Three dead in attack on Jewish museum in Brussels

[derspiess]

But that has nothing to do with this.   My question was why the UN was specifically asking Western Countries.  That makes no sense to me, there is nothing about Western Nations that make them particularly well suited to take Syrian refugees.  In fact, our cultural values seem particularly poorly suited to take them unless these are particularly Godless Syrians

Because we're generous and caring.  And also easily exploited.

[mongers]

Well they could just put them on a train or a bus and send them to China or India.

Those would be the bus and train services traveling through Iraq, Iran and then Pakistan etc ? 

[Valmy]

Well they could just put them on a train or a bus and send them to China or India.

Those would be the bus and train services traveling through Iraq, Iran and then Pakistan etc ? 

Would there not be?  I mean those people all need to move around between cities and I doubt car ownership is very high.

[Sheilbh]

Any particular reason refugees have to be given the opportunity to be rich?  It is not like China, South Africa, and India lack plenty of opportunity for anybody with ambition and talent.  I would sure the hell prefer to live in one of those places than Syria.

It's not about the opportunity for them to be rich but the cost to the state.

Practically refugees are a burden on accepting states. Some will have the luck to get opportunities, some will have talent (some very few will have both) many will just be traumatised and afraid. Is there a Syrian community in any of those countries? How likely is it they'd already know or easily be able to learn Mandarin or Hindi, far less get a job? It's difficult to see them easily or quickly becoming economically self-supporting in the short-run (I'm not sure whether that would come before or after an end to the Syrian civil war).

Also I don't know about those countries but many places make it difficult for refugees, so that it's not a backdoor for economic migration. In the UK for example refugees legally aren't allowed to work and basically have to live where they can, unless they get a council house in which case they'll live where they're told. If they're trying to get rich they're breaking the conditions of their asylum and could be deported.

So it's not an issue of whether they should have the opportunity to get rich but that they're a burden on the state and it seems perverse to put that burden on government's that aren't rich enough to provide education or healthcare for their citizens. Which is actually what happens; most refugees settle in their immediate neighbourhood and war, civil conflict, famine and drought tend to happen in poorer parts of the world - the largest refugee populations are in places like Congo, Lebanon, Chad etc. Which is why Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon (with some monetary aid from the rest of the world) are having to deal with the majority of the 2.5 million refugees from the war.

A lot of the calls for the West to do more come from those governments because, understandably, they've got a basic humanitarian duty to look after these people but it's expensive and very unpopular at home. The UN has basically said that these countries' capacity to accept more refugees is at breaking point and given that this isn't a short-term humanitarian crisis, but ongoing for the foreseeable future other UN members need to accept more. My view is that's right. We should accept more especially the US and the UK: France have accepted 3500, Germany 5000, Sweden 14000. So far the UK and the US have accepted around 100 each and said they'd be willing to accept 500 and 2000 respectively.