Any idea that we can create a "safe place" for the refugees is pure fantasy. We already have million(s) of refugees in camps bursting at the seems. There isn't a country that will give up land permanently to these refugees. It's ludicrous to even contemplate that idea and serves only to mask xenophobia.
I don't think you can create a "safe space," but I think you can create "safe spaces." Many countries will have to give up something to accommodate refugees. Personally, I think refugee camps should be a short-term solution - to provide relief for the people ISIS would otherwise behead next week (and therefore before any vetting can be done, which means access would have to be completely secure - like a benevolent prison). For the longer term, I think we (in cooperation with international organizations like the UN) should help establish humane facilities in communities where people can live long term. They wouldn't be completely locked down like the camps, but they'd have security that identifies who comes and goes - much like a military base.
Let's be clear, of the 8 original individuals involved in the Paris attacks, only 1 came in through the refugee route.
You do realize that 1 out of 8 is a significant percentage when we're talking about murdering people, right?
The rest were homegrown and may have traveled to the ISIS battlefield but were EU nationals thus didn't need to feign refugee status.
SH, this really isn't a good point for admitting the refugees. I don't remember any of these guys being ethnic French people. They weren't refugees, but they were people the EU admitted from Islamic countries or the children of such people. Even if they weren't refugees, they were the result of a willingness to admit people from Islamic countries - like Syria where the refugees will at least claim to be from.
Using the 1 as a justification to shut all borders to refugees is a slight of hand tactic similar to saying deport all Mexicans because of the San Francisco murder.
There's a very big distinction. There aren't large, well-funded organizations and states dedicated to encouraging and proclaiming a religious duty for Mexicans to go murder people and threatening to use Mexican immigration to carry out that purpose. The scenarios are extremely different. Also, who's calling for the deportation of all Muslims?
Do we absolutely need to be cautious of and vet all ME refugees? Absolutely.
How are you going to do that? What's in this vetting process? Does it take two years, because of its thoroughness or because of bureaucratic inefficiency? Are Syrian documents going to be presumed valid, or will they have to be corroborated? How will we know that the person with the Syrian passport is the person to whom the passport was issued? Who's going to keep tabs on these people after they're admitted? We need to know with definite language and certainty the answers to this kind of question, and nobody's providing that. Furthermore, people have reason to distrust the government on controlling who comes and goes. This is the same government that largely through incompetence and corruption has let 12 million people enter illegally. Their track record is laughably poor.
Also, I keep hearing this 2-year figure, who has two years to wait? We need to provide relief to people who really need help right now. They don't have two years to wait. They may not have two hours to wait. That's why a reasonable solution should be immediate but very secure.
Does that mean we can't help women and children? BTW, the 70% men figure being thrown around is illogical, bogus and evidence of xenophobia.
The 70 percent figure is bogus, but the 49 percent figure is
not. That's still a lot of dudes - about as many as you'd get with a random sample of people who aren't refugees.
I'd advocate that we be extra restrictive of able bodied men ages 10-50 in the refugees. It's OK to say to a family, we'll allow your wife and children to be refugees but the father can't get in. Single Men would be an automatic disqualification.
Very sensible, but who in the political class is advocating that? I haven't heard anybody say we'd exclude single men. Frankly, I'm not happy with the extremists on both ends. I hear the Right offering very little or unrealistic ideas like free land in the Middle East, and on the Left, I hear "trust us we'll vet them, and you're a xenophobic ******* if you ask any questions." I'm pretty disgusted with both.
And I'll be honest. Proximity will impact one's sense of danger. Paris is an ocean away from you all, but it's right down the road from me - like the distance from Houston to Dallas. Furthermore, there have been scares, threats, and plots by Islamic nuts all over Europe since then including some in Germany. I don't care that I can't go to a soccer game because they found a bomb in Hanover, but I'd like to take Mrs. Deez amd Deez, Jr. to a big city Christmas Market this year (like Frankfurt's or Munich's). When I get on the plane to fly to Dallas next month, I want to do it without fear that it's going to blow up in the sky. I can't do either, because these freaks are on the warpath.
Like I said, I want to help the refugees and give them a place to go. It's a tiny percentage of the population that's actually dangerous, but it only takes one bad apple to cause a hell of a lot of damage, especially if you're the one getting blown up or shot. I think Horn6721 is off the mark with his suggestions, but he isn't a xenophobic prick for being afraid or worried. He's sane person for being afraid and worried.
