Yuyutsu,
Why do people flock to Western Nations in the first place ? I realise there are several reasons but this also depends on where they come from.
In the USA most are from Latin America to seek better economic conditions whereas those from the Middle East have a political agenda.
Which group do you think is the more genuinely needy ? And, which group do you think is hell-bent in disrupting the host country ? Which countries have taken in more refugees than others & what do you think might have changed many to start thinking what you referred to as "oppose having to share the land with people of other ethnicities and cultures" I'll make it easy for you, just watch videos from Europe & America !

Indy,

You really are pathetic in your insulated from reality little world, "those from the Middle East have a political agenda". The vast majority of migrants, refugees whatever you want to call them, from wherever they come, do not have a "political agenda". In fact you, a refugee yourself, demonstrate an extreme political agenda on this very forum, perhaps we should cut of your welfare, and give you the boot!

from wherever they come,
Paul1405,
Your above remark indicates your utter lack of understanding & commitment to a better society ! You are wasting a lot of oxygen many could use for better use than you !

Dear Indyvidual,

I don't ask people why they want to come - I respect their privacy.

I don't believe that many immigrants "flock to Western Nations" or to any other nations for that matter (though Israel may be an abnormal exception) - instead, as in my own case, people wish to live in certain countries, regions or continents and it only so happens that there are already other people living there, some of whom considering themselves a "nation" (what a nonsensical concept) and think they own that land. For the typical immigrant their presence is only a nuisance, not an inspiration, yet usually a nuisance they can tolerate and live with.

I don't think that anyone needs to actively take in refugees or give them anything, yet when refugees do arrive, nobody has a moral right to kick them out either - unless of course if they come for the purpose of disrupting the existing population, but these I believe are just a handful and mostly mentally ill, or unless they cannot help but disrupt others.

Indeed, I acknowledge that certain Muslim people (not all) cannot help but disrupt others because they are extremely sexually suppressed on arrival and cannot cope well when encountering a permissive, tantalising society. Still, while they might end up disrupting, they do not originally come with the intention to disrupt. I think that introducing sexual-acclimatisation programs can help there. Though the Quran may be cited as an excuse for that suppression, the true problem is not Islam, but Middle-Eastern culture.

The people who oppose having to share the land with people of ALL other ethnicities and cultures, not specifically with Muslims, typically do so because they were taught as children that their race and/or culture are superior and privileged. This is quite different from others who are essentially happy to share but understandably find they have practical difficulties with sexually-suppressed arrivals.

Yuyutsu,
Whilst I feel for people who are persecuted I also feel for those who end up having to disrupt their lives to deal with refugees.
The question as to who has the responsibility to deal with the welfare of refugees is the issue. My question is why are people refugees in the first place ? Should refugees be considered refugees only in countries they choose to come to ? Why don't they stop being refugees once they're away from their oppressors ? Should refugees be supplied with the means of going back to fight their oppressors instead of simply let take over without resistance ?

Dear Indyvidual,

Your questions are based on the distorted reality that was artificially created by the UNHCR refugee convention.

In my view, this convention caused more damage than good, and should be dropped.

Only some 100 years ago, people were able to freely migrate around the world: they did not have to be considered "refugees" for that or prove that they were persecuted, nor did they receive any financial support from the state they arrived in. Most often, they were supported by their own ethnic communities, by those who arrived before them, or from other philanthropic bodies - or else they starved.

This state of affairs ought to be restored, allowing anyone to go anywhere, subject only to fulfilling three basic tests: character, non-terrorism and no infectious diseases.