Why aren't wealthy Gulf states like Qatar and the UAE taking more refugees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A great thread - even more, why is the media NOT asking this question? Why are Western gov't NOT asking this question? If you are Arab, how easy is it to assimilate into the US, Canada, France, the UK, or perhaps another, closer Middle East country?
Some fantastic points were listed here.

I googled "Saudi Arabia refugees" and found many articles, some asking why the Gulf states are not taking in refugees, others saying that they are but by a different name. Here is an article about what Syrians want, which is not refugee status but to resettle:

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/09/15/Syrian-refugees-don-t-want-to-camp-in-Saudi-Arabia-They-want-a-future.html

OMG, they are actually claiming they are too poor to let the immigrants settle permanently.

"Therefore, the reason is purely economic. Our brotherly relations with the Syrian people still prevailed, and we opened our doors to them as much we could. But our economy cannot tolerate hosting refugees who turn into residents."

It's the 7th wealthiest country in the world in GDP per capital....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Of course they can afford it. As I said, they just don't want to get stuck with the Syrians longterm. Just think of Saudi Arabia as the biggest gated community in the world. The riff raff are welcome to come in and fix the sink or mow the lawn but they better not think about buying a house.

Also, many Arabs feel that Saudi is too extreme -- the people fleeing are not interested in living in SA. I have also researched this, and found that SA and Iran does accept refugees, but they do not cite them as such.

The irony is that women have more rights in Syria under Assad than they would in the Kingdom. Things are great in Riyadh if your a member of the House of Saud. Outsiders aren't welcomed with open arms unless there is something in it for the Royal family.

[Anonymous]

KSA has over 100k syrians IIUC, they just do not call them refugees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not directly related to the stated question but addressing the implied question of why we should act when these countries refuse to...

If a man is lying injured on the road and four people walk by him ignoring his plight does that inoculate you, the fifth, from a moral obligation to help him?

The problem is there is probably a tiny percent chance that the man lying on the ground might accept your kindness, and then bludgeon you and your friends and relatives to death. We can't ignore the suffering, we just need to a better way to detect faking because even if it chances are small, the risks are high. This gets at my other thread. I think we do have a moral obligation to help, but I cannot fathom how we vet these people. It's not like evil Assad is going to give us all his records. I have not checked that thread since this morning so maybe there is an update that can make me feel like we have a pretty good system in place.

[Anonymous]

They don't want ISIS. Have you seen the pictures of "refugees" in Europe. The widows and children look a lot like military age males.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They don't want ISIS. Have you seen the pictures of "refugees" in Europe. The widows and children look a lot like military age males.

I truly feel badly for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not directly related to the stated question but addressing the implied question of why we should act when these countries refuse to...

If a man is lying injured on the road and four people walk by him ignoring his plight does that inoculate you, the fifth, from a moral obligation to help him?

The problem is there is probably a tiny percent chance that the man lying on the ground might accept your kindness, and then bludgeon you and your friends and relatives to death. We can't ignore the suffering, we just need to a better way to detect faking because even if it chances are small, the risks are high. This gets at my other thread. I think we do have a moral obligation to help, but I cannot fathom how we vet these people. It's not like evil Assad is going to give us all his records. I have not checked that thread since this morning so maybe there is an update that can make me feel like we have a pretty good system in place.

You have managed to encapsulate the suspicious mindset of today's GOP quite nicely. Gotta watch out for everybody out there who's after your shit. What a terribly insular experience that must be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not directly related to the stated question but addressing the implied question of why we should act when these countries refuse to...

If a man is lying injured on the road and four people walk by him ignoring his plight does that inoculate you, the fifth, from a moral obligation to help him?

The problem is there is probably a tiny percent chance that the man lying on the ground might accept your kindness, and then bludgeon you and your friends and relatives to death. We can't ignore the suffering, we just need to a better way to detect faking because even if it chances are small, the risks are high. This gets at my other thread. I think we do have a moral obligation to help, but I cannot fathom how we vet these people. It's not like evil Assad is going to give us all his records. I have not checked that thread since this morning so maybe there is an update that can make me feel like we have a pretty good system in place.

You have managed to encapsulate the suspicious mindset of today's GOP quite nicely. Gotta watch out for everybody out there who's after your shit. What a terribly insular experience that must be.

+1. I believe this latest world event is exposing this mindset among many of the "regular" people who identify with the GOP/conservative movement. I cannot imagine my whole world view, and thus active choices, was driven from a place of fear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not directly related to the stated question but addressing the implied question of why we should act when these countries refuse to...

If a man is lying injured on the road and four people walk by him ignoring his plight does that inoculate you, the fifth, from a moral obligation to help him?

The problem is there is probably a tiny percent chance that the man lying on the ground might accept your kindness, and then bludgeon you and your friends and relatives to death. We can't ignore the suffering, we just need to a better way to detect faking because even if it chances are small, the risks are high. This gets at my other thread. I think we do have a moral obligation to help, but I cannot fathom how we vet these people. It's not like evil Assad is going to give us all his records. I have not checked that thread since this morning so maybe there is an update that can make me feel like we have a pretty good system in place.

There is always the chance that if someone comes to the U.S. or, for that matter, is born in the U.S., they will become violent. But there isn't any evidence that refugees are more likely to commit acts of terrorism than people or tourist visas, or student visas or H1B visas, or entering the country without a visa from countries like France (where a number of the terrorists in Paris had citizenship). Despite that, right now the vetting process that refugees undergo is already far more in depth than the process for any of those other groups.

[Anonymous]

In the 80s Americans could go to SA and make a lot of money quickly. Go diving in Red Sea eat well. No alcohol but made a boatload of money tax free. I know more an a handful of people that did this for large consulting my firms and were able to come back after a year and buy a nice house. Saudis were good to Americans but the oil money as corrupted the culture

They treat other people like dogs We let too many of the rich children in our schools on f1 We need to get rid of all of them their parents have second houses in us waiting for the eventual collapse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't want ISIS. Have you seen the pictures of "refugees" in Europe. The widows and children look a lot like military age males.

I truly feel badly for you.

But PP is largely correct.

[Anonymous]

They are too busy swilling champagne with prostitutes to care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't want ISIS. Have you seen the pictures of "refugees" in Europe. The widows and children look a lot like military age males.

I truly feel badly for you.

But PP is largely correct.

I don't know whether it is correct or not. UNHRC figures indicate half of the refugees are children and another quarter are women. They only do registered refugees, so its hard to know if this is the true picture.

But I do know is that having a lot of military age males choose to be refugees is the worse press imaginable for ISIS's Islamic paradise and further deprives ISIS of internal Syrian recruits that they need to replace fighters who have died or become disabled. The Paris terror attacks were largely driven by their recruitment needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not directly related to the stated question but addressing the implied question of why we should act when these countries refuse to...

If a man is lying injured on the road and four people walk by him ignoring his plight does that inoculate you, the fifth, from a moral obligation to help him?

The problem is there is probably a tiny percent chance that the man lying on the ground might accept your kindness, and then bludgeon you and your friends and relatives to death. We can't ignore the suffering, we just need to a better way to detect faking because even if it chances are small, the risks are high. This gets at my other thread. I think we do have a moral obligation to help, but I cannot fathom how we vet these people. It's not like evil Assad is going to give us all his records. I have not checked that thread since this morning so maybe there is an update that can make me feel like we have a pretty good system in place.

There is always a chance something bad will happen to you. You personally risk more chance of harm getting in your car every morning than if you signed the refugee entrance form yourself.

Doing the right thing when there is no risk is easy. It is when you're faced with doing the right thing when the outcome is less clear and the ramifications to you might not be positive that your real character is revealed.