Throughout the Western world, three terms are commonly misused and misunderstood: ‘Refugee’, ‘Asylum Seeker’, and ‘Migrant’. Invariably, all three are used to describe the same persons, and this makes a big difference, whether the observer is in the USA and Mexican border, Europe, or elsewhere. Journalists in particular tend to use all three interchangeably and indiscriminately, usually so that readers feel an emotional affiliation to Islam. To put it in ordinary language, the wrong use of these words defies their use in international law.
A ‘migrant’ is simple someone who moves from one country to another. To qualify as a ‘refugee’ and then an ‘asylum seeker’ the migrant MUST meet the definitions given in law. In Europe, for example, over 85% of all migrants who claim to be refugees or asylum seekers, are very obviously not, but are ‘economic migrants’ who have no legal status enabling them to enter another country freely. And, when Obama wants to import many thousands of migrants from Syria, and says they must be fast-tracked, he is (as usual) ignoring international law and forcing the USA to accept people who have not proved themselves to be ‘refugees’, thus placing Americans in potential mortal danger.
Those who think they are clever, argue that these distinctions are invalid because the Orlando killer was ‘home-grown’. His actions do not invalidate the argument one little bit – it simply means that home-grown terrorists who are known to the police and FBI (which he was) must come under internal evaluation and arrest, as must the foundations of their religion, which teaches terroristic activity against non-Muslims.