Anyone concerned with Syrian refugees into the US?

[JayGatsby]

Do proper background checks, but then do the humane thing.

 

 

And where do we go to get reliable information for a proper background check?  The Syrian government, 1-800-TERROR, or maybe we just call ISIS HR department and ask if they know the single, 25 year-old male who demands to be admitted?  That should cover it for sure, really, what could possibly go wrong?

You're right that there's really nothing you can do other than ask a lot of questions and see if their story holds together. It's a calculated risk I guess, but it's the right thing to do.

 

The BBC has done a nice job of profiling some of the syrian refugees/immigrants. Based on their work, some percentage less than 100% are terrorists.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34489248

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/34266359

 

Well said, SmallCap and rkbabang.

[ERICOPOLY]

A great book is The Empire of the Summer Moon.  No, it's not about ISIS, it's about the Comanche.  I keep thinking about that book whenever I hear about ISIS.  Don't think it's politically correct the word "Terrorists" when discussing the Comanche, but there's the term "Comanche Moon" for a reason.

 

Their tactics were pretty extreme (for example, raping old women after staking them to the ground with their lances and slowly roasting a 6 year old girl over a spit).

 

I don't know if it's political correctness or what, but we don't refer to them as a terror organization.  However back in the day, the Texans went pretty damn crazy over it and a lot of tribes were persecuted who had nothing to do with the Comanche. 

 

So let's not go too overboard and throw every immigrant in with ISIS.

 

Here is the very abbreviated version:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396760/How-Comanche-Indians-butchered-babies-roasted-enemies-alive.html

[bookie71]

There is an old saying, "......shutting the gate after the cows are already out".  If the terrorists aren't already here, they are stupider than ......

[sys]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/anonymous-declares-war-islamic-state-6839030

 

"A third attacker was Ahmed Almuhamed, a Syrian who reportedly arrived in Greece on a refugee boat."

 

at the risk of stating the obvious:  the only reason to carry a passport on a suicidal attack is so that passport can be found.  and the only reason to have a foreign refugee participate in an attack on a country that has seen over three thousand citizens and legal residents emigrate to join ISIS is so that a refugee can be discovered to have participated.

[CanadianMunger]

I wish I had something intelligent to add, but I don't.  I'll defer to one of the foremost experts on (real world) risk:

 

Original quote by journo:

 

@daveweigel:

The GOP rush toward a "stop letting in refugees" position reminds me of the "travel ban NOW or we all die of Ebola" fad of last year.

 

Response from NNT:

 

@nntaleb

Illustration of how journalists are incompetent in grasping risk, precaution,probability & multiplicative effects.

 

-CM

[shhughes1116]

This thread raises an interesting point about the re-settlement of displaced persons around the world by the United States.  For those of you who are old enough to remember, many of the refugees we evacuated from Vietnam around the time that Saigon fell were temporarily resettled at Anderson Air Force base (Guam).  This was the first stop before refugees were allowed to come to the mainland.  It also provided an opportunity to weed out the bad characters and begin the integration process.  This same process was again used when resettling displaced Kurds during the mid-1990's.  If any of you know Vietnamese refugees from this time, you will understand that this process was pretty effective for integrating these folks into the United States. 

 

I have a lot of trouble understanding why we are not following this time-tested process for Syrian refugees.  By dropping them off in the mainland, we lose the ability to weed out bad characters fairly quickly, and we lose the ability to jump-start the integration process.  This makes these folks more susceptible to radicalization.  If you want to see how this story ends, trying walking through the Molenbeek district in Brussels, or through some of the more seedy areas of Paris.  There are entire generations of disaffected Muslims who believe that Western society is the cause of their ills.  It is pretty easy to radicalize someone like this, and that is pretty evident if you walk through these neighborhoods (it has been pretty evident for the last decade actually...). 

 

 

 

 

[JSArbitrage]

Most of this is factually incorrect and is just fear mongering to get votes: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/stretching-facts-on-syrian-refugees/

 

Pretty much everyone in America is either an immigrant or the decendent of an immigrant. As a result, pretty much everything good and bad in America can be blamed on immigration. Steve Jobs' biological father was a syrian refugee. Immigration in America is an interesting issue; personally I think the #1 factor in America's long-term success has been the ability to attract and assimilate immigrants. The branding of "the land of opportunity" and the "American dream" have been tremendously valuable. Yet, at each point in history people have feared immigrants, whether they were irish, italian, russian, jewish, what-have-you. I'm sure some people move here with ulterior motives, but every immigrant I've met has moved here in search of a better opportunity for themselves and their families. As Buffett would say, we won the "ovarian lottery" by being born in the United States with the opportunities we have.

 

Morally, if someone's life is threatened in their home country I think we have a responsiblity to try to help them. That's how my family ended up here and I'm thankful for that. If that person's life is endangered as a result (in some percentage between 0% and 100% depending on your views of the specific location) of failed US foreign policy that moral responsibility is amplified.

 

On a side note, grouping France, Russia and the US in the same bucket here doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. My understanding, which could be wrong, is Russia is backing Assad, while the US has backed the Free Syrian Army (against Assad). If we want to "donate" weapons to people, let's think first about where those weapons are going and how/if they can be used to better the situation. There's at least a rational argument that if less weapons were "donated" to the region, the number of refugees would be significantly lower.

 

I completely disagree with your analysis.  All immigrants aren't equal.  If we assume that the Syrian refugees represent an average sample of the population, you'll find some disturbing trends.  For example, in Syria, only about half of men is Syria believe that women should be free to choose what job they want.  Only around 33% think women should be allow to initiate a divorce.  Syrians have an extremely backwards culture compared to the West.

 

I understand the belief that we should help people that have been negatively impacted by a war over which they have no control - but that doesn't mean that those people are morally good people. Or that they should become Americans.  Or that they share the values of women's rights, human rights or the right of people to choose the life they want you to live.  Many of these people would tie a women to a tree and stone her for divorcing her husband.

 

So to make the argument that "well, we let in a lot of Irish, therefore we should let in a lot of Syrians" is silly.  Would you rather declare yourself an atheist in Ireland or Syria?  One place might look at you funny for not being Catholic; the other will drag you through the town square.

 

There are literally millions of people all over the world that want to come to the US - why bring the ones that have a culture that is stuck in the Dark Ages?

 

P.S.- But I do agree the terrorism fear is overstated. 

[wisdom]

Not sure if you are aware of Northern Ireland - Catholics and protestants. Even today they might kill each other.

 

You are comparing today's Ireland to today's Syria. What about the time when the Irish immigrants were coming to the US.

 

Have you heard of the IRA.

[rkbabang]

Neither the Irish, nor the Jews , nor the Italians were considered to be full human beings by many when they were immigrating in large numbers.  They were inferior animals with inferior cultures, on a par with blacks (who were also non-human).  Not only were they not civilized, but they were uncivilizable (due to the fact that they were not fully human).  Today it is the Mexicans and the Middle Easterners. The more things change the more they stay the same...

[wisdom]

I am sure the governments will conduct background checks on refugees before accepting them. It looks like the attack had more French citizens than others involved in the attack.

 

I do not believe we can stop every single plot. We are better off making it harder to attack soft targets and being prepared to reduce damage when these attacks happen - similar to boarding on planes after 9/11.

 

The world is becoming more global and that involves people moving around. We cannot shut all our doors and hide. This is what China did in the past and it lead to their down fall and the power base moved to Europe. Why would we repeat something that lead to a civilization like China losing it's dominance?

 

[onyx1]

I am sure the governments will conduct background checks on refugees before accepting them. It looks like the attack had more French citizens than others involved in the attack.

 

I do not believe we can stop every single plot. We are better off making it harder to attack soft targets and being prepared to reduce damage when these attacks happen - similar to boarding on planes after 9/11.

 

The world is becoming more global and that involves people moving around. We cannot shut all our doors and hide. This is what China did in the past and it lead to their down fall and the power base moved to Europe. Why would we repeat something that lead to a civilization like China losing it's dominance?

 

 

Good god, no one is talking about shutting our doors and hiding.  This is not an immigration issue, it is a national security issue.  ISIS is at war with us and they have already admitted their desire to infiltrate the US via incoming Syrian refugees.  Our own National Intelligence Director says he is "very concerned" about the risk, yet we feel compelled to demonstrate our compassion to the world and put our citizens at risk buy admitting 100,000 Syrian refugees?  I have zero confidence that government bureaucrats have enough reliable information to complete any background checks.

[wisdom]

The refugee crisis in Europe is very different to refugees coming to North America. In Europe, it is easy to cross over without any checks. To enter North America they have to go through a process and be accepted. There is a big difference.

 

It is good that we understand the risk as I would hope it results in fewer individuals who are a risk being accepted.

 

PS. we do not have to accept anyone whose risk profile we aren't comfortable with.

[wisdom]

We are talking about choosing 100,000 out of millions.

[Libs]

I am sure the governments will conduct background checks on refugees before accepting them. It looks like the attack had more French citizens than others involved in the attack.

 

I do not believe we can stop every single plot. We are better off making it harder to attack soft targets and being prepared to reduce damage when these attacks happen - similar to boarding on planes after 9/11.

 

The world is becoming more global and that involves people moving around. We cannot shut all our doors and hide. This is what China did in the past and it lead to their down fall and the power base moved to Europe. Why would we repeat something that lead to a civilization like China losing it's dominance?

 

 

Good god, no one is talking about shutting our doors and hiding.  This is not an immigration issue, it is a national security issue.  ISIS is at war with us and they have already admitted their desire to infiltrate the US via incoming Syrian refugees.  Our own National Intelligence Director says he is "very concerned" about the risk, yet we feel compelled to demonstrate our compassion to the world and put our citizens at risk buy admitting 100,000 Syrian refugees?  I have zero confidence that government bureaucrats have enough reliable information to complete any background checks.

 

+1

[sys]

ISIS is at war with us and they have already admitted their desire to infiltrate the US via incoming Syrian refugees.

 

"admitted"?  a more accurate verb might be "volunteered" or "boasted".

[muscleman]

The refugee crisis in Europe is very different to refugees coming to North America. In Europe, it is easy to cross over without any checks. To enter North America they have to go through a process and be accepted. There is a big difference.

 

It is good that we understand the risk as I would hope it results in fewer individuals who are a risk being accepted.

 

PS. we do not have to accept anyone whose risk profile we aren't comfortable with.

 

Really? Have you seen this?

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/05/06/isis-allegedly-claims-it-has-71-trained-soldiers-15-american-states

 

[jawn619]

Nope, not worried at all.

[onyx1]

We are talking about choosing 100,000 out of millions.

 

 

And if a mere 1/1000 of those 100,000 turn out to be an ISIS jihadist, that would be enough for 30 teams.  In Paris, it only took 3 teams to kill 130 and seriously injure 350 innocents.

[wisdom]

How many were refugees?

 

So we lock them out. What do we do with our citizens?

[JayGatsby]

I completely disagree with your analysis.  All immigrants aren't equal.  If we assume that the Syrian refugees represent an average sample of the population, you'll find some disturbing trends.  For example, in Syria, only about half of men is Syria believe that women should be free to choose what job they want.  Only around 33% think women should be allow to initiate a divorce.  Syrians have an extremely backwards culture compared to the West.

 

I understand the belief that we should help people that have been negatively impacted by a war over which they have no control - but that doesn't mean that those people are morally good people. Or that they should become Americans.  Or that they share the values of women's rights, human rights or the right of people to choose the life they want you to live.

The evolution of these rights in the "West" is actually fairly modern. I don't know much about divorce law, but wikipedia claims that Mississippi, South Dakota and Tennessee don't allow no-fault divorces (side note but this history is actually pretty interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States#History) . What seems to us as basic human rights now wasn't seen that way not very long ago. Women weren't given the right to vote in the United States until 1920. The Civil Rights Act wasn't passed until 1964. On the timeline of human history, that was basically yesterday. 

 

I haven't been to Syria, but I've been Jordan which is also predominantly Sunni Muslim so I guess that qualifies as "those people". I found it to be one of the most welcoming places I've ever been. I was travelling there as an American Jew coming from Israel and no one seemed bothered by that. I had a long open conversation with a guy roughly my age about culture, religion, women, etc. While there were definitely cultural differences he didn't say anything I found morally problematic.

 

Many of these people would tie a women to a tree and stone her for divorcing her husband.

 

So to make the argument that "well, we let in a lot of Irish, therefore we should let in a lot of Syrians" is silly.  Would you rather declare yourself an atheist in Ireland or Syria?  One place might look at you funny for not being Catholic; the other will drag you through the town square.

My understanding is the constitution of Syria under Assad guaranteed religious freedom. Assad himself is part of the religious minority. Syria has/had a large Christian population.

 

There are literally millions of people all over the world that want to come to the US - why bring the ones that have a culture that is stuck in the Dark Ages?

The difference to me is personally I feel like a lot of Syria's problems are the result of American foreign policy. I think it's pretty uncrontroversial that ISIS gained strength partly due to a vacuum in Iraq. More controvertially, many would argue that America gave Syrian rebels weapons in an effort to weaken Assad and some of those rebels are now ISIS.  Regardless of your view, ISIS seems to drive a lot of Humvees and as far as I know there's only one Humvee factory in the world.  If we found the people of the region morally repugnant we should have let them be before we launched a crusade to bring them democracy. That water is under the bridge, but now that we are where we are I think we have a responsiblity to help them. 

[Guest longinvestor]

Sustained low oil price for much longer is what the world needs to grapple with. It is the most insidious problem that the middle east will have ever faced in a 100+ years.

[SmallCap]

I would go so far as to host them in my home for the first few months while they figure things out.

 

 

 

 

are you actually going to do this?

 

I would be open to it, I am not at this point in time going out to actively seek such an opportunity. Right now my life is fairly busy with 3 young kids and our spare bedroom is already occupied but an 18 year old student who's parents are abroad. So I am not seeking it out but if the opportunity sought me out I would see if we could accommodate them.

[shalab]

What about the legal people who are paying taxes, working for companies like Tesla,Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook etc. and making America great now?

 

Many of these highly skilled people are stuck in limbo in h1-b, green card process.

 

We should get these folks visa first..

[mountboney]

The helpless, widows, orphans, men if they are with their families, the elderly we should help.  Single men in their 20's and 30's sorry, you have an obligation to stay and fight for your country and then rebuild. Why is that so difficult to implement?

[rkbabang]

The helpless, widows, orphans, men if they are with their families, the elderly we should help.  Single men in their 20's and 30's sorry, you have an obligation to stay and fight for your country and then rebuild. Why is that so difficult to implement?

 

I have never had an "obligation" to any so-called "country", nor does anyone else.  You are not born with obligations to collectives or land masses.