Who, exactly, are you talking to?
Please get the terminology straight.
Could you point out where anyone has misinterpreted the definitions?
Woops. It's seems I got the impression that this thread was more heated, and longwinded than it was. In my defence, I had been surfing through various threads on oc.net, and seemingly mentally conflated them. Weird. Sorry about that. I reckon I need to drink my coffee, before
reading oc.net in the future. You have my sincerest apologies.
But, since you asked about who was seemingly confused by the terms:
Are you talking about refugees, asylum seekers or immigrants? These are all different cases.
A refugee usually wants to go home.
Actually, as I've pointed out, refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants are not different "cases", but different terms referring to different things. Two are different phases of the same thing, and one is an over-arching term that includes these, plus many other categories of motives that are not being discussed here.
And whether a refugee wants to go back to his home country or not, when things are stabilised, free or even advantageous to them, is anecdotal and irrelevant.
[pretending to be a barrister]
Although M'Lord, in defence of my learned colleague Mr Farrington, I readily acknowledge that this could be a (yet another?) case of imprecise language, regarding his choice of the word "cases" when "things" would have been a much better option. However, I cannot extend an assumption of bad phraseology to cover the remainder of his flawed arguments. Thank you, M'Lord.
[/pretending to be a barrister]