One of the top posts for the month so far was this one: Why should the US and Europe take Syrian refugees while the Gulf Arab States take ZERO?
And, since stories like those at Breitbart flew around the world, the Gulf Arab states have had to defend the charges by claiming they do ‘welcome’ Syrians to live in their wealthy countries—-as guest workers!
Refugees become permanent citizens, guest workers do not!
Readers, it is really important that you understand what is happening when the UN High Commissioner for Refugees puts demands on Western countries throughout Europe, Australia, Canada and New Zealand—it is telling us that we must PERMANENTLY resettle the ‘refugees’ with no expectation that they will ever go home even if the civil war in Syria ended next month!
The refugees we take in eventually become naturalized (voting!) citizens. Not so for those Muslim guest workers going to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East.
I think many Americans, who haven’t followed this complex issue, do not understand this concept. Most assume that the ‘refugees’ will go home someday! Paul Nachman, writing at VDARE, addressed this issue here last week.
This is a really good explanation from Deborah Amos at National Public Radio:
As the numbers mount, with Europe overwhelmed, the blame game has begun. Why don’t the richest Gulf Arab states — the diplomatic and financial sponsors of Syria’s rebel groups — resettle these desperate refugees?
Even Gulf Arab citizens are raising the question: #ShameOnArabRulers is trending on Middle Eastern Twitter accounts.
[….]
Gulf officials are on the defensive and have been forced to address the issue publicly.
[….]
The Saudi Foreign Ministry challenged the charges by issuing official numbers that are impossible to verify independently, saying “the Kingdom has received around 2.5 million Syrians since the beginning of the conflict.”
[….]
While it’s true that the Gulf States have allowed thousands of Syrians to come on work visas, many Syrians say they face severe restrictions in these countries. Some have decided they would rather risk the difficult road to Europe.
“I will live here for five years, ten years, and then what?” says Dahlia, a Syrian who fled her home in Aleppo and joined relatives in the Gulf city-state of Dubai. “You never belong, you never feel you are safe, your residency can be canceled at any time and then what? Go where?”
Citizenship is not an option, even for workers who stay for decades.
[….]
The fact is that Gulf countries don’t accept refugees for resettlement because none of their governments officially recognize the legal concept. Even in Jordan, Syrians fleeing the civil war are called “guests,” the expectation being that they won’t stay.
Arab governments refused to sign the 1951 international convention on refugee rights, says Nadim Shehadi, head of the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. “The convention gives a mandate to UNHCR to do permanent settlement in the host countries or resettlement in third-party states,” says Shehadi.
This was unacceptable to Arab governments 60 years ago — and still is today.
So much for Muslim charity toward fellow Muslims. So, tell me again why the US must take mostly Muslim Syrians?
There is much more at NPR, continue reading here.
Go here to see who has signed on to the 1951 convention and who hasn’t.