What Made You Want To Do The Refugee Project: Fill & Download for Free

See this tweetThere has been a revival of the proposal to extend the relief and rehabilitation package granted to the Central Tibetan Relief Committee. The period of the grant expires this year, and an extension may be approved by the Union Home Ministry.See thisThis is required for the completion of community projects. The grant is meant for the administrative and social welfare activities of the Tibetan community here in India, and it would be great if the extension happens.Such a thing would be totally in line with the traditional Indian ethos of accepting, accommodating, helping, giving shelter and extending humanitarian support to those in need of such things (the most recent examples being the fast tracking of citizenship, via the CAA, to people who may well have come into this country after facing horrendous stuff like forced abduction, rape, forced conversion and extermination, persecution based solely on religion and the granting of long term visas to 700 Sikhs and Hindus from Afghanistan, who faced terror threats in their home country).The Tibetan community also, is not here in India on tourist visa, but solely due to being subjected to barbaric levels of oppression and repression at the hands of the CCP, and forced into the position of fleeing and seeking shelter. Tibet is a country that has seen decades of occupation and brutal oppression at the hands of the CCP. It has seen it's religious institutions, religious freedom, culture, traditions and language systemically abused, repressed and threatened. Please readJoydip Choudhury's answer to Which tweet made you think?Also, Tibetans love this country and fight for it. The recent exploits of the Special Frontier Force, (which recruits mainly from Tibetan refugees) in pushing back the PLA and giving it a bloody nose has created history.IMHO, this needs attention.Relief package: Tranche 2 funds likely for over 1 lakh Tibetans in India

Yes, but not in the way most people might think. I am not an immigrant, refugee, or someone here on a work visa. I am a teacher and almost half the students in my class are minorities. Some of my students families hail from one of the 7 banned countries and others do not. All of the minorities in my classroom are here legally.The past week these are a few of the concerns I’ve addressed in my class:*Students asking me about Green Card rules and regulations.*Concerns that they might not see grandparents or relatives again.*Why did someone at the store tell him and his mother to go home? He’s lived here his whole life and has never left the country.*Children were working on an art project where they were making a figure to look like themselves. One of the boys wanted to give himself white skin so more people would like him.*Kids worried because they see their parents worried, but they’re not sure why.*I don’t want to lose my friend. Can Mr. Trump take him/her away?I teach 2nd grade. These children are 7 and 8 years old. I’ve never had to answer/deal with things like this before with my students. And . . . neither should they.So have I been affected personally? Yes, I worry about how my students feel and are being perceived by people in the community. These children and their families are innocents, pawns in Trumps new world order. I will do everything in my power to protect their rights and keep them safe. I am not normally an activist, but this travel ban has made me find my “voice”.

There seem to be two main events that are causing the largest migration of humanity since World War II: Islamic fundamentalism and European cultural prosperity. Having said that, it's important to understand these two motivators for the migration. They've created two sources for the current crisis though the creation of two very different classes of migrant. First are the refugees, fleeing from areas desperately pulverized by war, and economic migrants, who are mostly traveling to Europe simply for a better life.European Refugee Crisis and Islamic Fundamentalism.A UN document suggests that a migrant should be understood as covering all cases where the decision to migrate is taken freely by the individual concerned, for reasons of 'personal convenience' and without intervention of an external compelling factor. Refugees, however, are persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution. That said, a massive percentage of those in flight are traveling to Europe for the purposes of leaving regions where conflict is the primary contributing factor. Most of these conflicts hold their root cause in Islamic fundamentalism, the belief of certain groups throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to forcibly revert the population to state dictated version of Islam. These forces have used terrorism, political purges, and ethnic cleansing throughout the regions they wish to bring under their version of Sharia Law. In many cases they have allied with various non-religious factions or regional warlords for the purposes of upsetting, destabilizing, or subverting local authority.All of the major areas from which migrants are coming from, pictured above, are conflict regions affected by various Islamic fundamentalist factions. Beyond this, instability throughout the region has destabilized several nations from the political leadership that have kept them in governance, as well as provide security for the citizens of their nations. This includes the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, as should be considered Afghanistan, but most seem unaware that ISIS has already made massive incursions into Libya, the predominant factor towards causing their flood following years of political instability. Sudan is also suffering several internal political conflicts and cultural persecution thanks to a group no one seems aware aware of know as Al Shabaab, and Al-Qaeda linked terrorist organization in Somalia. This also isn't to ignore Nigeria, where we have had more than two years of terrorism under the terrorist organization Boko Haram.If we consider that all of these migrants have conflict ridden political cesspools as their commonalities, and that none of them are leaving "for reasons of 'personal convenience' and without intervention of an external compelling factor" we have to come to the conclusion that these people are not, by the vast majority, part of a regular and predictable migratory population. For that reason, the largest influx of migrants are refugees fleeing these regions.Economic Migration vs Disenfranchised RefugeesThe second main cause of the massive migration that is taking place in Europe is economic. The migrants, in this case, are people who are really moving into these regions more to better their own personal lifestyle or award better options for their families. I'll say that this isn't any form of dishonorable action, but given the state of the refugee exodus also taking place, many in the international community are crying foul.Questions denoting the legitimacy of many of the refugee's claim on asylum are coming from these economic migrants. Questions are being asked such as Why is it that Syrian refugees can afford high-end smart-phones to take selfies and are refugees migrants? This is due to the legal status of a migrant vs a refugee. Due to at least two major agreements on refugee rights, Europe treats the two classes very differently.First, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees , which almost all modern nations are a part of, does not allow refugees who are under threat in their own country to be repatriated:"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social or political opinion" (Article 33(1)).Second, is the Dublin Regulation, which is an EU convention that determines who the responsible for taking on refugees.The Dublin Regulation... is a European Union (EU) law that determines the EU Member State responsible to examine an application for asylum seekers seeking international protection under the Geneva Convention and the EU Qualification Directive, within the European Union. It is the cornerstone of the Dublin System, which consists of the Dublin Regulation and the EURODAC Regulation, which establishes a Europe-wide fingerprinting database for unauthorised entrants to the EU. The Dublin Regulation aims to “determine rapidly the Member State responsible [for an asylum claim]”[1] and provides for the transfer of an asylum seeker to that Member State. Usually, the responsible Member State will be the state through which the asylum seeker first entered the EU.Because of these and other agreements, refugees become, in effect, citizens of the state they land in, with that state takes on full responsibility for their welfare, security, and future prosperity. They are defacto wards of the state, with no means to send them home if they should become a problem for state welfare.Migrants, however, aren't afforded the same hospitality. Because they becoming expatriates to a nation under more or less, peaceful circumstances and of their own accord, there is no binding obligation of a host nation to provide for a person's well-being.Given the current refugee crisis, many people who otherwise would not absolutely need asylum are joining along, seeking to take advantage of the much better deal they would receive from status as refugees, rather than as simply people seeking job opportunities and benefits. This has had the effect of transforming what was otherwise a flood of people into a true crisis for many European countries, and that will have economic and social consequences long into the future. Many Europeans are unhappy with this arrangement, feeling that what amounts to their long term hospitality is being taken advantage of. This is only further evidenced by what many people are considering "shopping around" by refugees to find the best country with which to start their new lives, including this one, where a refugee seems to be outright asking where the best place to seek asylum should be.What European (EU) nation has the best social welfare benefits?Others, can be seen in questions of a similar vein asking if it is right that many asylum seekers seem to be much selective than previous generations disenfranchised migrants.Why are Syrian refugees migrating to wealthy countries if they only want to be safe? Why are they targeting rich countries?Do you think refugees have a right to CHOOSE what country they want to seek asylum in despite getting other offers?Will it eventually be possible to distinguish the real Syrian refugees from the economic migrants passing as Syrians in the headlong rush to Germany?This is highlighted by events such as what happened in Hungary where individuals claiming refugee status refused to accept asylum in Hungary.From an onlooker's perspective, these individuals are abusing European policy to get the best deal for a rare period in history. I'm inclined to say that these economic migrants wouldn't normally be much of a problem, and what they are doing, that pursuit of happiness thing, is an admirable cause. Where it differs in this case, however, is that their only means to that pursuit exists through the charity of other nations for specific reasons which don't really apply to them, that being humanitarian aid to truly war ravaged groups. The migrants are riding on the backs of these truly disenfranchised people, wanting to take advantage of suffering that isn't theirs, for benefits that are not, by any right, owed to them. To continue, their quest for a better life is coming at the cost of those who are actually in need of not just economic betterment, but physical security. Along with this cost is the opportunity cost to the hosts, those nations who would otherwise be capable of funding their own nation's needs without allocating towards the assimilation of between twenty thousand and two million new people. That cost will be seen in the funding not going to schools, hospitals, infrastructure, and growth projects. That said, millions of these migrants claiming refugee status are showing some of the worst and most selfish sides of humanity and opportunism, which is rightfully so, feeding resentment toward the overall refugee and migrant population.Why is the responsibility for accepting refugees falling almost exclusively on European countries and not Asian or rich Middle Eastern places?Here is the big question, why is Europe the place that is experiencing all this strain, where it seems others are not?I'll answer this differently than the question seems to assume. It is a matter of choice; not of the Europeans, but of the migrants and refugees. Think about it this way...You're hungry and it is late. You decide to go out for a quick burger. When you decide on McDonald's rather than Burger King, would you say as a person who works at McDonald's, "Why is this McDonald's responsibility to take care of all these hungry people?" No, because McDonald's has advertised themselves as a great place to help people with certain problems.So too, has Europe.The main problem with this question is the primary false assumption: that being that Europe has willingly taken on the responsibility of accepting the refugees. This isn't to say they have been unwelcoming. Others are far more unwelcoming, especially those the world would expect to be the first to offer aid and support. Europe has shown themselves to be honorably welcoming the refugees, which they should all be proud of being able to be, but Europe hasn't really had a choice in the matter. The fact of the European Refugee Crisis is that this is an event that is being led by the refugees themselves. The truth is that the Europeans are capable of doing very little more than holding up welcoming signs towards bringing in refugees. At no point were they putting in a major effort to recruit or provide the logistical means for migrants to make it from these war torn regions to a final point somewhere in Europe, more so than was already present. In the best case, many of the European countries are finding it strategically beneficial to accept a certain number of the new migrants before they hit the cutoff. That's about it.The refugees and migrants themselves, however, are an interesting lot. They, for the first time in history, have a situation in which they can choose where to seek asylum. The last time the world has seen a social disruption of this magnitude was 70 years ago following World War II. Today, a refugee may be penniless, but they still have a cell phone. They may not have any land, but they still have a connection with the outside world. They may destitute, but somehow, they aren't as desperate. They are still connected to information and to each other, and are able to use that global connectivity to seek the best opportunity for themselves and their families. By this I mean we live in a world today where people can move thousands of miles, abandon their possessions. and would sell the last of their gold jewelry and beautiful clothes, but won't sell their phones. This isn't your grandma's exodus.All this to say, information is leading this flight of humanity. Through the news, through the music, through the stories, through their friends, and through the movies they watch, all the information they have is driving home one message, one which hasn't changed in decades: Europe is a good place to be.When we think about it, no one should be surprised by this. For decades, Europeans have flaunted their perception of a greater existence, built from the ashes of war. They like to tell people, as they like to believe, that there is no hate or racism, there is equality, liberal values, and social welfare programs to help the poor, the sick, the dim, and the lazy. It's a borderless utopia with culture, clean streets, and fat babies. What's best? Many Europeans truly believe that it is that great, which is a wonderful thing. I know those last few lines sound condescending, but there are Europeans who believe there is no better place on Earth than their home. They are the people who are working to make that belief a reality. Only excited people who love their home enough to see past its flaws, imperfections, and where it fails make it into the ideal that everyone believes it can be. Right now, there are a lot of people who have worked to make Europe a great place to live, and they have talked about it, and the world heard.Contrast this with the lives they've had up to this point, seeing the beauty, wealth, happiness, and culture of Europe through the looking glass of a small TV screen. One could say the same for America, and ask why the Americans haven't done more. To that I'll say this, unlike the American Dream, the European Dream has even one more thing weighing on the minds of these migrants and refugees; you can't walk to America. With the last hundred years of linkages between Europe and the rest of the world, Europe has never been so close to so many. Compare all of this to where these people are coming from.When we realize that the world refugees aren't in Europe because Europe brought them, we have to realize that they are there because of choice. I've already mentioned why Europe looks like a good choice, at least the best a person could walk to, but what other choices do the migrants and refugees have? Pictured above are the refugee camps, with their hundreds of rows of thousands of tents. These are for people who maintain the hope that they will get to go back home someday, that even though their homelands are in ruins, they might wait out the conflict along with tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of other countrymen and women in the massive tent cities in places like Lebanon.Others have grown tired of waiting, seeing this conflict now in its fourth year. Even if they do wait for some peaceful end, what are they waiting on? The best prospects seem to the world to indicate that they are waiting to have a land pacified by either an oppressive Russian backed Syrian regime, or cleansed by some fanatical religious cult? For millions, places like Syria is lost to them. Whatever it was it is no longer their home. So they leave their home for a better one.Why not Asia then? China is supposed to be a miraculous economic powerhouse? Surely, they could afford to take in some of the people of the disenfranchised fellow Asian body. Besides the vastness of the land which must be crossed, not to mention the fact that most of it is comprised of both the harshest deserts and sharpest mountain ranges on Earth, the route is dangerous politically, requiring one to pass through many other dangerous and underdeveloped nations before ever arriving in China. Once there, you are only in Western China, which is still one of the most inhospitable places on Earth, pictured above. Most of that path doesn't even have logistical support in place like the rail networks that links all parts of Europe. Basically, to attempt such a task is tantamount to a death march of sorts, but then one has to ask if anyone would even want to move to China as a refugee.To begin with, these people aren't stupid. They know that the most populated nation in the world doesn't have a whole lot of real estate to grow into, or opportunity for that matter, left to a wayward stranger. Let's remember that in spite of its expansive GDP over the last few decades, it is still a place where more than half a billion people, citizens of China, live in abject poverty. The fact that it has shown itself over the last half century to also be one of the most oppressive world powers, where basic liberties are controlled by the whims of a minority controlled political party none of them will be privy to joining... doesn't help the case for moving to China either.Why then, would they not flee to the other Arab neighbor countries, the wealthiest, and most obvious choices, given the emphasis in Islam on brotherhood and solidarity among those of their religion? Perhaps it is due to the many ways in which wealthy Middle Eastern oil nations have proved themselves to be filled with nothing, but oppressive monarchies that are always bordering on internal collapse, religious purges, and devastating economic and environmental conditions? Secondly, why would they immigrate to a land of such vast income inequality, and such low upward mobility for non-citizens that they would live the rest of their lives as little more than servants to the wealthiest families in the Arabian Peninsula? Why would they want to try settling in a place which has flaunted its excess while making it very, very clear that they are willing to do little to help the refugees personally, to the point of building a massive wall across the desert border where most of these refugees live?Instead, these migrants want opportunity, not serfdom. They want a Europe with stable governments, wealth that they can one day attain, and the protection of the Americas, a force they have learned to respect, whether they are loved or not.No. For millions of people, the obvious choice, the only choice, is Europe.In the end, while the choice to go to Europe was made by the refugees, the responsibility for the refugees going to Europe falls exclusively on European countries themselves, because they asked for it long ago. For generations, they have tried to show the world an ideal of themselves that values individual rights and the freedom to prosper. They've shown a dedication to peace while enjoying protection under a strong military presence. Most of all, they've shown a willingness to help that all the other nations within walking distance won't.It's my belief that Europeans wanted to export these ideals to other nations beyond the European continent, and to serve as a global leader of liberalism and shared destiny as the rest of the non-Western world mended its evil and archaic ways. What ended up happening, though, is that a different ideal has spread just as central to European identity, individualism. The migrants and refugees finally gave up on solving the numerous problems of their own homelands, but instead asked, "What is best for me and my family?" As it turns out, that answer seems to be the very place where individualism saw its beginning and where the rights of individuals are preserved as much as anywhere else on the planet.And to Europe they went.Thanks for reading!This answer was part of a Patreon Funded Quora answer collection on the European Refugee Crisis. To follow the series, check out European Refugee Crisis and follow my blog War Elephant for more new content. Everything I write is completely independent research and is supported by fan and follower pledges. Please consider showing your support directly by visiting my Patreon support page here: Help Jon Davis in writing Military Novels, Articles, and Essays.