Actually your accusation that I am xenophobic is pathetic. I am the one who has been stating for weeks that this refugee crisis needs to be addressed. This will require that all countries in the region need to step up including the wealthy gulf states who have not lifted a finger to help or admitted a single refugee. All you want to do is dispute the facts. Only after there is agreement on the facts - then a plan can be mapped out to address the issue. The current facts are: 1) The wealthy gulf states have not admitted a single refugee. 2) Europe (as well as Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey) are being overwhelmed with Syrian refugees. 3) There are a number of economic immigrants mixed into the refugees from non-war torn countries. The immigrants are not refugees. 4) There is no clear source of centralized funding to help the situation. 5) The world is not collectively addressing the problem. I asked you earlier in this thread - how do you address this issue but I have not seen you respond yet.
I said "not you". Many of your points are correct, though I highly doubt "not one". In sociology, migration is analyzed in terms of push and pull factors. If I am a baker, and my bakery (my living) has been flattened by a bomb, and I fear another bomb could hit my home, and another country seems to offer something better, so I can continue to feed my family, am I a migrant (pulled by opportunity) or a refugee (pushed by fear)?
So tell me about the civil strife in oil-rich Nigeria since 1970 - a country more peaceful and economically developed than its neighbors. The issue with Boko Haram militants only impact the north-eastern states of Yobe and Borno in Nigeria - and actually are more of an issue in Chad, Cameroon and Niger than Nigeria.
I apologize - I missed the "not you". I agree that the rich gulf states may have more than zero refugees in them. However this is not because the Saudi's let the Syrians in as refugees; it is because the refugees joined existing family members who have been present as guest workers in Saudi Arabia for decades. The policy of all the wealth gulf state is to turn back refugees. I will agree the factors behind immigration are complex. However there are clearly defined UN rules regarding who is defined as a refugee -- and a series of international conventions regarding providing refugees with shelter, food, and immigration status in host nations.
So let me ask the obvious follow-up question. The civil strife with Boko Haram impacts only 2 of the 37 states in Nigeria. From your perspective this makes immigrants from Nigeria refugees. The reality is that Mexico has much worse civil strife in several states with drug gangs. Does this make all 11 Million illegal immigrants from Mexico in the U.S. refugees?
"2 in 37" does make the situation sound small, but the impact can be measured differently: "Boko Haram has killed more than 17,000 people since 2009, including over 10,000 in 2014, in attacks occurring mainly in northeast Nigeria. 650,000 people had fled the conflict zone by August 2014, an increase of 200,000 since May; by the end of the year 1.5 million had fled.[20][21] Corruption in the security services and human rights abuses committed by them have hampered efforts to counter the unrest.[22][23] The group have carried out mass abductions including the kidnapping of 276 schoolgirls from Chibok in April 2014.[24]"
Yes... and compare that to the death toll of over 120,000 killed and 27,000 missing in the Mexican drug gang unrest during roughly the same period in time. In 2012, the number of killed by November was at 18,161. In 2013, the number of killed by November was at 10,929. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War If you expect the Nigerians to be welcomed as refugees to Europe then you need to apply the same policy to Mexicans illegally in the U.S. Are you prepared to do that? The first step is putting all the illegals in large refugee processing camps and processing their applications for asylum.