To Date or To Marry: That is the Question

Jim Hathaways appeal to date rather than marry proposes a separation of the study of convention refugees from that of others who are being forcefully displaced; a separation that we find disappointing and problematic. His determination to prevent the marriage of two sets of potential lovers-forced migrants and convention refugees as well as internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees in flight from war-suggests a puritanical differentiation of identities that belies the potential of a supportive union. The first problem is with definitions themselves. Squeezed into one category of refugees Hathaway confuses two very different categories: convention refugees who in flight from persecution cross a border to claim refugee status and humanitarian refugees who flee across a border because of war and conflict in their homeland. Thus when Hathaway contrasts refugees with the internally displaced the emphasis and central defining characteristic is crossing an international border. According toHathaway refugees are always victims of discrimination are always at risk and are always under the protection of the international community. This assessment simply ignores any distinction between convention and humanitarian refugees: it might fit the former on most occasions the latter on relatively few. Whereas these unlikes (convention and humanitarian refugees) are made likes possible likes (IDPs and refugees) never have anything in common according to Hathaway. (excerpt)