Syrian refugees shunned by some in U.S. after attacks in Paris

(CNN)—Along with hundreds killed and wounded, the Paris attacks have had a multitude of indirect victims: Syrian refugees seeking safety from war. They are now being shunned more strongly than before over fears that terrorists could be mixed in with them.

On Sunday, authorities revealed that at least one of the Paris terrorists entered Europe among the current wave of Syrian refugees. He had falsely identified himself as a Syrian named Ahmad al Muhammad and was allowed to enter Greece in early October.

Over the weekend, a handful of U.S. governors either opposed taking in any Syrian refugees being relocated as part of a national program or asked that they be particularly scrutinized as potential security threats.

cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/paris-attacks-syrian-refugees-backlash/

Exactly what ISIS wants.

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.

Hazen Pingree: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: to your entire post.

10 minutes before I read your post, I said to my husband, “I think it should be like the old days - women & children first.” We were watching the local news, & 90% (to our eyes) of the “refugees” were men or teenage boys.

Another question: why are not majority-Muslim countries stepping up to help? Would not the “refugees” feel more comfortable there?

I have no problem with religious “screening”…to my knowledge, there are no Christians in ISIS.

That Mr. Obama talks down to American citizens who are fearful of attacks here…well, that’s a topic for a different thread.

I wouldn’t see why this would be a bad idea - after all, we pretty much know which group is causing all the trouble.

Although if i were to grant “First-Entry” privileges i’d go with the most Endangered.

That would b the Yazidis (who have already felt the wrath of ISIS in Iraq) who number around 2,000 if i’m reading the stats correctly.

Followed by the Druze. (3% of the population)

Neither group will be welcomed anywhere in the Muslim world.

It’s a misconception that they’re not stepping up to help. When in fact they definitely are. Turkey has taken in 1.8 million of them. Lebenon has taking in over 1.2 million Syrian Refugees (or 25% of their population). Jordan has taken in 600,000 so far (they now account for 9% of the population of that country). Egypt has taken in 150,000 Syrians. In fact Muslim countries have thus far taken in 3.8 million refugees from Syria. Muslim countries nearby Syria have taken in over 95% of those that have been forced to flee. That’s what you’re not hearing in all of this.

Not true. Here’s the actual statistics: data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

Over 75% of the refugees are women and children. Only 22% are men of fighting age. The rest are elderly.

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’m all for vetting them. But indiscriminately turning them all away like some are suggesting is wrong and will only make us more enemies.

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.

So how about we Christians come together and do what we do best instead of hunkering down in fear? How about we take Francis’ advice and every parish in the country sponsor a family?

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.

If countries refused to help the Jews because they were Jewish (or German) that would have been wrong. Which, incidentally, is exactly what happened. Americans were afraid that German spies would infiltrate the country through the refugees, and so we failed to help them as we should have.

Besides, if we prohibit Muslims from entering the country based solely on their religion, we’ll be playing right into ISIS’ agenda.

As you pointed out, this is how ISIS views the world. They are the ones that see the world as black and white; as Muslim and non-Muslim. And they want us to buy into that. They WANT the West to treat all Muslims as the Enemy so that most Muslims will feel like they have no choice but to side with ISIS. This is their strategy to start another world war, one between Muslims and non-Muslims. They believe this will hasten the Apocalypse. And this is exactly why we must resist the temptation to treat all Muslims as potential threats.

Vetting them is fine; making sure they have no connections to terrorists groups is fine. But let’s not fall for the lie that Muslims are dangerous just for being Muslim. The vast majority of ISIS’ targets are Muslims. They have the potential to be our biggest allies in this war, as long as we don’t screw it up by unnecessarily pushing them away.

Correction: 22% of the males refugees are fighting age. That makes the actual percentage even smaller.

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