Most refugees aren't from Syria, most are young men

[Leoreth]

Did you miss my response?

No it was a good response, sorry. But you are not one of the usual suspects from the type of discussion I was talking about.

 

[Tigranes]

1/5 of Jordan's population is refugee. Have you looked at the relative strain being borne by the 'culturally friendly' countries. It's a common complaint, but it can be confronted with googling. You can help counter the meme.

Jordan acts very admirable. Very important country overall. They are moderate about Israel, moderate about the proportionally low number of young men joining IS, moderate about funding war in Syria, and end up doing a lot in terms of accepting refuges. But I am upset with Gulf countries. Saudis in particular, followed by Qatar. They are funding war in Syria and mosque erection all around the world, but won't welcome fellow Sunni Arabs with their oil money. West has to become more critical of their Gulf allies. And of course do some moderate reforms in Europe's social net. A single mother from Fulda told me it's all around better for her not to work than work with the current laws. Taxes are high when you work and you loose a lot of free support and benefits.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yup, Saudi Arabia will long be a source of grief for the world.

I want to say that observations like the OP's thread title are actually nothing to make fun of. It's a legitimate thing to be concerned about. But then the next question (before denigrating refugees) is what will the output of our various countries' vetting process be? Is the fact that the refugee demographics 'scary' a reason to want to ignore/mistrust/abuse/driveout the refugees that are actually approved?

There's no doubt some militants will slip through (it's a numbers game). And there's no doubt some refugees will radicalize later (and the bureaucrats will get the blame here, too). But nearly every refugee who makes in through the filter is going to be our ally in making a better world.

 

[REDY]

Demographics would be not problem if we would talk about temporal asylum. But what we see is migration of whole nations and if we will not stop it, the whole continents. And this allways lead to wars and tensions.
Good people generally can maximalize their potential in west. This is true.
On the other hand, the non-western wold will lose another potential. So I am quite sceptical here about making better world.

I still pointing out that dollar spent on individual in their region is more worthy than dollar spent on individual here.

 

[Agent327]

Demographics would be not problem if we would talk about temporal asylum. But what we see is migration of whole nations and if we will not stop it, the whole continents. And this allways lead to wars and tensions.

Interesting argument. Somewhat flawed though past 'migration of whole nations'. Nations don't migrate. (It also ignores the thread title - assuming, of course, there's any truth to it.)

 

[REDY]

Interesting argument. Somewhat flawed though past 'migration of whole nations'. Nations don't migrate. (It also ignores the thread title - assuming, of course, there's any truth to it.)

In English its called Barbarian Invasions I think. In place where I lived were Celts once.

And yes whole Albanian, Afghani, Eritrean, Iraqi, Kosovar and Syrian nations are moving. It just takes time and money. We should stop it, prolong it or attract others.

 

[Agent327]

And yes whole Albanian, Afghani, Eritrean, Iraqi, Kosovar and Syrian nations are moving.

They really, really aren't. To name but the Syrians, the overwhelming majority of Syrian refugees is inside Syria, not outside. and obviously, the same holds true of the other countries you mention. Nations do not migrate. They never have.

(Oh, and 'Celts' actually means Celtic speakers.)