Can we go back to welcoming refugees again now?

A brief timeline.

Germany welcomed a whole lot of refugees. There was much support and goodwill. The Germans were praised by the rest of the world, the only mild criticism was “Do you really know what your capacity is, and don’t you need some sort of limit for the sake of practicality?”

Then there were the Paris attacks. I’m still not sure if it was one or two attackers that truly came out of a crowd of refugees, but everybody else was a supportive player in place already, moving freely through the Schengen zone and taking advantage of how Belgium and France don’t share intelligence very well.

This led to much fear in the US. Even though we don’t have to worry about cooperation between intelligence agencies, even though we don’t have to worry about a physically shared border, even though we have a stringent and reliable selection process which is now on high alert, even though there are much easier and quicker ways for terrorists to get here, even though plenty of supportive people are already here to begin with- maybe we should tell millions of refugees to go somewhere else, because we’re scared that one or two terrorists might go out of their way to be among them before they attack.

And it really would be going out of their way. If they just want to attack, there are easier and more direct ways to get it done. The only reason they’d go out of their way to spend time within a refugee population is so that they can make people (like us) be afraid of refugees and make their lives harder than they have to be.

Anyway. The main argument of late, made especially food-oriented by Mike Huckabee, has to do with the idea that some type of food is partly poisoned, so you don’t want any part of it.

This seems to imply, rather strongly, that America will be more safe if we turn refugees away. We can prevent acts of terror from happening.

Guess what just happened recently? I’ve been saying this for weeks- you’re so afraid of the poisoned Skittle among the otherwise good Skittles, but the truth is we already have plenty of people already in the US that are sympathetic to ISIS and are more than capable of carrying out acts of terror with or without any help from someone who recently resided in Syria, with or without the cover of false refugee status. (And it’s much simpler and easier without going to all that trouble, especially when it’s North America instead of Europe).

So this terror attack has happened. San Bernardino. No they were not directly affiliated with ISIS, yes they were sympathetic and declared allegiance to them (which ISIS thanked them for), it was more of an ideological alignment than it was a coordinated effort, but one very important thing is that they didn’t need any help from any Syrian terrorist disguised as some sort of refugee. That was completely unnecessary, and despite lacking that assistance they did just fine.

They were really low key about it too, no sign of anything going on beforehand. They had communication with people under investigation, but nothing that raised a red flag. We still don’t know exactly what or who it was that radicalized them.

With all that being said. Can we go ahead and take in some refugees now? Can we go back to supporting the idea of helping those who are most in need of it? We have lots of bad Skittles here that we will continue to have to deal with no matter what we do with that situation, and hopefully that’s been driven home in the past few days.

And please, even if you disagree, next time you make a food-related argument about poison or some such thing, please do make a mental note to acknowledge that we already do have poison among us whether we do the right thing by these refugees or not. Most recently, the poisoned Skittles looked like this, and they were not disguised as Syrian refugees, nor did they need any sort of help from someone like that.–1280x720.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg

In essence, speaking directly now to those who are about to disagree with me, it’s about time you start portraying the threat as an Elevation of an Already Non-Zero threat of terrorism (which is fairly questionable on the elevation part). Is there also a non-zero threat from refugees? Yes, probably. Is it definitely a greater threat than what we already face from people currently living here, and is it greater to the extent that it counters the good we could do for refugees overall?

You could argue that it might be that way. But it very well may not, I would argue that there is quite a bit of evidence against.

Your argument is that because there are native or homegrown terror threats, then it doesn’t matter if we import refugees who also could be a terror threat? Because we’re going to have that threat anyways, it just doesn’t matter?

I think the logical conclusion is actually implementing policy in the other direction. What should we do with people here who are loyal to ISIS? Deport them. We should get rid of the homegrown terror threat, no we shouldn’t just deal with the consequences, and sit back and get attacked. 14 people already dead. 130 in Paris. So, they weren’t killed by refugees, they were killed by native Muslims who were radicalized. Well, I guess its time to start weeding out those people and sending 'em back?

Also, I thought maybe you should watch this video on immigration:

I agree. The most apparent explanation to the anti-refugee sentiments is cowardice, imo. We have a screening process in place and should be capable of taking a large number of them. There is no such thing as large immigration that doesn’t bear some level of security risk.

We can befriend or we can alienate the Muslim population. I would personally feel safer befriending them, and of course it’s the right thing to do.

Yes all are welcome :thumbsup:

Regards Tony

Mexico? Very porous border there. The selection process is far from reliable. One factor is that the UNHCR does most of the picking and choosing.

With all that being said. Can we go ahead and take in some refugees now? Can we go back to supporting the idea of helping those who are most in need of it?

Ah, that would be the Christians and Yazidis, not the Muslims.

*"One of the elements at play is the fact that for the most part, the United States does not get to select its own refugees. As Nina Shea highlights at National Review, The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is typically the deciding agency, and recommends to the United States which refugees will be resettled. So the selection process hits several snags. Firstly, Christian refugees almost overwhelmingly avoid United Nations refugee camps out of legitimate fears of possible violence against them.Reports of attacks on Christians refugees by their Muslim counterparts have been reported, such as when Christian refugees on a boat in the Mediterranean were thrown overboard, and German police have openly urged publicly separating Christian and Muslim refugees, due to attacks. In one case a Christian convert was beaten unconscious by a metal baton.

"Secondly, the United Nations itself is strongly beholden to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), it’s largest voting bloc, which has its own views on the refugee situation that are unlikely to conform with U.S. interests and equally unlikely to favor Christians, given that at the OIC’s home headquarters, in Saudi Arabia, the practice of Christianity is itself largely illegal.

“Thirdly, and perhaps most largely problematic, is the appearance of overt anti-Christian bias by the State Department itself. . . .”*


Think about what you wrote and why. The fact that you wrote it at all means there is a problem with this population.

And the screening process is far less than what the California Muslim killer woman went through and we all know what happened. The UN is doing most of the screening with the local employees (Muslims) that they hire in-country. Why are we not concentrating on bringing in Syrian Christians instead of Muslims?

During the height of WW2 we would never have thought of bringing in ethnic Germans or Japanese “refugees” into our nation, so why would we want to do something similar now that we are at war with People who are Muslims? This makes absolutely no security sense at all.

So you are willing to take American casualties in the process? I am not. If we are to take care of them, it should be over there, not here.

Its sad but its true. Its not politically correct, but its true. We haven’t had any problems with Sikhs or Buddhists or Hindus, have we? Its just the honest truth to say that Islam has serious problem. Our alienation of them causes them to be violent? I disagree.

There are plenty of ethnic minorities who live in peace in America and quite frankly in other western countries. How come we’re never reading about alienated minorities who were Jains or Ba’hai, Sikh, Buddhist, or Hindu? Are they being treated completely differently than Muslims are? Do Americans and Europeans have it out for Muslims?

The point is, Western societies are multicultural. We do treat ethnic minorities better than any other countries on Earth. And there just so happens to be one minority which is always responsible for violence. Maybe its because of their ideology, and not the actions of Americans and Europeans. Were Muslims discriminated against before 9/11? [No]
Ok, the narrative is completely off. We have been free, open, and tolerant countries. And one minority: Islam, is always the offender. Is always the one who breaks the peace.

You can disagree with me, but I’d rather you prove that this isn’t the truth. We’re never going to solve the problem when we can’t accurately identify it. And, it doesn’t lie with America and Europe not being multicultural and welcoming of minorities enough. We’ve been welcoming. We welcomed everyone with every ideology under the sun.

One of them was a rotten apple. And that is Islam.

I have to say that I am feel conflicting thoughts about all of this. The Holy Father has said that we should always welcome refugees, on the one hand, on the other, we have to balance that with being mindful about national security.

National security is a vital interest, but so are acts of mercy, which potentially yield dividends of an ‘eternal’ nature. That is an important distinction I think, otherwise, why are we here?

It’s not clear to me that Muslims in general want to be “befriended,” versus being left alone to live their lives as they wish in their self-created communities. Further, in our era of overwhelming political correctness, “befriending” has taken on the form of banning traditional elements of American culture in the name of “not offending” and “diversity.” From what I’ve read such gestures provoke scorn and puzzlement in that Muslims I’ve seen quoted say that they had no expectations that Americans would give up traditions like Christmas trees in public, wearing green and red in school (yes, this has been forbidden in numerous school systems, including my daughter’s), and similar purging of our culture in the name of supposedly not “giving offense.”

And a government that can’t find Lois Lerner’s or Hillary Clinton’s emails simply can’t be trusted to screen a massive “refugee” population - especially in light of the fact that it is clear that Christianity is under massive persecution in the mid-East, yet there are essentially no Christian refugees being allowed into the country, only Muslims. Why would this be, except that . . . . .


I much prefer proposals to create safe zones within arab-controlled countries and then provide as much aid as needed to keep the residents safe, fed, educated and healthy. Actual resettlement into other countries should be a last resort for cases such as the Christians and Ysidis who have been singled out for religious persecution.

Sending them back where? If they are a fellow American citizen of yours then they are already in their home country. Someone did this line ‘about go back to where you come to’ once with an old friend of mine years ago who was Asian and she went ‘Well yes I’m just about to get on the bus over there and it should take me about half a hour to get there mate’.

Nah, instead many of your top military commanders were Americans with German heritage during WW2. :wink:

That’s right, they were Americans with German heritage, born and raised here in the USA and not recent refugees.

Muslims constitute neither an ethnic groups nor a nation, and we are not at war with all Muslims.

During World War I and World War II, we were at war with people who were Christians, so should we not have taken any Christian refugees during those wars?

Funny that, some of the Germans in the USA were put in interment camps from what I understand but a far, far higher percentage of Japanese ended up in camps. Including Japanese born and raised in the USA I believe.

The killers in the French attack were nearly all born in Belgium or France, so I wonder where exaclty one would ‘send them back to’?

Exactly, Muslim is used as a catch all term of late and in a monolithic manner.

If an American citizen is a supporter of ISIS, then they should be thrown in an U.S. jail as a traitor. Do you disagree?
Don’t you want to legally punish U.S. citizens who support ISIS?

We aren’t at war with Muslims. The entire Gulf region makes up a fairly small minority of Muslims worldwide, compared to Pakistan or Indonesia.

There’s two unstable states that are in a civil war, loosely speaking, although the sides are not as cleanly organized as, for example, the American or English or Spanish civil war. This isn’t a war of nation states committing mass murder against each other, such as you’d find in WW1 or 2. It might be more akin to taking in Chinese or Soviet refugees in WW2. Sure, relations aren’t very warm, but we’re not at war with the Middle East last time I checked. We’ve taken in migrants from Africa, which far exceeds the Middle East in violence. The reason for the heightened fear from the public specifically towards Syrians and Iraqis is quite simple: we’ve been trained to fear them through the high level of publicity we receive about them.

We’ve taken in tons of Catholic/nominal Catholic South & Central Americans in past decades, and they’re statistically far more homicidal than Middle Easterners. We’ve “put American lives in jeopardy” by having them here, although I think US citizens do a sufficient job of being a security threat in of themselves. We don’t need outsiders to give us a hand with it. I’m not sure the rationale for the intense fear towards a group of people migrating that are less violent than we are.

Security concerns aren’t unjust. We need a system in place as we take people in, but I see a confusing double standard in terms of the inevitable security concerns that come with every migration conceivable. If we’ve already taken in so many central Americans, with the intensely dangerous syndicates, Syrians ought to be little league in comparison.

Moreover I will add, though this isn’t an argument I would use in any secular setting, that I am 100% positive that this nation will not be worse off for having had compassion on the vulnerable and the meek, and those seeking shelter and peace. God will bless us, and history will have rightly judged us doing what is right, though it may be controversial at the present time, since many people are afraid, and that fear perhaps rules them. On the contrary to this, we will be scorned if we do not.

We can be absolutely 100% positive that American lives will be lost in some sort of violence in the near future, perhaps tomorrow. This is true regardless of whether we let refugees in or out.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit