On immigration, background checks

[Iwassoclose]

Background checks are conducted when working with the vulnerable or when going through a vetting process. Now, with all the Syrian refugees streaming to the west, a major argument is that they should be properly vetted before being allowed into a country. Usually there are government and criminal data bases that try to cross match the given persons name to look at their travel, criminal and their general history if they do exist, vast majority simply don't as they are not important enough to be in said databases (interpol, your friendly spy agency etc.). And with the government of Syria all but gone, and ISIS in control of a large part of it, including government resources. Background checks are next to useless, as they can create a real passport (docs in general) and send a terrorist to meld in with the refugees without a problem.

So to the people saying they are okay with the refugees as long as they are vetted. What do you say?

[Migaletia]

It isn't enough. As long as they follow Islam, one of them can decide to blow up. It's not up to Europe but to Islamic to help them

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

I, personally, do not understand the logic of the pro-refugee fringe group. "We need to take these refugees in, despite the fact that there is a significant risk of a terror attack at the hands of said refugees. Public safety be damned, we need to protect these people from our wars because reasons!!1"

Seriously, anyone who is in favor of letting these refugees in are either oblivious to the fact that a terror attack is more likely to happen due to terror agents getting in and just don't care about the potential casualties, or are outright sympathetic to said terror agents.

[Ifreann]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=351342

[Sociobiology]

I, personally, do not understand the logic of the pro-refugee fringe group. "We need to take these refugees in, despite the fact that there is a significant risk of a terror attack at the hands of said refugees. Public safety be damned, we need to protect these people from our wars because reasons!!1"

Seriously, anyone who is in favor of letting these refugees in are either oblivious to the fact that a terror attack is more likely to happen due to terror agents getting in and just don't care about the potential casualties, or are outright sympathetic to said terror agents.

show me one terrorist who entered the country as a refugee

[Saber Maximus]

show me one terrorist who entered the country as a refugee

http://www.linternaute.com/actualite/so ... erroriste/

If you can read French, it clearly shows one of the terrorists who suicide bombed in the Stade de France entered through Lesbos Greece, as a 'refugee'.

[Dooom35796821595]

I, personally, do not understand the logic of the pro-refugee fringe group. "We need to take these refugees in, despite the fact that there is a significant risk of a terror attack at the hands of said refugees. Public safety be damned, we need to protect these people from our wars because reasons!!1"

Seriously, anyone who is in favor of letting these refugees in are either oblivious to the fact that a terror attack is more likely to happen due to terror agents getting in and just don't care about the potential casualties, or are outright sympathetic to said terror agents.

If an organised terrorist cell want to get into a country, it's not all that hard. The only reason they'd come in with refugees is to turn public opinion against refugees, increase anti Muslim sentiment and xenophobia which in turn makes it easier to radicalise and recruit disenfranchised individuals.

And to be honest, the terrorists are either doing very badly considering the vast amounts of damage they could do, or the security services are managing to stop the majority of planned attacks.

[Egemore]

I, personally, do not understand the logic of the pro-refugee fringe group. "We need to take these refugees in, despite the fact that there is a significant risk of a terror attack at the hands of said refugees. Public safety be damned, we need to protect these people from our wars because reasons!!1"

Seriously, anyone who is in favor of letting these refugees in are either oblivious to the fact that a terror attack is more likely to happen due to terror agents getting in and just don't care about the potential casualties, or are outright sympathetic to said terror agents.

If an organised terrorist cell want to get into a country, it's not all that hard. The only reason they'd come in with refugees is to turn public opinion against refugees, increase anti Muslim sentiment and xenophobia which in turn makes it easier to radicalise and recruit disenfranchised individuals.

And to be honest, the terrorists are either doing very badly considering the vast amounts of damage they could do, or the security services are managing to stop the majority of planned attacks.

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

Groups like ISIS use terror as a weapon. Threatening to sneak terrorists in with the refugees is entirely possible, but it's plenty easy to enter the country through other means even if there was no refugee situation. Many of the 9/11 perpetrators used tourist visas, for example. Student visas are another method that terrorists have used in the past. Most terrorists are still homegrown. How do we deal with those risks?

[November ARL]

Well the risk they pose is simple to deal with teach values and morals of said country and make people proud to be citizens then who can they radicalize if everyone has been taught to love their country cos its great.

[Daburuetchi]

These people are fleeing for their lives from terrorism. They probably don't have identification documents on them and the Syrian government doesn't have the resources to help the west process them. By requiring background checks you damming thousands of innocent people who are fleeing from terrorism engendered by the west. Background checks simply are not feasible nor are they moral.

[Daburuetchi]

It isn't enough. As long as they follow Islam, one of them can decide to blow up. It's not up to Europe but to Islamic to help them

Bigoted attitudes like this give the takfiri more recruits. Europe gave the Syrian "rebels' weapons, they enabled these groups to mutate into isis and now you'really going to claim it's not Europe's problem?

[Freemopia]

open migration. let them in no background checks. innocent until proven guilty. don't treat them as guilty until proven innocent. dont b a nationalist prejudice hypocrite, u wouldn't like it if they have background checks to enter another town. just because they are from another nation doesn't mean they are more likely to be terrorists, they are normal people seeking refuge.
gov is the biggest terrorist. let unvetted refugees in. they are already vetted just by being a human seeking refuge.

[Hirota]

show me one terrorist who entered the country as a refugee

http://www.linternaute.com/actualite/so ... erroriste/

If you can read French, it clearly shows one of the terrorists who suicide bombed in the Stade de France entered through Lesbos Greece, as a 'refugee'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-terror-attacks-ahmed-almuhameds-passport-may-have-been-planted-by-terrorists-a6735476.html

Needs further evidence.

[Migaletia]

It isn't enough. As long as they follow Islam, one of them can decide to blow up. It's not up to Europe but to Islamic to help them

Bigoted attitudes like this give the takfiri more recruits. Europe gave the Syrian "rebels' weapons, they enabled these groups to mutate into isis and now you'really going to claim it's not Europe's problem?

As always, the best argument you can do is call me a bigot. People would not join ISIS if hey weren't already corrupted by islam's teachings, and as for the arming of rebels, it's not the european people that should pay with a painful slow death at the hands of islamism. It's the ones who betrayed their own people for the sake of profit

[Environmental Support]

Bigoted attitudes like this give the takfiri more recruits. Europe gave the Syrian "rebels' weapons, they enabled these groups to mutate into isis and now you'really going to claim it's not Europe's problem?

As always, the best argument you can do is call me a bigot. People would not join ISIS if hey weren't already corrupted by islam's teachings, and as for the arming of rebels, it's not the european people that should pay with a painful slow death at the hands of islamism. It's the ones who betrayed their own people for the sake of profit

I partially agree, Europe shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of their power hungry predecessors, but the problem isn't Islam. It's us. The whole reason ISIS was even born was because of the intervention of older European rulers. Back after the end of WWI, the fall of the Ottoman Empire led to the division of the vast territories in the middle east. England and France divided the territory based on land mass, not ethnicity(not the first time, just look at Africa). This led to obvious disputes between age old enemies forced to share the same country. It only got worse as time went on with US, USSR, and European involvement in the governments of the middle east. This obviously caused some anger towards Europe and the US, which led to the problems in Syria and most likely al qaeda.

So it was largely Europe's fault, and you could easily say that part of it was Jihad, which I would be inclined to agree with. But if it weren't for European's actions, Jihad might not even be relevant.

But hey that's corrupt modern government for you.