Saudi Arabia is a notable wealthy country with a great deal of space to spare. It has a population of only 20 million people. Over the past fifty years, it has gained £ trillions in oil revenues, while the UK has sunk into debt. Despite falling oil prices, Saudi Arabia has an estimated $750 billion in reserves. All citizens get free education and there is full employment. The state provides masses of well-paid public sector jobs. Moreover, every citizen is legally entitled to get a FREE plot of land and a loan from the government to build a house on it - currently $80,000. There is a robust growth rate of 3.8% in the past twelve months.
Why don't they take in some refugees? Why don't they welcome their Muslim brothers and sisters?
Look at Kuwait, for which America went to war in 1991. It is sitting on $410 billion in assets, according to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute. Its GDP is continuing to grow, as despite some fall in oil prices, its oil output of 2.9 million barrels a day in 2015 is enough to make every citizen a millionaire.
So why don't the refugees go there, to their rich cousins and brethren? At least they would see eye to eye about religious and cultural matters, on which all law depends.
What about the United Arab Emirates? With a population of only 5.6 million, it has a GDP that works out at nearly $30,000 a year per citizen. It has a vigorous growth rate of 4% and a healthy trade surplus. Education at school and university is free to all, as is health care. I met a charming young man from there not long ago, who told me that his father, a police chief, could afford to own two large houses, side by side, one for each wife. The ten children lived with their respective mothers and every adult in the family had their own car. He showed me photographs of the lovely gardens.
If I were a refugee from Iraq or Syria, I would be very tempted to go there, unless of course I were a Christian, in which case I would probably not feel very welcome.
And what about Iran? If it can afford a nuclear weapons programme, it can surely afford to house and feed a few thousand refugees while they get their lives up and running again. Pastor Saeed is in prison there for being a Christian, but that need not worry the majority of refugees, who are not.
Godfrey Bloom is right when he says that Europe and Great Britain should take Christian refugees, because they have nowhere else to go. Godfrey argues that we, the West, "b-gg-red up their country". Personally I have never invaded Iraq, or supported extremist rebel and terrorist groups in Libya or Syria by any means, and I don't think I can be held responsible for the behaviour of President Obama, the CIA, the moronic Coalition Government or our present rulers. However, it is true that "If every parish church in the US and UK of any denomination sponsored a family there would be no mass immigration anywhere. Christians, especially the gobby Church of England Bishops could open their palaces, and our Foreign Aid budget could be diverted to fund support for these refugees in each diocese. The refugees would assimilate almost instantaneously and an example would be set for Muslim countries to do the same for their brethren."
A sensible, fair and sane solution.
At the End of the Day
2 hours ago