When I look at old photographs and film footage of refugees following WWII, I see hordes of women and children and very few men. The men who are in the footage are generally older (by appearances, I’d say, post-50 and usually post-60 years of age). However, when I see footage and photos of refugees from the Syrian wars, I see lots of young men – they are in the preponderance of those who are on the march, and there are very few women, children and old men. Why is there such an obvious contrast between then and now? Usually, young men are the ones who fight wars, not old men, so they stay behind. Yet the migrants coming through Central Europe (and, we are told, the United States) are almost totally bereft of elderly people, women and young children.
Here’s another question: Where are they from? What are the names of their towns, their regions? Are they really all Syrians? Or are they from other parts of the Middle East? Who are these young mean, and more importantly, what young man would flee a war zone and leave his family behind?
I think that, if we are to allow Syrian refugees of war into our country, they must be very carefully vetted. I think we should allow women and children and the elderly first, before we even consider allowing a young man in – even to the point of establishing percentage quotas. I think they should be vetted for health as well. I do not want communicable diseases coming across our borders. I also think we should vet them by point of origin. We need to know their back-stories. Are they really coming from war zones? Why are these young men not staying to fight for their nation and their future? Are they cowards? Why are they coming here? Are they warriors in disguise?
I also have questions relating to our welfare infrastructure. I for one do not want a permanent underclass of people living off our welfare systems who cannot speak the language of the host country and for whom we are ill-equipped to teach them our language and culture.An ignorant mass of uneducated, impoverished, and welfare dependent people is a recipe for catastrophe. They will demand that their voice be heard – but no one will know how to hear them.
Finally, should we vet them by religion? I know that our president has said that to do such a thing would be “shameful.,” but I have to ask why? Why is that shameful? It was not shameful for the nations of world to accept European Jews during the 30’s and 40’s (in fact, the real shame occurred when they did not). The Islamist’s, by their actions, insist that their enemies are Christians and non-Muslims – they call the nations who reprove them “Crusaders” and threaten their existence. Should we not vet these refugees by religion first, making special exceptions for Middle Eastern Christians, allowing them first-entry privileges? These are my questions.