On refugees

Er Saudi Arabia must be one of the richest countries on earth! If they don't have a welfare system its time they did!

These country's are rich in (oil Dollars), most of that is used as back handers, bribes. Saudi Arabia is named after a family who brought it from us (I'm British).

I know people who work in their health sevice, its private and treats people who can pay.

People beg for food in Muslim country's, they always have, to be a beggar is a career choice.

I remember what the British army calls Arabs.

fullfact.org/europe/asylum-seekers-uk-and-europe/

Not quite sure where you expect refugees from North Africa and the Middle East TO go other than the EU. They are based all round the Mediterranean.

data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

They could go North East into the 'Stans, which are mostly Muslim.

Afghanistan is at war. We don't send failed asylum seekers back there, so why expect Syrians to go there.

Refugees are largely refugees because they are fleeing violence and war. Who on earth would choose to go from be war zone to another?

All the Gulf states, except Oman, have more Syrians than they did before the war started. Technically, they're not 'refugees' under international law, because they're not signatories to the 1951 UNCHR convention.

Syrians in the Gulf are classified as foreign workers or they are related to Syrians who have lived in the Gulf for decades.

europe.newsweek.com/gulf-states-are-taking-syrian-refugees-401131?rm=eu

www.arabstates.undp.org/content/rbas/en/home/ourwork/SyriaCrisis/in_depth.html

This is what is happening in neighbouring countries.
We are European, so we only hear about the effect on European countries. We don't hear that countries like Lebanon have a big population of Syrian refugees, many being allowed to work there.

None of them go to Russia, I wonder why.

A million in Saudi in 2013, daphne!
If I were Syrian, I wouldn't want to go there - out of the frying pan scenario.

It's cold, and they don't know the language would be my guess, Im68.
Anyway, they are being bombed by the Russians in cahoots with Assad. They'd just be sent back to be bombed again.

Iwas thinking of the Central Asian states, More to the west of Afghanistan. Green on this map:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Soviet_states#/media/File:USSR_Republics_Numbered_Alphabetically.png

Neither would I, especially as a woman.

Culturally, Syria has more in common with Europe than it does with Gulf states.

ps click on the forward arrow to the next map, I copied the wrong one.

Thanks durhamjen, when you put it like that its obvious.

How would they get there?

I know little about those countries, but they don't speak Arabic and they seem a bit bleak. Kazakhstan has set up two refugee camps.

Islam is about the only thing which links them and there are many different forms of Islam. It's a bit like saying that Orthodox Russians would feel comfortable living in the American bible belt.

So all pile into Europe (which can be pretty chilly) and languish in large numbers (of young men) as daylight dawns that its not the place of golden opportunity that they seem to think it is. As other posters have said the best answer is for them to remain in their own countries if only they can be returned to some sort of peace and order. That's the big problem.

Russia has accepted 5000 refugees, but the UNHCR is worried because some who have not been given refugee status there are being sent straight back to Syria.
To put it into perspective, the UK has resettled 5102.

www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/04/syrians-armenia-refugee-story-150412132753714.html

Syrians have gone to Armenia, but Armenian refugees are going to Turkey.

Western Europe is nowhere near as cold as parts of Russia and Central Europe. As dj says, there are Syrian refugees in Russia, mainly working in textiles industries. www.onenewspage.co.uk/video/20160309/4031591/Russia-Language-school-launches-integration-course-for-Syrian.htm

Here's an interesting infographic and quiz to find out how much you know about refugees.

www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/09/refugee-crisis-europe-160915102053180.html

For Syrians to get to Turkmenistan, they would have to go through Iraq and Iran.
If I were Syrian, I wouldn't fancy that, either.
No, Europe is definitely the best bet.

This dream of mine may well seem ridiculous (perhaps I read too much populous Sci-fi in my youth) but please bear with me.

There are vast areas of the earth which are uninhabited or very sparsely populated eg cold deserts, hot deserts, arctic regions, mountains, deep seas. These areas are just left alone because they are valueless UNLESS some high value commodity - oil, plutonium, gold - is discovered. Then quickly, with human ingenuity, settlements are established and maintained - at least as long as the 'Gold Rush' lasts.

Science Fiction and Fact is rife with plans for the establishment of bases and colonies on other planets/moons, with technology providing climate controlled domes and underground areas where crops can be grown and a reasonable life style maintained. If these developments can be realistically contemplated on far distant planets, then surely they are achievable here on earth. There are historic examples of underground cities, mountain kingdoms, irrigation making the deserts bloom. We already have submariners living for months under the sea, workers living on platforms in the middle of the North Sea, established research stations in the Arctic and Antarctic. With the development of wind and solar power, communications, air freight - it is no longer necessary to establish road and rail infrastructure over vast distances. Hi-tech industries, financial businesses could flourish anywhere given a skilled workforce, likewise Holiday Resorts which in the main would require a less skilled workforce. There would also be a need for support services, builders, teachers, the whole range of occupations. It would not be my choice to live in an 'artificial' environment - I get claustrophobic in a shopping mall - but a town like that would suit many people and must offer a better life than being trapped in a war torn country, or shanty town beside an overcrowded city.

That, in a nutshell is my dream. The UN to take over these valueless empty areas, use the overseas aid budgets to develop essential infrastructure, then open the doors to refugees and economic migrants alike. This would relieve the pressure on overcrowded countries, cities, whilst providing the opportunity of new start for what we used to call 'displaced persons'.

Feel free to pick this concept to pieces if you will, but can you come up with a better idea?

Wouldn't it be better just to go with what is there now?
I am thinking of places like Bangladesh, where ActionAid has provided floating platforms for people to grow crops on, where before they would have lost their crops to flooding.

www.actionaid.org.uk

I don't agree with the idea of pushing them somewhere out of sight and just supplying them with goods and no roads or rail, etc.
How are they supposed to improve their lives from there?