Talk:Refugee

This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of July 10, 2005.

Pakistan has absorbed some of the largest figures of refugees in the world

I think mention of Pakistan as a destination for refugees needs special attention. It absorbed some 4-5 million refugees upon attaining independence in 1947 from British colonial rule, followed by another several million (3-5 million) Kashmiri refugees when Kashmir was invaded and forcibly joined to india; Kashmiri refugees still trickle into Pakistan. At one point, refugees made up nearly 20% of Pakistan's population. After the succession of Bangladesh, many more refugees came (Bihari and Bangali), in the 1970's many Burmese and Iranian refugees began entering the country. In 1979 with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the country absorbed some 5-6 million refugees at one point (making it the largest refugee recipient at the time). It is still estimated that some 2 million Afghan refugees (officially) remain, though the number is obviously much higher and does not factor in the fact that after 25 years in the country, Afghans have had higher than average birth rates and their children were not included. Since 2000, many other refugees from Central Asia, East Turkistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Chechnya, Nepal, india and Africa still come to Pakistan. Can someone please add this section to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.164.238 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refugee Resettlement

I am surprised that there is no section of Refugee Resettlement on this page. Though most refugees stay in the country they fled to, 1% of 1% get resettled in a developed nation, like the United States. In the United States, resettlement happens through a number of VOLAGs, church organizations that redirect funds from the government into localized refugee resettlement agencies around the nation. Often the government will try to keep families together, so if one member of the family is already in America, he/she acts as an anchor (technical term used) to their family members still in the refugee camps. The U.S. government also likes to settle populations in certain cities: for example, the highest number of Somalis are resettled in Columbus, Ohio; Chin and Karen people from Myanmar are resettled in Indianapolis and Atlanta, and Eastern Europeans/ Soviet Bloc refugees are traditionally settled on the East Coast, like Boston or New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athelforce (talk • contribs) 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just noticed this comment but I added such a section some time ago now. I hope this addresses your concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian refugee

bakajyane? The following 2 paragraphs should be moved to one of the Arab-Israeli conflict articles.

I moved it out and added a pointer to Palestinian refugee. -- zero 4 Aug 2003.

The United Nations created a second definition of the term "refugee" in regards to Palestinian Arabs. For this group only, an Arab is officially considered a Palestinian refugee even if that person had recently immigrated to the British mandate of Palestine in the last two years before 1948. By this definition, some of the Palestinians refugees actually were never Palestinians, but in fact were Arabs from outside Palestine. Many Israelis consider this redefinition of the term to be an act of anti-Zionism, aimed at weakening the legitimacy of the State of Israel.

The Palestinians claim that the question of the Palestinian refugees is one of the world's largest and most enduring refugee disasters (made such, as Israel claims, by Arab countries' own policies). They claim further that the bulk of Palestinian refugees have been inhabitants of Palestine for many generations (to which some experts disagree), and the decision to consider Palestinians as any inhabitants since 1946 is purely administrative. Discussions on granting Palestinians right of return have yet to reach a definite conclusion, although as the introduction of millions of refugees is likely to lead to the destruction of Israel, it is unlikely that a full-scale return will take place.

The above 2 paragraphs describe not a typical case, but one of the most thorny examples, rife with dispute. Let's add an easier-to-swallow example, of a few hundred thousand or more people fleeing a battle between 2 countries by going to a neighboring country. --Ed Poor

I rearranged the text about Palestinian and Jewish refugees. I also added content. Please read carefully before reverting. Emmanuelm 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its very clear that there is a coordinated campaign paid for by the Israel Lobby to flood Wikipedia with misinformation regarding anything related to the Palestinians and Israel. It is literally impossible to obtain information that is either not sourced to a known fraud ala Joan Peters or to "scholars" who just happened to volunteer in the IDF, Michael Orin. Wikipedia needs to establish a policy on this, because history is currently being written by the numbers of paid hacks, not by archival based scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.215.72 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence from the article makes no sense as currently written: "The great majority haven't remained refugees for generations as they were not permitted to return to their homes or to settle in the Arab countries where they lived." Could someone who knows what it's actually supposed to say possibly correct it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.44.161.138 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN convention

For one reason or othert the UN convention appears to be twice quoted more or less verbatim. I have edited this. Refdoc 01:48, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Message from Kenyan boy

The following was inserted into Refugee today. Think it is genuine? - Borofkin 22:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

my name is mahad iam somali boy
iam 14 years old now iam refugee in kenya so that ineed help
my file no :ns 006973
my email .buraale_5@hotmail.com
or mahadabdi12@hotmail.com
unhcr of kenya they sneer for me every day after that i don't have any prents and any relative now iam ready for to die becouse this life is had life so that i whant to die after that if any person to say tome let us go and live with my home iam ready for that becouse iam soltary boy .
iam agony boy. UNHCR BRANCH OFFICE FOR KENYA they can help me but they don;t need to help me so that iam requesting to regard my request .
now i have two mens of my relative but ididnot see in the past 5 years now they live in america . i see one time in to the email then they sended me on aletter then i did not see 
but they gived me there telephone.
maxamed ceynab is my uncle .
maxamed ali is my brother .

6127224238 maxamed ceynab
4023169724 maxamed ali
 sincerly boy
thenk you

I have my doubts. A Google search on the second email address gets two hits -- this page, and a nonsensical website with an extremely graphic picture of a man with his brains dashed out, that seems to be a link farm. On the other hand, it got me to thinking, what if it were genuine? How would someone find a relative who's become a refugee? How could a refugee get back into contact with other relatives? A list of organizations and services available for the assistance of refugees, including for this situation, could be helpful and informative, although it might also be unending and tedious. Something perhaps for a spin-off page? --Skoosh 18:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement provides services to put family members into contact with each other and, in the case of unaccompanied minors, works with the International Organization for Migration to reunite families. - Banyan Tree 18:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum_Seeker

I have removed the "Asylum Seeker" option from the "See Also" list, as there is already a page for "Asylum seeker" which redirects here.

Refugee Law

There is already a page for refugee law that is also very scanty. How should be approach the two? Tfine80 18:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved from vote on IDrive

17 million refugees and one disorganized summary... <sigh> - Banyan Tree 14:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some things worth adding [1]
Medical issues are also missing: refugees are often traumatised.--Fenice 29 June 2005 15:34 (UTC)
It should be noted that this article is meant for the term as legally defined. The everyday meaning is covered at displaced person, which is even more brief. - Banyan Tree 30 June 2005 17:06 (UTC)

Great Lakes Crisis?

A little known refugee situation nowadays with a well-known cause that could greatly illuminate this article is the Rwandan refugee crisis in Zaire, where many of the murderers are living right alongside refugees. This African Quarterly article has a good part on the complications of defining a refugee. Here's another article on the Great Lakes refugee crisis. [1].Billy P 19:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, this should be mentioned. The second source looks like it is neutral enough to quote as source, the first is an interesting commentary that we should have as an external link.--Fenice 19:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It probably needs its own article at Post-Rwandan Genocide refugee crisis or something similar. There is a fair amount of information at the end of Rwandan Genocide and the beginning of Second Congo War, though neither concentrates on the refugees themselves too much. - Banyan Tree 20:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this crisis needs its own article and a summary here with a link to Post-Rwandan Genocide refugee crisis as main article.--Fenice 21:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After letting this languish half-done for over a month, I have started this article at Great Lakes refugee crisis. Contributions and expansions would be very welcome. - Banyan Tree 04:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current Refugees vs. Historical Refugees

I notice that under "Refugee Groups", we've got a lot of historical, no-longer-occurring refugee situations listed, especially under Europe and Asia. However, we also have a Historical Refugee Crises section, where some information is duplicated. I propose that we move all information about historical refugee groups that are no longer considered refugees to the Historical Refugee Crises section, and leave the Refugee Groups section for current refugees. Any objections? --Skoosh 16:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Jacoplane 16:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haitians & Cubans

Currently this section states that Cubans are accepted for asylum in U.S.A. as Cuba is regarded by the U.S.A. as an enemy. This, I think, is possibly true (although arguably lacking in source or POV). However the statement that followed: that U.S. refuse Haitians "simply" because they are black not only conflicts with the previous statement but does not enjoy the same level of logical inference than the point regarding Cuba being seen as an enemy. Do not presume "simple" racism where self-interest will do just fine.

Kurds

Asylum-seeking Iraqis in Britain are being sent to the Kurdish zone in Iraq - regardless of previous residency. (Reuters). freestylefrappe 22:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Refugee" vs. "Asylum seeker"

It appears that the Wikipedia definition of "refugee" includes those people seeking asylum. Without wanting to attempt to re-edit the entire article, I should point out that this is incorrect.

According to the United Nations convention, a refugee is defined as a person who has been accepted by a foreign government and granted a status in that country. An asylum seeker, on the other hand, is merely a person who claims political asylum, and whose status is still in doubt. Not all asylum claimants are accepted: indeed, in today's world a great number of them are actually economic migrants who attempt to use the word "asylum" to relocate.

Eurosong 16:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not entirely true: refugee status is "declaratory" in theory, a person is a refugee before and regardless of the "declaration" of their status: the declaring of the status is merely a conclusion to fact finding. This pragmatically must include some asylum seekers. I'm also struggling to find "has been accepted" by a foreign govt in the 1951 Convention.

HS

Refugee status due to War

'Strictly speaking, a refugee is someone who seeks refuge in a foreign country because of war and violence....'

This statement is not true by the legal definition of a refugee, therefore is inappropriate to include the phrase, 'strictly speaking?' Fleeing from persecution and cross an international border or the two main criteria for those groups which should be classified as refugees. On the other hand, internally displaced persons, by convention, are those groups who have been displaced within their own countries due to conflict, persecution or abuses of Human rights.' Timothy0586 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.228.188 (talk)

Please feel free to edit the article to improve it. This article in particular gets into definitional problems from editors who don't keep the definitions of refugees according to the various instruments, asylum seekers, and displaced persons clear while contributing. Regards, Banyan Tree 23:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic migrant sentence

I moved this here: "They are distinguished from economic migrants who have left their country of origin for economic reasons, and from internally displaced persons who have not crossed an international border.". This is unsourced (see WP:CS). Economic migrants may be considered as refugees (why would refugees be necessarily "politics refugees"? beside, economics may be considered as having political consequences, so one might argue that even "economic migrants" are politic refugees, although of course this view would not be endorsed by everyone). It is wrong to redirect "economic refugee" to foreign worker, as they are not the same. An "economic refugee" does not necessarily work, he may actually be prohibited to work if he is in illegal alien (I know that in the US an economic refugee may work even if he's an illegal alien, but this is not the case in most European countries). Actually, in some cases, economic refugees were confined to internment camps... Lapaz 16:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your challenge to the definition of IDPs? - Banyan Tree 16:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None, I put it back. Except one, maybe: a disclaimer claims this page should talk only about the "refugee" according to international law, although there is already an article named refugee law which could well deal with this restricted judicial aspect. It may be interesting to create this page as more of a hub between the various "refugees" articles & not only about the international juridical definition, which, as the internally displaced persons page acknowledged, is not without limits. Beside, they're have been refugees before international law... Lapaz 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. This article at one point did discuss all persons forced to leave their home, and it was frankly a bit of a mess as it mixed legal and common meanings without bothering to define the lines of definition and why those lines were important. I actually set up the current broad structure many moons ago by an extensive rewrite both here and at displaced person and creating the internally displaced person and forced migration articles. Since "refugee" in the general sense and "displaced person" are identical in meaning, I would be wary of reshuffling the pages for semantic reasons as, as you note, it is clear in the leads of each page that the internally-agreed definitions are being used. It doesn't appear broken to me, though more info on the various types of displaced persons and the various arguments over where to draw the lines would useful. - Banyan Tree 14:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly valuable work, which I won't break up now! However, as always, it may still be slightly improved. One main problem I see in this page is that the disclaimer states that it deals only with the international law aspect — although there is already refugee law for that — and then the body of the article deals with many historical examples of refugees, dealing with the Huguenots (hardly relevant with 20th century international law). So there is this "international law" aspect: while the disclaimer states that it goes for the whole of the article, actually there is only a little subsection dedicated to it & which leads to "main article" refugee law. Thus I think we should take off the "international law" disclaimer and accepts a broader definition of the term refugee here, in order to make a hub.

The second point concerns the controversial distinction between "economic" and "political" refugees. Many will consider that economic refugees are not "political refugees". But does that not make them still "refugees"? The status of political refugee seems to be historically linked with right of asylum (which I took the liberty to make a separate article instead of redirection to "refugee law", since they are not synonyms).

The last distinction concerns internally displaced persons which are not considered refugees by international law. However, shouldn't they have a little subsection dedicated to them on this page, as it is obvious that they are de facto refugees? Lapaz 15:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(retabbing discussion, though continuing from above)

Yeah, there are definitely some issues of consistency. This article was the target of WP:AID a while back, who copied a lot of information in from other articles and I frankly am not excited enough to redirect my time to going through the entire thing again with an eye to consistency. I keep an eye out for vandalism and spamming, but if you are willing to put some effort into it, then by all means!

From the perspective of international law, there is no controversy between the definitions you point out. "Refugee" only applies to people defined by the international instruments. "Economic refugee" is thus a nonsense phrase like "solid air", where the definition of the second word means that the first simply cannot be applied. It is only when in arguments that international obligations should be extended to people not currently defined as a refugee that controversy emerge. Or, when you move away from the legal definitions that all the terms get slippery and start merging into each other.

I have a similar comment about your last point. Only if one refuses to accept that "refugee" means "refugee as defined by international law" can one make that distinction. Refugee and IDP are defined by the crossing of an international recognized border, which makes them the easiest to distinguish.

The hub is already displaced person, which is correct from both the legal and commonplace viewpoints, and making "refugee" the hub would be incorrect from the legal standpoint. Do you really want to throw yourself into this? If so, be sure to contact me if you have any questions about the definitional issues. - Banyan Tree 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge displaced person here

Shouldn't "displaced person" be merged here? The basis for this fork was that displaced persons deals with refugees that are not recognized as such by international law, while this article would in theory deals with this last category. But first, the displaced person is a short stub which constitutes a fork. Second, there is a refugee law article which could deal with the specifically judicial aspect of the question. Third, it is more logical to use the "refugee" page as main hub page, with subsections leading to main specific articles, than using the "displaced person" article for this hub: "displaced person" is a more technical term and therefore less used in common language. Finally, this current "refugee" article deals with many historical examples (Huguenots, etc.) which have few to do with 20th century international law, so it contradicts its disclaimer. Lapaz 15:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that if the international law aspect may at first seems to be the most NPOV definition (and was probably chosen for that), even this may be questionned as it favorize theoretical aspects over practical aspects, which are taken care of by NGOs, etc., which have their own practical definition of refugee (including, for ex., climate refugees). Lapaz 15:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue, as I have on my talk page, that if parts of the article do not match the definition given in the lead, those sections need to be moved to accomodate the lead, not vice versa. The international definition of refugee is not some fringe idea cooked up by legal scholars. Any NGO, human rights group, government or UN agency working with displaced populations chooses their terminology quite carefully. The first five links for "refugee" in Google are: this article (scary!), the American Refugee Council (whose Mission Statement starts "The American Refugee Committee works with refugees, displaced people and those at risk"), the U.S Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (Mission Statement states "persons in forced or voluntary migration"), the Refugee Republic ("ever increasing number of refugees, displaced persons and migrants.") and the National Network for Immigration and Refugee Rights ("We work to promote a just immigration and refugee policy"). Notice how carefully they word the groups they target to include, clarify or exclude. Any article structure that does not incorporate the common definitions into its structure is heading away from an encyclopedic tone. (I should note that I think climate refugee is misnamed, but will refrain while we are discussing it.) - Banyan Tree 18:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In no ways do I underestimate the importance of the legal definition. However, reality precedes legality, and the historical phenomenon of refugee is far more ancient than modern international law. There is no reason to restrict the article to this modern 20th century international juridical definition, which is the product of complex international law (which is not synonym, of course, with "world law"!). Although judicial sources certainly help in defining the (real) phenomenon of "refugees", history also has a say. Following your suggestion to accord the contents of the article to the disclaimer would lead in deleting at least half of it. Lapaz 18:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "move to displaced person" rather than "delete". The phrase "refugee" only came into common use in the 20th century as a result of the creation of the definitions, if I'm remembering my etymology correctly, so it's not like the modern common meaning has some hallowed history we have to take into account. Bottom line for me: I know what "refugee" means when NGOs or the UN talk about them. I don't know what you are talking about when you say "refugee" except that you think all the internationally used definitions are unhelpful. I oppose collapsing the article into some sort of amorphous term for anyone who has left their home for any reason whatsoever when displaced person already acts as that directory. - Banyan Tree 18:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make such substantial edits to the article while we are discussing it. That's quite disrespectful. - Banyan Tree 18:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, annoying other editors is one way to ensure that the article gets some attention. I'll check back in to see what you've done with it. - Banyan Tree 18:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for annoying you! Actually I haven't really made substantial edits, just moved a bit subsections around to have a bit more coherence (you may think it's a bit too major edit!). Feel free to reverse the move if you think it has disrupted the article. Now, to the subject, I think we have two main arguments which are connected together: whether displaced persons or refugee should become the main article on all kinds of refugees; and whether the international law definition should be used for the "refugee" article. Seeing the current state of both articles, this one seems lot more complete than the "displaced persons". That's not an argument though, as content may be moved from one page to the other. So, I still think this should be the main page, because as you see I do not agree in restricting this page to the international definition. Why? Because this implies that the judicial definition is more important than the historical fact of refugee and international migrations. We should go from reality to abstraction, not the reverse. Second, "international law" is not "world law". It's strenght is quite discussed, and, in concerns to the "refugee" page, it essentially means the 1951 United Nations (important to precise]] Convention and the UNHCR. Why should a page about "refugees" be limited to the UN 1951 Convention and the UNHCR? And what else is there to international law except this? Should the Hugenots major example be deleted from here because its anachronic? But why should the "refugee" page only deals with 20th century? By no means do I maintain that any reference to the UN definition (more precise than "international definition" - what does that mean?) should be deleted from here! But why should it be the central definition excluding historical phenomenons that do not fit this judicial view? Finally, this is indeed a POV definition, which excludes economic migrants. Why shouldn't they be considered refugees? In fact, there seems to be globally two ways to apprehend refugees: from an individual basis — this has led to the political asylum tradition and the definition of refugee as persecuted people; from a collective basis — there has been global population movements, in particular in the 20th century (see for ex. Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, section 2 on imperialism, last chapter on refugees, which discusses all of this): the various diasporas (Jewish, Armenian, Palestinians, etc.). Many of these refugees have been received in internment camps (see Arendt). Actually, so much that we can't consider the historical phenomenon of refugees without paying extra attention to these camps. Now, although the League of Nations has tried to cope with this modern phenomenon of refugees, it mostly failed to, and was afterward replaced by the UN. But these global population movements are also tied to economic causes (boat people — which are already discussed in this article), which are not accepted by UN definition. But why should we decide to exclude them from this page? Because the UN has decided so? But who is the UN? I'm sure judicial sources help in defining the term, I'm not sure at all that they should regulate the organization of the article, if this means excluding so many historical examples of refugees which are already quoted here (i.e. they're not "my" addition). Lapaz 19:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This extract from the article illustrates my point about why should the theoretical judicial definition be preferred on the practical administrative definition : "The practical determination of whether a person is a refugee or not is most often left to certain government agencies within the host country. This can lead to abuse in a country with a very restrictive official immigration policy; for example, that the country will neither recognize the refugee status of the asylum seekers nor see them as legitimate migrants and treat them as legal aliens." Lapaz 19:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to remove this and the other forced migration articles from my watchlist. Do as you will. Happy editing, Banyan Tree 20:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was involved in returning some of the Displaced Persons after World War II to their home countries. I was impressed with the magnitude of that problem; I think it was for them that the designation "Displaced Person" was originated. In short, I feel that they--that historic episode--deserves an entry of its own however terminology may have evolved since.

I just wandered by and noticed the tags were still up. That is certainly long enough for any discussion to happen. I have removed the tags as no consensus to merge. - BT 04:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan Refugees Around the World

I think we should add some basic info about the Tibetan refugee camps in India and the increasing number of Tibetan refugees crossing the Chinese (Tibetan)border and migrating all over the world. I will be back (hopefully soon) to contribute. Me 02:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refugee communities

Is there scope within this section for something on the formation of refugee communities (and the role of refugee community organisations) within the sanctuary-providding country? For example the historical refugee communuities in the UK, and the changes that no-choice dispersal in 2000 onwards had on community formation? Or would this have a more natural home in the 'community' project? PWD 10:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goobers

I deleted this section for its lack of credibility and scruples. This pejorative term "goober" has no place in this article. It is certainly not common or accepted parlance and it mocks and pokes fun at the most *horrible* thing imaginable. Anthurium9 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Muslim header

The Anti-Muslim header should be removed as a violation of NPOV as there are no other parallel categories (ie 'non-Christian refugees from European countries' abt Jews and Muslims expelled from European countries) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.96.91.187 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please somebody restore balance in this article

See above comment 18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)131.96.91.187

How Many Russian Aristocrats?

"The Commission, led by Fridtjof Nansen, was set up in 1921 to assist the approximately 1,500,000 persons who fled the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent civil war (1917–1921), most of them aristocrats fleeing the Communist government."

This sounds unlikely -- that most of the 1,500,000 refugees were aristocrats. I don't doubt that many were, but the majority?

Were there really that many aristocrats in Russia?

Can someone provide a reference?

Common Medical Problems

Is post-traumatic stress disorder really the only/most serious problems of refugees? A discussion of health problems common to refugee camps would probably be valuable.

Displaced Women and Children

There is some valuable stuff in the Displaced Women and Children section -- the article lacked decriptions of the the practical problems and hurdles of life as a refugee. How ever it strikes me that some of the problems mentioned are common to all refugees men women and children, that some of the problems mentioned are problems women have in many places in the world and are only tenuosly connected with their being refugees.

And the link to Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children seems dead.

And it seems to be a citation free-zone.

And the gender-speak phrasing of the section really annoys me -- but that's my problem.

"Women and adolescent girls in refugee settings are especially vulnerable to exploitation, rape, abuse and other forms of gender-based violence." What exactly is a refugee setting? What gender based violence specific to refugees - is not already covered by rape and abuse. (Sorry I'm probably being very naive here). In fact isn't rape already covered by abuse? It seems a bit tautological.

"More than 43 million children living in conflict-affected areas don’t have a chance to go to school." Given the higest estimate for refugee numbers mentioned in the article is 20,000,000 then most of that 43,000,000 are lacking education for reasons which are not to do with them being refugees. Even when you take into account the figure of 34,000,000 for internally displaced persons we still have a problem that is not specific to refugees. It's a good point, but what are the numbers for refugees?

"Girls in particular face significant obstacles accessing education..." This parqgraph is completely true but there is no tie-in with refugees. The tie-in should be made or the paragraph deleted/moved to a more appropriate article.

"Without an education, refugee women and youth often struggle to support themselves and their families..." This paragraph is, again, completely true, but really it's universally applicable, and tying it only to women and children seems a bit gratuitous.

"On occasion, people who have been uprooted from their homes come to the United States ..." Treatment of US asylum seekers sounds pretty poor -- but about in-line with my own country's lamentable policies. This paragraph sucks because: (a) it's so US-centric. (b) the statement that "Detained women asylum seekers are also particularly vulnerable to abuse" cries out for coroboration. (c) the detention of asylum seekers is a problem for both sexes. (I can see it's particularly unfair for children though.) (d) We're talking here about (i) only women and children (for some reason), (ii) only those that try to get to the US, (iii) only those who try to enter illegally (and Jose Padilla). In short a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the world's refugee population -- they may merit a sentence in passing but not this much.

"Refugee advocacy organizations, including the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children...". I don't believe most advocacy organisations do focus their efforts on women and children -- I think you'll find they're happy to work on behalf of all-comers.

I do believe that this entire section is a plug for Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. Good on you guy's for doing something. Really top marks. And I can understand your anger and frustration at the way a world run largely by men is run so poorly, but you don't help the cause by portraying the problem in an intellectually sloppy and sexist fashion.

Comparison Dog’s life and human life I’m a middle-eastern refugee in Thailand, I’m here since 2001, while I became a refugee and U.N.H.C.R recognized me as a refugee I lost my human Identity, when I compare my current life with Dogs life here, always I wish to be a Dog, when I compare my situation with dog’s situation I’m jealous with dogs. There are many dogs living near my place. The dogs are ugly but everyone loves them. The dogs are stupid but everyone try to teach them. The dogs are dirty but everyone touches and hugs them. The dogs hate people and sometime bite them but everyone say “no problem”. The dogs are lazy and never work but they have home and enough food. The dogs are free to walk around and no one ask them about documentation or visa. dogs are happy because they are dog. In addition, much more items. How about me! I am not ugly but no one loves me. I am very clever, inventor but no one helps me to study and research. I’m not dirty but no one hug me. I do not hate people, I love people and never hurt them but some people want to kill me. I’m not lazy, I can work 16 hours a day but I have no rights to work. I have no comfort place to sleep as dogs have it. I eat food once a day but dogs eat 3 times. I’m not free to walk around and travel but dogs are. I have teeth pain for 3 years, I have no money to repair it, but the dogs have free operation at good animal’s hospital. I have written rights (human rights) but dog haven’t. So I’m not happy that I’m human. Is my life comparable with Dog’s life? Dog’s life My life It Has right to have food I have no right in real It Has right to live I have no right in real It Has right to chose its place to sleep I have no right in real It Has right to defend of itself I have no right in real It Has right to learn I have no right in real It Has right to talk and make noise I have no right in real It Has right to chose its friends I have no right in real It Has right to be happy/ cry I have no right in real It Has right to travel I have no right in real It Has right to walk outside of its place I have no right in real It Has right to worship its creator I have no right in real It Has right to be alive I have no right in real It Has right to have freedom I have no right in real It Has right to have shelter I have no right in real It Has right to have pups I have no right in real

Dog’s ability and me I can work but dog cant. I can teach good things to people but dog cant. I can help other people but dog cant. I can give good things to people but dog cant. I’m an inventor but dog isn’t. I have many worthy inventions but dog have nothing. I have wisdom but dog have no. and much more items. That why, I wish I was a dog.

sagilife@yahoo.com

Historical and contemporary refugee crises

changed the title "Historical refugee crises" into "Historical and contemporary refugee crises", as it contains references to situations that are not historical, for example the situation of displacement in Iraq (According to UNHCR 1,5 Mio Iraqi nationals sought asylum in 2006).

It might add to the quality of the article to actually distinguish between historical and contemporary refugee crises.

Ecran2 Ecran2 14:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refugees as Security Threats

Unencyclopedic in style; needs rewrite and should be expanded - the sources are good and should hold more material:

"Refugees have been used and recruited as refugee warriors [what's that? A valid technical term, true, but needs explanation and ideally an article. Perhaps italicization is better for the time being] and the humanitarian aid directed at refugee relief has been utilized to fund the acquisition of arms.[Examples/sources from refs; can't buy a Kalashnikov with powdered milk usually] Support from a refugee receiving state has often[How often? Examples/sources needed] been used to enable refugees to mobilize militarily[they need access to weapons in the first place, which is not a given], causing conflict to spread across borders[they need to be close to borders, which is also not a given]. As a result[shaky logic], that insecurity has been extended to humanitarian workers in the field as psychopathic war criminals[yadda], often using child soldiers[yadda] and/or refugees[yadda], have targeted relief personnel.[No doubt relief personnel is a tempting target for the occasional robbery or kidnapping for ransom. The wording used here seems a bit extreme though - it's not that warlords use child soldiers or refugees specifically to target aid organizations; they simply do it because they're power-greedy assholes and the poor and weak are expedient and plentiful chattel. Friend of mine had a stint in the Darfur camps last year, and it's not as pedestrian as put here: concepts such as "rule of the law" just don't apply in such circumstances in the first place. FWIW, she wasn't robbed or kidnapped in Darfur, and neither in Angola the year before. Relief personnel are no pushovers - if you have what it takes to work in that field, you're anything but easy prey for your run-of-the-mill warlord...]

In brief, while especially the sources are good, the present style presents a problem in an overly generalized manner. For example, asylee communities/camps have their own set of problems which may create security concerns (crime syndicates can get displaced like anyone else, of enough of their "power base" turns refugee - ask any resident of Miami...). The content should be rewritten (and expanded), ideally by an expert, to reflect what specific problems may occur under which circumstances, and where such problems have been notable in real-life experience. Dysmorodrepanis 13:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of "African refugees in Israel" paragraph

I just created this paragraph about a subject I know very little about. So far, it is based on a single source. Feel free to expand. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refuees Problems and Details

This section is for refuees problems and their details. People who are in contact with such people and have idea of problems can write their openions and suggestions.. People who are refuees can add their full details and can ask for helpUknown Dost (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. This page is for discussing improvement of the related encyclopedia article. It is not a forum for general discussion. - Banyan Tree 03:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling mistake

"deemed to pose a risk to the wider community, such as thos ty or health risks."

Not sure what meaning the author intended to convey here, could they correct?

Syr0 (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --J. Sketter (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

break in neutrality

I feel this line: "The UN Refugee agency, UNHCR has been playing a discriminatory role against the Rohingya refugees from Burma in Bangladesh." breaks neutrality I and have removed it. Tydoni (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]