If Mid East countries wont accept muslim "refugees" why should we.

Many of the supper rich Mid East countries wont accept even 1 so called muslim refugee. So why should this country do so. Why are democrat so all fired up to bring them here if those counties claim they are rabble rousers that will cause trouble.

Besides that those "refugees" simply are not compatable with our American way of life and our Constitution.

 

Shhhhhhh.

But I don't agree on compatibility; too broad a statement.

 

Question: Why would anyone from a pleasantly temperate part of the planet choose to move to somewhere like Sweden, where the nearest to 'warm' is an occasional heatwave of minus 10 degrees celsius; and bearing in mind not only the constant discomfort for a warm-blooded creature, but ginormous heating bills to be paid to keep warm??

 

You are all misinformed
Middle East countries do accept refugees.
Many of them, thousand of them but unless you are registered w the UNHCR you are not a nu,breed refugee so to speak.

 

We made the mess ... should we not clean it up ?

 

You break it; you bought it.

 

Depends on the country; many don't.

 

"Personal Responsibility"

 

Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the emirates have taken in millions of refugees.

 

El Saud does not want them ... unless of course they share the extremist Salafi Islamist ideology that has been fueling these terrorist groups.

 

Sure Margot ... as usual your claims in desperate apology for your beloved Saud go unsupported.

"No, Arab Gulf Countries Are Not Taking in Refugees"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chaker-khazaal/no-arab-gulf-countries-ar_b_8280448.html

And as is so often the case .. your apologetic claims are demonstrably false.

 

Al Saud granted them residency status... and doesn't call them refugees. They are not in refugee camps.

 

The Gulf States are not signatories to the UNHRC, but the gulf states have taken in 2 millio n.. Huffpost and others have long sense corrected their misunderstanding.

 

Which 'supper rich' countries won't accept a single refugee (your claim). Names? Statistics?

Turkey has 3 million Syrian refugees, Jordan & Lebanon have about 1.5 million (with populations of 9 & 6 million respectively). Both countries still have multi-generational populations of Palestinian refugees. Iraq has taken 250,000 despite having a civil war & millions of internally displaced people. The Gulf States have 1 - 3 million Syrians who are either refugees or are being allowed to extend their visas indefinitely. They are also donating hundreds of millions of dollars to help states bordering Syria. Egypt has 120,000 Syrian refugees, another 200,000 expats and hundreds of thousands more from Sudan, Libya, Eritrea & Ethiopia (which itself hosts hundreds of thousands of refugees from Eritrea & Sudan - yes, dirt poor Ethiopia hosts more refugees than the US does). Oman hasn't taken any Syrians, but does have some Yemenis. Iran is hosting about 3 million Afghan refugees and several hundred thousand from Iraq. Oh, and Tunisia has about 1000 Libyan refugees, down from almost 1 million in 2011 (about 10% of the population).

So, which 'supper rich' Middle East nations was it that don't take a single refugee again? Looking forward to some figures (though expecting you to run & hide).

As for the suitability of particular refugee groups, I have serious questions about some Muslim communities in Western societies and think screening should be rigorous. That said, ill informed comments with poor spelling and zero facts seem 'compatible' with your American way of life, so lets not pretend you are setting the bar very high, shall we.

 

deleted, wrong thread

 

One has to be cautious to distinguish between refugees and migrants. For instance, the UAE has claimed to have taken in hundreds and thousands of people "fleeing Syria", but it was only late last year that they started accepting actual refugees, at the rate of 15,000 over 5 years.

The wealthier gulf states have been reluctant to take on responsibility for refugees because they have such favourable conditions for their nationals. An immigrant who is actually accorded formal refugee or asylum status has to be treated the same as a national, whereas a migrant can be given a sub-national, revocable right to reside.

 

Because they aren't refugees, they are Jihadist. They are moving into foreign lands to concur them, like they've always done, and preach to do. Why send your Jihadist to places you already control?

 

The Gulf States also aren't all signatories to various refugee conventions, so the extent to which people show up in 'formal' statistics might vary. Makes sorting out who is who a bit tricky. I'm not sure how many of the refugees are 'migrants' in the terms that we would generally think of them - don't know how many will be making a new life there, let alone getting citizenship. Certainly many have been there working or living for years, but some of those might have been expected to head home if not for their visas being renewed. I also beleive many of those who were already there have been joined by family fleeing the conflict. They might not qualify as 'refugees' but would probably not be there but for the war. There was also plenty of Syrian money washing about Dubai & the other Emirates in the first few years of the Civil War as people looked for safer places to stash it.

What is beyond doubt is that a region with under 50 million people & limited arable land is hosting 1-3 million Syrians in some capacity. That is a fair effort by any reckoning.

 

The trick is knowing which is which, and who's who? Islamists has never made any secret of the fact that global Islam is their aim.

 

Perhaps it's nature's way of telling us to stop procreating so much? Muslims routinely have from 5 - 8 offspring.

 

They don't call them refugees. They call the brothers in distress.. Why don't you read who are signatories t the UNHRC.. I think you will understand your confusion .

 

Mmmh ... one more BS lie towards refugees to prevent that they are coming to you?
Interested into some facts maybe?

Jordan took 1.5 million from Syria and Iraq
Lebanon took about 1.7 million from Syria
Turkey took about 2.9 million from Syria and Iraq (+ some others i.e. Afghanistan)
Saudi Arabia took about 700 - 800,000 from Iraq, Syria and Yemen

And the USA which has caused the wars in Syria and Iraq in wide parts due to their incompetence of the last 16 years have taken how many again? Not even 5,000!

So yes ... creating the bloody civil war in Syria by backing with half ass the Rebels and here don't asking too much who they are in reality, simply because Assad is not their backed bloody dictator as others ... messing up Iraq in 2003 until now by attacking the bloody regime backed on lies and then being incompetent for the time after military victory... which caused ISIS and then saying these evil others! Very smart!

 

No, Muslims routinely have about 3 offspring. Some have more, some have less, most have around that number. The highest rates are generally in Africa, where birth rates among Christian & other communities are also high.

Fertility rates are steadily falling in the Muslim world, in some cases to levels below many Western nations. Muslim migrants to Western nations tend to have fertility rates similar to their nations of origin, as is the case for most migrant groups. As with other groups those rates fall over the second & third generations to align closely to those of the host society.

 

You are correct. Muslim birthrates have been falling for over 20 years because of improved healthcare and education for women..

 

As I posted recently, part of a BBC reporter's commentary as he witnessed the exodus of Muslims from Myanmar was 'The astonishing thing is the sheer number of children there are.' Methinks your figures are a tad out of date?