This question is inspired by articles such as this one, describing how various Western countries have citizens that fought for ISIS and now do not want to repatriate them. There are obvious reasons for this reluctance, the most important of which is probably how repatriating these refugees could lead to future terrorist attacks.
Why don't countries that are experiencing population decline (e.g. Japan, South Korea, Latvia) take them instead? The argument being:
- They're experiencing population decline. They're offering incentives for their citizens to procreate. Taking these refugees amounts to getting a few thousand new citizens for "free", which should be desirable.
- The danger of terrorist attacks on them should be lower, since it seems the terrorists are only interested in attacking the West, and none of these countries are in "the West".
Assimilating could be a problem, but especially in the case of children, relatively easy (since children learn languages easily). Financially it could be a problem, at least initially, but presumably the Western countries would be happy for others to solve their problem. Finally finding foster families could also be a problem, but it's apparently being done in some places, so it's a solvable one.
I'm wondering if this has been seriously discussed, and if so, what the conclusions (to do / not to do this) were.