We Need To Change The Definition Of Refugee In The Age Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

Climate cultist Bill Frelick thinks he’s on to something because a tiny increase in the world’s average temperature is an existential threat to humanity (unlike the Islamic extremists linked to the news outlet, Al Jazeera, he has the opinion piece in)

It is time to change the definition of refugee
Climate change is an existential threat to humanity and as such, should be included in legislation on asylum seeking.

Despite recent and increasing efforts by the United States and other governments to narrow their interpretations of the refugee definition and to shirk their protection responsibilities, the need to expand the grounds for asylum is becoming increasingly urgent as the consequences of climate change become more pronounced.

A desperate appeal for asylum by a family from a Pacific island may have far-reaching implications for protecting people forcibly displaced by the effects of climate change. It could cause countries around the world to reconsider their laws and policies concerning refugees.

The case involves the Teitiota family, who fled the island of Tarawa in the Republic of Kiribati in 2007 and sought asylum in New Zealand in 2013. Ms Teitiota told the New Zealand court that she feared for her children’s health and wellbeing, that crops and coconut trees on the island were dying. (snip)

That same year, the father of the family filed a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, an independent expert body that monitors government compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He claimed that New Zealand had violated his right to life under the covenant because the sea level rise had shrunk habitable space in Kiribati, resulting in violent land disputes and environmental degradation.

On January 7, the Committee issued its views, finding the threats to life posed by rising sea levels and other effects of climate change necessitate a broadening of refugee law. “The obligation not to extradite, deport or otherwise transfer pursuant to article 6 of the Covenant,” the committee said, citing its provision on the right to life, “may be broader than the scope of non-refoulement under international refugee law, since it may also require the protection of aliens not entitled to refugee status.”

I mentioned this silliness not that long ago. Anyhow, after much bloviating, the ending

While there still may be room to argue whether life-threatening threats are imminent in particular cases, the Human Rights Committee has recognised that fundamental refugee-protection principles need to be broadened now.

This means not only that our common understanding of what it means to be a refugee needs to change, but also that the 173 countries that are party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should ensure their asylum standards and procedures are adapted to protect all who face existential threats if returned to home countries that have become unlivable.

Of course, the point here is to force 1st world nations to take in 3rd world people who demand entrance, people who have little to no skills, don’t speak the language, will be wards of the state, and demand that the nations change to accommodate the “refugees,” all because those 1st World Nations “owe” it to these people. This is exactly like climate reparations. When countries give aid now, it’s generally with strings attached in some manner. Climate reparations are because 1st World nations owe the 3rd world ones for being successful, hence, no strings.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

One Response to “We Need To Change The Definition Of Refugee In The Age Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something”

  1. Dana says:

    I don’t care what the definition of ‘refugee’ is; I just want President Trump to keep going in the right direction.

    President Obama authorized the acceptance of 110,000 refugees for 2017, and the odious Mrs Clinton said that number was too low; she wanted to add 55,000 to it. Mr Trump said no, and campaigned on lowering the number of refugees accepted; for 2020, he set the number at 18,000, which is, as far as I am concerned, 18,000 too high. I can only hope that he sets the numbers for 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 at zero.

    We have thousands upon thousands of American citizens who are homeless, and we are borrowing a trillion dollars a year. The last thing we need to be doing is taking in foreigners who speak little or no English, who have few skills that translate to the American economy beyond manual labor, and whom we will have to feed, clothe and shelter on the taxpayers’ dollars.

    Nope! Send then to Germany, where Reichskanzlerin und Führerin Merkel wants to let them in.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10934 access attempts in the last 7 days.