I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it.
I'm saying you're dead wrong to adopt the enemy's definitions for words with clear meanings, established by our ancestors for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Some faggot kike doesn't get to change the meaning of the word refugee just because he calls infinity niggers looking to exploit us it.
By allowing the meaning to be changed in your head of refugee, it's the practically the same thing as saying that "woman" can also include men that have chopped their dicks off, just because enough people started calling transvestites women.
Cities of refuge where people who are accused of crimes they are innocent have nothing to do with refugees? What? What do you call the people who seek refuge then?
It's not a reinterpretation, dude. If it was Rome or not is not relevant. He's not called a "refugee" in scripture. The concept probably didn't even exist by then. Someone fleeing from one US state to another to avoid an unjust warrant is also an apt comparison.
They fled to a different province because the person persecuting Him didn't have power there. If they were or not inside the Roman empire during that time is not relevant for the story, only that they were away from the reach of Herod, but it becomes relevant when people who hate both Whites and Christians want to use it as a tool against Whites.
That's like calling Guam or the Philippines in the 30s "America" and someone leaving the PI to seek refuge in Guam as "never leaving America" - they have their own governments and are completely different countries and laws and jurisdiction.
They're not America, they are territories. They are under occupation, like Judea and Egypt were, but were separate distinct states with their own authority
"Well Jesus never left an area of land outside of Roman military occupation" is the same thing is really silly dude