NationStates

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:35 pm**

A mysterious breeze blows through the Imperial World Assembly offices, door ajar, staplers and pens stolen by other delegations, neither the Diplomatic Overseer or his subordinates anywhere to be found.
In a surely unrelated turn of events, a wholly new delegation enters a debate chamber, dressed in white, trimmed in shimmering gold. The largest of the two - nearly seven feet tall, - was covered in places by long spines, jutting out from the otherwise soft looking tunic. Their tips seemed to have been dipped in gold, some even having been bound together by silvery fabric rings.
The smaller of the two was hardly up to Thesaan’s knees, and their dress was a simpler set, mostly of thin fabric strips decorating their green-blue wings and feathers.
Ixsukat hopped up onto a stool that had been placed behind the podium at some point, retrieved a well-folded copy of the draft from a pouch, and began to present it for debate.

On Refugee Crises

Category: Civil Rights || Strength: Strong

Outsider Directive
"To know that we are not alone."
Writings of:
Thesaan, Bound of Cyranthes,
Ixsukat, Firstborn,

The World Assembly,

Concerned by the lack of legislation adequately protecting those fleeing from persecution or conflict,

Horrified by the policies of many nations against refugee welfare or basic rights,

Seeking to end these injustices immediately,

Hereby:

Defines:
Refugee, as any individual fleeing oppression of civil rights, as defined by the Member-State in question and International Law, Genocide, or Conflict, in a nation of origin,
Concentration, as any laws or guidances, requiring or recommending the confinement of refugees, as a class, to ghettos, camps, or otherwise similar sites,
Separation, as any laws or guidances, requiring or recommending the separation of refugee families or similar during settlement or processing,

Mandates:
That Member-States rescind any laws or guidances defined as Separation or Concentration, and prohibit the issuance of any further such laws or guidances,
That Member-States utilizing short-term concentration take any and all practical measures to ensure the settlement of refugees in normal conditions,
That Member-States offer emergency asylum to any refugee fleeing genocide,
That Member-States offer either optional repatriation, or a method of acquiring permanent residence or citizenship, when the reasons for refugee status have been resolved,

Prohibits:
Member-States from engaging in concentration, as defined by this resolution, except on a strictly temporary basis as an immediate precursor to transportation or settlement,
Member-States from engaging in separation, as defined by this resolution, except on a strictly temporary basis where strictly required for privacy or safety reasons,
Member-States from refusing refugees fleeing from genocide, or from conflicts in which the Member-State is involved,
Member-States from forcibly repatriating refugees for any reason,

Clarifies:
That emergency asylum status, as mandated by this resolution, is to be sustained until such time as transportation and resettlement in another safe Member-State has been secured,
That nothing in this resolution may be construed as to prohibit the placement of refugees in medical quarantine, or otherwise necessary confinement, on an individual, case-by-case basis,

OOC:
Yes, yes, we all know what this is about. Draft is very early, so tear it apart however you please.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:56 am**

The only thing I suggest is putting the Strength level to Significant. Everything else is fine as is. I'm sure others will find more errors thought. Good work!

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:04 am**

Already been done. Resolution #57, Refugee Protection.
viewtopic.php?p=473724#p473724

It is always a good idea to go through the passed resolutions first.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:31 am**

Welcome!
Congratulations on having the sense to post your draft here, instead of just submitting it straight away: Far too many newcomers don't think of doing so...

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:35 am**

Grays Harbor wrote:Already been done. Resolution #57, Refugee Protection.
viewtopic.php?p=473724#p473724

It is always a good idea to go through the passed resolutions first. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30

Bears Armed wrote:Welcome!
Congratulations on having the sense to post your draft here, instead of just submitting it straight away: Far too many newcomers don't think of doing so...

OOC: Guys, it's Tinfect, she's been around for a while. She's even marked the account as her puppet in the forum siggy.

At a quick read #57 doesn't go as far as this draft does, given that #57 doesn't actually require even temporary asylum to be given to all refugees (or even all refugees of a certain type, like genocide refugees mentioned here), merely that if asylum is not granted, the member nation help them get to one that will grant asylum. Also, beyond treating them humanely and not discriminating against because of their refugee status, it says nothing about concentrating them in camps or anything like that.

Tinfect, please number the main clauses and use alphabets for the subclauses, to make referring to them easier. Right now it has the super annoying article structure without even bothering to number the articles.

On the content...

IC: "The flat-out prohibition on using any kind of refugee camps even temporarily, is simply unacceptable," Linda started, while sneaking a picture on her digital camera of the adorably birdy creature, "given that if a massive influx of refugees were to appear even at our border, and we were forced to take them in, there would simply not be instant permanent housing for them. We don't generally speaking have lots of empty houses or apartments, as that would be a waste of resources. Now consider a small nation, where the refugees may number a significant percentage of the nation's own population. If camps are outright prohibited, even in short term, what do you think such a nation is supposed to do? Go noncompliant by kicking its own residents out of their homes to house the refugees? Though I do notice you merely ban the laws of such, not actually doing so..."

The bird critter was seriously distracting to Linda. She had always been fond of birds and actually had two tame ones as pets back home; right now they were tended to by her partner, who was a veterinarian student, so she knew they were in good hands. Yet, seeing the sapient bird thing made her want to run her hands over its feathers and scratch it behind the ear. A bird big enough to be huggable, would be like a dream come true.

"Additionally the prohibition to separate any kinds of social groups or families during processing is insane and would require violating privacy of personal history, sexual privacy - known as strip-search, to make sure they are not trying to smuggle in weapons or narcotics - and medical privacy, as only the individual or a minor's guardian should be aware of medical findings that come up during their medical check-up. As I'm fairly sure you can't actually be intending to make that happen, you might wan to change your wording. You are also, on the settlement separation of social groups prohibition likely making especially smaller nations again be noncompliant against their will, because it might simply not be viable to settle a group of fifty or more in a single location if temporary buildings - camps - are forbidden, and there aren't large enough houses to house them in. Once more, wording needs work."

OOC again: Does Prohibits 2 mean requiring member nations to specifically take in enemy refugees in a conflict situation, as it uses the word "the" instead of "a"? Because I can't see that really working well in voting stage, or at least being an obvious repeal hook.

Also, Prohibits 3 - even if the home country is safe again to return to?

Clarifies 1 is a bit unclear (and has a typo on "wherein") as to whether emergency asylum (also please stop the Random Noun capitalization, especially as that's not a term you define and you don't capitalize it every time you use it) can only be temporary if that thing applies, or if it can be temporary, full stop. And if it can't be temporary otherwise, then it's not really emergency asylum, now is it? And you are instead requiring nations to take the refugees in on permanent basis.

Given the RL issues in recent years on refugees, I really don't see this passing vote if you're taking away the nations' right to decide who they want to take as a permanent resident, especially as no mention of any kind of background check results is mentioned, so you would be requiring nations to take in, yes, the innocent ones fleeing genocide, but also known criminals and terrorists fleeing the same. That's just not going to work.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:40 am**

See my point, more people will see whats up with the draft and they will tell you whats good about it, what needs fixing, and what is bad. BTW, there already is a resolution on this subject. You tried at least, and you did a good job. Unfortunately for me, I suck at these things cuz I can never get an idea what to draft for a resolution.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:47 am**

Artsotska wrote:See my point, more people will see whats up with the draft and they will tell you whats good about it, what needs fixing, and what is bad. BTW, there already is a resolution on this subject. You tried at least, and you did a good job. Unfortunately for me, I suck at these things cuz I can never get an idea what to draft for a resolution.

See the post above yours, the author is Tinfect, one of the most well-known GA participants. I think she knows pretty well what she's doing.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Guys, it's Tinfect, she's been around for a while. She's even marked the account as her puppet in the forum siggy.

Maybe it's a good idea not to keep that information in the smallest font and under a spoiler.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:55 am**

East Meranopirus wrote:Maybe it's a good idea not to keep that information in the smallest font and under a spoiler.

OOC: I would have thought the text preceding the proposal made it abundantly clear. But seriously, a spoiler marked "Puppetry status" couldn't be much more obvious.

The spoilering is necessary to fit all the info in the siggy into siggy size rules.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:56 am**

Araraukar wrote:
East Meranopirus wrote:Maybe it's a good idea not to keep that information in the smallest font and under a spoiler.

OOC: I would have thought the text preceding the proposal made it abundantly clear. But seriously, a spoiler marked "Puppetry status" couldn't be much more obvious. The spoilering is necessary to fit all the info in the siggy into siggy size rules.

OOC:
I mean, given the specific reference to the Imperium at the top, it should've been quite obvious. Plus, it's not like I haven't mentioned the Aeravahn directly in the GA before...

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:10 am**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: I would have thought the text preceding the proposal made it abundantly clear. But seriously, a spoiler marked "Puppetry status" couldn't be much more obvious. The spoilering is necessary to fit all the info in the siggy into siggy size rules.

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
I mean, given the specific reference to the Imperium at the top, it should've been quite obvious. Plus, it's not like I haven't mentioned the Aeravahn directly in the GA before...

Most people either don't have that good of a memory, or aren't active/old enough to know. I think it would help putting "Puppet of Tinfect" in large, bold letters in the sig.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:22 am**

East Meranopirus wrote:I think it would help putting "Puppet of Tinfect" in large, bold letters in the sig.

OOC: Just because you're too lazy to check spoilers doesn't mean it wasn't in there already. I mean, not everyone puts ANY kind of puppetry pointers in their siggies. Go complain at those people instead.

Also, do you have any content comments to make or are you just going to complain about the puppet status?

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:53 am**

Araraukar wrote:Tinfect, please number the main clauses and use alphabets for the subclauses, to make referring to them easier. Right now it has the super annoying article structure without even bothering to number the articles.

OOC:
But I use this format for everything...
Reference it like scripture! "Prohibitions:1 says..."

Araraukar wrote:"The flat-out prohibition on using any kind of refugee camps even temporarily, is simply unacceptable," Linda started, while sneaking a picture on her digital camera of the adorably birdy creature, "given that if a massive influx of refugees were to appear even at our border, and we were forced to take them in, there would simply not be instant permanent housing for them. We don't generally speaking have lots of empty houses or apartments, as that would be a waste of resources. Now consider a small nation, where the refugees may number a significant percentage of the nation's own population. If camps are outright prohibited, even in short term, what do you think such a nation is supposed to do? Go noncompliant by kicking its own residents out of their homes to house the refugees? Though I do notice you merely ban the laws of such, not actually doing so..."

The bird critter was seriously distracting to Linda. She had always been fond of birds and actually had two tame ones as pets back home; right now they were tended to by her partner, who was a veterinarian student, so she knew they were in good hands. Yet, seeing the sapient bird thing made her want to run her hands over its feathers and scratch it behind the ear. A bird big enough to be huggable, would be like a dream come true.

"Additionally the prohibition to separate any kinds of social groups or families during processing is insane and would require violating privacy of personal history, sexual privacy - known as strip-search, to make sure they are not trying to smuggle in weapons or narcotics - and medical privacy, as only the individual or a minor's guardian should be aware of medical findings that come up during their medical check-up. As I'm fairly sure you can't actually be intending to make that happen, you might wan to change your wording. You are also, on the settlement separation of social groups prohibition likely making especially smaller nations again be noncompliant against their will, because it might simply not be viable to settle a group of fifty or more in a single location if temporary buildings - camps - are forbidden, and there aren't large enough houses to house them in. Once more, wording needs work."

Ixsukat couldn't help but notice the Araraukarian delegation's staring, and briefly looked over themselves to make sure there was no feather or strip of cloth out of place, in the process managing to miss the picture-taking. "We thank you for your criticism," she said, "Purely temporary measures were not meant to be targeted under this, but we see difficulty in allowing the possibility without opening the ability for certain disingenuous states to exploit the right. The concerns raised apart from these, regarding processing and privacy, again, this is a flaw of our design; we will attempt to ensure practicality is preserved in short order."

Araraukar wrote:OOC again: Does Prohibits 2 mean requiring member nations to specifically take in enemy refugees in a conflict situation, as it uses the word "the" instead of "a"? Because I can't see that really working well in voting stage, or at least being an obvious repeal hook.

OOC:
This one is pretty much a strike against warmongering nations that devastate a country, then turn around and want nothing to do with it when it comes to cleaning up the mess it caused. ICly, the Aeravahn considers displaced people vastly more important than the supposed 'right' of Nations to destroy people's lives with impunity. OOCly, this is a strike against US policies that fuck over people from places we're invading. If we're fucking up their country the least we can do is let them rebuild their lives in ours.

Araraukar wrote:Also, Prohibits 3 - even if the home country is safe again to return to?

Yes. Forced repatriation is completely unacceptable; if they want to go back, they should be given the option, and the means to do so. If they don't want to, they should be offered means of acquiring more permanent residence if such has not already been done. 'Safe' doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything left for them to go back to, and they shouldn't have the life they've built in the country they're staying in torn away from them.
I'll give that the above return/stay option is not mentioned in the draft; I'll get on that.

Araraukar wrote:Clarifies 1 is a bit unclear (and has a typo on "wherein") as to whether emergency asylum (also please stop the Random Noun capitalization, especially as that's not a term you define and you don't capitalize it every time you use it) can only be temporary if that thing applies, or if it can be temporary, full stop. And if it can't be temporary otherwise, then it's not really emergency asylum, now is it? And you are instead requiring nations to take the refugees in on permanent basis.

I'll try and clarify this.

Araraukar wrote:Given the RL issues in recent years on refugees, I really don't see this passing vote if you're taking away the nations' right to decide who they want to take as a permanent resident, especially as no mention of any kind of background check results is mentioned, so you would be requiring nations to take in, yes, the innocent ones fleeing genocide, but also known criminals and terrorists fleeing the same. That's just not going to work.

This is a valid problem, though here I end up on the tightrope of making sure that, say, littering can't be a reason for rejection, but murder can, For terrorists and extreme criminals, deportation still isn't an option, especially regarding fleeing from Genocide; I'll probably add something requiring arrest for extreme crimes,

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:59 am**

Ambassador Klaus Schmidt enters the debate chamber, he shortly glances at the delegation wearing white and gives them a confused look, he is handed a copy of the proposal to read by one of the helpers of the ambassador, also wearing white. Once he's done reading, he proceeds to the ambassador to provide feedback, "overall, this looks like a good draft to me, however, I do have some objections and notes I would like to share. For starters, your first preambulatory clause states that there is a lack of legislation, this is simply incorrect.." he pauses to open his black suitcase, in it are piles of papers, he scrambles through the papers until he finds a folder marked "Passed General Assembly Resolutions", he opens the folder and flips through the pages until he finds the page he's been looking for, he takes a piece of paper out of the folder, closes the folder, and hands a copy of General Assembly Resolution #57, he continues his speech, "... so this is a copy of GA#57 which is titled Refugee Protection, as you can see this subject has been covered previously albeit differently from your own draft, I suggest changing that clause accordingly.

My next objection is your second preambulatory clause, which again, is simply incorrect, according to the resolution I just gave you, refugees are granted basic rights which nations cannot remove without being noncompliant.

The next problem is your mandating clause sub-clause 1, the sub-clause reads:

[Mandates] that Member-States rescind any laws or guidances defined as Separation or Concentration, and prohibit the issuance of any further such laws or guidances,

The problem with this clause is that it doesn't actually stop member states from concentrating or separating refugees and refugee families respectively, it merely bars member-states from placing such laws, changes will have to be made to fix that, I know it is addressed in the next clause but the proposal could certainly be simplified this way, however this is merely a stylistic issue and wouldn't really affect my vote. I would also like to point out another problem with this sub-clause which is that an exception for temporary short-term concentration with reasonable services will have to be made, some nations, especially small minor ones, simply cannot process masses of refugees quick enough that none have to wait; for example, here in Germany, we place refugees in well-served camps whilst they wait for their asylum process to be finished, the system ensures no human right abuses occur and works well; which is why I request that your delegation make the exceptions mentioned above." he pauses shortly to drink from the bottle of water on the table near him,

"My final problem with this proposal is the formatting, I suggest numbering clauses and using letters to make sub-clauses, it certainly helps with the feedback process and looks more like pleasant. Otherwise I am in support of this proposal granted the concerns mentioned above are addressed properly," he takes a long drink from the bottle before leaving the chamber.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:00 am**

OOC:
Y'all really missing Prohibits 1, huh?

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:03 am**

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Y'all really missing Prohibits 1, huh?

OOC:

"...however this is merely a stylistic issue and wouldn't really affect my vote..."

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:59 am**

Tinfect wrote:OOC: Y'all really missing Prohibits 1, huh?

OOC: Alternatively, they're expecting you to fix the issues with it that I pointed out. Or with the definitions that it refers to.

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:09 am**

“In my at-least moderately humble opinion, the idea of denying somebody a free and safe home is simply abhorrent. Thereore, my support for this measure is somewhat unconditional. However, including mere guidance, especially of a non-governmental nature, in the definition of ‘concentration ’ appears to be an oversight.”

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:25 am**

Kenmoria wrote:“In my at-least moderately humble opinion, the idea of denying somebody a free and safe home is simply abhorrent.”

IC: "Yes, but if the nation of origin is also a WA nation, it already is required to provide such on its own. Why should other nations bear the burden? And if it is not a WA nation, then why should WA nations bear the burden of non-WA citizens?"

OOC disclaimer: The Araraukarian stance on refugees does not match my RL opinions on the matter.

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:49 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“In my at-least moderately humble opinion, the idea of denying somebody a free and safe home is simply abhorrent.”

IC: "Yes, but if the nation of origin is also a WA nation, it already is required to provide such on its own. Why should other nations bear the burden? And if it is not a WA nation, then why should WA nations bear the burden of non-WA citizens?"

OOC disclaimer: The Araraukarian stance on refugees does not match my RL opinions on the matter.

“Every member nation is different; we haven't yet created direct rule by the gnomes. Therefore, it is entirely possible that some nations may guarantee more rights than others. In Kenmoria, due to its Laissez-Faire nature, the right to commerce is extremely protected, moreso than it is by GA law.

As to why we should accept non-member refugees: they are people. We as thinking beings have a moral obligation to help others. Besides, this proposal covers only those fleeing from genocide, which I am sure must be something deemed reasonable by the Araraukarian government.”

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:19 pm**

How about in including, fleeing refugees need to accept the first nation that offers to assistance them or the nearest safe nation to them as opposed to running to the countries with the best benefits and free stuff they can milk from a nation.

We all under stand the need to flee persecution, but there is no need to country shop as it becomes more greed than need.

Please include a clause nearest nation to offer them save haven

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:36 pm**

West Phoenicia wrote:How about in including, fleeing refugees need to accept the first nation that offers to assistance them or the nearest safe nation to them as opposed to running to the countries with the best benefits and free stuff they can milk from a nation.

We all under stand the need to flee persecution, but there is no need to country shop as it becomes more greed than need.

Please include a clause nearest nation to offer them save haven

There was a pause. Ixsukat wasn't entirely sure she'd quite heard what she had just heard.
"... No," she said eventually.

Thesaan clarified. "What is the crime in seeking refuge where safest? Where the chance to live well is best? You presume that the refugee searches with mind to take, to steal; This is untrue. They search to live their lives as best they can. There is no crime in this."

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2019 2:00 pm**

Aeravahn Reborn wrote:
West Phoenicia wrote:How about in including, fleeing refugees need to accept the first nation that offers to assistance them or the nearest safe nation to them as opposed to running to the countries with the best benefits and free stuff they can milk from a nation.

We all under stand the need to flee persecution, but there is no need to country shop as it becomes more greed than need.

Please include a clause nearest nation to offer them save haven

There was a pause. Ixsukat wasn't entirely sure she'd quite heard what she had just heard.
"... No," she said eventually.

Thesaan clarified. "What is the crime in seeking refuge where safest? Where the chance to live well is best? You presume that the refugee searches with mind to take, to steal; This is untrue. They search to live their lives as best they can. There is no crime in this."

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2019 2:16 pm**

Aeravahn Reborn wrote:
West Phoenicia wrote:How about in including, fleeing refugees need to accept the first nation that offers to assistance them or the nearest safe nation to them as opposed to running to the countries with the best benefits and free stuff they can milk from a nation.

We all under stand the need to flee persecution, but there is no need to country shop as it becomes more greed than need.

Please include a clause nearest nation to offer them save haven

There was a pause. Ixsukat wasn't entirely sure she'd quite heard what she had just heard.
"... No," she said eventually.

Thesaan clarified. "What is the crime in seeking refuge where safest? Where the chance to live well is best? You presume that the refugee searches with mind to take, to steal; This is untrue. They search to live their lives as best they can. There is no crime in this."

Well cupcake don't expect support from us for this bill. You pretty much are happy for refugee to risk their lives even more by bypassing safe nations in search of a nation that will give them the .most freebies and welfare.
A genuine refugee would stop at the First safe nation. Open your own borders to them, don't force your policies down the rest of us. West Phoenicia does not want the increased rapes and violence that emerges when you open your borders to help people who are not as civilised or cultured like first world nations.

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:19 pm**

OOC disclaimer: Araraukarian stance on refugees and immigrants does not match my RL opinion on the issues.

Kenmoria wrote:“Every member nation is different; we haven't yet created direct rule by the gnomes. Therefore, it is entirely possible that some nations may guarantee more rights than others.

As to why we should accept non-member refugees: they are people. We as thinking beings have a moral obligation to help others. Besides, this proposal covers only those fleeing from genocide, which I am sure must be something deemed reasonable by the Araraukarian government.”

Aeravahn Reborn wrote:Thesaan clarified. "What is the crime in seeking refuge where safest? Where the chance to live well is best? You presume that the refugee searches with mind to take, to steal; This is untrue. They search to live their lives as best they can. There is no crime in this."

"No crime, no, but it is unfair to nations who happen to have prospered through the hard work of their population and government to take in a bunch of freeloaders who don't speak the language, don't have an understanding of the national laws - if they come outside of the WA, likely not the WA resolutions either - not to mention traditions and cultural functions, who expect us, as a prosperous nation, to let them in just because they happen to not like the living conditions in the nearest nation that they flee to. If they come through a safe nation, then why the hell should we let them in? They already were in a safe nation. As far as Araraukar is concerned, they are thus no longer fleeing genocide and do not fall under this proposal."

West Phoenicia wrote:*snip*

"Insanity about increasing crime rates aside - I mean, if that's a serious problem in your nation, your police forces are seriously unfunded - the problem with pre-existing criminal records is still there in the draft. And I'm not talking about minor offences like jaywalking, but people who have, in the past, murdered or raped others, abused children, resorted to war crimes or terrorism. No nation should be mandated to take in such scum."

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:03 pm**

Aeravahn Reborn wrote:
West Phoenicia wrote:
There was a pause. Ixsukat wasn't entirely sure she'd quite heard what she had just heard.
"... No," she said eventually.

Thesaan clarified. "What is the crime in seeking refuge where safest? Where the chance to live well is best? You presume that the refugee searches with mind to take, to steal; This is untrue. They search to live their lives as best they can. There is no crime in this."

Well cupcake don't expect support from us for this bill. You pretty much are happy for refugee to risk their lives even more by bypassing safe nations in search of a nation that will give them the .most freebies and welfare.
A genuine refugee would stop at the First safe nation. Open your own borders to them, don't force your policies down the rest of us. West Phoenicia does not want the increased rapes and violence that emerges when you open your borders to help people who are not as civilised or cultured like first world nations.

"Ambassador, there is absolutely no evidence that refugees commit more violence and crime than other people. Furthermore the idea that people fleeing violence and genocide, the victims of heinous crimes themselves, are hardened criminals, is just absurd and preposterous. In fact this type of language only serves to vilify and demonize refugees, driving a wedge between them and other members of the general population."

NationStates

[Draft] On Refugee Crises

[Draft] On Refugee Crises