Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
A simple definition like that makes it very obvious what the problem is: a potentially perpetual refugee status. With that definition, a refugee who refuses asylum in a perfectly safe country with good living standards could still be a refugee, because they at some point were forced to seek refuge.

A more robust definition of 'refugee' would provide good ideas for when a refugee is no more a refugee.
What do you mean by more robust? The way you sound it seems like you want them to basically get locked up in the first "safe" country they cross into, regardless of how strenuous that is for the country or how they are/can be treated there, but that's only an assumption since you are very vague the entire time. I would argue that this is not a very fair or useful way to handle this. Assume a worst case where all countries around Lebanon break into civil war and according to you Lebanon then has to host something like 10 times its population in refugees. Maybe you don't care about the Lebanese as long as those people don't come to Norway or something?