trying to distinguish between then and saying once a refugee reaches a place of
safety he has no right to go elsewhere. I think he meant as a refugee and
he quoted an Act that I missed. Presumably if said refugee wants to go elsewhere it would be as an immigrant not a refugee?
I may, of course, just be totally confused!
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and
asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed please?
On 2024-04-24, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and
asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed please?
An immigrant is anyone who comes to a country to live there long-term
(i.e. not a short-term visitor such as a tourist).
A refugee is someone who has fled their country of origin due to danger
they face there.
An asylum seeker is a refugee who is seeking protection in another
country.
An individual can be some or all of these things simultaneously.
e.g. someone who has fled persecution and is seeking to settle down
in a new, safe, country is an immigrant, refugee, and asylum seeker
all at once. But someone who moves from one country to another
merely because they want to is an immigrant but not a refugee.
After the Rwanda bill got through there was an MP on the news trying to
distinguish between then and saying once a refugee reaches a place of
safety he has no right to go elsewhere. I think he meant as a refugee and
he quoted an Act that I missed. Presumably if said refugee wants to go
elsewhere it would be as an immigrant not a refugee?
It is often claimed that refugees have a legal obligation to seek aslyum
in the "first safe country" they come to. If true, this would obviously
be convenient for people in this country who are anti-immigrant, because
it is very hard to come to this country directly without passing through another safe European country on the way. But it isn't true.
What is true, I think, is that once a refugee has settled down somewhere
safe they can't then try and change countries again on the basis that
they're still facing danger in their original country. But that's only
if they actually settle down, not if they merely pass through somewhere
on the way to somewhere else (even if that journey takes some
considerable time).
On 24/04/2024 09:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-24, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee andAn immigrant is anyone who comes to a country to live there long-term
asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed please? >>
(i.e. not a short-term visitor such as a tourist).
A refugee is someone who has fled their country of origin due to danger
they face there.
An asylum seeker is a refugee who is seeking protection in another
country.
An individual can be some or all of these things simultaneously.
e.g. someone who has fled persecution and is seeking to settle down
in a new, safe, country is an immigrant, refugee, and asylum seeker
all at once. But someone who moves from one country to another
merely because they want to is an immigrant but not a refugee.
After the Rwanda bill got through there was an MP on the news trying to
distinguish between then and saying once a refugee reaches a place of
safety he has no right to go elsewhere. I think he meant as a refugee and >>> he quoted an Act that I missed. Presumably if said refugee wants to go
elsewhere it would be as an immigrant not a refugee?
It is often claimed that refugees have a legal obligation to seek aslyum
in the "first safe country" they come to. If true, this would obviously
be convenient for people in this country who are anti-immigrant, because
it is very hard to come to this country directly without passing through
another safe European country on the way. But it isn't true.
However, under the Dublin Convention, EU member countries can, under
most circumstances, return asylum seekers to their first country of
entry into the EU to have their application for asylum considered there. Having left the EU, the UK has now had to try to find a different
country to send them to.
However, presumably if a refugee settles down and acquires, after some years, citizenship of an EU country they are presumably then entitled to move to a different EU country under free movement laws.
What is true, I think, is that once a refugee has settled down somewhere
safe they can't then try and change countries again on the basis that
they're still facing danger in their original country. But that's only
if they actually settle down, not if they merely pass through somewhere
on the way to somewhere else (even if that journey takes some
considerable time).
On 24/04/2024 09:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
What is true, I think, is that once a refugee has settled down somewhere >>> safe they can't then try and change countries again on the basis that
they're still facing danger in their original country. But that's only
if they actually settle down, not if they merely pass through somewhere
on the way to somewhere else (even if that journey takes some
considerable time).
However, presumably if a refugee settles down and acquires, after some
years, citizenship of an EU country they are presumably then entitled
to move to a different EU country under free movement laws.
On 2024-04-24, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 09:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
What is true, I think, is that once a refugee has settled down somewhere >>>>safe they can't then try and change countries again on the basis that >>>>they're still facing danger in their original country. But that's only >>>>if they actually settle down, not if they merely pass through somewhere >>>>on the way to somewhere else (even if that journey takes some >>>>considerable time).
However, presumably if a refugee settles down and acquires, after some >>years, citizenship of an EU country they are presumably then entitled
to move to a different EU country under free movement laws.
For sure. My point is that once they've settled down somewhere safe
they can't migrate *as a refugee* again. They can of course migrate
later using any other rule that applies to them at that point, if
there is one.
On 24/04/2024 in message <slrnv2hmp8.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-24, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 09:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
What is true, I think, is that once a refugee has settled down somewhere >>>>>safe they can't then try and change countries again on the basis that >>>>>they're still facing danger in their original country. But that's only >>>>>if they actually settle down, not if they merely pass through somewhere >>>>>on the way to somewhere else (even if that journey takes some >>>>>considerable time).
However, presumably if a refugee settles down and acquires, after some >>>years, citizenship of an EU country they are presumably then entitled
to move to a different EU country under free movement laws.
For sure. My point is that once they've settled down somewhere safe
they can't migrate *as a refugee* again. They can of course migrate
later using any other rule that applies to them at that point, if
there is one.
I think that must be what the MP on the news was trying to say. If a
person travel to France as a refugee they are then in a place of safety so cannot claim to be a refugee to come to the UK?
However, they could come here as an immigrant but this is where I get
lost. An asylum seeker has to actually get here before claiming asylum presumably leading to the small boat issue I think?
What about a legitimate immigrant, not claiming asylum,
just wants to live here. Can he/she apply from another country or do
they have to get here first?
I think that must be what the MP on the news was trying to say. If a
person travel to France as a refugee they are then in a place of safety
so cannot claim to be a refugee to come to the UK?
However, they could come here as an immigrant but this is where I get
lost. An asylum seeker has to actually get here before claiming asylum presumably leading to the small boat issue I think?
What about a legitimate immigrant, not claiming asylum, just wants to
live here. Can he/she apply from another country or do they have to get
here first?
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and
asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed please?
After the Rwanda bill got through there was an MP on the news trying to distinguish between then and saying once a refugee reaches a place of
safety he has no right to go elsewhere. I think he meant as a refugee
and he quoted an Act that I missed. Presumably if said refugee wants to
go elsewhere it would be as an immigrant not a refugee?
I may, of course, just be totally confused!
Am 24/04/2024 um 09:00 schrieb Jeff Gaines:
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and
asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed
please?
You don't really expect a logical answer to that? You should know,
shouldn't you, that it's all due to political posturing.
On 24/04/2024 in message <slrnv2hmp8.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-24, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 09:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
What is true, I think, is that once a refugee has settled down somewhere >>>>> safe they can't then try and change countries again on the basis that >>>>> they're still facing danger in their original country. But that's only >>>>> if they actually settle down, not if they merely pass through somewhere >>>>> on the way to somewhere else (even if that journey takes some
considerable time).
However, presumably if a refugee settles down and acquires, after some
years, citizenship of an EU country they are presumably then entitled
to move to a different EU country under free movement laws.
For sure. My point is that once they've settled down somewhere safe
they can't migrate *as a refugee* again. They can of course migrate
later using any other rule that applies to them at that point, if
there is one.
I think that must be what the MP on the news was trying to say. If a
person travel to France as a refugee they are then in a place of safety so cannot claim to be a refugee to come to the UK?
However, they could come here as an immigrant but this is where I get
lost. An asylum seeker has to actually get here before claiming asylum presumably leading to the small boat issue I think?
What about a legitimate immigrant, not claiming asylum, just wants to live here. Can he/she apply from another country or do they have to get here first?
On 24 Apr 2024 at 10:27:27 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 09:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-24, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and >>>> asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed please? >>>An immigrant is anyone who comes to a country to live there long-term
(i.e. not a short-term visitor such as a tourist).
A refugee is someone who has fled their country of origin due to danger
they face there.
An asylum seeker is a refugee who is seeking protection in another
country.
An individual can be some or all of these things simultaneously.
e.g. someone who has fled persecution and is seeking to settle down
in a new, safe, country is an immigrant, refugee, and asylum seeker
all at once. But someone who moves from one country to another
merely because they want to is an immigrant but not a refugee.
After the Rwanda bill got through there was an MP on the news trying to >>>> distinguish between then and saying once a refugee reaches a place of
safety he has no right to go elsewhere. I think he meant as a refugee and >>>> he quoted an Act that I missed. Presumably if said refugee wants to go >>>> elsewhere it would be as an immigrant not a refugee?
It is often claimed that refugees have a legal obligation to seek aslyum >>> in the "first safe country" they come to. If true, this would obviously
be convenient for people in this country who are anti-immigrant, because >>> it is very hard to come to this country directly without passing through >>> another safe European country on the way. But it isn't true.
However, under the Dublin Convention, EU member countries can, under
most circumstances, return asylum seekers to their first country of
entry into the EU to have their application for asylum considered there.
Having left the EU, the UK has now had to try to find a different
country to send them to.
The Dublin Convention is arguably in conflict with international law.
However, presumably if a refugee settles down and acquires, after some years, citizenship of an EU country they are presumably then entitled to move to a different EU country under free movement laws.What is true, I think, is that once a refugee has settled down somewhere >>> safe they can't then try and change countries again on the basis that
they're still facing danger in their original country. But that's only
if they actually settle down, not if they merely pass through somewhere
on the way to somewhere else (even if that journey takes some
considerable time).
On 24/04/2024 10:52, Roger Hayter wrote:
However, presumably if a refugee settles down and acquires, after
some years, citizenship of an EU country they are presumably then
entitled to move to a different EU country under free movement laws.
Indeed, although acquiring citizenship is a long process, usually
requiring several years residency and, by the end of it, they are
probably fairly well established in the country, so much less likely to
be inclined to move. However, AIUI, most EU countries grant them a right
to remain, rather than a right to reside, so they don't even get a foot
on the first rung of the ladder to citizenship.
On 2024-04-24, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 10:52, Roger Hayter wrote:
However, presumably if a refugee settles down and acquires, after
some years, citizenship of an EU country they are presumably then
entitled to move to a different EU country under free movement laws.
Indeed, although acquiring citizenship is a long process, usually
requiring several years residency and, by the end of it, they are
probably fairly well established in the country, so much less likely to
be inclined to move. However, AIUI, most EU countries grant them a right
to remain, rather than a right to reside, so they don't even get a foot
on the first rung of the ladder to citizenship.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. In the UK for example, successful
asylum seekers have "refugee status"; after 5 years of that they can
apply for "indefinite leave to remain" (which means they have the "right
to live, work and study here" for as long as they want); after 1 year
of that they can apply for citizenship. So refugees certainly get
a "foot on the ladder to citizenship", and "right to remain" is not only
a rung on that ladder, it is the final rung!
On 24/04/2024 13:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-24, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 10:52, Roger Hayter wrote:
However, presumably if a refugee settles down and acquires, after
some years, citizenship of an EU country they are presumably then
entitled to move to a different EU country under free movement laws.
Indeed, although acquiring citizenship is a long process, usually
requiring several years residency and, by the end of it, they are
probably fairly well established in the country, so much less likely to
be inclined to move. However, AIUI, most EU countries grant them a right >>> to remain, rather than a right to reside, so they don't even get a foot
on the first rung of the ladder to citizenship.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. In the UK for example, successful
asylum seekers have "refugee status"; after 5 years of that they can
apply for "indefinite leave to remain" (which means they have the "right
to live, work and study here" for as long as they want); after 1 year
of that they can apply for citizenship. So refugees certainly get
a "foot on the ladder to citizenship", and "right to remain" is not only
a rung on that ladder, it is the final rung!
I was under the impression* that, in the EU, a right to remain did not automatically lead to a right to reside, but I haven't checked and
wouldn't argue the point.
*From discussions around the time of Brexit
On 2024-04-24, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 13:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-24, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 10:52, Roger Hayter wrote:
However, presumably if a refugee settles down and acquires, after
some years, citizenship of an EU country they are presumably then
entitled to move to a different EU country under free movement laws.
Indeed, although acquiring citizenship is a long process, usually
requiring several years residency and, by the end of it, they are
probably fairly well established in the country, so much less likely to >>>> be inclined to move. However, AIUI, most EU countries grant them a right >>>> to remain, rather than a right to reside, so they don't even get a foot >>>> on the first rung of the ladder to citizenship.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. In the UK for example, successful
asylum seekers have "refugee status"; after 5 years of that they can
apply for "indefinite leave to remain" (which means they have the "right >>> to live, work and study here" for as long as they want); after 1 year
of that they can apply for citizenship. So refugees certainly get
a "foot on the ladder to citizenship", and "right to remain" is not only >>> a rung on that ladder, it is the final rung!
I was under the impression* that, in the EU, a right to remain did not
automatically lead to a right to reside, but I haven't checked and
wouldn't argue the point.
*From discussions around the time of Brexit
The rules for acquiring citizenship certainly vary between EU member
states, but I'm just not clear what distinction you are drawing between
the words "remain" and "reside". They sound like the same thing to me.
Maybe you're thinking of the fact that if you have a right to reside
(or remain, or whatever) in an EU state that doesn't give you access
to EU free movement in other EU states (unless and until you acquire citizenship).
The rules for acquiring citizenship certainly vary between EU member
states, but I'm just not clear what distinction you are drawing between
the words "remain" and "reside". They sound like the same thing to me.
On 2024-04-24, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and
asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed please?
An immigrant is anyone who comes to a country to live there long-term
(i.e. not a short-term visitor such as a tourist).
A refugee is someone who has fled their country of origin due to danger
they face there.
An asylum seeker is a refugee who is seeking protection in another
country.
An individual can be some or all of these things simultaneously.
In message <slrnv2i2pl.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 13:37:57
on Wed, 24 Apr 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
The rules for acquiring citizenship certainly vary between EU member
states, but I'm just not clear what distinction you are drawing between
the words "remain" and "reside". They sound like the same thing to me.
Residents have additional rights, like being able to vote and depending
on the country the right to claim benefits etc.
I know a few people who are legally "allowed to remain", but are not yet residents (which typically requires passing other hurdles, and paying
fees) whose biggest downside is having to pay for private healthcare
whereas residents would have various schemes for them (especially when older).
Some jobs will only be open to residents, and others only to citizens (another disjoint category to discuss).
On 24 Apr 2024 at 12:34:23 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
An asylum seeker has to actually get here before claiming asylum
presumably leading to the small boat issue I think?
What about a legitimate immigrant, not claiming asylum, just wants to live >> here. Can he/she apply from another country or do they have to get here
first?
Not only can they but they must do so if they wish their application to be considered.
On 24/04/2024 04:59 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <slrnv2i2pl.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 13:37:57
on Wed, 24 Apr 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
The rules for acquiring citizenship certainly vary between EU member
states, but I'm just not clear what distinction you are drawing between
the words "remain" and "reside". They sound like the same thing to me.
Residents have additional rights, like being able to vote and depending
on the country the right to claim benefits etc.
I don't know whether you were referring to global convention or just to
EU arrangements, but Green Card residents in the USA are not allowed to
vote.
In message <slrnv2higd.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 08:59:57
on Wed, 24 Apr 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
On 2024-04-24, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee andAn immigrant is anyone who comes to a country to live there long-term
asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed please? >>
(i.e. not a short-term visitor such as a tourist).
A refugee is someone who has fled their country of origin due to danger
they face there.
An asylum seeker is a refugee who is seeking protection in another
country.
An individual can be some or all of these things simultaneously.
Is it possible that a refugee is someone who has fled because of being
bombed out of their home, or because of famine; whereas an Asylum seeker
is someone whose home government is specifically seeking out for
persecution, and therefore decides to leave the country?
On 24 Apr 2024 at 17:03:58 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <slrnv2higd.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 08:59:57
on Wed, 24 Apr 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
On 2024-04-24, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and >>>> asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed please? >>>An immigrant is anyone who comes to a country to live there long-term
(i.e. not a short-term visitor such as a tourist).
A refugee is someone who has fled their country of origin due to danger
they face there.
An asylum seeker is a refugee who is seeking protection in another
country.
An individual can be some or all of these things simultaneously.
Is it possible that a refugee is someone who has fled because of being
bombed out of their home, or because of famine; whereas an Asylum seeker
is someone whose home government is specifically seeking out for
persecution, and therefore decides to leave the country?
No. An "asylum seeker" in British parlance is simply someone seeking refugee >status who we don't want to call a refugee because that appears to beg the >question of whether they are entitled to that status. No-one calls themselves >an "asylum seeker", they (sometimes optimistically) call themselves a refugee.
On 24/04/2024 04:59 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <slrnv2i2pl.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at
13:37:57 on Wed, 24 Apr 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>remarked:
The rules for acquiring citizenship certainly vary between EU member
states, but I'm just not clear what distinction you are drawing between
the words "remain" and "reside". They sound like the same thing to me.
Residents have additional rights, like being able to vote and
depending on the country the right to claim benefits etc.
I don't know whether you were referring to global convention or just to
EU arrangements, but Green Card residents in the USA are not allowed to
vote.
I know a few people
who are legally "allowed to remain", but are not yet residents (which >>typically requires passing other hurdles, and paying fees) whose
biggest downside is having to pay for private healthcare whereas
residents would have various schemes for them (especially when older).
Some jobs will only be open to residents, and others only to
citizens (another disjoint category to discuss).
In message <9885127468.225f8c8d@uninhabited.net>, at 22:47:31 on Wed, 24
Apr 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 24 Apr 2024 at 17:03:58 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <slrnv2higd.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 08:59:57 >>> on Wed, 24 Apr 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
On 2024-04-24, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and >>>>> asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed please?
An immigrant is anyone who comes to a country to live there long-term
(i.e. not a short-term visitor such as a tourist).
A refugee is someone who has fled their country of origin due to danger >>>> they face there.
An asylum seeker is a refugee who is seeking protection in another
country.
An individual can be some or all of these things simultaneously.
Is it possible that a refugee is someone who has fled because of being
bombed out of their home, or because of famine; whereas an Asylum seeker >>> is someone whose home government is specifically seeking out for
persecution, and therefore decides to leave the country?
No. An "asylum seeker" in British parlance is simply someone seeking refugee >> status who we don't want to call a refugee because that appears to beg the >> question of whether they are entitled to that status. No-one calls themselves
an "asylum seeker", they (sometimes optimistically) call themselves a refugee.
You may think that the popular press conflate things like that, but
Asylum Seeker is short for Political Asylum Seeker, and that's a limited
set of people, which I've already described.
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and
asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed
please?
After the Rwanda bill got through there was an MP on the news trying to distinguish between then and saying once a refugee reaches a place of
safety he has no right to go elsewhere. I think he meant as a refugee
and he quoted an Act that I missed. Presumably if said refugee wants to
go elsewhere it would be as an immigrant not a refugee?
I may, of course, just be totally confused!
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:00:18 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and
asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed
please?
After the Rwanda bill got through there was an MP on the news trying to
distinguish between then and saying once a refugee reaches a place of
safety he has no right to go elsewhere. I think he meant as a refugee
and he quoted an Act that I missed. Presumably if said refugee wants to
go elsewhere it would be as an immigrant not a refugee?
I may, of course, just be totally confused!
You also forgot the weasel phrase "ex-pat" that (only ?) Brits use to
apply to themselves when they are immigrants. As in usually economic >migrants.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:51:47 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:00:18 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and
asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have missed
please?
After the Rwanda bill got through there was an MP on the news trying to
distinguish between then and saying once a refugee reaches a place of
safety he has no right to go elsewhere. I think he meant as a refugee
and he quoted an Act that I missed. Presumably if said refugee wants to
go elsewhere it would be as an immigrant not a refugee?
I may, of course, just be totally confused!
You also forgot the weasel phrase "ex-pat" that (only ?) Brits use to
apply to themselves when they are immigrants. As in usually economic
migrants.
Ex-pats aren't immigrants. The generally accepted definition of the term is someone who is temporarily residing outside their country of permanent residence, but intends to return there are some point in the future. The
most common types of ex-pats are people working in foriegn countries, but a significant subset comprises retired people who have a second home in the
sun and spend most of their time there. But even they typically expect to return to their native land when they become too old and ill to live independently.
It's not a distinctly British term, either, although it is, obviously, an English (language) term so people whose native language isn't English tend
to use other terminology.
Apr 2024, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 24/04/2024 04:59 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
The rules for acquiring citizenship certainly vary between EU member
states, but I'm just not clear what distinction you are drawing between >>>> the words "remain" and "reside". They sound like the same thing to me.
 Residents have additional rights, like being able to vote and
depending on the country the right to claim benefits etc.
I don't know whether you were referring to global convention or just
to EU arrangements, but Green Card residents in the USA are not
allowed to vote.
The Green Card [actually a form of visa] is a halfway house. It's more
like permission to remain than residency.
It is often claimed that refugees have a legal obligation to seek aslyum
in the "first safe country" they come to. If true, this would obviously
be convenient for people in this country who are anti-immigrant, because
it is very hard to come to this country directly without passing through another safe European country on the way. But it isn't true.
What is true, I think, is that once a refugee has settled down somewhere
safe they can't then try and change countries again on the basis that
they're still facing danger in their original country. But that's only
if they actually settle down, not if they merely pass through somewhere
on the way to somewhere else (even if that journey takes some
considerable time).
On 25 Apr 2024 at 06:59:57 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <9885127468.225f8c8d@uninhabited.net>, at 22:47:31 on Wed, 24
Apr 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 24 Apr 2024 at 17:03:58 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <slrnv2higd.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 08:59:57 >>>> on Wed, 24 Apr 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked: >>>>> On 2024-04-24, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Can anybody give me a basic explanation between immigrant, refugee and >>>>>> asylum seeker - and any other similar categories I may have
missed please?
An immigrant is anyone who comes to a country to live there long-term >>>>> (i.e. not a short-term visitor such as a tourist).
A refugee is someone who has fled their country of origin due to danger >>>>> they face there.
An asylum seeker is a refugee who is seeking protection in another
country.
An individual can be some or all of these things simultaneously.
Is it possible that a refugee is someone who has fled because of being >>>> bombed out of their home, or because of famine; whereas an Asylum seeker >>>> is someone whose home government is specifically seeking out for
persecution, and therefore decides to leave the country?
No. An "asylum seeker" in British parlance is simply someone seeking refugee
status who we don't want to call a refugee because that appears to beg the >>> question of whether they are entitled to that status. No-one calls >>>themselves
an "asylum seeker", they (sometimes optimistically) call themselves
a refugee.
You may think that the popular press conflate things like that, but
Asylum Seeker is short for Political Asylum Seeker, and that's a limited
set of people, which I've already described.
Yes, I remember the phrase, although I a not convinced their is any clear >distinction between refugee status and political asylum.
On 25/04/2024 06:57 am, Roland Perry wrote:
Apr 2024, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 24/04/2024 04:59 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
The rules for acquiring citizenship certainly vary between EU member >>>>> states, but I'm just not clear what distinction you are drawing between >>>>> the words "remain" and "reside". They sound like the same thing to me.
Residents have additional rights, like being able to vote and >>>>depending on the country the right to claim benefits etc.
I don't know whether you were referring to global convention or just
to EU arrangements, but Green Card residents in the USA are not
allowed to vote.
The Green Card [actually a form of visa] is a halfway house. It's
more like permission to remain than residency.
Its holders (I'm related to one) is officially classified by the USA
federal government as a "Permanent Resident". They go through the USA >citizens channel at USA international airports and everything.
They just can't vote in American elections.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 46:49:58 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,363 |
| Posted today: | 1 |