Syrian refugees to blame?

[DanieltheDragon]

It has been suggested that European policy of allowing Syrian refugees is at fault for the terror attacks in Paris:


WinePusher:

Right, so in order to save the lives of the Syrian refugees we must put the lives of Americans, French, German and other Western people at risk? Given the situation, the only practical option would have been to build safe zones in Syria itself. At least one of the Islamic terrorists who blew up Paris last night came through the refugee program. Given this fact there should be NO migration of refugees into the west. The risk is too high.

Wootah:

In broader terms Islam is winning, with mass migration of Islam to the West. Of course I want to protect refugees but so few are fleeing Islam (the thing that is persecuting them) and so they bring the persecution with them.

It appears however that the Mastermind behind the attacks was Belgian(Satter,2015) and 3 others were French Nationals. It also appears that the Syrian "refugee" was using a fake passport and might not have even been a refugee at all(Ford,2015).
Even if we assume the other 4 attackers were Syrian refugees it seems this would have still taken place. Nor can it be shown that allowing Syrian refugees in caused the attacks in the first place or allowed it to occur.

Should we ban people from Belgium from entering our country?

Should we ban the French from crossing borders?

Is it the fault of Syrian refugees for these attacks?

Did the policy of allowing Syrian refugees into Europe lead to these attacks?

(Ford,2015)
http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... rs/416082/

(Satter, 2015)
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d4dd049b ... is-attacks.

[Wootah]

I think the broader point is that migration of Muslims is unwise. The refugee crisis falls under that broader migration. If the Muslim population in France keeps growing then IS is winning.

IS would much rather be fighting it out in the mosques of France than the desert of Syria and one wonders how truly different their teachings are to moderate Islam. The attacks in Paris are not about defeating France militarily but about winning the migrant population and forcing them to remain Muslim. As the migrant population grows, if it can be controlled then IS is winning.

My research never found any differences. Are there any debate videos between Muslims moderate and radical that highlight any differences?

[Danmark]

I understand the impulse of having a religious test for immigration. It is certainly galling to see immigrants protest the very policies of their hosts that allowed them entry in the first place.

But requiring a religious test in the United States is unconstitutional.
However, I think a loyalty test of some kind may be in order.
What would happen if every citizen and potential citizen had to swear:

"I have no allegiance, foreign, domestic, national, religious or spiritual that is superior to my loyalty to the United States and its Constitution?"

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 2 by Wootah]

The attacks in Paris are not about defeating France militarily but about winning the migrant population and forcing them to remain Muslim.

An interesting viewpoint, how would you go about supporting it?

[DanieltheDragon]

I understand the impulse of having a religious test for immigration. It is certainly galling to see immigrants protest the very policies of their hosts that allowed them entry in the first place.

But requiring a religious test in the United States is unconstitutional.
However, I think a loyalty test of some kind may be in order.
What would happen if every citizen and potential citizen had to swear:

"I have no allegiance, foreign, domestic, national, religious or spiritual that is superior to my loyalty to the United States and its Constitution?"

I wonder how many Americans could swear that oath? I wonder how many people on this forum could swear that oath? Though I wonder how effective such oaths really are. In terms of filtering out religious extremists are they that convinced in their religious beliefs that they would refuse such an oath or would they betray their convictions to carry out the act?

[help3434]

I understand the impulse of having a religious test for immigration. It is certainly galling to see immigrants protest the very policies of their hosts that allowed them entry in the first place.

But requiring a religious test in the United States is unconstitutional.
However, I think a loyalty test of some kind may be in order.
What would happen if every citizen and potential citizen had to swear:

"I have no allegiance, foreign, domestic, national, religious or spiritual that is superior to my loyalty to the United States and its Constitution?"

That would be a violation of the first amendment.

[bluethread]

Why discriminate based on theistic philosophy. Why not just discriminate based on nationality. If one is not an American citizen, one does not have the rights of a citizen. All decisions regarding foreign nationals should be based on our own national security.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

The problem I see with most acts of terrorism associated with ISIS that occur abroad are the amount of home grown terrorists. They are not foreign nationals; 3/8 of the Paris attackers were French and 1/8 was Belgian(sits between France and Germany.

Simply rejecting foreign nationals doesn't seem like it will change very much of anything. ISIS is using social networking to outsource terrorism. Exactly which nationality would you deny access to?

More American are the cause of mass shootings in America than terrorists it doesn't really make sense to shut our borders down when the threat is more likely homegrown. Their access to weapons and everything are already freely available and for the most part untraceable. There isn't a national gun registry and the second hand sales of weapons makes purchasing lethal weapons pretty easy. It seems that ISIS is more than comfortable with simply using gunman targeting soft targets than using planes and other more grand scale tactics.

All they have to do is convince foreign sympathizers to carry out these missions.

[bluethread]

Simply rejecting foreign nationals doesn't seem like it will change very much of anything. ISIS is using social networking to outsource terrorism. Exactly which nationality would you deny access to?

I would control access to all none citizens based on our national interests. That and arbitrating disputes between member states' are the only powers granted to the federal government in the original constitution. It doesn't have to be ethnically, culturally and even sexually fair. It merely has to be in the interests of national security.

More American are the cause of mass shootings in America than terrorists it doesn't really make sense to shut our borders down when the threat is more likely homegrown. Their access to weapons and everything are already freely available and for the most part untraceable. There isn't a national gun registry and the second hand sales of weapons makes purchasing lethal weapons pretty easy. It seems that ISIS is more than comfortable with simply using gunman targeting soft targets than using planes and other more grand scale tactics.

All they have to do is convince foreign sympathizers to carry out these missions.

Regarding internal threats, it is much easier to deal with them when foreign forces have less influence.

[Danmark]

I understand the impulse of having a religious test for immigration. It is certainly galling to see immigrants protest the very policies of their hosts that allowed them entry in the first place.

But requiring a religious test in the United States is unconstitutional.
However, I think a loyalty test of some kind may be in order.
What would happen if every citizen and potential citizen had to swear:

"I have no allegiance, foreign, domestic, national, religious or spiritual that is superior to my loyalty to the United States and its Constitution?"

That would be a violation of the first amendment.

Of course it would. And I said so. But this is the sort of thing some among the right are asking for. I just put it in a form that would make it unpalatable to EVERY one with religious faith.