What should happen to Syrian refugees?

Over 6 million Syrians fled the country during the civil war and, although some have since returned home, many have not. Turkey is the country that hosts the most Syrian refugees. It currently supports over 3 million Syrians who did not feel safe in their own country.

Josie Delap is The Economist newspaper’s Middle East editor. Watch her explain how the recent news in Syria has led to some big decisions for Syrian refugees.

Video not working? follow this link: https://vimeo.com/1047823239/c011ca95fa?share=copy

Now that the Assad regime has fallen, countries must decide what happens next for Syrian refugees. Some of the options that have been suggested include:

  • A icon

    A = All Syrians that feared the Assad regime should return to Syria now that it is over

  • B icon

    B = Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy

  • C icon

    C = No further support should be given to Syrian refugees until people know more about how safe or unsafe the country is now


Comments (281)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!

  • I think that waiting until we have more information about the new Syrian government before doing anything about the refuges is the correct option since we need to think about this from multiple perspectives. If you were a Syrian and settled and happy in another country you wouldn't want to be forced to leave your new friends in your new country and be forced to start over again. And Syria might not be 100% safe yet.
    I have a friend who is Syrian and he was born in Egypt after his family fled so he hasn't even been there before, wants to stay here and his parents are both successful doctors who are helping this country.
    On the other hand you need to think about the countries where these people are coming to. There are people like my friend's parents who are helping the country but there is also people who need help themselves and helping them will take lots of the country's time, energy and money that they need to use on their own people.
    For an example in Turkey there are more than 3 million refuges but those refuges are welcomed and treated well.
    In conclusion I think after looking at both sides of the coin we should house the refuges for now until things have calmed down in Syria and it is safer before we decide what to do.

    1. I thought the observations about your friend were really helpful here, and it is a thoughtful response. Well done!

    2. I agree on the topic and think this too that the syrian refugees should not be forced to go back to their home land until their is no confirmation about the safety of people from the government.The syrian refugees should themselves decide on the subject because they have a happy and settled life in other countries then shifting them again to a place associated with memory of criticizm and full of struggle would not be the right option.Also we should view this matter from the citizens perspective because if the refugees feel safer and more joyful in other foreign lands then they should do the desired and should not be forced to leave the country they're living in unless they feel the urge to.
      In summary i feel that after viewing both the aspects and analyzing them that the syrian refugees should not be forced to take any unfavorable decision until the situation of Syria has turned to s better point.

  • I think that b is the correct one.I think this because, if I had to leave, I would not want to come back until I know it is completely safe here. Also, if I liked it where I went, I might want to stay there.

    1. I like that you considered both sides and showed empathy, good job. What could be done to attract people back?

    2. I agree with you because but with A there is a point because what if the countries get over crowded and with not wanting to go back till it's safe that's exactly what C is

      1. I agree with you, but i think C is a bit cruel as no futher support will be given. What about the syrians who a have had their lives destroyed and their homes destroyed. Where would they go then ?

        1. I agree because i think that the people would receive aid from other countries and probably a rebuilding program would be in place. On the other hand, countries should let people say until safe to return. thank you !

    3. I agree for b because its good for then and it is nice for them to be happy and they can speak in there languges as they use to do

    4. In my opinion that is so right ,due to the power of happiness, I mean personally If I would be a Syrian citizen in U.S.A or U.K , I would definetly stay there because of the safety that this countries give , due to the harmless society.
      Going back to Syria would mean to let your good life , the manners that you have been used to since being in there, the people , possible friends, or family , all of this to the risky possibility of being trapped and never get back again where youa ctually feel comfortable.

    5. I strongly agree with you, and think the same way. Syrians should be allowed to choose whether they want to return to Syria or not. Not only because they might not feel safe there, but also because they might have created a whole new life in their new country and they feel happy and glad there, and furthermore, they should have the right of choosing, and their decisions should not be taken by someone who is not in their lives, even if they are responsibles of their well-being.
      And, of course I completely disagree with options A and C. Syrians should not be forced to come back if they do not want to and they should be given the right to choose. And of course Syrians should still receive the support they are given.

      1. Yes, Option B seems very logical from my perspective this is due to the fact that you earlier mentioned which said 'they have created a new life', these Syrians left their home country to another place out of fear, imagine the challenges they would have faced which includes:(a). fitting in (b). adapting to a new culture probably even learning a new language imagine a child that left Syria at age 3-8 their formative years they are obviously going to be trained in the norms and values of the country they were trained, having such people leave a particular place can be very destablizing they have to leave their friends and go back to syria probably stop school because Syria isn't exactly stable at this point which might affect their growth.

    6. I strongly agree with you. I also think that the Syrian people should be able to choose if they want to stay in the country they are already in, or come back if they choose too because, like you said, it may not seem safe to them.

    7. I agree with you that the correct answer is B because if Syria isn't safe now and I'm In another country I would wanna stay there because it will be better to stay in a safer country then a dangerous one.

    8. I agree with you. They should be allowed to stay where they are, and if they are forced to leave they should be given a tent or some food so they can survive for some time in Syria until they have a home, a job, and food.

    9. Hi blithesome_didgeridoo,

      I agree because if the citizens from Syria still think that there country is unsafe still then they should be able to stay where they are.

      Although I think A as well as if it is a place like LA they are going through fires and the firemen are low on water it may be too unsafe for them, aswell as a place England doesn't have many homes so all the people from Syria who come to England may have to share a home.

      I mainly agree as if they feel safe in the country they are in they can stay in the country they are in. The people from Turkey 🇹🇷 are willingly accepting the citizens from Syria so they can have a lovely place to stay while Syria 🇸🇾 is getting back on their feet.

      After Syria has stableized itself they can then be sent back if it is a place like England, Los Angeles or if they are there the Caribbean islands as thy are small and don't have a lot of space.

      With b people shouldn't be forced to go back but it may be harder for other country's with people already homeless or looking for a home that was taken by a Syrian refugees.

    10. Hey, blithesome_didgeridoo! I agree with you, because if I were a Syrian refugee, I wouldn't want to go back to my home country until it was truly safe ! So I also think that b is the best choice.

      Let me know your opinion about the other options, as well!

    11. I agree with you that B is the right one because the refugees should be able to have their own choice with whether or not they should leave the country they're staying in . Moreover I believe if they left they would have no place to stay as the buildings and important buildings like hospitals or schools .As well as this there country is still in a bad place with no way to sort out who will rule .So I believe that option B is the best way to sort out the refugees from Syria.

    12. I couldn't agree more with you due to the fact that, if one is used to living somewhere, feels welcome and finds himself well adapted, despite being a foreigner, needn't return to his motherland. Moreover, we shall bear in mind that it is beneficial for other countries to have settled foreigners since these people not only work and as a result support the country, but also make a good impression and even an inspiration for other states to help the ones in need.
      Another reason why I allege that B is the best of all three answers is because option C shows that people are afraid to send help since they are not informed if the environment is safe enough to visit that indicates their lack of empathy for the people in need and option A in comparison to option B, couldn't be further from being the best choice.

    13. In my opinion the best choice would be option B. Thinking about a Syrian Refugee children, they may have started school in their new country, they may have settled in their new area and made new friends. Perhaps they would find it traumatizing being back in their town and cities, where everything has been destroyed. Some children may even be orphans and have no adult relatives left to look after them. Therefore I strongly believe that all refugees that are settled and happy in their new homes should be allowed to remain.

    14. yes i agree because if they are settled in that countries they should be able to stay but then if the goverment can not help them then things will start to go wrong so i think that they should be given the choice to see if they want to stay or not

  • In my opinion I choose B=Syrians and should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy. I chose B because according to the research I have done most of the people that live in Turkey are welcoming to the refugees that come from Syria. So if the people are welcomed and like living there and there is no problem they should be allowed to stay where they are comfortable. Now if the people of turkey were not welcoming I would have chosen C=No further support should be given to the Syrian refugees until people know how safe or unsafe the country is now. I would have chosen C because I can totally understand if the people were mad that more than three million refugees were coming to there country and the government was spending over six million dollars using there tax money on those refugees. If I Was living there right now I would be furious. To sum it all up I chose B because if the people of turkey are welcoming and the refugees of Syria are comfortable they should be allowed to stay if they want.

    1. I really like how you give reasons for your choices, and say what would change your mind.

    2. I agree because the refugees are not all scared of the Assad regime although they had good reason to be. I think that the refugees should be allowed to stay in Syria until the unrest has died down because we do not know if Syria will be better with the new regime. So in my opinion, if the new regime doesn't improve the situation in the country, the refugees should work towards becoming legal inhabitants of the countries in which they find themselves Because no matter how much one is attached to their homeland, if it threatens your wellbeing, it's probably not worth it. I would have gone with option A if it has been proven that Syria would improve without the Assad regime.

      1. I disagree because...
        Going back to the country might cause more problems as Syria has over 20 million people residing there. Anything can happen, a disease outbreak can happen or a country can attack them. In my opinion most people that left Syria should be settled by now and i am certain they love their lives than they did in Syria. So sending Syrians back is just increasing the amount of money used to get fixed.
        So in my view they should not be forced to go back if they want to remain in the country they are residing in, let them be but if they want to come back the should come back.
        Thank you !!!

        1. I strongly agree with you, I see no point in forcing the refugees to abandon their hard earned livelihoods and live in a country that most likely could trigger their trauma. I like that you added the point of the government not being able to handle the extra people because since the civil war has just been resolved, the government likely doesn't enough resources to provide for the added population of the refugees as well

    3. I agree with you, Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy, i believe this is the best option especially as the host country offers protection and support. I would also want to say that some of these refugees might have already built a life where they are like having a home, friends, work etc. If the host country is willing to let them stay back then I think they should remain there because leaving will be difficult for them. The host country might also provide better opportunites like education for their children, employment, better living conditions etc which might not be availabe in their country as a lot of things will need to be put in place before their country can offer what the host country offers.

    4. I agree because with you in choosing B because if your a refugee starting a new life in a more stabilised country like Turkey they should be able to choose if they would like to continue staying in the country or go back to Syria, now that the Assad dominion has fell . It is imperative that Syrians should make the decision to stay in Syria or seek asylum because Syria is still not guaranteed safety as the new rebel leader is a former member of the ISIS so Syrian people are walking a tightrope because the Syrian president said that he will be fair and he is known as a man that sticks to his words but look at Donald Trump he said that he going to do all these amazing things but they are yet to be done so the Syrians should either choose between guaranteed safety or take the gamble and return to back to there family and friends in Syria .

    5. I agree with you fiery_television and my reasoning is because there is almost always a reason to leave your country, the most popular cause is war and destruction. Therefore, if a refugee's home is destroyed, they have the right to leave their country and keep them and their family safe. Some people may disagree because it is not another country's responsibility to take care of Syria's refugees. However, they have been forced to withdraw from their homes and loved ones so the government has two choices: either take them in or leave them without a home .In conclusion, I think B is priority over the rest.

    6. I agree because I was also going to choose c but for kinda the same reason I chose B but I almost chose C but for this reason I didn't: more than three million refugees were coming to the country and the government was spending extra money on refugees. I chose b because what if they are already comfortable in The countries they are in and they want to stay so they have to have the choice to stay or go back to Syria. Meanwhile A forces them to go back to Syria. What if they have already become comfortable with their countries?

    7. I agree with you. Syrians should be allowed to stay in any country they have fled to until they find it convenient to go back to Syria.

    8. I am totally in favour of you...it is absolutely true that Syrian refugees should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they want to,it is absolutely there choice what they want to do. If they are living a happy life in their new countries they should be allowed to stay there. Also they might be settled and might have been earning their livelihoods in there new countries in which they have been living for several years. And also, probably no Syrian refugee would want to return to Syria because Syria has still not recovered completely from the warm, and still there,the situation is still not so good and the country is still not stable. So, mostly everyone would want to live in a stable and developed country instead of a country which is not stable like Syria.

    9. "I agree with fiery_televison It’s true that many people in Turkey have been welcoming to Syrian refugees, and if they’ve built a life there and feel safe, it makes sense that they should have the option to stay. At the same time, I get why some locals might feel overwhelmed, especially when resources are stretched. It’s a tough situation with no easy answers, but I like how you’re thinking about both the human side and the practical challenges. It’s a conversation that definitely needs understanding and balance!"

    10. I agree with your choice of option B, as I believe that the well being, should be a priority in any resettlement process. As you mentioned, if Syrians have found safety and aceptance in their new country, forcing them to return back, could expose them to unnecesary risks, and make more unstable their lives once again.
      Even though the war in Syria has decreased in intensity, that does not mean the country is completely safe or in good conditions to received the millions of refugees who have left.Mny areas still face politicall, economical and social problems, wich could make reintegration difficult.
      I also understand your point regarding the ecomic burden that refugees may represent for the citizens of the host country. It is valid to be concerned about the use of public resources, but I belive that goverments can find a balance between providing support to refugees and covering the needs of their own population. In many cases refugees can contribute to the host country economy, by integrating them into the labor market and adding value with their work and skills.
      Finally, I agree that as long as refugees are setteled and welcomed, they should have the option to stay in their new homes. The decission of returning to Syria should be voluntary and based on safe and good conditions.
      Thak you for reading my comment.

  • I suggest option A, although those Syrians had to leave their country for some reason, whether it was by will or not. The inner love for the motherland is true for everyone, the comfort and safety we feel in mother country can never be replaced, the feeling of being with our own people, speaking same language,same culture, same cuisine, same nationality is real life. So the Syrians who fled Syria should return to syria

    1. Do you think that Syrians who fled Syria, and are now very happy living in another country, should also return to Syria?

      1. They didnot migrate happily to the country in which they are living now, if they had migrated happily that is a different scenario, but here they left their motherland out of fear,now after things have returned to the normal condition ,after the Assad regime, they will for sure want to return to their motherland.

        1. I can understand your Point, but I don’t quite agree with it. You say that things have returned to normal conditions in Syria, but that‘s not really true. The Assad‘s aren‘t in power anymore but the government still isn‘t stable. We don‘t know if the new President is better or if he‘s just as bad as the Assads. Just because he says he wants peace doesn‘t mean he will keep his promise. You also mention that the people were forced to leave their country- which is true, but there are a lot of people who still like to live in their new Country. There are for example a lot of Syrian refugees who now have become doctors in their new country and maybe they don‘t want to leave their job because they already live in good conditions.

        2. Hello @passionate_aspect ! I respectfully disagree with your opinion but don't you think that they might have started their new lives in their new country and might be earning a good amount of money and living a happy life. I do agree that they had to leave their motherland in fear but , why should they be forced to return back to the country where it's major parts like Aleppo, Hama , Der Zor and many more are completely destroyed? I mean if the refugees are happy with their new lives then they shall not be forced to go back to Syria. I hope you understand what I mean to say.

      2. I do not think that all the Syrians who fled Syria are now very happy because no matter the problem, there is this freedom that you feel in your country that is deprived from you in other countries no matter the comfortability, and I think that this is what the Syrians that fled need even though they are even more comfortable there than in their own country.
        So, in conclusion, I say that not all the Syrians that fled their country are happy even though they are more comfortable in the country than their own.

      3. In my opinion, if the Syrians still feel unsafe and unprotected by the new government, they have all of the rights to stay in Turkey or whichever other country which has kindly and considerately taken them in. Although the new prime minister of Syria, Mohammed Al-Bashir, is said to be a trustworthy man, many refugees might still be uncomfortable with moving back to the threatening country they had flee from. Last Tuesday, on the 14th of January, addressing his fellow Syrians asking for “stability and calm", he announced that he would serve as the head of a transitional government until March 1. Even though many terrorised people would not like to move back to Syria, some people may feel comfortable once more and move back. Otherwise, Syria would not have many people left and other countries such as Lebanon, Germany, Iraq, Egypt, etc will start to get overpopulated. This would not be such a good approach as more people means more land, and more land means other countries donating the land or selling the land. If the other neighbouring countries are not comfortable, they would probably fight for the land and that would eventually end up in war. Thank you for reading, and goodbye for now. (•ᴗ•)

        1. I strongly agree with what you are saying, because they have been through really dificult situations, and many of them still in a totally vulnerable enviroment and situation, and they havent received any support from the goverment till now, so they probably dont want to go back to Syria, and taking into acount that there are 6.3 million of Syrian refugees and they are mainly in Turkey, that in a future can be an issue, if one day Turkish goverment decide they are not to welcome more Syrian refuees, and anothar conflict could start. Thanks for reading my coment.

      4. Well this situation is double faced and hence would have different perspectives of individuals, however I think that Syrians who fled from their homeland in a hope of better future, if end up in countries that do not welcome refugees and the residents are disrespectful and stereotypical it adds to their problems.Like, imagine you are a refugee coming from a war struck place like Syria, not being accepted in workplaces, not feeling included in your neighbourhood and experience lack of sympathy at school, how miserable would it be that the country you moved to in a hope for a better future making you feel cornered or ignored, if the stability returns in their country then they can leave to avoid such distraught. Now if these Syrians end up in countries which makes them feel loved, accepted, comfortable and heard, can certainly stay in those countries if they wish to. Summing it up, I think that it depends on the individuals and the situations around them that compel them to stay or leave, however if the situations normalize then they should return to their homeland.

    2. I agree to 70% of what you are saying but I want to ask a question, now that the Syrians have fled to another country despite the fact of the love for their mother and would they want to start a fresh new begining. Some of these Syrians have settled in other countries and are progressing How would they just stop their life in the country they are staying in and go to Syria to start a fresh knew beginning.
      On the other hand I also think that they should come to back to their motherland or some of the traditions might be lost.

    3. I disagree with your comment passionate_aspect, but I agree with you towards you point that says, "The inner love for the motherland is true for everyone, the comfort and safety we feel in mother country can never be replaced, the feeling of being with our own people, speaking same language, same culture, same cuisine, same nationality is real life" . but from my own perspective I would say that if for instance if ones home was being attacked he or she would be afraid to go back due to the fact that he or she was attacked in their OWN HOME. so I would personally say that if the Syria find a place that they can call a home they should make it a home, they should be allowed to stay, as long as they are settled and happy there.
      Thanks.

    4. I disagree because not everyone has the same passion and love for their land as you think. I say this because of how strictly ruler and food scarcity was going on at the time when you experience something as harsh as this especially as a young child. Imagine growing up seeing people on the side of the street starving and scrawny and having those memories build up in your head from a young child as you grow older you'll start to paint this picture in your head of your motherland as scary or strict. Just imagine how hard it must have been on not only the kids but the parents. Would they stay in this dangerous environment or do they risk fleeing to a nearby country. These life changing decisions are the ones they have to make. Then for them to flee just to be forcefully brought back in just a matter of years. That can take a very big toll on someone's mental health. If all of these aspects were thought about when trying to regain all of their 600 million citizens that fled back, then for them to suffer from PTSD, mental health problems, and ect . To me it just seems too risky to uproot someone who found a safe place for their family. This is why I disagree.

    5. I do get your point but at the same time, the country is in a pretty bad condition right now. All the buildings are destroyed and it would be pretty hard to live there right now.
      If they feel happy and settled in their country they should stay there since that is what it makes them feel good. Although if they really miss their country or maybe relatives that couldnt move out they have the freedom to come back but they should have the option.

    6. I can understand your point of view, but if I where in their situation, when everything is uncertain and possible dangerous I would be afraid to go back to my home country.
      I believe citizens of Syria should have the right to vote all over the world not be forced to abandon their home, jobs and friends they made just for an unknown future that could turn out to be worse. So obviously i agree with option B, because after all they suffered they deserve better, but if people want something to actually change and maybe become a peaceful, democratic country that one day would be prosperous, living their lives and ignoring what is happening in their country is not the answer.
      Take for example the ucrainean refugees that had fled to the nearest countries, including Romania. For almost three years they had bulit a life, making connections, just to be required to get back where they have nothing ? (that supposedly if peace is settled between the countries)

    7. I disagree with your opinion, although you have a crucial point in how you can never replace your mother country it would unfair be for them to be forced back. They had restarted their entire life, their home, friends and community. Having to move back into a country after building a safe space for yourself wouldn't be fair for someone who was happy and comfortable in where they were living. They might still feel unsafe, and unsure about returning since more civil wars could break out. I understand how you feel about your mother country, but other people would disagree considering the fact that many other countries are more developed, safe, and protected. These are my reasons on why option A would be extremely unfair to many humans who are happy, and safe where they are.

    8. In my opinion I would think its b because if you think about it Syrians should be able to live where they feel comfortable nobody should force them to go back and plus it could still be dangerous for them to go back and you also never know if they still have some trauma when they used to live in Syria.
      Syrians should feel safe and protected in where there living and no one can control that and force them to go back
      so I'm strongly disagreeing with you.

    9. I disagree (I chose option B) because if the syrians enjoy where they are living they should be allowed to stay and shouldn't be forced to move, and I didn't chose C because that means they stop helping everyone who left like they stop sending financial support which is unfair. Plus the people in turkey (where most Syrian refugees are) are super kind and welcoming.The only thing that could change my mind is if they weren't welcoming then that would make me want them to go somewhere else where they would be welcome or go right back to Syria.

    10. I respect your opinion from but I'll have to disagree, yes it is true that many Syrians who are living their lives as refugees in other countries might feel homesick for their motherland every now and then, but you must also acknowledge the fact that many refugees might have already set up new livelihoods and might finally be on their way to stability, in a country that allows them to act the way they want without constant brain washing. Another point to be noted is that due to the civil war, a lot of the refugee must be traumatized and now getting the professional help and support they deserve. By pulling them back in the country that was the cause of their trauma could negatively impact their mental health, leading to rash and careless decisions during the ,hopefully possible, elections.

    11. Even though Syria might be at a better state than the one it was when the immigrants left, I believe that many Syrians have already settled down in the west, or neighboring countries and moving back would only make the crisis that is ongoing in Syria right now (Poverty, no hospitals and other necessary facilities destroyed) worse, in fact 2/3 Syrians live in harsh conditions. I understand your point that most Syrians would prefer to be in a country that is homo-ethnic, but due to everything ongoing, not only will it not help the state of the country, but would worsen their lives. Most Syrians are living in fine conditions in the countries they moved in and without discrimination (at least not anymore). As a fact, most German clinics, businesses and care facilities are dependent on Syrian Immigrants. So, given the above statements I believe that Option B would be the best, since it also gives Syrians the free will to choose whether or not to move. That would be the greatest choice for people wanting to return to their countries and those that are happy in their new homes. Lastly, it's also important to note that the country as of right now does not have a stable enough government to handle millions of refugees moving back.

    12. Hi passionate_aspect,
      I actually disagree. This is because of they chose A then all the Syrians would have to return to their home country and to a new president. We know that the president said that Syrians would have more fun and freedom but there’s always a chance that he’s lying. So if Ahmed al-Sharaa (the president) is lying and all the evacuees are sent back to Syria, they will be forced to do things they din’t want to do and live the rest of their lives in misery. Do we really want that to happen to the poor Syrians? I don’t think so. B seems to be a popular answer but if more and more Syrian evacuees come to other countries, there won’t be space or jobs so they might have to live in poverty and we don’t want that to happen either. That leaves C. I think that C is the best option as citizens in Syria can learn more about the Syrian government and see if the president kept his word about happiness and freedom. If he did then of course the Syrians should go back to their hometown so they can live happily, but that might not occur so we should think ahead. Even though Syrians might overpopulate the countries they are living in, that is not happening right now so we are fine for the minute. In conclusion, I think C is the best decision.

    13. I respectfully disagree with this statement . While a deep love for one's mother land is natural , returning to Syria may not be a safe or realistic option for many who have fled . Millions of Syrians have left their country due to war, violence, and fear for lives . Even though the Assad regime has fallen the situation in Syria remains uncertain and stability will take some time to rebuild. For many refugees , their new home have provided safety , education , and opportunities that they might not have in Syria right now. Forcing or expecting them to return , ignores the hardship they have already endured . Instead they should have the freedom to decide whether to return based on personal circumstances and Syria's future stability. True patriotism is not just about returning but also contributing to their country in any way possible , whether from abroad or within Syria when it becomes safe

  • I will definitely choose option b . Even though Syrians did choose to go to other countries on their own, eventually they had to migrate to have a safer life . They will surely want to go back to their motherland but currently we cannot determine if Syria is completely safe or not . And if I was one of the refugees , even if I had immense love for my motherland I will not want to go back Syria until I knew everything was safe . If I was still be forced to go back to Syria I will always have a sense of fear in my mind . This what I think but of course others point of view may differ.

    1. I agree because... I honestly think it would always be the right thing to give them a choice and option b is really the only option here that gives them that.

    2. I agree with your point of view, but don't you think that they need to be strong and fight for their mother land? Because if i was one of the refugees i will be urge to take back my property which my mother land. but by the way. what do you think?

    3. I agree because...I am not 100% sure if their country is totally safe and peaceful for them to return to because war might rise again. So it is better for them to remain where they are and continue to be happy than to go back to Syria and later regret it.

  • I think Option b is the best. You can‘t just deport the syrians who live in other countries back to Syria. I think they should be able to think about if they want to stay where they are or if they want to Go back to Syria and help for example the people who are suffering. The government isn‘t stable yet. If you bring the Syrians living in other countries back to Syria, they could suffer again because the situation might get worse. The Syrians should choose if they want to stay or go back Syria. It is their option.

    1. I actually think option C is the best choice. I do agree with your reasons, happy_wolf, that A is totally out the question. This is because it is not fair to just send citizens back to their home country just because someone new has taken charge. However, I think C, so that we can know more about the new government and Ahmed al-Sharaa himself. Then we can discover whether he was a good choice as president or a bad choice. If he’s a really nice person who lets Syrians have happiness and freedom then they should definitely go back to Syria. However, if he is a strict dictator enforcing religious rules, then yes Syrians should be allowed the choice of whether to return to Syria. Anyway, it all really depends on Ahmed al-Sharaa, they should wait until we know more about him. Thank you.

      1. I agree with C too. If the Syrians find out that Ahmed al-Sharaa is a nice person, the Syrian refugees would be able to go back to Syria. But if most or some Syrians wants to stay in other countries, mainly Turkey then it would be overpopulated. Then the other countries would have to buy land. Some countries wouldn't want to sell their land and that could lead to arguments then it could lead to war which Syrians have to suffer war again.

      2. I understand your point humble_elderberry and I agree that it is more important to know about the new government before making big decisions. However I respectfully disagree with the idea that support for Syrian refugees should stop. Many refugees left Syria because they had fear in their mind about their safety. Even though the Assad regime is over, Syria might still not be safe. If we stop helping them now , they might struggle to find , food , water and basic needs for survival. That is why I think that option B is the best choice . If a refugee is happy and well settled in a new country , they should not be forced to leave . But if Syria becomes safe and they want to return they should have the freedom to do so .Therefore instead of stopping the support , we should continue helping them , while keeping an eye on Syria's situation.

        1. Hi tranquil_apple,
          Thank you for replying and I see your point but there are massive cons against option B. If some refugees do stay in Syria then the country they are living in might become overpopulated so lots of the people could end up living in poverty. We don’t want that to happen because people who used to live in Syria could be living in poverty as well as people who have lived there all their life. So it would just end up being a lose-lose. I don’t think A is the right decision either because the president of Syria could turn out to be even worse than the Assad family regime and then all the Syrians would have to suffer. Therefore, I do think option C is the best choice because none of the countries have become overpopulated yet and the evacuees are living there fine. However, until we have more information about the president of Syria we should wait until helping the refugees. In conclusion, I disagree and still think the best decision is C.

          1. I disagree. I don't think C is the best choice. While it would be more viable financially, it wouldn't make sense humanitarian wise. Your Argument of overpopulation does not work as many countries Syrians fled to are stable countries which are not at the brink of collapse. And actually, many of them help the local economy. In Germany for example, there are more than 287.000 Syrian Refugees employed in the sectors of healthcare, hospitality and construction, sectors which are suffering major work shortages. So it would come at a big loss if all of them left Germany, for example. C is very counter-intuitive. Let's all be on similar terms here. We all want Syrians to suffer the least as possible and us also, right? By employing C, we are doing the exact opposite: We are throwing Syrians in a kind of Limbo, which does not leave them any options as they don't know what the new gouvernment in Syria is up to. This would go against any reason why we are serving as a refuge to Syrian Refugees in the first place! Now, in the most critical phase which decides the future of Syria, we are suddenly stopping support for those who we have promised it to? C essentially is a badly covered Version of A, forcing Syrian Refugees back to Syria while having to suffer from severe uncertainty what will happen. This would be psychological torture. Therefore we should only stop support when it's finally deemed if the new Syrian Gouvernment is stable and Syria is safe to return to. And therefore, B is the only viable solution right now if want to treat Syrian Refugees like worthy humans.

  • I think that c is not a good idea because it does not make sense to stop supporting a country if it doesn’t even have a stable regime yet. The people in Syria should be able to focus on building a strong regime that can make decisions, like whether the people should be supported first or if rebuilding the towns and cities is more important. If we stop supporting them, they have even more things to worry about, because now the lack of money plays an even bigger role. A is too direct and too strict, because a lot of the refugees have lived here for a long time. They are integrated and work here. The lack of qualified workers is also an aspect that has to be considered. They have friends here. If they had to leave, the refugees would have to leave all that behind to flee to a country that is not completely safe yet, unsure of what will happen next.

  • I think all refugees from Syria should be allowed to stay in the country where they are now if they are setteled there and got a job. If they have bought a house or a flat and a good job, like a doctor, then they can stay in the country where they are. If a country has a lack of skilled workers then Syria refugees should stay in the country where they are, because they need them to stay the country stable and support the country. If those refugees want to go back to Syria they should be allowed to go back. It is bad for those people if they would HAVE to go back, because they would lose all their friends and maybe their identity too. I know some people that immigrated to Germany and then went back to their home country. They lost their Identity by doing this. By saying to people that they have to go back it is likely that they will lose their identity.

    1. Personally disagree because according to the Info_Migrant website, after 7 years of arriving in Germany only 61% are employed, lower than the national average of 77%. They usually work on low pay jobs which means they would need welfare. 55% of Syrian refugees in Germany rely on government benefits compared to the average 5.8% of Germans, I agree that the ones who work and don't rely and government benefits should stay, but since most of them aren't employed and rely on benefits, they shouldn't be given a German citizenship so easily, not to mention they have a relatively high crime rate in Germany. So in summary I say that the skilled workers should stay while the unskilled ones should be re-thought on their benefits.

      1. It's good to see that you've done some research, but do you think that data can sometimes not present the full picture?
        For example is it possible that some of the 55% of Syrian refugees that rely on Government benefits have tried to find work but have been unsuccessful?
        Could it be the case that some of the 55% are studying or training to upskill themselves and may be able to find employment when their training finishes?
        Could the German Government do any more to help refugees find employment so they are no longer reliant on benefits?

      2. I don't necessarily agree. While it is true, that the employment rates of Syrian Refugees are lower than the national average, we need to take into account, that most of them are just in the process of arriving and arranging their life in Germany. Also, this number does not take the different culture into account. While it is common for a German Family to have both parents working, this is not the case in Syrian culture, where mostly the man is working. This number also does not account for all the Syrian Refugees who are currently doing a training for specific job. And while it is true that many of them are working in low paying jobs, this does not automatically mean they are receiving more government benefits than others.
        And regarding skilled and non-skilled Refugees: How would it be possible to sort Refugees by "skilled" and non "non-skilled"? Maybe some person looking for a job would be graded "non-skilled". You can't sort humans by that parameter as it would either require long, costly investigation on each if the over one million Syrian Refugees or you could do it fast and imprecise, therefore ripping people under false accusations from their now established friends and social environment ? And what about the over 56.200 babies who were born from Syrian parents in Germany since 2019? Should we just deport them and also ruin their entire childhood in the process? Doesn't really work, right? Therefore I would opt for option B, because it is a Win-Win for everyone.

  • In my opinion , I firmly agree upon option B - Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy. It is a human tendency that we are connected to our motherland. It is a strange connection that is often indescribable, a strange feeling of love and patriotism that keeps us connected to our roots. Nobody leaves their own country on purpose of abandoning , however its the situations that often compel the citizens to do the same. The situations are synonymous with the Syrians that are settled in other countries. Since the circumstances of their country are adverse they need to settle in new countries and should certainly be allowed to live there as free citizens, while ensuring them equal rights and respectful treatment from the locals this would not only help them feel secured and accepted but would also help them to recover the trauma that they had gone through and by no means should they be eradicated from other nations and forced back into their nation against the will.

    1. I agree that why you chose B because the nation is still rebuilding the country is some parts of Syria are still unlivable. If all 6 million refuges came back to Syria then it would start another crisis within one or two years almost half of the refugees would die due to food shortages throughout the country. This is why B could be the choice right now for Syria .

  • The Assad regime has been an oppressive force against its people for decades. Thus, with the regime gone, I do not believe that all those who have resettled refugees should be deported back. Yet, I believe that other countries should NOT implement resettling refugee initiatives until the safety of Syria can be guaranteed.

    There is too much time, money, and resource investments to put refugees in a situation of relocation for the potential of NOT having Syria be safe. If it is determined that Syria is NOT safe, lives are at stake and people are even more displaced. Therefore, I feel that refugee nations should wait until it's fundamentally clear that Syria is safe.

    Ultimately, I feel like all three are on the extreme side. Nothing is wrong with letting all refugees in, although that's an impossible feat. Yet providing no refugees with options and stripping what little they have is too cruel for my taste. I support this option—as long as it ensures the safety of those left in Syria—although it must be clear that no current refugees will be stripped from their new homes. But my question to YOU is: How many oppressive regimes exist that the media simply overlooks?

  • In my opinion, I chose B. I believe that Syrians should be able to stay in their new countries if they believe their location is better. They should not be forced or harassed into going back to Syria now that there is a new government in progress. Also, I do think that if they want to come back, they should be allowed that option as well. Syrians should not be cast out because they left. Overall, Syrians should have the option to stay in the countries they reside in now if they want to, and they should also have the option to come back to Syria when they deem it safer to come back to their home.

    1. I think they should have to go back because the over country's can not help them for ever or they will take advantage and make them do the jobs that no one wants to do.

      1. Can you give an example to help explain your comment?

    2. I think B would be a great answer as well. This response does help me understand a little bit more about your ideas and personality. I also believe that the refugees should be able to make their own decisions, especially because they couldn't 50 years ago. The rebel groups took over the Asaad wanted freedom and liberty, if you force people back without their will what part of independence and freedom is there?

  • I think B would be the best answer as I think that everyone should be able to decide themself what they want but I think that C ist way more realistic as it is important for some country’s if the Syrians home country is safe or not as they need to decide if the Syrians should be given asylum. The right of the Syrians to stay in a country might be not valid anymore as the asylum only is granted if their home country is classified as dangerous. It’s also a sign to the new Syrian government that they have the chance to be a safe and fair country if they want to.

    1. In a sensitive situation such as this, how can other countries and people in general decide what the appropriate action should be in helping the Syrian people? Are there any other similar instances in the past where good decisions were made collectively to help a country that just came out of a power struggle?

  • I would choose B. I don't think it is right to deport Syrian Refugees back to their country, as many have already settled and integrated. Getting sent back would force them to leave their whole life behind, essentially getting ripped out of their social and work environment. The mass deportation of Syrian Refugees would also mean that the shortage of qualified workers would worsen dramatically in the respective countries.
    C just doesn't make sense to me. This measure would be extremely counter-intuitive. All we want, is that Syrian Refugees have a safe place to stay until they can (if they want) return back home safely. By using C, we are contradicting our own goals. We do not give Refugees a safe place to stay and we are doing this during the most crucial moment, where it is decided, if Syria would be safe to return! Especially now, at this important turning point, we, the countries who give a refuge to the Syrian Refugees, have to keep up our support, as it's not yet decided, if Syria is safe to return. There is also another approach suggested by some people. It's to give Syrian Refugees the choice: either go home and never come back again, or stay, but not go home. This approach is suggested by people who are claiming that Syrians are granted a political asylum and should therefore also be treated after the intend of a political asylum. I couldn't disagree more. This measure would put Syrian Refugees in a kind of Limbo, as either way they choose, they will lose something. I don't think I need to explain why this is a horrible idea. It's dehumanising.

    1. I disagree because only 10% of the Syrian refugees have gained a German passport, which requires 5 years of living in Germany and speaking German at a specific level. This means that most of them have not integrated into German society yet. And only 61% are employed compared to 77% of the German national average, they usually work on low paying jobs which makes them rely on government welfare, 55% of Syrian refugees in Germany rely on welfare currently, this is not about ethics. This is ECONOMICS.

      1. It's good to see you've done some research on the statistics of refugees employment in Germany. However can you clarify what you mean by "This is ECONOMICS"?
        Also do you think there could be any other reasons why Syrian refugees are less employed than Germans apart from difficulties with integration?

      2. While I understand your point, I also disagree. Remember: You don't need the passport of the respective country to integrate there. Many Syrian Refugees have built up strong social connections in their respective countries. According to a study of DW, only in 2019-2024 there were 56.200 babies born in Germany from Syrian parents. What should we do with these kids? Forcefully ripping them away form their now established friends and social enviroment? Doesn't really work, right? If we talk about Syrian Refugees' unemployment rate, we need to take into account, that many still are in the process arriving and arranging their life. Also, the culture is different. Mostly, it's just the man who is working. This also drives the unemployment rate up. You can't just push out a number without explaining the context of it and what might have influenced its comparability to other numbers. We can't ignore the fact that we need to talk about humanitiy and ethics instead of entirely basing a decision in this context on an economic basis. Every country makes losses in the social sector. And if you really want to use the economic factor: According to an article published by DW on the 16th of December 2024, over 287.000 Syrian Refugees are employed in Germany, with most of them working in the hospitality, healthcare and construction sectors. Due to labour shortages, it would come at a big loss, if all of these people were gone. It just wouldn't make sense economically. Also, your percentage of Syian Refugees with a German passport is wrong. It was roughly over 16% at the end of 2023.

  • I personally think that B is the humanly correct answer. I think this is because anyone and everyone should have the right to remove themselves and their loved ones from harmful or unfulfilling environments. Secondly, With the things these refugees have experienced( their countries strictness and the food scarcity ) there is no doubt in my mind that they have major PTSD ,then to bring them back by law just seems cruel. They deserve a fresh start to make new memories.

  • I definitely choose option B. We cannot dictate where people are and what they do with their lives. It is completely the choice of the Syrian people whether they want to return to Syria or stay with the lives they have built. Personally, having built a life for me and my family in a new country I would stay but even then, those who want to return should definitely be given the choice. It is not our choice, it is theirs as individuals. Some Syrians may also be concerned with how the new rebel regime might rule, if they form a developed, fair and equal country or not so, especially with this, it should 100% be their choice.

    1. I also firmly feel that option B should be what happens next. I believe forcing Syrian refugees to go back to Syria is not a good idea because the country itself has not completely recovered from war, people who did not want to go back would be upset. Since the war had lasted over a decade, many people would likely feel uncomfortable going back to Syria or simply have settled in the country their living in. People may also dislike how the rebel group handled taking down Assad's regime. Reiterating your point, the citizens should be the ones to decide whether or not they want to come back to Syria, not someone else.

  • I would choose B, Syrains are still humans afterall, they deserve human rights and the choice to choose if they want to move back to their country or not, if the situation in Syria is bad for them then they should be able to have a say in going back to their country. I wish the Syrians the best.

  • Syrians deserve all the support that they get, they have been brutally killed during the Assad Regime. they are people who are vulnerable and emotionally fragile. We need to help them as much as we can. Wishing them the best luck.

  • Syrians have been brutally genocided for too long by their corrupt government, they are the nicest people i've met in a while, they are very cool and nice as people, it is sad to see their homeland being destroyed due to corruption and a failing government.

  • Syrians are very nice and have very nice food. I'm glad that the civil war has ended and the corrupt government has been overthrown, now the syrian people who are living there are going to have days of peace. I wish that the Syrians will have a good economic boom and the government won't be corrupt

  • I will say B because if they are happy and in welcoming countries I think that it is their decision if they want to stay or leave. They also might have families in their new countries so it wouldn't make sense for them to come back to Syria.
    Syrian refugees should also be receiving support no matter the cost as it can help them a lot.

    1. I agree with your opinion Because they have family in other country so they can immigrate to other countries to a safe place with their families, there would be no reason to go back to a place where their safety isn't even confirmed.

    2. I strongly agree with your opinion because...the have the right to visit other country. they are till Syrian the can even if the Go to visit USA for Christmas it dose not matter because they are till Syrian

  • I agree with option C however I can understand why why some would agree with option B. My reasoning for option C is due to the fact that Syrian refugees are now safe enough from the Assad regime to now work together as a country to develop Syria and for them to grow. Furthermore, In Turkiye, where most Syrian refugees have ended up, the employment rate for self-settled refugees only amounts to 43 percent and for refugees in camps, 24.5 percent. Among these workers, most of them only end up working low-skilled, low-income jobs. Another thing, the Turkish government has now spent around 1.78 million turkish lira on Syrian refugees. This equates to around 50 million US dollars and 40 million GBP. Now that these refugees are free from the rule of president Bashar al-Assad, the Governments who pay to support the refugees should no longer have to . The reason why I somewhat agree with B is due to the fact that some of these refugees have built something for themselves. It may be a nice family and house or something else and in that case, they should be allowed to stay and continue to benefit the country in which they live in.

  • I think b is the most valid optiont too. Many refugees have build up lives in their new country, such as met a life partner or became parents. It would be wrong to just kick them out of their new home when it’s not even sure that their home country is safe again. The living conditions in other countries are often better, children are safer and the school system is often more improved than in Syria. By kicking the refugees out you take away their hard rebuild life and they have to start from zero again. Because of that it should be possible for refugees to decide themselves if they want to go back or stay in their new home.

  • i believe that the most priority of every living human is to be happy wherever you decides to settle in live, this is why some people with or without war do travel to other countries and settle down there, so i'm going with option b, this is because with or without war, people do travel to their place of interest either to settle down or business contract or any other important thing that might have brought them to such country.
    now i suggest that since the war have ended, the people of syrian should go through the constitutional way of acquiring a citizenship which will now make them a legal member of syrian.

  • From my point of view, I would choose option b, to allow the Syrian refugees stay in their new countries if they are happy there. Sure, there's nothing like the feeling of living in your homeland, but what if your homeland might not yet be safe to return to? Besides that, I'm sure many of the Syrians who have fled to other countries have already reestablished their lives in their new countries, just like Josie said, they have set roots there. Those people probably have stable jobs, nice homes, and many good friends or even family (met someone, had children with them) who they could never bare to leave behind. They are probaly studying the language and culture to fit in, or maybe they found other Syrian refugees and created small communities to practice their own customs. I am aware that many other refugees do want to return to Syria, but some people are living better lives in their new countries.

  • The Syrians case is a very sensitive subject to me because that is a nearby region, and we share the same language, religion and culture. They are our neighbors and families.

    I chose option B which says that Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy because every human being should have the right to choose the most settled, safe, suitable place for a healthy life for themselves and their families.

    For choice C that says that no further support should be given to Syrians refugees. I believe that they need financial and psychological support now more than ever because they have been through a lot.

    1. I agree that every human being should have the right to be safe. Thank you for sharing.

  • Without a doubt, Option B seems more of a safe option. According to Josie, Turkey has accepted Syrian refugees, making the country a home to many. When more and more refugees emigrate to Turkey, that increases the amount of people who have a safe home, a home where they can find comfort in. In addition, refugees without a doubt began working on improving their life, once they are settled and feel at home, they should be able to stay where they feel most comfortable and safe at and they shouldn't be forced to go back to a country that they aren't even sure is safe. However, many may side with option A. Option A states that the refugees should return to Syria because the president has fallen, but I feel that option A would be risky because the refugees would not be sure about the safety of the country. Many Syrians immigrated from Syria from fear, option A does not consider the safety and fear of the refugees because it does not consider about waiting to see if the country is safe, it just says that because the president has fallen, they should come back.

  • From my perspective, I believe that Syrians should stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy. After all the Syrians went through, they should have a choice on where they want to stay or live as an individual. At the end of the day, letting Syrians choose where they live will have a more peaceful outcome as this choice will allow conflict to be avoided.

  • Well, I think it should return to what the syrians want . I am not a Syrian but if I was a Syrian I would have chose B and A.

    What is the point of returning to your country if there is no food, money or water, so I would have stayed in my new country until things are stable and people there are having their regular life.

    At this point I would return to Syria, but if I have a good job and a great life I will stay where I am, but if I could have a similar life or better life in Syria of course I would return.

  • I would choose B because if I am a refugee and my country had stopped the war I would like to sit with in my own country feeling safe, happy, and settled. If I liked it I would stay there in my own country.

    1. What do you think would be the main challenges refugees face when deciding whether to return to their home country after the war ends?

      1. I think that there would be many challenges and risks like ongoing violence, like we would not know if the war truly finished and many losses of properties like schools, hospitals and houses. It would be risky also because they don't know if the government will fix everything or will their children adapt to their home country after spending so much time at another country. I think this will all be the main issues. thank you!

      2. If I was a refugee a main challenge I would probably face is safety, security and independence I would have no place to live in my home would either be collapsed or I wouldn't even have one.

  • I think B is the right choice because if Syrians have a happy life in the new country that they have settled in, they shouldn't be force to go back in Syria because of the end of al-Assad regime. They should remain in the country where they have migrated, where they build a new life from beginning. I think that there should be support to the poorer refugees from Syria, not all of the refugees because it will cost the country a lot and if some of the Syrians have a stable income then they shouldn't get support, just the ones that are poor.
    In conclusion B is the best option.

  • I believe that B is the correct answer because this is the only choice that gives the Syrians a choice in this matter. Also, Syrians are humans too they should have the choice to stay where they want to if they enjoy staying where they immigrated to. This choice gives them the option to stay in their new home if they are content and comfortable with where they are and gives them the choice to move back to their home country Syria if they choose to.

    1. Interesting ideas. Can you think of any positive effects of immigration?

  • In my opinion, I think that option C= No further support should be given to Syrian refugees until people know more about how safe or unsafe the country is now, is the best and safest choice. Although the strict Assad regime has finally fallen , life is still unstable in Syria. I think that the top priority decisions should be made first before making this decision. Some decisions should be settled as conditions for the Syrian refugees to flee back to their homeland , some of these important conditions may include: 1. Choosing a new leader , Syria hasn't yet declared a new president since the Assad regime has fallen, which makes things still unstable in Syria now.
    2. Democratic support, this is a very important decision as it provides the syrian people the opportunity to speak for their rights and suggest what is best for their own country.
    3. Building new rules, what is more important for a country to have some equal rules and laws? This helps seize equality and build a new start for Syria.
    4. Launching democratic elections, elections in Syria are currently very important as they will decide the country's destiny so they must be preformed in a democratic way . Those were some decisions that should be taken first before deciding what the destiny of syrian refugees should be. As Josie Delap said , some European countries have said that they will stop making decisions about whether to let new syrians in as refugees, which means that the situation is in hand and that it will be eventually solved . Thus, there will be no need for syrians to seek refuge anymore.

    1. A brilliant comment that shows thoughtful consideration of the different options. What else did you learn from Josie?

  • In my opinion, I think that the best option is B. They should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are happy and settled there. Well, even though they say no place like home, if they find joy in their new place, they should stay because there is peace of mind and when there is peace of mind they can carry out activities like acquiring new skills from that country also to benefit themselves and their families. Even though, there might be some challenges like: adapting to their culture and language but they will eventually get use to it and also since the people are welcoming they are okay to me.

    1. Interesting ideas. Can you think of any positive effects of immigration?

      1. Some positive effects of immigration include:
        Filling the society with vacant spaces and also with skilled workers building up the economy.
        Innovation through new ideas providing more job opportunities and a source of generating tax revenue for public services such as construction of the road, facilitation of water etc.

  • I think that point A is Important to happen but point B is also Important . I point A the Syrian people should go back to Syria that is correct because they create large numbers in may countries and this makes some ting called increasing number of people and this creates traffics and decrease the chances of working for for the youths . In contrast, point B is important because the Syrian people are humans and they need to be comfortable in where they live and that is important for the human rights.

    Now, what do you prefer Point B or A?

    1. Interesting ideas. Can you think of any positive effects of immigration?

      1. In my opinion, I think that their is many positive effects of immigration for instance:
        1: increasing money
        2: live in more comfortable place
        3: live in an country with a high economy such as U.S.A and England
        4: live in an democratic country
        5: have better chances of work
        To sum up, their is many positive effects of immigration and I'm one of the people who prefer immigration.

  • In my opinion,I think the best option is B which is: syrians should be allowed to stay in their new home/country if they have settled down and are happy.I believe this is the best option because it is quite hard to move out when you are entirely settled in.And as miss Josie said"they might feel like these countries are their new homes" and i agree because i've experienced it. When you stay in a country for a certain amount of time you you feel like you have been there your entire life even if you haven't.

    I think option b is the most regulated and best option out of the three

  • In my opinion, Syrian refugees should not return to their country because the war is still ongoing there and it will continue, even worsening, as the countries involved in the war are still present there. Instead of leaving Syria to its own devices, the countries that intervened in the Syrian war should provide water, food, shelter, healthcare, and medical services for the Syrian refugees so that they can be at peace and feel secure. They should also help those who are still in Syria, as no one knows how much they need medical assistance, water, and food. I don't understand why they are still focused on their own interests after all these years; enough is enough. This damn war has caused the deaths and injuries of more than 120,000 innocent children. Instead of focusing on rebuilding the country and helping the people and innocent children, they are still focused on their own profits and gains. If they can't handle this task, then why do they talk so much about human rights when they themselves talk about human rights but don't act on them? What’s the point? The countries that intervened in the war, such as the United States, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and every other country that made the war worse, should provide everything the Syrian refugees and people inside Syria need. The United Nations Human Rights Organization, which talks so much, why aren’t they really acting and helping the people and refugees of Syria?

    1. I agree because... The Syrians should be happy on where they have moved and where they are at as they might not feel as comfortable yet as they do with the originated country. C? Well it is not the best choice but I can see some people's opinions. In other people opinion I definitely do understand that it is as in some opinions A is quite reasonable as all Syrians can return if they want to as they could feel a bit more safe and communicate more with the originated country if they don't want to go there is a reason as they might not recognise how all the damage has recovered so I would say b or a might be probably my option but c is probably the worst decision I can also agree with someone else show about b though.

  • In my opinion, Syrian refugees should remain in host countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, or Canada, because Syria has not yet become safe enough, and this is in their best interest. If they want to save their own lives and the lives of their children, they are forced to stay in host countries, where they should be welcomed with kindness. Additionally, international aid, such as providing shelter and food, is essential to ensure that, in case host countries face financial shortages, there will still be support for them.

    For this reason, I believe option B is the best choice.

  • From my point of view I feel that B would be the best option for Syrian refugees because as Josie said some people have already "put down roots there". I feel that it is not right for Syrian refugees to leave other countries if they have already lived there for so long. I believe that the revolution should be the start of something new where people can make their own decisions without others making it for them.

  • In my opinion, option b is the most sensible due to a multitude of different reasons. I firmly believe Syrian refugees should be given the opportunity to decide for themselves. If Syrian refugees do not feel comfortable moving back to Syria, they should have the right to stay in their respective country. If however, they want to move back to their homeland and help rebuild it, they should have the right to do that as well. I also believe that it is safe to return to Syria, since Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa seems to trustworthy because he has shaken hands with a french politician named Jean-Noël Barrot. Forcing Syrians to leave would foster a sense of resentment among Syrian refugees, since it indirectly states that they are not wanted in the country the refugees fled to. A mass deportation would also result in a drought of workers in many countries like France or Germany, where Syrian immigrants take up a good percentage of the work force. Option c would result in a lack of people in Syria, who are ready to rebuild it and therefore slow down the restoration of Syria. It would also lead to other countries (e.g Germany) having to donate more money to Syria.
    To summarise, the respect of autonomy, the trustworthyness of Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa and the clear downsides of the other options leads me to believe that option b is the best :D

  • In my opinion A is the worst option. Imagen you fleed to another country and built up your "new" life there and now, just because the Assad regieme isn't in power anymore, you have to go back to Syria. In the new country you have new friends and you live a happy life there. I think that the people who want to go back to there motherland can go, but I also think that not everyone must go. Maybe they are also important for their country because they are for example doctors or other specialists. That's why I decided that option B is the best.

  • I would choose answer B. I think that if those people found a better life and better opportunites in other country they should have a choice to decide if they are willing to stay there. Returning back to Syria could probably bring back traumas or bed memories so they shouldn’t be left without the choice to stay in a country that makes them feel safe.

  • I choose the option B- "Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy" because many refugees have been living abroad since many years and they might have their own livelihoods in the other country. If the refugees want to continue to live in the other country and are settled and happy, they should be allowed to live there as they would be completely settled there and would earn their livelihoods, then their is no harm in staying there. Also, Syria has still not recovered completely from the war, so no refugee would want to return to Syria and leave a stable and democratic country where they are happy and settled.

  • I think that option B is the best choice, that Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are happy and settled. Even after years of war, Syria is still recovering and it is not completely safe for everyone to return back. Many refugees have now built new lives in different countries, where millions of people live. They have jobs there, the children are going to school and they are living their lifestyle according to their country. If they are forced to leave, it might cause many problems, especially when Syria is not fully ready to support everyone and provide shelter. It is important to give the refugees the choice to stay or return, when they are ready and feel safe. Therefore, by supporting the refugees to stay where they are, we can help them in living peaceful and stable lives, while Syria becomes safe again for everyone to live.

  • I think C would be best because if they travel back to Syria and the country isn't supported by the government they may have to travel back and are already settled in they would have to go back and do it again . They may tell others etc.neighbours ,friends they may go back and not be happy there it was a hard decision but I m happy with my answer.

  • It was a really hard decision but I think B is the best option because if Syrians moved away from Syria and settled in, if they enjoy living there, they should be allowed to stay.

  • I think b ,Syria should allow the people of the country wherever they want to live, happily and safely, because the refugees are very frightened of Assads.
    According to the researches ,most of the people that live in Jordan and Turkey have migrated from Syria.Turkey is hosting over 3.6 million register refugees.
    So , inshort if the people of Turkey are allowing Syrians for a homeshelter and making them comfortable,it might help Turkey in the coming time to make a good relations with Syria .

  • i agree with point "b" because if the Syrians have a life and a good job in their new country and if there happy why should they leave? Also if it was me i wouldn't want to come back in till it's completely safe , just because the war is over doesn't mean there will be everything there such as hospital, schools, jobs,and more. plus if i liked the country i was staying in, why would i want t

  • In my opinion, I would pick B because the Syrians should stay in their new countries where they settled. They should choose if they want to stay there or go back to Syria. Over 3 million Syrians live in Turkey and 621,740 Syrian refugees live in Germany. These people have built lives here and may have children that have never seen Syria - you can't expect them to just leave. I think people who are welcomed to other countries shouldn't go back to Syria but if they want to go back to their home country we shouldn't make the choice for them.

  • i agree with point B = 'Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries to make them feel more settled and happy.' I agree because they have been welcomed into their new countries by the people living there, to make the Syrian refugees feel more safe. I also think that just because the War has ended, doesnt mean everything will be back to normal. A lot of people lost jobs, children missed out on education, even some people were ill in hospital. Not everything will be rebuilt, such as places of work, schools, hospitals and other services for the syrians to be safe and successful when/if they move back.

  • I agree with point "b" because if Syrians had children in their new country, why should their children need to experience Syria. By the time Syria is re-built some Syrian children will have there own life and identity.

    .

  • I think B, because if the Syrians' have vacated Syria to escape the war then they should have the choice to go back or to stay as long as they are allowed with the country they are staying in. They might not even have a house so they would have to build a new house but the resources are going to be low as they have just got back from a civil war and why should the Syrians have to move back when they have built their own life for the past few years just for it to be thrown away? So they should have the choice to stay or go back to Syria and the people who have vacated the country might not want to go back because they might not think its safe yet because of the new government with Ahmed Al-Sharaa because he was a former Al-Qaeda member so he might have the same ideology and thoughts as Al-Qaeda ,the extreme terrorist group, so they might be scared to go back.

  • I believe that any refugees from Syria should have free will in what they do and where they go for they are human and every human has rights such as, The right to be free from any forms of slavery and to have your own opinions and ideologies. This should be the bare minimum for all people.
    Put yourself in the victims shoes, how would you feel being forced to return to your war struck home even if you had a new home, a new life in another country only to have it washed away by the waves of ignorance, all refugees need to have a say in where they'd like to go next.

  • I think A because the people will take to much room in the other country's so they will come back and if they do not no if its safe the government would alert them but on the other hand they might have kids and they will have just settled and then they have to move again.

  • I think the right decision is C. This is because if A happened, then the new Syrian government could turn out to be terrible dictators who enforce strict religious rules and give the people no freedom. It would be unfair for this to happen because if they chose C then we could wait to see if the new rebel government is good or not. Moving on, B wouldn’t be the best choice either because in some countries there are no spaces and/or jobs available in some countries so Syrian refugees wouldn’t be able to get a job or home and end up living in poverty. However, while there is space and no life-changing decisions have been made, I think the best option is to go with C. To wait until we know more about the new rebel government, and when we know if they are good leaders or terrible dictators who enforce strict regime, Syrians can make the decision of going back to Syria or continuing to live in another country. In conclusion, C is probably the best choice.

  • In my opinion, i think Syrian refugees should be allowed to stay in the country because they have built live there, and became healthy also just because war has ended does not mean they can re-enter their original country; there will be no hospitals,schools, homes and everything would have been in pieces. It would be highly unfair to send them to re-build there lives from scratch.Also they might have signed for citizenship so the government cant kick them out of their new country after they have settled in and are happy where they are.

  • I am in between all of them because I don’t think it is fair to suddenly force them to leave their homes but I also think that they are taking up houses and jobs in our country that are needed by British people. It is a hard decision because I know that if it were me I wouldn’t want my life to be disrupted again. I also don’t think it is fair to send refugees back until we know how safe it is because it could all happen again and they could come back but have no home or job like they used to. If they have been here for the last 12 years we should at least give them a year or so.

    Young people in the UK just finishing school hope to get jobs. Syrians in the UK are then needing jobs for money and stealing jobs from us. If it is safe for them to go back and they get all the facilities they need then I think they should probably go back.

    Some people might be scared to go back after what had happened especially if they know some of the half a million that were killed. I would be scared as well so I think we should support them but also encourage them to begin to move back. The new government could in force strict religious rules which for some wouldn’t work. On the other hand, I believe the new government could be a fresh start for Syrians and make a positive impact on the country and people. This is why I am not sure which choice would be best.

    1. This is a well thought-through comment that looks at more than one side of the problem and shows how difficult it is to make your mind up. Well done!
      You say "Syrians in the UK are then needing jobs for money and stealing jobs from us". While it is true that some jobs will be done by Syrian people, we should be careful when we use words like "stealing", which means taking something that belongs to someone else. If lots of people apply for a job and the employer thinks the Syrian person has the best skills to do it, are they "stealing"? Or should the employer give the job to the best person, regardless of where they are from? Keen to hear your opinion!

      1. I agree because they might be doing them jobs but actually after hearing your opinion and some other comments I have realised that Syrians might not actually be qualified for certain jobs and that just need a job that will get them the right amount of money. Some Syrians might be a big help by taking up jobs that others can’t or don’t want to do.

  • I think B the refugees are allowed to stay because if they are already in England it’s not like the country is going to shrink so if they are already here what difference is it going to make .On the other hand, the reason they are in England and other countries is because there country was at war and the war has now ended so others would argue that they have to go back.

  • I think that option B is the best option for Syrian refugees. I think this because it is unfair to make refugees who are settled and living a happy life return to a country they may relate with bad memories or trauma. Also, for some younger children, their new country will have been most of their life, or even their entire life, so moving to a country which is practically foreign t0 them could be scary. Furthermore, the Assad regime being over doesn't cure all of the problems in Syria. The future for Syrians is still uncertain, and the damage has already been done, so forcibly making refugees return to essentially nothing is unfair. Of course, there will be people who aren't happy being in their new country, and would much rather return to their home country, which is why its important to give people the choice to decide their own future.

  • I believe that, the most important point is c. Syrian refugees should stay in the position they are currently in because if they come back now they will add to the 16 million people in the country who are living in poverty. Linking on to this, the people will also be in a better position in the place they are living in now. The people will also benefit if they have a more trust worthy government. If the people of Syria were to come back now they would be strangers to their own country. The people have been gone for 12 years already what will one more do.

    1. Why might someone disagree with your points? And can you be sure that the Syrian refugees will be living in a better place than returning to their home countries?

  • I think B as it’s there choice to leave because the country they went to (they might like the country they went to) and if they do want to go back no support will make it very difficult and expensive 💴 and for some impossible.

  • Syria has been going through a lot recently, the regime of Bashar al-Assad has already left the whole world in shock, and now that the things are getting better, we should focus on what good should be done for Syria.
    Out of the three options {A,B and C} I would like to choose B, why?
    Well because, option B states that: SYRIANS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO STAY IN THEIR NEW COUNTRIES IF THEY ARE SETTLED AND HAPPY.

    Many Syrians have left the place due to war, many have lost their loved ones in the same! and if they are able to come out of that trauma while they are happily settled in another country then they should be allowed to do the same, instead of forcing them to shift to Syria again. I would say, let the people who want to come back be welcomed merrily. But the ones who don't want to return should be allowed to stay back.

    Everyone has their own choice, and it should be respected.
    THANK YOU

  • In my opinion, I think that Syrian refugee should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are happy and settled because they will have experienced enough trauma from escaping the war and being sent back to rebuild their lives again would be cruel. in 12 years some families will have had children, who will have rights in that country or will have children who wont even remember Syria some families/People may have applied and been granted citizenship meaning that they are positively contributing to the country. if it was me i would want to be allowed to stay because i'd have lived there for most of my life i would have lots of friends i would not to move.

  • I think they should be able to be let free and can see there family and they can share all their family’s storys

    1. Thanks for your comment - can you confirm what you mean by 'let free'?

  • I think C because the refugees have been settled in there country and have been given the support they need ,so if they come back now it will be a problem because Syria still hasnt been properly developed yet ,and we still dont know if Ahered al-Sharaa is a good leader and is capable to lead a whole country and the refugees to a strong community that is a safe place to live in.

  • I THINK B IS THE OPTION I WOULD CHOOSE BECAUSE IF THE REFUGEES IN SYRIA LIVED IN OTHER COUNTRIES THAT ARE SUITABLE FOR THEM IT IS THE BEST OPTION TO CHOOSE FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW IF THERE COUNTRY IS SAFE OR NOT AND IT'S THERE WISH TO GO!
    THANK YOU

  • In my opinion, The most suitable option for this condition is options B - Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy. I choose this, because refugees that have left to live in other countries, too have patriotism. According to me, Every civilian of a country always has a soft corner for their motherland but, as per Syria, which has faced many destructions and changes in the past, The refugees definitely have a right to judge whether the country now is safe or not for them and their family. After all, they have invested a large sum of money to live in the other countries and have settled their peacefully, so those who want to shift back to their motherland should be welcomed but those who want to stay back shall not be forced.

  • I feel that B would be the right decision, because as mentioned in the expert challenge video, a lot of syrian refugees have already set up new livelihoods and sources of income in the countries they once came to seek asylum in. Not only that, due to the years they spent in those countries, they must have built a lot of relations with the locals and might have already adjusted to their new normal, if forced to abandon all of their progress, this action will surely take a toll on their mental health as well as their financial stability.

  • According to me, B is the correct option. The refugees of Syria should have their own right to choose whether they want to return back to Syria or if they want to stay in the new country they chose. It is not easy for everyone to leave their homes in their new country behind and again start a new livelihood in Syria. So basically, they should be allowed to stay where they feel comfortable. On the other hand, I feel that they should return back to Syria because it is indeed their motherland and where they were raised, all their traditions and morals lie in there. But again, it should be the refugees who get to decide what they want.

  • My opinion is option B because, if the Syrians are settled and happy in their new countries and do not want to go back to Syria, is because of how things are done there like:
    1. There are Jobs there that keep their family sustainable and healthy.
    2. The cost of are items there are way better than the ones in Syria.
    3. Their countries are peaceful and do not have wars.
    So, these are some things that can make Syrians not to go back to Syria, so that they will not suffer again like how they did when the rebel groups fought against the Assad regime, so that there will not be upcoming problems and hardships for the Syrians.

  • I am not an expert on this topic, but from my honest point of view I will choose B answer.
    But, why I have choosen B answer?, Because I think that Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countrie if they are settled and happy. I have done a research about how much Syrian people are settled in each country.
    I found that Turkey is the country with the most cuantity of Syrians registered (3.585.209 trillions of Syrians).
    The majority of them live in urban centers, only 240.000 are living in government-run refugge camp.
    However, I found that Syrians that live in urban centers are in good economic positions and they are accepted by the socciety, so I do not think they want to return to Syria. At the contrary, Syrians that live in government-run refugge camp have horrible life conditions, so if they wont to return Syria they can.
    Summarysing, Syrians need to be allowed to take their own decisions.

  • I think that B is a good option because there are many people who have actually left Syria. Don't you think that if they made that choice and decided to stay there after seeing how life is there, they should have a choice to stay? Plus, the other choices are completely heartless.

  • From what I learnt, point B would be the best choice for question. I believe this because point A suggest that all the refugees should return back, however what if the new leader Ahmed makes the situation worse because as my teacher said there is a chance that he would put extreme religious rules on Syria. Therefore if refugees were to return by force, they might still be in a bad situation. For example, in America after our president Donald Trump was in to office he started deporting immigrants from our country. After trump voters saw what he was doing they immediately regretted their decision. In the same way, in Syria if Ahmed forces refugees to return they could likely face extreme religious rules. Moving to point c it suggest that no help should be given out to refugees until further notice. This is also terrible because refugees could be in poverty in their new country and could have caught on to a sickness the don’t know how to heal. For instance, in 2022 the UK created a new policy where refugees were forced to be sent to Rwanda rather than be allowed to stay in the UK. During this period the UK cut off any responsibility that has to do with refugees because of this policy. In the end, point B seems correct because if refugees are stable in their new country they should be allowed to stay and reside until whenever of their choosing.

  • From my point of view both A and B are kind of right because to be fair the refugees that went to another country should leave it because the people that are there because is their birth place and is their natural mother land should be the one that have their rights like first to assure they have a place to stay and a job and then the refugees who are not apart of that country and the people who are born there will kind of look down at them and their rights so I totally think that at least some of them should come back to Syria and at the same time I think B is right because they deserve to be happy and peaceful and leave a stress free life along with their family in the country they feel the safest.

    1. Your comment brilliantly expresses a number of different perspectives with regards to people who have been displaced.

  • Most of us agree with B regarding refugees having the option to return to Syria. This should apply to refugees who have been incorporated into a new society and maybe have new careers as it would be unfair to uproot their lives. We also think that no refugees should be sent back yet as there is a lot of uncertainty of Syria's future.

  • In my opinion, B is the best answer, many Syrians have left the country since the civil war began and have started new lives in other countries so they should choose whether to stay or go back to their native country. Even though the Syrian population has decreased in the past 10 years, refugees shouldn't be forced to move back to their native country especially because maybe if they come back, they might find their houses destroyed by the bombs and the fights there.
    Also, Turkish people were very welcoming to the refugees and gave them chances to start new lives. Turkish people and Syrians have many things in common, such as the religion and, from my research, over 90% of Syrians and 99% of Turkish people are muslims. Also, they have in common some words, language and shared history.
    In conclusion, Syrians should choose where to live from now on.

  • I vote for option A because of course Assad regime is over and till now the new leader hasn’t harmed the citizens and even if the citizens do not want him to be the leader they need to vote for it because of which they need to come back and if we live in another country there’s always no matter what a risk of being kicked out of that country and our country and our rights are always ours after all .

    1. I respectfully disagree with option A. What about the people who are settled and are happy where they are? Option A does not support them and only the ones who want to go back! I agree the Assad regime is over, but it's the Syrians decision that left Syria because Bahar, want to go back, but the new leader could be like the other and they don't know that. So based on what they do know about him, that should depend on if they go back or not.

  • In my opinion I think that option C or B is the best option. First of all, of course refugee Syrians who feared the Assad regime shouldn't be sent back to Syria because it is now "over". We don't know for sure that it's actually "over", and they might have been settled in the country that they are in. This is what leads to me thinking that B or C is better. Because of this Syrians shouldn't be forced to go back to Syria, the country might actually want to help them. Yet again people might be scared of Syrians that live nearby due to stereotypes. This is why I think that C might be a
    better option too. Nevertheless, a country shouldn't be forced to help people if they don't want to. After all there might be bad people among groups that could hurt people.

  • I agree with b because people would have made friends there and maybe prefer there currant home more.Also they don't really know when it is completely safe for them.

  • It really is not all black and white, in fact I believe all refugees from Syria who want to return to their country should return. However, refugees who have created their new life in another country also have the right to stay there and continue with their current life. I guess i’m both agree with letter A and B.

  • I think B because Syrians should be able to do what they want because they keep on having to move around and all they want is a place to call home .I don`t agree in A because they should be able to do what they want and they shouldn`t feel like they are trapped. I agree in C a little bit because Syria is a dangerous country at the moment .

  • I think B and C. B because people should be able to decide weather or not they want to come back since some also have children who were born and are growing up in a different countries and don't want to leave their friends. I also think C because we don't know a lot about this new goverment and maybe they might be different to how they say they will be and won't help people in prisons and poverty.

  • I think B because Syrians should be able to decide for themselves since they might think that it's still not safe or they might think that the new leader will be a good leader. I also think this because as Syria has been destroyed they can stay in the country until the new government has fixed the damages. As well I also think C because people don't know if the new government will be safe or not and if the Syrians who have fled go back to Syria the new government may start another civil war killing more people.

  • I think b because people should be allowed if they want to stay in their new country or come back to Syria if they feel safe. Also they can't command them if they don't want to. I also think c because even if their in another country they should be allowed to know if their country is now safe to go back.

    1. i agree with you because we don't know alot abot this new leader of syria and some people have said that he will be very strict with religion

  • I think b option is better because A you do not know that the war is over so refugees should stay in the country that they chose to stay in . If the Goverment did not allow them to stay where they feel comfortable and safe around them then it wouldn't be fair because it is the persons life they are living . Another reason I don't agree with A is because if the refugees are still scared then why should they go .

  • I think b is right because imagine if someone was forcing you to stay in a country that you did not like or that you were treated like a slave and disrespected that would be horrible so I think that they should choose were they would like to stay .They should try to stay a little bit in one place and then another and see if they like it .

  • I think B or C but mainly B because their country got destroyed in war and lots of people died in prison or war but their goverment might have plans.I also think C because they know lots about the country but the goverment mostly destroy Syria.

  • In my views, Syrian should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy. Since, forcing them to be back to Syria may ask them to endure throughout their lives as they have been settled in their new homes, contributing economically and educationally to their respective areas. Their forced comeback might result in the declaration of a dictatorship government from certain aspects in Syria. In addition, this would lead to the loss in the countries they got themselves settled.

  • In my opinion , I think that B would be the best option, because if the Syrians are happy there they should be able to stay there and not move. It would also be a hassle to move so I believe they should stay if their happy.

  • In my opinion I believe B is the best option since it seems unfair to uproot Syrians living new lives elsewhere just to be taken back to a country where they might have no family, prospects or indeed a life at all. Why should we make people leave a country they now call home just to be taken back to their original 'home' which they probably don't even recognise as home because of the possible trauma or dehumanising experiences they have been put through? What would British citizens think if we told them to go back to their supposed 'home' but in fact it was a place where they might have experienced the worst times of their lives. If Syrian refugees are happy and settled I believe we shouldn't relocate them just to make them be unsettled and unhappy in a previously hostile environment to them.

  • I believe that B is the best option. I think this because a lot of people don't want to be constantly moving around. Once they've moved, that place then becomes their new home and it would be strange for them to move back. This would also mean that they would have to readjust to Syria.

  • I believe B is correct because if the refugees no longer need as much help then we do not need to send over many resources. On the other hand if the issue has become worse and the refugees need more resources like food or they will all die. we need to consider our economics. due to inflation we can not afford to needlessly send resources to those who do not kneed it . if the country is safe these refugees can go home and live their lives again. if we keep giving things they do not need they will be wasted. we should give people who need the resources to those who need it and give the right thing.

  • In my opinion, B is the correct answer because if the refugees from Syria are happy where they are then they should have an option of whether to stay where they are or if they want to go back to where they came from. If I had chose option A, then some people would not be happy with what they would have to do. This could cause severe disagreements or riots. On the other hand, some people might want to celebrate the war that has ended.

  • I disagree with B because if someone is not safe in their home should they still live there. in ww2 people where sent away from the war for safety so how is this different. people leaving Syria is protecting them so should be left to make their own choice.

  • In my opinion B is the best option ,as people of Syria are suffering from the wars that have most recently stopped the refuges that where lucky enough to evacuate to different countries are being told they must leave but since there is still some conflict between Syria and many other places it is still safer in a different countries as there are still dangers such as water shortages and also ruble everywhere and not a safe place to stay .

  • Ultimately, just due to sheer path of least resistance, I believe [B] is the most practical as well as empathetic "solution". Firstly, [A] is both impractical and needlessly authoritarian. You cannot simply mass-deport tens of thousands of Syrians without consequently accruing heaps upon heaps of excess financial and logistical overhead. [C], too, is flawed. By abstaining from support until we are more informed we run the risk of the situation progressing for the worse in the meantime. [B] finds a proper middle-ground betwixt being too inactive and being too punishing. It's a common misconception that refugees leech off the "hardworking taxpayers of our country" but that is fragrantly false. Even from a nationalist perspective, if a group of people's labour benefits the country, surely we should allow them to stay, no? Not to mention the glaring moral reasons for not wanting to displace thousands from their new homes. Therefore, due to the reasons above, I believe option [B] is the best choice.

  • Even though I do truly believe B is the correct answer I can see why some people might think A could be the best suitable option. I think this because even though people might be happy and settled people around them in the country they are in might not be and having Syrian refugees might take up lots of resources that might be needed in the country to begin with. For example in England we are a country very openly taking refugees from all across the world but we like every country have a limited amount of resources and if people can go back to their homes in their countries they should as it will be a weight lifted of other countries supporting them . Meaning they can help people from countries where it is still actually dangerous. Going home could also mean that people get the chance to see their family and friends again so if refugees did go home it could be a reunion of families and friends. However agreeing with B rather than A if people are settled and happy in their new countries which they call home why should we make them move. In conclusion I believe with point B but I can see the reasons which would make people think why point A could be the better option.

  • In my own opinion I will chose Syrians should stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy
    Putting myself in their shoes I will not like to go back to Syria because of the great loss that has happened. B is my best option because Most Syrians that are refugees would always consider Syria as an unsafe place for them to be they might think that as they go back a war might start again I strongly suggest that they stay where they are because they will also impact to their new countries.
    Most of the refugees have some special skills like skills on medicine, farming , mechanical engineering. As their new countries allow more refugees the more the new society keeps on developing .

  • I choose b, Syrians should be allowed to stay where they are if they are happy and settled. I would agree to this if the government is happy to take them in because some of them might have this feeling of insecurity if they go back to Syria. Some of them might have made decisions that Syria is not a good place to stay because of the war but some might decide to come back if they feel that the new system of government is acceptable for them, this statement would be supported for option A . but in my own opinion, option b is the best or suitable answer for the people of Syria.

  • In my opinion B would be my answer.If they are happy with their new life , they shouldn't be forced to move back. Even if Syria is fixed that doesn't mean they move back to Syria. They should make their own decision and move if they want to.

  • In my opinion, I believe that the answer C is right. The reason why I said that is because just because the Assad family is not in control doesn't mean that Ahmed al-Sharaa isn't going to do anything bad. He might have fought for the countries for the wrong reasons. That's why in my opinion I believe in C.

  • In my opinion I think B is correct. I say this because I feel like after a war happened I would not like to go back to that country because of what had happened, plus since I'm in another country I will stay there. I would also feel more safe since I'm in a country that has no war. Not just that but I would feel happy and I can make money.

  • In my opinion I think c because you need to not give them support into we know that thats a safe country because they can eventually start getting stronger and impearalize and eventually be a threat.

  • I would choose B because if you have been in in that country for 12 years.You could have bought a mansion with a beach next to it.Then suddenly you HAVE to come back and all your work had been a waste.So that's why I would choose B.

  • I believe that the correct answer to this question is B because I think if people are unsure of the conditions of their country it might be best to stay where you are if you're happy where you are it's best to stay there. Also because some people from that country may genuinely just not wanna go back. Another reason I have is it's best to wait until they hear from their leader that their country is in a good condition.

  • I would choose b, as I have already settled, started earning my livelihood and I'm pretty happy with the new country I'm living in. If I have my family and friends with me, I would have everything I need then I would not prefer to return, but if I am alone and don't have my friends and family, I would either bring them or return back to them to my homecountry.

  • I choose B because, if I have settled in another place I would not what to go back because I think it would take a long time to build back after a fight at one point of I would most likely go back but only when I know the new governments intentions first.

  • I think refugees should stay in their new countries if they want to because even though they moved from their original countries, if they feel welcome in their new countries, they should be allowed to stay. Plus, I wouldn't want to move back until I know it's safe, I wouldn't want to move to a country full of radiation.

    1. The reason I didn't pick A is because if they don't want to go back to Syria, they shouldn't be forced to move back.

    2. The reason I didn't pick C is because the refugees should still be supported in their new countries even though the government has to decide if the country is safe or not.

  • I feel like Syrian refugees should be allowed to stay in the countries that they went to to escape the Assad regime IF they liked the place they went to. This feels like a reasonable choice because Syria still needs to recover. Many markets, hospitals, and businesses were destroyed in the midst of the chaos caused by the war. This means that it would be practically impossible to build up the economy again. We would need some of the refugees to come back and help us do this. However, I feel it is fair for those who like where they were to be able to stay there because of their lack of freedom in the past twelve years.

  • I would choose answer B. This is because there is no need to bring back the refugees if they are already happy with where they are and what they have compared to their old life. The problem with A is that many people if not all that are brought back to Syria will be upset and most likely will attempt to flee the country again so it would just be a waste. The problem with C is that if they are unsafe where they settled and they come back to Syria, chances are the government is still just as bad as they remember. Basically there is a risk in C because there is a chance that the unsafe refugees would stay unsafe while Syria is now possibly a safe country. All in all, choices A and C either have a risk or the choice would just be a waste in money that they can use to rebuild the country.

  • I agree with option B because the refugees who have left Syria have started their new lives ,of cource they should be allowed to stay their because many of them might have started their own businesses or gotten new jobs which make them earn a lump some amount of money and they would be happy with their new lives. Forcing them to come back to Syria which is not in a good state right now is very wrong. Why should the people who left their country for saving their lives have to go back to Syria just because the war has stopped ? It should be the refugees choice to go back or to stay in the country they are living in currently and they should not be forced to return back .

  • In my opinion, option 2 would be the best choice. I think this way because if the Syrian People who have settled in a different country then come back, they still will not have homes and would live in harsh conditions. Also returning to Syria would mean the country itself would have to worry about even more people than before which is putting more pressure on Syria. My last reason is that if the people are happy where they are they shouldn't be FORCED to come back to a country that they recently fled because they didn't feel safe.

  • According to me option b is the best way to help syrian refugees. I choose option b because if refugees are settled in other country they should be allowed to live there. If stopped it will make them more unstable and mentally and economically weak.again and again shifting countries leads to various problems like settling in the surrounding , finding livelihood etc.and at last its their wish and their right to choose where to live. Also Syria is still not completely stable and hence the health , educationall and livelihood facilities are not very strong . If they find , the resources of that country are better they may choose to live their .I did not choose option A and C because in option A assad regime is over but still not everything is going well ,so nobody should be forced to live in unfavorable conditions . And for option C , numerous refugees depend on aids for basic things like food , shelter , water etc . Stopping this will affect the refugees in a serious manner .

  • I believe that B is the best option for this debate. The reason why I believe that B is the best option for this, is because taking somebody away from an area you don't own, would be a violation of the person's rights and their free will. Neither A nor C would be great options, for A, it forces all Syrians which left the state to return back to Syria, putting aside their will to stay in a different state. For C, Syrian refugees which left the state should still be supported because this would be unfair to them. So B would be the best choice because this wouldn't go against the person's free will or rights. And so I think that B is the best choice for this discussion.

  • In my opinion, Syrians who may have resettled in other countries should be allowed to stay in those countries if they are settled and happy. These people have a whole new life now and it would be disruptive to just pick up and move back to an unsettled war torn country. There are a lot of questions that the country of Syria still has to answer. One of those questions is what will the new government look like. Will it be more of the same which is why they fled the country in the first place? Imagine coming back to Syria and you just see a bunch of buildings that look abandoned and destroyed and people living in poverty. This is why those who have gone to other countries should be allowed to stay in those countries.

  • I would choose option B,because I think that the refugees from the country Syria should stay where they are in their new countries. Most of the refugees that fled to nearby locations went to settle in their new homes and might not want to come back to Syria.The problem with option C is you just can't abandon these people when they still need support. The problem with Option A is that people don't need to come back to Syria just because the war is over because it may still be unsafe. I think B is the best option out of the three.

  • In my opinion I choose B because Syrians should feel safe after what they have been through in addition Syrians should have a chance to choose their future and to make sure they are happy where they are.

  • I think it's B after all PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) can happen also it's not fair! They found a home after the war why should they leave??? Also the country is still in ruins it will probably take a long time to fix all of Assad's wrong doing.

  • I think B because if they settled in, they should not be thrown out of that country and if they still don't think that Syria is safe or is uncomfortable, they won't want to be there especially if they have PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and may have an episode (when someone re-lives a traumatic experience). So why should they leave its not hurting us.

  • Personally I think B option is the best, because everyone should have the oportunity to choose if they want to live in their natal country or in another one. Moreover, I think most Syrians had already stablished a home in other countries and I think it would be unfair for them if we expulse them. Finally, I want to add that if we expulse them from the houses they had already stablished they would not have any place to go because they houses had been destroyed and they would not have any place to go or stay

  • I see, in my opinion, that B is the right answer. Syrian refugees have fled from their country because of the past civil war in Syria. Syrian refugees were living in Syria as a happy country, but when the civil war started, they chose the option to migrate to another country. And don't forget that Syrian refugees started from 0 and have built up homes and have gotten jobs and made families. We have no right to kick them out because they have settled for life. Syrians have the right to choose whether or not to return to their mother countries if they are sure that no further harm will come to them. Some Syrians might be scared, firstly because they are unsure if their home country is safe, and secondly because some Syrian refugees might have grown up in this war, so in general they are scared from returning to the country and experience more harm.

    I also disagree with B and A.

    For those who chose A, I strongly disagree with their vision, because forcing Syrian refugees might make change in their mental health, because some of them grew up in the war and are afraid to go back. And the country is in a very bad condition right now so forcing them is not the good choice.

  • I will choose B because if the Syrians are comfortable and welcomed by the people of their new countries and if they are happy they should stay in their new countries. Turkey is one of the countries that the Syrians went to. If the Syrians are happy, welcomed and there is no problem living there they should stay. If the Turkish are kind and generous and donate things to the Syrians they should stay. If the Syrians and the Turkish share things with each other and interact with each other they should stay. That is why I chose B.

  • I personally think B is right because B gives Syrians a voice in what they choose unlike A and B to which the Syrians do not have a say.

  • Syrians are people who were in the civil war that lasted from 2011 and finished around December this year. First of all, A, Syrians should all return to there home country, Syria. They should return to their own homes, as if more of their people enter the country for example England, we won’t have enough jobs ,homes and food supplies, which is bad for our country as all the people living there will have a shortage of survival items like: water and food. That will make many people die and it will decrease the population of any country that that could happen to, so it would be easier for them to return to there own country ,as maybe if no one wants to enter (it’s a very small chance though) the country would turn into a deserted piece of land over time where no one lives. On the other hand, B, Syrians should be allowed to stay in the country there in. This is possible and very right for all the people, as with common sense they won’t all stay together and go to one country that will be over populated, Syrian families will all part into different cities. This is also very fair for them because it’s there life and they deserve to go to all the places they want and live wherever, imagine you were in the situation you would also want to be able to go to the places you want. Continuing onto, C,no further support should be given while they find out if Syria is safe or unsafe. I think this a very logical point as if the refugees are in a safe place now they will manage to find out if it’s ok to come back. But most will still be protected from the harm as they travelled far.

  • Considering the reasonable state of doubt shadowing the migrant citizens of syria, its reasonable to say B is the only viable option. If the citizens wish to stay in Turkey or wherever they were placed, if they were to apply for citizenship and recieve resources to become fulltime citizens it should be acceptable for them to stay with proper resources to remain in their country. they should also have the right to return to their city, if necesary.

  • All 3 options seem extreme in their way. One call is to deport all refugees, one is to supply them with aid forever, and one is similar to A, but they stay in the country they are seeking asylum. I would call for a middle ground between all of them. The country of Syria is still impoverished. The civil war had been very draining on the country, and now 16 million people live in poverty, and much infrastructure has been destroyed. The country as it is right now may not be the best place to go back to. However, this does not mean that refugees should stay in the country they are seeking refuge forever. When the country gets better in the following years, the refugees should be incentivized to go back. People in a country housing refugees could upset the population of that country, especially when the country has gotten significantly better. If the country has gotten significantly better, I would say that cutting aid should be a last resort for the Syrian refugees.

    1. Good_literature you make an interesting point that the refugees should be incentivized to go back. What kind of incentives would you propose?

  • I believe the best decision for what should happen to Syrian refugees is to keep them in their country until it is safe, the country should be stable before Syrian refugees come back to Syria. Syria should try to fund/loan people/companies into opening new businesses as a way for citizens/refugees to get jobs easier with livable wages. Syria should also try to take aid from other countries/volunteers to help rebuild and also build more affordable homes for refugees to live in, and any businesses/buildings that are essential for countries to grow and thrive. Making Syria into a financially stable country will take months or years but with aid from countries, this can help speed the process and Syrian refugees can begin to head back to Syria.

  • Now that the Assad regime has ended, I believe that option B is the best for Syrian refugees. "Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy". To expand on my point, let's not forget that Syrian refugees are still humans. For years they've had to refugee in a foreign land and over time that land could've become their home. People's feelings change over time, memories are made, and people thrive for a better life in these lands like Türkiye, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. This leads me to disclose my reason for not choosing A, just because the feared Assad regime has ended, Syrians shouldn't be forced back. Their lives they've been living could be better than the ones they had in Syria or will have if they return now that Syria is in a turmoil. Although it is their motherland, if a Syrian refugee is happy living elsewhere, they have every right as a human being to stay there. Not as a refugee, not as a Syrian, but a human being with feelings, struggles, and perseverance. Now, option C shouldn't be enforced either. If a Syrian refugee truly wishes to return they should have support, they're the ones affected, they're victims of Bashar al-Assad's unjust cruelty. Although I agree that they shouldn't be hasty to move back if the land is unsafe, we need to think in their shoes. Syrian refugees might have family who remained in Syria, whether in a prison or fighting Assad's regime, finding their loved one might be their biggest hope and motivation to move back, in this case, they need support.

  • I agree with B because the Syrians should be allowed to stay in the country that they like and be able to process this cause when they are in one country(like sryia) they develop their habits and make it more usual to their daily life and they have processed a point with the country and when they go in the new country they need to settle in and get used to it if they haven't gotten use to it then if they go to Syria it's gonna take longer for them to process this and it'll bring back bad memories probably and anyway if I were them I would probably be you saying and I would definitely want them to stay there and keep safe. I also want to say that and some people might go from what's been happening in always so What let's just keep it like that as they could be traumatised

  • Syrian refugees should return to Syria now as there is no longer any danger there. i think we should learn more about the safeety of the country before sending people back.

    1. Jazzed_library you mention there is no longer any danger there. Can you say more about why you think that? Do you think that is really true?

  • B - People have set up new lives and settled in their new countries. It should be the individuals choice as to whether they wish to return back to Syria. The disruption to families could be huge if families are forced back to Syria. People may had children in their new countries since fleeing Syria and these children would see their current country as their home. People have also adapted to their new countries and their cultures and should not have to uproot their lives again. There is still the risk of Syria not being a stable home for people yet and returning people back their against their will could cause further emotional and physical harm to these individuals.

  • We believe that this is a difficult decision to make because many Syrians could feel scared about returning to Syria - will they have homes or jobs? What will the living conditions be like? Will this occur again?

    Will countries like Turkey want to keep refugees because of the costs involved?

    Individual refugees should be allowed to make their own decisions.

  • I agree with B as if they are comfortable in their own country that is fine but if they are uncomfortable it should be ok for people to stay in a safe country because we are humans at the end of the day, and how would you feel if your country was unsafe to live in but other countries didn't let you in - how would you feel, I know I wouldn't be happy about it. So let's put ourselves in their shoes and take a second to think what they might be going through and welcome them and comfort them.

  • I very strongly agree with B, all refugees (including Syrians) should be able to stay in their new homes even if it is safe to go back. Many Syrians may want to go back to their country but other could have settled well in their new homes. Nobody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

  • I think B is correct
    Though a lot of people had to leave their hometown with sadness and grief ,looking for safety and comfort in nearby countries, they had build a new life in there.Had made a lot of difference.So going back all of a sudden would be a big decision to make.Plus are they even sure they wanna go back? There's a lot of trauma surrounding their past in the country during the civil war.For some people it is parhaps hard to forget about. So I think letting Syrian people stay in their new countries if they're happy should be allowed.

  • I think B because refuges should be aloud to stay in another country if they want to.Also if they want a fresh start they should have a chance to.The country that they was originaly in could have been racist,unsafe,at war or lots more so if they go back they could risk their lives. They should have a choice to stay or not no matter who they are

  • I think a and b because it is their choices and they don't know if their new government is good or bod and for a people can change because they reflected on their behaviour . In my school if we get on the orange list three times we have to reflect on their behaviour on a sheet which is good because the next day is a fresh start and they can make more progress . I think that Syria is happy because they have a more fair government .

  • In my opinion, I feel as if Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are happy and settled (B). Because of all the damage that has been done to their country, it would not be a safe place to return to after the war. I feel as if the Syrians, if comfortable, should be in a place where they can be happy as well as adjust to their surroundings after going through years of devastation.

  • In my opinion, B (all Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy) is the most correct option. Everybody should be able to decide where they live, plus, if they have already settled, if they have found a job, learned the language of the country where they are currently living and they have already met new people, it would be very hard to leave behind that new life they have built, mostly if that life is better and they are happier now. I also think that the inhabitants of the countries where Syrians have moved on should respect that. Also, it is the government's responsablity to manage the situation to not be a chaos and overpopulate some cities. In conclusion, I think that it's part of a person's freedom to be allowed to live where they can be happy and they can grow.

  • In my opinion, B is the most logical option, because the refugees have already settled down in the country they took asylum in. Sending them back would just be wrong.

  • I believe B is the right choice as Syria will still be going through a difficult time and if the refugees had to go back, their efforts and how much they put their lives in danger to escape would be pointless. As well as the fact they would be going straight into an area filled with poverty among many other issues, so it would be best if the refugees stayed in the country they are in and settled in until Syria is profusely declared safe and has figured out their problems to an extent. If the refugees were forced to go back it could create more conflict.

  • I believe B is the best argument, this is due to the fact that Syria is now under extreme poverty and needs immediate aid so they cannot focus at the people with safety and better living standards (refugees) and not the people who are in life and death scenarios (the people living in Siria right now). Aswell as this they are struggling with socio-economic problems aswell as no government and need to focus on the people who are now in need in the country and need immediate help.

  • I believe that Syrian refugees should be given the freedom to choose what is going to happen next by weighing their priorities and concerns. If they feel that they're settled and want to continue their lives the way it is, maybe they shouldn't be forced back in Syria, because i think they will/can change their minds after Syria gets fully stabilized and safe which will make it more livable. That's why i would like to go for option B, but then i think option A isn't entirely incorrect as many Syrians left syria just because they feared the Assad family, and now that the assad regime is over, they can come back and continue their lives peacefully IF they want to.

  • I think B would be the most suitable option in this condition. Considering that rhey have fought for years to get their home back and live peacefully without having to deal with survival problems such as not having enough food to live and the bombs being thrown everywhere making them unable to move from their place because of their fear. They have the right to live without terrorists picking on them and making each one die out of the unsuitable survival conditions . Other countries should help in that and give Syria support to continue living and be known as A COUNTRY . By support i mean helping them build their houses again so they can live in a proper environment, give them survival supplies such as water and food. Even a little can help.

  • I think the correct one is letter B, as syrian people should have the right to stay in other countries if they are happy, but do it the legal way and ask permission to the country, after that the conflict has ended they should ask for legal permanent residence.

  • I choose B, because what if the country that Syrian refugees stayed in was better than the new Syria? The refugees should have a choice, other than getting told immediately by the Syrian government to go back to Syria after the new leader came in. If the refugees think that the country that they are staying at is better than the new Syria, then they have the absolute right to stay where they are at. If vice versa, then they have the right to say that they will go back to Syria.

  • I belive that letter c is the correct option considering not only the people from siria but also thinking on the country's who take the refugies.

    1. Can you tell me why you believe option C is correct?

    2. I disagree with you clever_ lute because...
      If no further support is shown to Syrian refugees, Syria would be left hanging without anyone to help them or even to help them fund the hunger and build basic needs e.g. hospitals etc..
      For example an election is taking place everyone is tensed and anxious to know how is it. That period when everyone is tensed and anxious is leaving people hanging without anyone to lead them.

  • In my opinion I would choose B as the situation in Syria is still blurred and unclear. No one can deny that Syria is opening a new page in its history but the condition is still unstable.
    If any Syrian is happy where he lives, no one can force him to leave.
    Reiterating the Refugee Rights Convention on asylum's, which is a legitimate right for every human being, that refers to the right of non-refoulment for refugees.

  • I believe all Syrian refugee aid should be paused until they know more about the situation. This is quite right for everyone, because it has in mind the different points of view of the foreign citizens and the local people without having to make a state in a hurry, which would create pressure over people who don’t know what to do. This gives the opportunity to embrace a problem that sooner or later must be faced. Despite the other options, which make good points, C its for me an option that goes with the morality of knowing what’s right.

  • Hello,
    I believe that B is the correct answer. I think this because:
    1. A recent systematic view on 8,176 Syrian refugees reported a prevalence of 43% of the 8,176 have PTSD, 40% for depression and 26% for anxiety. Travelling back to the country that was the cause of this could lead to major mental and physical health problems that might affect their later lives and the lifestyle that they choose to live.
    2. Especially for children (but also adults too), If they have made relationships with the people that they have bonded with in their new country, they might not want to leave them and go back home. Another thing to note, is that if they do not have a choice in travelling to their home country, and they do, there might not be the same people or buildings back home that they might be use to, which may cause them to become upset.

    But in a certain way, I also agree with C (the ‘ until people know more about how safe or unsafe the country is now’ part of the suggestion, but not the ‘no further support should be given to Syrian refugees’ part). My reasoning for this is that we shouldn’t just ignore the refugees until we know for a fact that is it safe, because they might need to access resources that wouldn’t be available because of said rule. Furthermore, it would be reasonable for them to not go into Syria until they know that it is completely safe.
    -plucky_seagull

  • In my opinion, I believe the correct choice for the government to make is Option B. I think that because not only have these people suffered for 12 consecutive years, they have somehow found the courage to escape their home to find a place where they can seek shelter from the war happening. However, ever since there's a new leader, I don't think it's fair to force these people back into a place where they have so many traumatic experiences from. Nonetheless, I also think that if they want to go back because they think it's safe, they should be allowed to. Overall, I think out of the 3 million Syrians who were scared for their lives everyday should be able to atleast have a choice on where to live.

  • This conflict has placed Syrians in all kind of different situations whether it is politically, economically or some others. They are the ones fighting right now for the welfare of their country and they should be able to decide what is the best option for them and their family.
    Hence, my answer would be B: SYRIANS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO STAY IN THEIR COUNTRIES IF THEY ARE SETTLED AND HAPPY.
    As I have stated, my answer would be B because, placing myself in their shoes, it has surely been difficult for them to escape from that situation or decided what was best to do. Moreover, some families have decided to escape from the country for a specific reason and I don't think that we should take that away from them and have the right to force them into the country. They have probably been through lots of trauma there and they should make the decision themselves, as they are the ones who are going to benefit or suffer the consequences.
    Either way, there are people who have escaped the situation temporarily and have the intention of returning home, with the presence of their loved ones and continue fighting for their beloved country. These people should also have the right to choose and return to their country.

    To wrap up, for me, in this situation, the key factors are democracy, understanding how they may feel and how they would want to be helped.

  • In my opinion, I choose B. It seems right that many people stay where they feel happy and safe, it is a human right to live where you feel you belong. If all Syrians go back to Syria, they might loose friendships, bonds and a place where they are welcomed. Also we don't know if Syria is safe and if the refugees move back and another war starts, they will have no where to go.
    But it is also not fair on the government of the country where the refugees stay in. They will have to pay for all the refugees and make more houses and give more free food. Countries don't have enough money and space to pay for asylum seekers. Also, the Syrians might not speak english meaning that they can't get jobs that will pay for the home bills and the food to raise a family.
    A solution for this would be to let the refugees stay in the country that feels like home, but on the condition that they get jobs and contribute to society. If they don't do that, then they should be sent back to Syria. Everyone should have a choice of where they live, they just have to do their bit for the country.

  • I can see why some people think that A and C are good choices, but i personally think that B is the best option here. It gives the Syrians freedom to either stay in their new countries or return to Syria if they aren't happy in their new country.

  • The option that I think is correct is option B, Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy. I think that this option makes the most sense. Firstly, it allows for the Syrian people to have the option to return back to their home country if they wish to. If these refugees are now happy with their new lives living in these countries, they should be allowed to stay. Although I do understand that this could cause a bit of a problem in these countries, I feel that it isn't fair to have the Syrian refugees to first of all be forced out of their home country due to it being unsafe, and then once they have finally began to settle in and get used to their new life in a new country, they are then forced to return back to a place that they aren't even sure is safe.

  • I definitely choose B , because if you were a Syrian and was in that civil war then traveled to Turkey , and you were completely welcomed and living without any country problems, why would you want to return back to your damaged country ? I really understand that syria is the land of Syrians but also right now it's not completely safe, and for the new president , Syrians didn't trust him yet . Also,Syrians have all the right to stay were they want whether it's their own country or another country they are comfortable with , because they are humans just like us. And we must stand with them.

  • We believe that option B is the right thing to do. This is because a majority of Syrians would have been in their new countries for a substantial time, resulting in them settling down and potentially creating a whole new life.

    Syria was an extremely dangerous place to live, people had to make the difficult and heartbreaking decision to flea their homes, why would they want to return to a place which may bring back bad memories which will inevitably have a negative impact on their mental and physical health. Young children will have minimal recollection of the state their home country was in, they have grown up in a safe and happy environment where they have been welcomed with open arms, to strip them of their security in these new homes and take them away from their friends would be cruel and unfair.

    The elderly community have faced immense trauma and heartbreak upon leaving their homes in Syria. Leaving their home county to move across the world would have been extremely distressing. We should protect them and minimise disruption to their lives, to keep them safe and happy.

    How can we guarantee that Syria will be safe forever? How do we know that they will not have to move again?

  • Hello,
    The best choice for me was B and C. I said B because Syrian refugees have been living in turkey and other countries for years and they feel safe their as well. Also, if they are happy living in turkey or any other countries what would force them to come back. If I was one of the Syrian refugees, I would never come back to Syria because I feel happy in other country and of course, syrian people would choose the place they feel happy in.
    But if they are not happy, they must come back but not before checking if the country is safe.
    Then, I chose C because I think that Syrian refugees must take the right decision before doing anything so they must make sure that al assad will not harm them again in any way. Maybe syria is not safe now or may be can be safe so they must be sure of the information they get in order not to be harmed in any way or by anyone not specially al assad.
    On the other hand, I didn't agree on choice A because what is in syria is over until now, but after that,maybe al assad can fight them again or other countries can make problems for them.
    Finally, I chose B and C because they are suitable for what is happening in syria.
    Thanks🌻

  • I think B but i can also see sides for C. with B it should be their choice especially if they are working, and contributing to the community. but for C I don't agree, we should still help them, i do agree that we should wait to hear about the government before we send them back. but it should always be a choice for them, it's their decision. if we can help and support them we always should as helping each other is important. For big or small things we are all human and deserve to live how we wish in peace .

  • I believe C is the best answer because I don't believe that other countries should be responsible for refugees is a different story, but I believe if it is deemed as safe they should be returned because again as previously mentioned why should other governments be responsible for using THEIR money and THEIR resources on people that have entered THEIR country. My main point being that if it is deemed safe then the refugees should be sent back because every country has their problems i.e. the UK has problems with the cost of living crisis etc so why should they feel that they have to care for refugees that aren't benefiting the country?

  • I think B because if they are settled and happy in their new life and home, why should they have to go back? If the countries they are living in now are comfortable with having them there then that is okay. I believe that if people are working and contributing to the society they now live in, they will help the new countries they live in instead of causing harm.

  • I think option B is the best as those who lived in Syria only knew war, and returning could trigger PTSD due to the war and oppressive Assad regime. Those displaced to other countries may like their new life, free from war where they can live without the worry of government corruption and oppression.

    I don't think it would be fair to pick option A as some Syrians may experience severe trauma by going back to their country. It was reported that by the end of 2017, over 97% of barrel bomb deaths were civilians, and more than 25% were children. Forcing people to return without ensuring thier safety could put more lives at risk, especially since the true intentions of Al-Sharaa are still unknown.

    Option C is also unfair because many displaced Syrians were forced to leave without knowing where they were going, with no money, job, or family to support them. I think it is not a good idea to put a hold on support as it can leave Syrians in a really difficult situation where they must fend for themselves. Some may want to return home to rebuild their lives, and others might want to remain in asylum.
    Though we don't know how safe the country will be, Al-Sharaa must have good intentions if he was motivated to lead a rebel group to force Assad out of power, and so if he wants to prove himself a good leader, he should start by helping those who are displaced.

    It would be unfair to deny support to Syrians as it's not their fault they sought safety - they didn't want to die. Many are stuck in places they never chose to be in as they were forced out of their country by war.

  • I do like the choice that option B provides to the refugees, although I think that, like in option C, we should wait until we have more information about the government. If we were to do this, then at least we would be able to know that they wouldn't be sent back to a similar situation that they had previously left.
    We could wait for the information about the new government, then, if it's suitable for the refugees to return, they'll be given an option of whether they want to go back.
    Not only could this help them feel like they have a sense of control over what will happen with them, but this also could help us know how many of them would be staying, allowing us to help them to find permanent residence.

  • I think that the syrians should be allowed to stay in the country that they have settled in because everybody should have a say and everybody has the right to stay somewhere as long as they are happy.

  • I think that Syrian refugees should be allowed to go wherever they want without any criticism because they don't want the war to be going on in there country. There is no point in building schools and hospitals again when the country that it is being built in is at war. How would children get education and aid without schools and hospitals?

  • I think b because everyone should have their say .For example , pretend that I was Syrian and I was a refugee living in Spain. I am 23, I have a wife,a job and really good friends.Then I wouldn't want to leave

  • I think that B is the correct one because i would want to have the choice to stay in a different country if i found it safer, even if the war had ended. This is like our rights as people; we get to have a say.

  • I think Syrians should be able to make there own decisions but also i think that they should stay put until they know more about the gouverment and what decisions Ahmed al-sharaa will make, otherwise the rules might overtake there country and they will have strict religious rules and the people might get stuck in the country.

  • In my opinion, i think refugees should be able to get back in to there own country but first they should rebuild all of the country before they should go back but cause this is a civil war its all happening in one place, but this will cost lots and lots of money.

  • If some Syrians fled Syria I think that those Syrians should be able to choose if they go back or not because everyone should decide what they need and if it's good for them or if it is not good, ecspecially if most buildings have been destroyed in that civil war.

  • In my perspective i believe that people who has fled their country because of war should have a decision to stay in the country they are currently in or Syria.They should not enforce people to return back to Syria or prevent people from coming back.They should not withdraw from their country if they like it there or if they don't want to.

  • I agree with B because all humans get a choice, it's part of human rights, if they get to stay in their new country they'll probably learn a new language which will grow their brain cells which will make them smarter. This will especially help those who have boundaries in their learning. But I agree as well that Syria is their home country and they're used to the environment. But I fully agree that all Syrians should be brought back straight away because they can easily be evacuated back to wherever they were because they've done it before. But if another war could start they have to stay.

  • In my opinion the best option is the B because de Syrians who have fled war, they found a safe place in other country to rebuild their lives. If the have been integrated, they contribute to the society and also they found happiness in their new home. Take away the possibility to stay in it, must be unfair. They didn´t decide to flee their country so if a person has found peace and stability in a country, they should have the rigt to stay in it, at least until Syria is safe to return.

  • I think the Syria refugees should be able to choose were they stay as Syria is very dangerous especially since they don’t in my opinion have a good leader as he might introduce new rules it is not safe their at all they don’t need to stay besides if they do something bad in another country they will get locked up in prison anyway

    1. Fair comment, what makes you believe Syria's current leader is not a good one?

  • I think the right one is the option B, because i agree with the fact that syrians must be allowed to stay in their new countries. Because this war started a lot of years ago, so lots of people exiles of the country and maybe those syrians have created a new life in their new countries, so i think that they must be allowed to decide if they really want to go back to Syria to continue with the life they had before going to the other country or if they preffer to stay in their new countries and continue with those lifes that thay have already started.

  • I think the best option is B. Actually, there are many years of war and people probably have bulid their lives again in other place. I think that if they have been in a country for a long time, they should be able to choose stay in their new country or return to their origin country.

  • In my opinions C this is because the refugees haven’t been having news from their country recently this mean I don’t know if they can transfer new government and new leader. I think they should wait in The country that they are in until they know further information about what is going on in their own country.

    I understand B is not a bad way of doing things, many people think this is A good way of sorting out the refugees, ensuring they are happy.

  • Well I think that this question could be seen in 2 ways: the first is that it is normal that although the war is over people do not want to return as they have been in another country for almost 14 years and have rebuilt their lives there, on the other hand the country to which they have emigrated would not have to take care of the Syrians as they can return and so they do not invest so many resources in them and can invest them in the citizens of their country and resources for them or for the improvement of the country. In colclusion I think that the B is the correct option because is very hard to remake your whole life again.

  • In my opinion the option right is the B. I believe this because many Syrians had to take refuge many years ago due to the conflict and now that they have rebuilt their lives they must have the right to decide wether to stay in their new country or return. Furthermore, the countries who welcomed the refugees have no problem with them so that is why if they are happy living nowadays in their new countries they can do it instead of returning to Syria. I hope the situation improves there and many people feel that they can live there in the way as they do in their new countries.

  • I think b is correct because Syria should be allowed to be excepted to a different country because of war so they should be able to go

  • What I think is correct in this situation are options A and B. While option A states that all Syrians that have feared the Assad regime should return now that it is over, Option B has a truly different opinion.

    According to me both these conditions cover a really broad spectrum of options. While option A does have a bold point, Option B can also not be ignored. If a person has settled in a new country as a refugee, they have already faced many problems in their life which is the reason why they find themselves homing in a different country. But now that the Assad regime is over there is no fear of brutality and cruelty. So what I think should be done is that all the Syrian refugees around the world, especially in Turkey, should be given a certain period of time to depict whether their country is now safe or not for their family and themselves. Then the ones who want to shift may do so, but after the time period ( lasting around 6 months) ends, no NEW refugees shall be allowed.

    In this way both the refugees and the countries will be contended with the future of their lives and countries
    THANK YOU

  • We think the answer should be B, Refugees should be allowed to stay in their new countries because...They may no longer feel safe moving back to Syria. There is a chance many people could be scared that this could happen again and also they may have many negative memories and trauma caused by what they have experienced. If they were also to return is there an adequate infrastructure of housing, shelter and access medical care after the war?

  • Manor Park Primary:
    1) I believe that any syrian refugees can stay in their country as we dont know if syria is going to have another war with the new government. And if somebody got married or had a child or made friends or begun an education- they can stay in the country they have taken refuge in. Even prisoners should be allowed to stay in their country as it makes sense.

    2) I think that they should allow them to stay in their country or return. it is their choice to return and decide which country is better for their lifestyle.

    3) I think that they should be allowed to stay in the country if they are happy or in need of medical attention/ medication. If somebody has been born or been married then they should be allowed to stay as this is a large life event.

  • I believe that B would be the best answer for Syrians after the 12 year war that occurred. Imagine you were caught in war for around 6 months, and then you just realise that you and your family need to escape the country right that second or you might be in trouble. But then, suddenly, a group of soldiers from your home country grab your new life and just throw it down the drain, as they also grab you and your family and throw them into a giant aircraft and take off. That would NOT feel too good, and then not getting any support after you had to flee? That's just rough. So, Syrians should have a choice, but what would you do? Would you stay, or would you leave?

  • I agree with option B because if they don't want to go back in their country and they need to go to the court room to see if they are harmless and they are able to stay in that country because they might not be happy when they go back to their country and it was destroyed so they are going to a different country and live there forever.

  • In my opinion I would say option B. I think that Syrian refugees should be able to choose if they want to stay in their new country or if they want to go back to Syria. I think this because they are the people living there, people should be able to choose what they want especially if its to do with their life style. If I had to choose I would stay in the county that I went to during the war until I knew that Syria is completely safe to go back to.

    I would have waited until all of the bombed buildings were rebuilt such as hospitals, houses and schools. Most of the Syrian refugees have gone to Turkey due to them letting them into their country and turkey is a nice place to live in because of its wonderful sites.

    All Syrians should be able to make their own choice on where they live and no-one should be able to go against or say they're not allowed to do that, Syrians can stay in all the different countries that accept refugees and give them a new home.

  • I think B because there home land is being destroyed and I feel heartbroken that they have to leave . They also might have had happy memories there so we should let them go and live in that country.

  • I think B is right because even though the Assad regime is over the refugees from the countries they went to should have a choice whether they want to come back or not if they are happy being in the country they left to.

  • I agree with B. mainly because I feel as if I were to leave a country that's bad to me and my people, establish a life tin a new place, maybe even a proper job or family; a chance at a better life, and then was forced to come back to the country I left, I'd be upset. i do understand how some people may think that they should go back to Syria since they have a new president... but I don't agree on that a lot because then you'd have to mix A and C to support that claim to a better extent.

  • If they are settled where they are they should stay . If people force them to go back to Syria it will be totally unfair. Forcing them to go back will be like declaring everyone who has ever relocated from there country should go back regardless of bonds, relationships and occupations.
    If all the 6 million refuges are forced to go back . Where will all of them stay, they might even turn into IDP's . Their could be multiple problems that could arise out of all those people coming back to Syria.
    Countries like Egypt, Jordan , Iraq and Turkey shouldn't have to close their borders to the refuges

    1. I agree with you they should be able to stay wherever they have settled. They could have already owned a house. or have some good friends with people.

  • Everyone has their own choice! I would like to go with option 'B'
    Syrians had to go through a lot recently, they have been facing high and crucial risks. They have witnessed a war which has snatched their loved ones from them, they have lost their homes and seen destruction.

    So, if they wish to comeback they should be welcomed wholeheartedly, but the ones who are feeling safe in other country, they feel connected to their lives again.. then they should be allowed to live as they might like.

    And for the ones who wish to comeback, they should be welcomed after Syria has started to renovate (not completely) and the economics have risen to its good level. Then people may comeback and raise the level to excellence and Syria and it's citizens may live happily and safely.

    Thank You!

  • Hello
    In my point of view, I think the letter B is my choice because I think they would need to be the ones who choose continuing their new life’s or starting again from cero, because I think it is not fair to make them move again.
    But in another point of view, I also think C a little because if people are not coming back to Syria, the country will be underpopulated.

  • I think that we should allow all refugees into safe countries because those people need homes and they are innocent and if it was me I would be upset because I lived there and I never had to move schools and houses and would not have to evacuate because of the civil war

  • I believe that B is the answer. I think this because some Syrians might not want to go back to their home country. If they have settled in, I believe that they should stay if they want to. Option B doesn't force anyone to come back or stay. This way, the people can make their own decisions. The Syrians don't have to leave their good life in the stable country they are currently in - they won't have to throw away their comfortable life they have.

    I strongly disagree with options A and C. Syrians should not be forced to come back. They may think that Syria is still quite dangerous and precarious. If they do go back, they will lose everything they once had. Option C is also quite unacceptable. Syrians have had a hard time in Syria so they should still receive support from the government. When the president is chosen and Syrian refugees are given information, it may be too late to go back.

  • In my opinion, I would think that C is the right answer. I think it's important for the syrians to know more about their new government before having loved ones come back to Syria. We never really know the true intentions of the new government because they've really only been handling things for less than 2 months. The new government's actions and policies will be very important in demonstrating their commitment to the safety and prosperity of their citizens. In the meantime, Syrians from different countries should come back when the time is right, and if Syria is safer and more stable.

  • I personally believe that either C or B is the correct choice. This is because I believe that if you have moved to a country and remained there for multiple years you should be able to stay there, however, if the country was under the impression that the refugees would only stay there until it is safe to return then I believe that C would be the correct choice. I believe that C is a better option over A as it does not force the refugees to go back to a country that they cannot ensure is safe. If the refugees were able to wait until they know more about what is happening, it may improve how safe they feel and improve their trust in future decisions. This is why I believe that either C or B is the correct choice in this situation.

  • I believe that A is the most appropriate option as now there is nothing to be fearful of anymore. However, this may be expensive to fly back from other countries so B may be a more financially acceptable option but A is more morally acceptable.

  • I think that B is the most optimal decision for Syria. The civil war had gone on for 50-ish years, causing many civilians to flee to bordering countries or even other countries further than that. Some civilians would want to stay in Syria since that is their home, and other refugees who have fled to other countries may also want to stay there, since they could have settled and created entire families. But some Syrians may want to return home to their country since it is safe. It all comes down to a matter of what decision makes them happiest, which I believe is the best course of action.

  • I think that B is the correct option. Although foreign countries do not have an obligation to keep Syrian refugees, those citizens should be allowed to choose where to stay if they have already settled into new lives.

  • Personally, I agree with C because I believe that the movement of refugees should be postponed until Syria has an established government, which has outlined its policies. The reason I think this is because at this current moment, despite the end of President Assad's rule, the safety of Syria is still very much uncertain. I believe that it is unfair to make a decision which determines the lives of so many refugees (over 6 million Syrians) when their safety is very much at risk. Once Syria has an established government, a decision can be made regarding whether Syria is safe to return to, or if refugees would be safer remaining in their new countries.

    I believe that once the government's policies have been outlined, Syrian refugees can make an informed decision over whether staying in their new countries or returning to Syria would be safer. Through this, refugees still have the ability to make their own decisions, but they can be made with clarity as they have a better understanding of what Syria's current situation is.

  • I think that B would be the correct option, there is much unrest and uncertainty the country at the minute and if someone did not feel safe returning there they should not be forced to. As well as this people may have started to settle down and started to adapt to there new home, I think forcing them to return would be cruel.

  • I think b is the correct option because Syrians are already settled in their new countries and they might be have adapted in their new environment. This might also happen that they are not comfortable in Syria but they love the atmosphere there. They have already made connections over there. Things can be affordable there. It might be advanced than Syria. There are many reasons.

  • I believe that option c is the best option. I think this because i do not think that all Syrians that fled the country should be forced to return to Syria as they could be leaving their homes and safety to end up living on the streets in poverty in Syria and it may not be completely safe yet.
    Additionally, I also disagree that option B would be the best option, I believe this because if Syria is safe then they probably should move back and reunite with their families. As well as this, it will cause more poverty for people in those countries by them living there rather than living in their home country.
    Finally the reason why I think that option C is the most optimal answer is because it is still unknown whether the country is entirely safe again as it is too soon to decide and there is also not a government or president yet and the countries future is still undecided. By bringing them back to Syria could put them in more danger, and if they do, how will they do that, who will enforce it?

  • Hello everyone,
    I believe that option B is the best option for the Syrian refugees which have fled from there home country. I believe this because it would cruel to move over 6 million Syrians who have built their lives back up in another country to their home country. I think it would be cruel because their lives might be completely unsettled again if they have to move because they will have to find jobs and a comfortable place to live again. I believe that they should be able move back if they want to if they feel like they are reading to go back to their home country. I disagree with option A because they Syrian refugees have built lives in other countries including building families and getting comfortable jobs and homes. Therefore, it would be cruel to send them back to Syria to restart their life over again. I also disagree with option C because we already know the outline of what is going on in Syria to know roughly whether it safe or not. Also waiting to give Syrians help might leave thousands if not millions without the urgent help they need and have needed for the past months or years.

  • My friend is Syrian and he has transitioned to the UK in the year 2013 after the civil war. I believe that Syrians that should be able to have the choice if they want to go back to their original homeland due to the fact that they may have a nice house and a family with children who have many friends. It may be hard for them to make such a big move as they may not be able make friends as easy as they did in their original country also the UK is a safe country currently and Syria has only just started to recover and its still very possible for Syria to have another outbreak of a civil war putting their life at risk. Also going back to Syria may be good for others as family may be their or more job opportunities all of this to risk the chance to be trapped in Syria over another corrupt government putting may children's lives in jeopardy.

  • in syria i think you should be able to go where you want to go and we have been lucky for our pupil we have learnt a lot about this topic this as he is a syrian aswell and talked about his sensitive topic

  • I am a firm believer of equality, I am not ignorant or bigoted, but of course, I can not even imagine the struggle of Syrian refugees. From my perspective, our country should house refugees, but we should also understand the corruption surrounding the Government. We should grasp the concept that refugees aren't a problem for our country or economy, they want to add to it, the refugees and immigrants that are truly struggling, are suffering immensely from loss, desperation, prejudice, and horrific racism. The fact that we, meaning our figure head, our government that we are all supposed to rely on, won't help the people who need it most, they enforce the treatment and cold shoulders that people give to the refugees, they encourage the abandonment and ignorance of foreign affairs. overall, i believe that volunteers should house and stabilise the lives of refugees.

  • I agree with B because even though the Assad has fallen the Syaria people should be able to choose if they stay in the county they settled in,beacuse why should they have to go back if their happy where they are.Plus no one should be forced to go somewhere if they don't want to.

  • I believe that countries should follow suggestion B. I have chosen this option as those that who do not wish to return to Syria without knowing the state of the new government should have the decision to stay in the country that they are currently safe in whilst those that prefer to return back to Syria will have the option to. This ensures that everyone's voice is heard since they have the human right to have their own opinion and choose what they desire. Additionally, considering the fact that this civil war was ongoing for thirteen years, those that have taken refuge in countries for a longer amount of time may have families that they have built over the years in that country and it is difficult to change lifestyles after being used to one for a long period of time. The sudden change may be hard to (re)adjust to and could cause distress to these families, especially children.

  • I believe B is the correct answer due to, what if they don’t want to leave? What if they already feel comfortable in the country they’re in?

  • I feel as though you need to think that if you were in there shoes you need to appreciate that many syrians dont feel safe and need some help to stay safe which may be to leave there country and seek refuge in another country. Its also crutial to stay aware that they are also human and deserve a safe life and shouldnt live in fear. However when they feel it may be safe to return maybe when the war and cinflict is over they should return back to syria however no one knows how long it will last. Therefore we humans should help other humans seek refuge in our countrys and not disaprove just beacause they are from another country that they feel unsafe in.

    1. I agree with your statement, I also feel that we will never truly know what it feel like and how it feel to have our homes tarnished.

  • In my opinion, C is my answer because you have to know what will happen before you go back. If you go back immediately, you wouldn’t know if the ruler is a good ruler or a bad one. If he was a bad one you wouldn’t know until further notice. So that’s why I think that C is a good answer.

  • I believe if the refugees wish to return back to their original home, then we should guarantee their safety by evaluating security conditions, ensuring human rights, and providing aid to returnees before sending them back to their homeland. For those who have built stables lives outside of Syria, their host countries should offer many ways to achieve citizenship to assist them in integrating effectively into their new environment. To incentivize refugees to return, governments could invest in rebuilding Syria by giving foreign aid in the form of financial, educational, and infrastructure support.

  • I choose B because we have no choice on other peoples opinions on where to live. They can freely live where they want, and if they want to come back they can come back It's up to them not the government .

  • In my opinion, B is the best one here and I don't think A would be a good option. Firstly, Assad regime has caused a lot of trauma to their civilians that they need to evacuate and migrate to another country for better safety. If I were to be one of them, I don't think I would return to Syria. Second thing is that up until now, Syria is still not safe to travel or stay in as smartraveller.gov.au suggested that it would best not to travel to Syria due to the extreme danger still happening, like terrorism and kidnapping.

    The problem with this is after the fall of Assad regime, as what Josie said, some European countries discontinued the process of asylum applications from Syrian refugees. Now, if this continues to happen, then C would be an alternative. However, C has to be supported by the United Nations taking action in ensuring the safety of Syria so the refugees may safely return to their homeland. Another alternative is the United Nations should work with other countries that offers asylum for the remaining refugees. I think they should also launch a social service program to help them manage with their crisis.

  • We felt that it should be up to the individual families to decide, however, children should have a say in the family's decision as it impacts them too. If the child was born in the UK they won't know life outside of the UK and so it will affect them even more. Some of us did feel at the start that sending the refugees back would be a good idea, but after seeing what they were going to go back to many of us changed our minds.

  • I think B is the best choice because the people that left Syria left for a reason. Syria is a unsafe country and if the people want to stay in the country their in they should be able to.

  • I believe option B is the best overall. I think B is correct because if I enjoyed my new life inside another country, then I'd want to stay, due to my happiness and safe community. Although, A and C could also work. For A if a Syrian had only wanted to move to another country because of Assad, but wanted to go back if their relatives stayed or because Assad passed away, then they should be allowed to go. But at the same time, they shouldn't be forced to go back to Syria just because the situation of Assad is over, it would also make the country overpopulate.

    1. I agree because it’s like in ww2 when children were evacuated the might have had a better life like the boy in goodnight mr Tom when the boys mum was mean to him
      But some people might disagree because some of the people who were evacuated had a worse time. Therefore I think people should have a choice

  • Let's go with the process of elimination once again;
    First , C option Syrian refugees must be taken care of they are in your country because they don't feel safe in theirs,We should accept them with open arms and also the situation of syria is at a turning point it may lead to more worse than good or it can become good, moreover there are 6.7 million syria refugees in the world, looking their perspective they could get easily exploited or used violence against them the main principal is the humanitarian aid and and the hosting countries of the current Syria refugees are very much in the favour of humanitarian support, additionally this option will make the refugees in a vulnerable position, not addressing the refugees will put syria in a vulnerable position, so I think it is safe to say eliminate option C first, next comes option a which can a lead to more worse than good or more good than bad as the situation of Syria is still at turning point, even if the situation got a lot better the homes and the infrastructure of Syria is completely destroyed and it would bring back the memories of the war time, so I clear out option A, Atlast I choose option b , it has is pros and cons like may put on a burden on the host country take for Turkey example is GDP of 5% is going to the Syrian refugees, moreover 70% of Syrian are not able to access basic necessity , it can put local resources at a risk also but the livelihood of the people will be good, seeking that Turkey is a humanitarian country and they willingly accept the refugees I think option be is over all better

  • I think b because they should get to decide if they want to stat in there new country or not. They might not think that its safe in Syria.

  • I believe choice b is the correct one. People shouldn't be forced to leave a place they feel safer in or that they already settled in. It would be like the situation in america, where President Trump is trying to deport immigrants. Syrians also may have a hard time trusting the government or be scared of the government after Assad's regime has happened.

  • In my views, I would go with option C. They should be supported until they get to the verge of understanding the righteous acts. They should be supported by other governments or people until they ave their ow elected leader and have the sense of ethicality. Therefore, till the country becomes safe they should be given favours.

  • I personally feel that If I might be a citizen of Syria I would choose option B because if I feel safe in another country I would like to spend my lifetime over there only. The country which protects me provides me with every necessary needs. I would definitely live there. I would never like to shift back to Syria the country which doesn't provide me security and harms my personal life.

  • I completely agree that Syrian citizens should not get forced to leave . Personally if I was to be a Syrian citizen I would do what I think was safe and what I felt comfortable in doing. What’s the point in going all the way back to Syria when you could loose your good life everything you have learnt the the people you have met the new friends you have made or even family. This would also be a huge risk of never being alllwowed to go back where you feel safe .

  • I go with the option C. Because Syrian people were in need of support. They were living a fearful life with lots of confusion. They doesnt know what would happens futher. So they should be given a a clear statement about the current situation by the government. This will help the Syrian refugees to return to their home town. Due to the war they lost their family, belongings, etc.. After the war, To lead a life they need a clear status of the country right now.

  • I think B is the best choice. Syrians should stay if they are happy and settled. Think about it if our house was destroyed in a war, would we move back just because the fighting stopped? nah! we would wait to see if it's safe, if schools are open, if jobs exist, if life can be normal again. Right now, Syria is still rebuilding and no one knows how long that will take. Even history shows us what happens when people return too soon after war. I read in social media that after the war in Iraq, many refugees went back only to face more danger and no jobs. In Rwanda, after the genocide, returning home didnt erase the fear of the people. If they force Syrians to go back now, aren't we repeating the same mistakes?. Instead of saying "GO HOME", why not give them a choice? countries should work with the UN to check if Syria is really safe before sending people back. Until then, Syrians should be allowed to stay, study, and work where they are. They lost everything once, lets not take away their second chance.

    thank you :)

  • In my opinion, A is not right because if they've settled in, why do they have to move back and lose everything from the country they are coming from. B and C are in the middle because people don't know if it's safe: what if there's a new war/ civil war? People can't force refugees to move back into the country that they left because of war. Instead, they can move into a protected country like Britain. I have mixed feelings about this one.

  • I think B is the best option because according to some researches of mine the people in Turkey are welcoming the Syrian refugees. Since the Syrians are welcomed and comfortable there is no problem to be where they want furthermore if they want to go to their country there would be no problem too.
    What do you think?

  • I think the best option is B, Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are happy and settled. The reason is simple: a lot of refugees have built new lives in countries like Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, and they shouldn't just be forced to go back to Syria without knowing if it's truly safe. Even though the Assad regime may have fallen, Syria still faces lots of problems like ongoing violence and rebuilding.

    Take Turkey as an example. Many Syrians there have found jobs, started families, and are contributing to the economy. If they were sent back to Syria right now, they'd face the challenge of starting over again in a country that’s still recovering from years of war. Plus, it’s not just about safety in Syria but also about giving people the chance to live in peace where they feel stable.

    We also have to think about children. Many Syrian kids who fled as babies or toddlers might not even remember Syria. They’ve grown up in places like Turkey or Europe and know these countries as home. Forcing them to go back would be unfair and might harm their futures.

    If refugees are safe where they are, with jobs and education, it makes sense to let them stay. Forcing them back could lead to even more struggles, like homelessness, unemployment, or even getting caught in new fights. It’s not just about a place to live, it’s about giving them a real chance to build their lives.

    In short, people should have the freedom to decide where they feel safest and most comfortable, and countries should support them in making that choice.

  • I think b because if they were really comfortable in that place and they had to migrate to somewhere else then it is really hard for them

  • Honestly, I think Syrian refugees should be able to decide if they want to stay in their new country or return to Syrian, as they can have created a new life, and they can feel safe and at home in this new place.

  • I believe option B is the correct one. If Syrians refugees don't want to return to Syria, that's fine, since they may have already built a new life, with their friends, and their habits in their new home.
    I don't support the decision of forcing them to return. If they choose to stay, they should be able to do so, as they have the right to decide about their own future.
    Furthermore, the emotional and psychological impact of the war doesn't disappear just because the conflict ends. Many refugees have experienced a deep trauma and forcing them to return could worsen their suffering. Instead of pressuring them, host countries should offer them stability and new opportunities.

  • In my opinion, all Syrians should be back to Syria, since the ASSAD Family rule is now over. This is because, now they can be happier in their own country than ever before since they’ll be back independent and will have freedom and they’ll be happy to be back to their old homes filled with memories

  • Imagine that you live in Syria you have a house , a job ,your family but you are force to go due to the Assad regime that unfairly ruled and control the country .What would you do? How will you feel ? Personally I will try to go to another country to have a future, be a refugee, to be save and not scared. I would feel sad for all the people that has fallen behind and glad that other countries allow me to rebuild my life.I will undoubtedly choose number b, reefuges should be able to decide where to live , if they have a new life ,a job ,they should be able to stay in the safe country, maybe they prefer to wait to see the situation ,if they want to go back to their country they should receive the help with his house , food .But we must let them take the decision because they have been through a lot ,they must be responsable for their future!!!

  • In my opinion I choose option B (Syrian citizens should be allowed to stay) because even after Ahmed Al Sharaa has gained power and Assad has fell still things need to settle down like there are still Assad loyalties in Syria with weapons and as well Ahmed Al Sharaa is dealing with Kurds in the north and it might have been safer than it was with Assad there is a lot of stuff to deal with. This is why a disagree with option A. Option C is very cruel since there are Syrian refugees living in tents in Lebanon and without UNICEF support they would have no food and no roof above their heads .This is why I disagree with option C.

  • I think that the best option would be option b, beause there are a lot of Syrians and each one have different life, so there would be people who have settled their lives in the country that they are right now or people that still don't know if it's better to stay in the country or return to Syria, so we should give the option to let Syrians choose what to do now that the country is free of war, that's why I disagree with option a and c, because in both options we don't give voice to Syrians to choose, in option a they must return to Syria and in option c there will be no support for them, both of that options are not fair for Syrians because not all of them will want to return to Syria, so we will be forcing people to return to Syria when they have settled their lives in the new country.

  • In my point of view, C is out of the question because we can't just leave the syrians after more than 50 years suffering. We can't just leave them in their country without any support because their country is some bricks right now. So C is not the best one from my point of view, and also A is not the best because maybe some syrians doesn't want to go back to their country. However, maybe if not a lot of syrians come back to the country, it will be officially said that no one like Syria anymore or maybe the breaking news will say "There is no country called Syria anymore" which is not acceptable for most of the countries in the world so I guess until now with these reasons that I said up, B is the best choice for the syrians because it's going to be a little bit weird to say to the syrians that they're not allowed to be in this country because now your real country is free so you need to go there, it's going to be a little bit rude in my opinion, and also I guess Turkey should keep supporting Syria until we (As a whole world)make sure they are okay and finally say that Syria is free.

    To conclude I'd like to say that B is the best choice until now for Syria and maybe in the future we could add a lot more supports or like a boxes for donations for Syria to help them because Turkey can't keep supporting them forever.

    FREE SYRIA!
    THANK YOU, TOPICAL TALKERS.

  • In my opinion, I believe that, option B is the best choice. Syrians should be allowed to stay to their new countries if they are settled and happy. Many refugees have built new lives, found jobs and integrated into their communities. Forcing them to return could disrupt their stability and well-being.

    Even though the Assad regime has fallen, Syria may still be politically and economically unstable, with risks of violence or lack of basic services. Besides, returning should be a choice, not a requirement. Those who want to go back should receive support but those who feel safer abroad should not be forced to leave.

    Moreover, forcing Syrians t0 return is not fair or safe. Just because the Assad regime is gone does not mean Syria is automatically secure for everyone.

    In conclusion, Syrians who want to stay in their host country should be allowed, while those who wish to return should receive support. With humanity and compassion, we must continue to help Syrian refugees, ensuring they have the support they need no matter where they choose to live.

  • I think it should be based on their own choice because some of them have built a house of their own and they are comfortable so think living all the have to come back will be hard for them to do, i will suggest that the are giving the chance to make their own choices of weather the want to come back or not. Thank you

  • As Josie mentioned in the video, many refugees want to stay because they have built their lives in their new countries. They have jobs, homes, and communities where they feel safe. Forcing them to return to Syria, where the situation is still unknown, would completely destroy everything they worked for.

    For me, option B is the best choice because it allows people to decide what’s better for them. Those who feel safe and happy in their new countries can stay, while those who want to return to Syria are free to do so. This way, everyone’s needs are respected, and no one is forced into an unsafe or unstable situation.

    At the end of the day, refugees deserve stability and the chance to rebuild their lives, and this option ensures that.

    History shows that all countries have needed help at some point. For example, during the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), thousands of Spaniards went to countries like Mexico, Argentina, and England to escape violence. After World War II, millions of Europeans were refugees, and many found safety in the U.S. or South America. More recently, people from Ukraine look for refuge in different countries due to the war.

    This proves that anyone can become a refugee depending on the circumstances. Helping those in need today means that if a crisis happens somewhere else in the future, others will do the same with us.

  • I agree with A and B because they should be able to go back to the home country after it is rebuilt but I don’t think they should be false mostly because if they’ve settled in and they’re okay they should be able to stay in their country due to all of the civil war ruins in Syria.

  • As Josie mentioned in the video, many refugees want to stay because they have have their lives in their new countries. They have their jobs, homes and families there. Forcing them to return to Syria, where the situation is still unknown, would completely destroy everything they worked for.

    For me, option B is the best choice because it allows people to decide what is better for them. Those who feel safe and happy in their new countries can stay, while those who want to return to Syria are also free to do it. This way, everyone’s needs are respected.

    At the end of the day, refugees deserve the chance to rebuild their lives, and this option guarantees that.

    Our History shows that all countries have needed help at some point. For example, not many years ago, during the Spanish Civil War, thousands of spanish citizens went to countries like Mexico, Argentina, and England to escape. After World War II, millions of Europeans were refugees, and many found safety in the U.S. or South America. More recently, people from Ukraine look for refuge in different countries due to the war.

    This proves that anyone can become a refugee depending on the circumstances. Helping those in need today means that if a crisis happens somewhere else in the future, others will do the same with us.

    1. Great ideas helpful_tangerine - How do you think people can best help refugees in new countries?

      1. I think the best way we can help is been respectful with them, the situation is already difficult. Judging them won’t help, it will just make things worse. Instead, we should listen, be kind, and make them feel they are not alone in this.

  • I agree with option B because when the country is safe everyone would love to stay in his country and fix it to flourish once again and people who migrated will also love to return to thier homeland and enjoy there. Although, they have the right to choose wether to return back to Syria or stay where they are.

    However, if the new government in Syria takes serious steps towards stability and unity this will encourage some refugees who long for their homeland to come back to Syria and contribute to build their new country.

  • I think option A is the best one if the refugees aren't contributing to their new country's society. Yes, I understand that some Syrians have settled in their new countries, but what's stopping them from resettling back in Syria, their home countries? In Syria, they will be able to speak their own language, be able to celebrate their own cultures and rebuild a society after the Asaad regime. I understand that it might be scary to return after a dictatorship, but realistically what is going to happen to them? Nothing. Aswell as this, if they aren't contributing to society, they are wasting government money. This money could be spent on funding schools and hospitals. Why should they get funding if they aren't contributing and can safely return back to Syria.

    1. Interesting. Many nations remain politically uncertain and tense after the sudden departure of a leader, do you think this could impact the refugee's decision?

  • I believe that the people of Syria have been neglected and mistreated for the past fifty years. Sadly, many innocent Syrian people have been murdered, starved to death or executed. Because of this, many have fled from Syria, fearing for their lives. My opinion is option A. They should return to Syria, as many illegal immigrants have been crossing the English Channel, hoping for a better life. However, Britain cannot continue to cater for them. In the harsh seas, many have perished. They should return to Syria as soon as what the country's plan for their new president is clear.

    1. You say that many illegal immigrants have been crossing the English channel. How many of these are known to be Syrians? Remember there is a difference between people who enter a country to live without the right permission (illegal immigrants) and someone who moves to another country because it is unsafe for them to stay where they are (refugee).

  • I think B and C because Syrians will be hearing about the new leader but they can still stay in the country that they are in, if they want to.

  • I think B because Syrians are allowed to choose if they want to get settled in another countrie or just stay in there own countries, it is there dicission of what they choose.

  • I think that the refugees who fled during the 12years-civil war should be allowed to stay if they want to because after the awful tragedy they might still have a shock of what happened and probably happy It Is finally over.

  • I most strongly agree with statement B as sending the victims back to Syria when they are already well and settled would cause unneeded stress and disturbances. If we look at the moral side of this situation, the refugees should be able to stay in the country they decided to stay in. If we look at the economical factors, this will still remain beneficial to the economy of a country as more people will be encouraged to work and earn money for their family. If you think about it it is a win win situation for the country but also for the refugees.

  • I personally think that refugees should be able to decide weather they should come back to Syria my reasoning is, they are there own people and linking to human rights they should be able to make there own decisions but, then again i think they should hold on until they know more about the government and if the rules are okay.

  • In my opinion A is not the best option as some may want to go back some might not. I feel like b and c are correct because people should know if the new government is stable , and if the country is now safe. I also believe that people should have their own rights and freedom and be able to choose what they want to do with their family and themselves. People shouldn't be treated like somebody can control them I mean if you were a Syrian person would you like to be sent to somewhere you don't know much about now or don't want to go to would you be happy?

  • I support Option B because we should give aid to and help everyone that needs it, regardless of their country of origin. Additionally, if I like my foster country enough and my home country isn’t safe still, I should be able to stay peacefully

  • I believe that B is the right thing to do because they should have the option to stay where they now are . Being forced back into a country they once ran from is not the best idea if you are trying to get some of the refugees back into the country . C is also an alright idea but B would be better right now . Imagine if you had fled from a country because it was unsafe and now you are being forced back into that country, that would most likely make you feel like the country is not safe.

    1. You say that B would be the best option right now, if conditions in Syria improve would you be in favour of encouraging the refugees to return?

  • In my opinion, I feel that refugees should came back to Syria when they feel like they want to. Leading on to this, many refugees might of bought a nice, clean, warm home already and it would be a waste of money to return back to Syria when you just bought a brand new home. Furthermore, in Syria, it would take a long time to build a proper, decent house, so why not go to another country and buy a cheap but warm house there.

    I also think that it is best for refugees to move to another country, because it is going to take a long time for Syrian people to build schools, but, if refugees move to another country, then young people can learn peacefully and get a good education.

    1. I agree with you that Syrian's won't want to return to their home country if there are no houses or schools for them. Do you think the richer nations should provide aid to Syria to help them rebuild and allow people to return to their homes?

  • I think B - everyone in the world should have free will. If they are happy where they've moved to then they should be allowed to stay. When a lot of Syrian people moved away from Syria it was because they were being treated unfairly. Now that the Assad family have gone, it is the start of a new era for Syria. I also think that people who stayed in Syria during the civil war should be given urgent aid if they need it. As well as this I think the new government should try and rebuild their country as quick as possible so that they can start giving homeless Syrians their homes back. But if I were Ahmed al-Sharaa I would worry more about the people of Syria more than other things at this point in time.

  • I agree with blithesome_didgeridoo, because Syria might not be safe still, plus if they are settled and are happy, it might be difficult to come back. Also, if they go back there might still be danger.

  • In my opinion, I think that all Syrian refuges can be allowed to stay in their own countries (that they have fled to for safety.)if they feel more safe and at home there.

    On the other hand,I think that all the Syrian refuges should return to Syria to build their community up together and build hospitals,schools, offices and much more with a little money and building supplies from charities, they can do anything together.

  • I think that the obvious and best option is "B", because the Syrian refugees have the right to decide if they can come back to Syria or not. In my opinion, Syria is not a safe country yet. They have just ended a war, but the country is destroyed. People are happy because Al Assad fled out, but they are suffering the as the same way as during the conflict. So, what may be the solution? It's too early for deciding a final solution to this enormous problem. However, all the companies should help everyone who has lost houses, schools and familiy.
    The Syrian people living in a foreign country may have settled down and rebuilt their lifes. It's true that they could have the desire of returning to their home, but if they are happy and having a good life in where they are living they could choose whether they come back or not. It's their decision.

  • I firmly oppose option A because...first of all there is no need for Syrians to return to their country because even if the Assad regime is over there is still a high degree of uncertainty about the safety of the country. Secondly, the new regime that is going to be introduced to Syria is still unpredictable, the future of Syria is ambiguous and so Syrians should not be forced to return if they don't want to. I also fail to disagree to option C because...if no support is to be given to Syrians refugees how would they survive when we all know how unstable the country is. Most Syrians are living in poverty due to the civil war and needs serious help. we should even consider the lives of children, who have little or no to eat, who have no shelter and who their parents died during the war which might make them traumatized for the rest of their lives. That is why I strong support option B, Syrians should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are settled and satisfied. It would be so thoughtless of them to prefer staying in Syria than a country where they could start up a reasonable life and try to forget what they had been through. It is better for them to stay in other countries where there is guaranteed safety and where they can start working and be beneficial to both themselves and to the country. So, in conclusion Syrians should not be forced to stay in Syria, it is left for them to choose if they want to stay or if they want to leave. THANKS.

  • I agree that Syria is in so much suffering before the civil war so I suggest that Syrian should be allowed to stay in their country if they are settled happily and if this is done the people will find a way to make the government stable, they will start making things good like building of houses, construction of road and building hospital as quick as possible for patients to attend appropriately. if this is done people will live happily and population will extend and bigger just as before during the Assad Rule.

  • I am deeply torn between B and C my reasoning is they should be able to decide where they go, however they need to know more about the government so they know that it’s all ok.

  • Hello, I think this a very difficult question because there is not only one correct answer, in some way all of them are good choices.
    Letter A is a little bit radical answer in my opinion. However, I understand why some people would choose that answer. Maybe there are many problems in their countries like poverty,many unemployed people, etc. so they don't more responsibility because more people would live in worse conditions.
    Letter B is a good answer because it is logic that refugees what to choose between returning to their country or staying in their new one because they have better living conditions, a god job, many friends, etc.
    Letter C answer is similar to answer A so the reasons are more or less the same.
    To sum up, I would choose A.

  • I personally think that they should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they wish to because they may be unsafe in their old countries.

  • I agree with A and B because lots of people who have been affected will now not have a job or even be homeless so will need support from another country with a developed good government to help rebuild their lives.

  • Personally, I agree with option B as in my opinion, the most important thing is happiness. When staying in their new country, many would have gotten jobs, homes and built relationships with others. I know that if I had been in that position and had made connections to the country, I would be reluctant to leave. Forcing them to leave and return to Syria is basically making them start over which is very unfair.

    In conclusion, as long as the refugees feel safe and welcomed, they should be allowed to stay in their new country.

  • I would like to explain my view on what should happen to Syrian refugee as such;
    A--If all refugees return it might cause confusion and commotion. Syrian refugees that left their country are more than 2 million because of the war, if they come back suddenly to start a new life in syria, it can cause people to be confused, sad and angry when they remember what has happened. It will be like all the money and time they had spent and previously invested to make their life better was a waste.
    B--If all Syrian refugees are settled in a country it may become a thing of concern for that country to cope, which may help inspired help to avoid such a country going into ruin. Also works that may take them years to build will not be to achieved easily and putting the refugees and the country of settlement under pressure. a major challenge is that, it will be a burden to the countries that the refugees are in. For example, staying in another man's house because one's community is having a riot, will be a burden to that home as it will it increase the cost for basic things (electricity, food, etc.). The country will have to be supplying refugee camps which will cut the money they would need for other things.
    C--If no further support is shown or received quickly/easily from the government, people would be left hanging on what should happen. If action is not taking now it might affect countries and people in the future. But the benefit is that people may not know if it is safe, when refuges should come back to their land because a lot of people could lose their lives and property again

  • I think that the Syrian refugees should be allowed to stay in their new place of home if they are settled and happy. I say this because, they worked hard to escape from the reign of the Assad family, so why should they come back in a time where their country is still unstable about its government/leader. For all we know, as soon as they get back to Syria, the rebel group leader could take them on a more dangerous ride. That would take them back to square one, escaping Syria. In my friends experience of leaving Nigeria due to the corruption of President Tinubu and her settling in America to have a better life. Forcing her to go back to Nigeria, If they had a new leader would be wrong. (How would you feel?) Once they arrive they could meet more dangers known to man. We also know that Turkey is housing Syrian Refugees with smiles on their faces and their not complaining so why send them back? Another thing is that if we stop all support to Syrians until we fully assess the situation, Those in poverty/ harmed will not get everything they need leaving Option A and C bad ideas. Option B is the only smart option here.

  • For me I feel like C is the right solution. For C, it says "No further support should be given to Syrian refugees until people know more about how safe or unsafe the country is now.” That's why the people in Syria need to know if Syria is safe or unsafe. Also, I feel like they should wait until they know more about Syria and what is happening right now before they go back to Syria. You never know what is going on in Syria. Another thing is that you don't know if Syria has a new leader or if the old leader is still there. You never know if the new leader is bad or good, Or if the old leader is still there and might turn into a bad leader.
    For me I feel like C is the best s

  • I think that Syria should have good government like india us England and etc

    1. Interesting comment, in your opinion what makes these nation's governments so good?

  • In my suggestion I prefer option B the best because the Syrian refugees should be allowed to stay in the new countries if they are willingly wanting to and should go back to Syria if they want to or have to for some sort of personal issue . The reign of Assad was finally over and Syrian people should get this Choice that you can stay in our country if you want to or go back to Syria 🇸🇾.

    THE POWER OF ASSAD IN THE END BEING DISMISSED WOULD BE A DIWALI (Diwali is joyful festival celebrated in India.) FOR SYRIAN COMMUNITY.

  • In opinion the B opinion can be use full for Syrian refugees. If Syrian refugees are settled in there new country happy If they want to live in Syria again it there choice they can live in country Syria if they want. Syrian refugees has also to think about there perspective or there will. According to me the Syrian refugees shouldn't be forced to come in there old country . If they want to live in there new country let them live .

  • The Syrian people should have their own choice to decide where to dwell in. It would be difficult to live in Syrian due to a Ecomomical circumstances and that fact that they have not learned on Ahmads al Sharas ideology. He had said he would rule Syria with democracy however he could retract his decision and create a dictatorship. Syria is still not fully united with HTS controlling Damascus and other important cities and the Kurdish forces controlling the border with Iraq.

  • I believe B is a suitable option for the Syrian refugees as they are finally feeling settled and comfortable in their new lifestyle in an unfamiliar country along with a language and they have had to learn as all they want is to feel protected from harm and be able to have a fresh start since they have been previously been dealing with displacement and unfair treatment for many years. We also need to consider the opposing view Syria is not completely shielded from danger and many other issues. For example, multiple cities have witnessed destruction and leaving a large amount of families being left homeless dealing with many struggles after they are being forced to return. In addition, the Syrian government enforce military service to thousands of men already having to cope with emotional distress and various forms of anxiety disorders. In conclusion, I think we should consider all these concerns and allow whoever wishes to go back to their homeland and welcome the refugees who want to build a life in a more enhanced life here.

  • In my opinion, the most just decision is to allow refugees to stay in other countries until more order is found in Syria. This is because many homes and services, such as schools and hospitals, have been destroyed. Forcing refugees back into a dilapidated country would bring much discomfort and subsequent dilemmas like housing crises would become more apparent. Therefore, the decision of shutting refugees out of countries that are much safer for them at this time would only invoke chaos and potential further disrepair. The action that should be taken is ensuring that civilians that are currently in the country are safe and frameworks of repaired cities and towns are on the agenda. In conclusion, I believe that all refugees that are not in the country should be allowed to stay in these safe places, at least until Syria and its government find their feet once again.

  • In my opinion, the most just decision is to allow refugees to stay in other countries until more order is found in Syria. This is because many homes and services, such as schools and hospitals, have been destroyed. Forcing refugees back into a dilapidated country would bring much discomfort and subsequent dilemmas like housing crises would become more apparent. Therefore, the decision of shutting refugees out of countries that are much safer for them at this time would only invoke chaos and potential further disrepair. The action that should be taken is ensuring that civilians that are currently in the country are safe and frameworks of repaired cities and towns are on the agenda. In conclusion, I believe that all refugees that are not in the country should be allowed to stay in these safe places, at least until Syria and its government find their feet once again.

  • I think that Syrian's refugees should wait until their buildings and their country build their property. Syrian's refugees should wait in another countries because if they went to their buildings they could harm them selves because the buildings is extremely sharp. All countries should help Syria because it wants a lot of materials and recourses and food and water. Our countries should sent some people or engineers to help Syria to build their buildings again and to let this country very beautiful like most of our world.

    Thank you topical talkers.

  • I think that "B" is the best option, because everyone have the right to decide for theirselfs if they are happy in the new countries they are the can stay in there but if they want to go to Syria they also can these decision should be take by themselves, because of that I think that the "B" option is the best (Syrians should be allowed to stay in theirnew countriesif they are settled and happy).

  • I think that Syrian should not return to their homeland as it may not be safe for them to return . As there are many refugees living in turkey who have seeked for asylum in these countries . So these countries should support Syria to ensure its security for the refugees . Syrian new government should try to do resettlement programs for the refugees so that they may return . If the refugees return these refugees should be given proper sanitation facilities , education , employments and proper homes to live so that they can rebuild their new life . As some of the refugees are suffering from trauma and mental health problems due to the violence . they should be given proper medical support by this Syria may built their nation safe for the citizens and children .

  • Hello Topical Talk,

    From my personal standpoint, I reckon choosing B is the most suitable answer as they are free to do whatever they want, whenever they want it and however they what, as it is their decision at the end.

    It reveals that it is not totally safe there and many people are fearing AL Assad' family return and concur again which Syrians will have a hard time facing, but as far as I know that no one can be forced to do anything as long as it is not against the law. many situations can lead to them staying were they fled to : like having family members living there or the country giving better vibes than Syria which does which is common, valid and ain't illegal in any means. Another reason is not able to afford another house back in Syria which is normal to any human being.

    In my beliefs, they don't even need any reasoning for not wanting to come back as being used to a society is hard to change which they already experienced and never want to experience again. Thank you!

  • The situation regarding Syrian refugees is quite complicated, as it presents various viewpoints. Option A suggests that all Syrians who fled the Assad regime should return now that the conflict has calmed down. This approach highlights the idea of going back home to rebuild, but it does not take into account the personal experiences of refugees, as many may have faced serious trauma or created new lives in their host countries. Option B states that Syrian refugees should be allowed to stay if they are settled and happy. This option places importance on individual well-being and acknowledges that forcing people to relocate could cause stress. It also recognises the positive contributions refugees can make to their new communities. Option C proposes that support from Syrian refugees should not continue until the safety and stability of Syria is fully evaluated. While this option promotes caution before making decisions about resettlement, it risks leaving vulnerable individuals without necessary help during a critical time.
    Considering these choices, Option B- allowing those who are happy and settled in their new homes to stay-seems to be the most sensible approach. By putting the well-being of refugees at the forefront, we ensure that they are not subjected to further disruptions in their lives. Although it is crucial to assess the situation in Syria, withholding all support until a thorough evaluation is completed could endanger many vulnerable individuals.

  • If we are speaking about one final decision regarding the fall of the Assad regime, then I believe option B is right. This option states that the Syrian people should be allowed to stay in their new countries if they are settled and happy. I choose this choice as personally, if a person is content and comfortable, it would be unfair and unnecessary to dosplace them, keeping in mind the immense trauma they could have been through and conditions they may have lived in and experience.

    As a human race, each and every one of us is entitled to our own opinions and choices, we may have all struggled in one way or another yet we could have overcome those problems and resolved them. Hence, just like the Syrian people who are happy now, we wouldn’t want to return to a state where we are not allowed to do certain stuff and live the way we want.

    Undeniably, the citizens of Syria may still fear returning as there is still this uncertainty regarding the new government and people may not feel ready and safe to come back. Especially when not so long ago the country was crumbling and the pain inflicted towards citizens and families was immense.

    Option B allows the Syrian people to choose what they feel is right, what they want, and I believe this is the most appropriate choice. Imagine if we were them, how would we feel being sent back to our country where hardships were endured and lives were lost?

  • From my point of view, letter B is the correct one, but I will like to change some things. Refugees should have the right to decide what they want to do. If they want to stay in their new country they can do it, but also if they want to return Syria is also fine. Some people might want to return because they want to see their families again and see if their houses and neighborhoods have been destroy or they are steel in good conditions. Some people obviously have started a new life and made new friends and find new jobs. They continue with their life and they have change everything because of the war so I totally understand they want to stay in their new country. Some parents want that their kids have a good education and now in Syria it will not be the best one because everything has been destroyed.

  • From my point of view, the right option is B but also a part of C, because I think that Syrians who had fled to other countries should have both options; return to Syria or stay in their new countries. Syrians who had left his country, left it because they where searching a better life, which, probably have found in their new countries. They should have the opportunity to choose because, if they think they live better in their new country than in Syria, they will choose stay in their new country. On the contrary, there will be people who want to return to their country, Syria, his home. But, I think that the people should be well informed of how safe or unsafe the country is now. Although, they should have the right to choose between staying in his new country or returning to Syria, if it is unsafe Syria, they shouldn't be allow to return, for his own good, to stay safe and alive.