Syrain Refugees Don't Care About Coming to the U.S.

Amidst all the controversy surrounding Syrian refugees coming to U.S. soil, has anyone bothered to question if they really even want to be here?

WaPo did a story, it is dated now but the question is still relevant. The articles title goes on to say that "They just want to get out of Syria."

As of 2015:

According to a new Gallup poll, a tiny fraction of would-be Syrian refugees say their desired home lies in the United States or Canada. The survey, which was conducted in January through face-to-face interviews, found that only 6 percent of Syrians who said they were contemplating leaving their country imagined North America as their chosen destination.

Now a few different factors could result in that. Logistics and finances immediately come to mind. It goes on:

An overwhelming majority, instead, envisioned their future in Europe or elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa.

Should this critical question be asked of all refugees? Given the information provided in this article wouldn't it be more prudent for everyone involved to find a more non political solution to this crisis?

Source

I am in favor of a UN controlled area in North Africa somewhere where its protected by UN forces where refugees are sent. China has entire vast cities built all over the place that is completely uninhabited. Why not have international funds simply buy or rent one of these areas for any/all refugees. It would be a win/win given Chinese investors would like to get some return on the funds they spend to continue their housing bubble.

Ghost City in North Africa

originally posted by: JinMI
The articles title goes on to say that "They just want to get out of Syria."

I'm pretty sure they just want the bombing to stop, so that they can live right there in Syria.

Instead of banning Syrian refugees from coming to the USA, why not ban weapons from leaving the USA and migrating to Syria?

If we could only ban all weapons, from all nations, from going to Syria, there wouldn't be any refugee crisis at all.

We're banning the wrong things.

a reply to: SaturnFX

Agreed. These people more than likely want to be able to rebuild their home. Should they have them back, being an miles and redtape away doesn't seem like the smartest plan.

a reply to: JinMI

For the moment, I'll forget that many (likely the majority) of alleged "refugees" are coming from Syria. Many moons ago I posted an interactive map that shows exactly where the "refugees" are coming from. (If I get a chance tomorrow or the next day I'll dig it up... hopefully the source has kept it updated).

That notwithstanding..... Why isn't the ideal to remain in their home country? Why is the prospect of demilitarizing their own turf never mentioned? Why is the conversation one of "Where will they reap benefits outside of their own nations" rather than "How can they, with the help of the rest of the normal (yes, I used the word normal) nations stay at their homes?"

Almost the entirety of the "Refugee Crisis" is a complete, total and utter myth.

It's unfortunate that so many in the West have adopted it as their religion of the day (or, if you prefer, flavor of the month).

Edit to Add: Am I supposed to find it nothing more than a simple coincidence that the alleged "surge" of "unaccompanied minors" from South America invading the United States has been taking place at the exact same time that the alleged "Syrian Refugees" (most of which aren't from Syria) are invading Europe? I guess the question is... how stupid do "they" expect me to be?

a reply to: JinMI
They are not suppossed to care. At all.

originally posted by: gription
a reply to: JinMI
They are not suppossed to care. At all.

Could you expand upon that a little?

They as in the Syrian refugees? They are just pawns?

a reply to: eluryh22

Yes, it seems as a plea to the heartstrings to make this happen. As you and Saturn and AMP have outlined, it is not the smartest or even a smart move.

They should stay in the Middle East. There are many countries much more suited to their needs and culture that could take them in, yet for some reason the West is determined to bring them into our countries. At some point you have to ask yourself "why?". Notice how many of these refugees China is taking in, approximately zero, while they demand the U.S. take in more and more. Hmm...

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: gription
a reply to: JinMI
They are not suppossed to care. At all.

Could you expand upon that a little?

They as in the Syrian refugees? They are just pawns?

Like the refugees who flock here in boats. They should be seeking safe haven from what they are fleeing, yet the ones that come here pass many safe ports of call in order to arrive here... then riot when they are detained for processing.

In other words, it's not really up to someone claiming refugee status to have a desire to be somewhere other than somewhere safe.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Syria doesn't get weapons off the West.

We've armed rebels, Syria as in the government has struggled with armaments for a while, one of the reasons they've used barrel bombs is that's all they can effectively make themselves.

More weapons - quicker fight.

More death and destruction too, more refugees.

a reply to: eluryh22

Almost the entirety of the "Refugee Crisis" is a complete, total and utter myth. 

Many are not Syrian, that's true.

But their is still many fleeing persecution. Some are economic migrants but that being said it's human instinct to wish better for oneself.

a reply to: JinMI

Most of them are aware the US was and is funding ISIS and the other rebels for years.

For many syrians i reckon it would be like Jews going to back to Germany.

a reply to: Azureblue

Salient point.

a reply to: eluryh22

Maybe the whole refugee crisis was manufactured in order to create a method to quickly spread the Muslim population throughout the world in order to create their world-wide Caliphate.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: eluryh22

Almost the entirety of the "Refugee Crisis" is a complete, total and utter myth. 

Many are not Syrian, that's true.

But their is still many fleeing persecution. Some are economic migrants but that being said it's human instinct to wish better for oneself.

There is a remarkable difference between someone wanting to improve their lot in life compared to someone fleeing for their life.

Blending the two into one category (called refugees to elicit an emotional response) helps no one.

a reply to: eluryh22
You are quite right in your statements, but virtually no-one really wants to make ANY distinction.
As I've put before there are immigrants and there are refugees. The nature of an immigrant is that he is looking for a country to relocate to permanently. A refugee seeks only temporary refuge, hence the word refugee.
Now to get to the nitty gritty of the situation. If you are an immigrant you have to go through a more rigorous entry procedure. But if you are a refugee, as you say the emotion card is played and you short cut virtually all the red tape.
So if your an immigrant or refugee what you claim and from what country you claim to be from makes the world of difference. What you do after you are in your chosen country makes no difference as if you are illegal it cost the host country an awful lot of money and trouble to 1. prove that you lied to get in and 2. to deport you to your country of origin. That's IF they can find out your home country.

a reply to: savemebarry

Another reason the distinction needs to be made.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Agreed about banning the weapons.