Should we limit refugee intake to just women and children?

Single men shouldn't be allowed
Married men should

Because no married men could ever commit a terrorist act? When do children stop being children?
At least one of the recent attacks on germany was commited by a 17 year old.That would class as a child.

Reply 21

umar39

10

Original post by Robby2312

Because no married men could ever commit a terrorist act? When do children stop being children?
At least one of the recent attacks on germany was commited by a 17 year old.That would class as a child.

Any person could commit a terrorist act, i'm trying to make the moral choice here. Clearly, it is moral to allow a family to be together rather than leaving a part of the nuclear family in a Middle-Eastern Warzone!
Why would the applicability of the label 'child' affect a person's decision to offer them protection in their country?
Thank you for your insight(!) I suppose one individual can represent a whole group of people such that the minorities action should be a useful and fair indicator of what every other person will be like (!)

Reply 22

username1177050

20

We should take no one that we don't need to. We are in the eu so have to accept we migrants for the present however why should we accept third country nationals

Reply 23

username2763536

15

Original post by umar39

Any person could commit a terrorist act, i'm trying to make the moral choice here. Clearly, it is moral to allow a family to be together rather than leaving a part of the nuclear family in a Middle-Eastern Warzone!
Why would the applicability of the label 'child' affect a person's decision to offer them protection in their country?
Thank you for your insight(!) I suppose one individual can represent a whole group of people such that the minorities action should be a useful and fair indicator of what every other person will be like (!)

I dont see that it is more moral to offer a family refuge but not boys/men on their own.Your basically saying that families are alright but screw boys/men on their own regardless of what those individuals are actually like.I dont get your last point? I was saying that offering refuge to children is no guarantee that terror attacks wont occur as people classified as children have carried out terror attacks in the past.There are lots of christians in syria as well personally Id give individual christians priority over islamic families even if they are all men/boys.

Reply 24

James.Carnell

14

We shouldn't be taking any refugees at all.

Reply 25

umar39

10

Original post by Robby2312

I dont see that it is more moral to offer a family refuge but not boys/men on their own.Your basically saying that families are alright but screw boys/men on their own regardless of what those individuals are actually like.I dont get your last point? I was saying that offering refuge to children is no guarantee that terror attacks wont occur as people classified as children have carried out terror attacks in the past.There are lots of christians in syria as well personally Id give individual christians priority over islamic families even if they are all men/boys.

Disrupting a family would cause problems would it not? (socially and financially)
What I meant was that families should take priority alongside, mothers, children, pregnant women, disabled and ill individuals. (So yeah, maybe you are right about men not being prioritised :biggrin:

)

In relation to your 'child terrorist' point. Offering a child refugee status in a country will not increase nor decrease the likelihood that they will carry out a terrorist attack so I don't see what point you are trying to make!

My last point, in simple terms, means that you are unfairly categorizing all children as potential terrorists which is deceptive and untrue.

The Christian and Muslims in Syria have no relevance at all to what we are debating. I suppose you are just trying to make an edgy remark. Well, I must say the blade is quite blunt with this one! :biggrin:

Reply 26

The Roast

2

Just the kids. At least our societies will be able to mold them into Western culture.

No chance with the men and women, they can stay home.

Reply 27

orton6

2

Original post by anarchism101

We can't. By both the international legal refugee conventions that we are signed up to, and EU law on asylum seekers, refugees have a right to family unity. In fact, if the family is still together, then the father is almost certainly what's called the "principal applicant" for refugee/asylum seeker status, while his wife and children hold "derivative status" as long as they are his dependents.

This doesn't have to be followed if we are in a state of war or national security is at risk, and both are true.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 28

Studentus-anonymous

12

I'll agree letting in a large number of angry young men with a regressive cultural upbringing isn't helpful (as Germany learned the hard way, thank you Mrs Merkel), but I don't think it calls for a blanket ban on all men.

Firstly it's sexist, secondly it's needlessly breaking up families.

I'd rather there's more restrictions on single young men, although it's not really the refugees causing issues but the other migrants taking advantage of the crisis.

No, in an ideal world it'd just be refugee families, and single women and children, but I'll settle for stricter border controls and migrant vetting so actual refugees in most need get the A-OK.

Reply 29

Copperknickers

15

Original post by FolloUrDreams

Would that eliminate the risk of terrorism from refugees, which currently is happening far too often?

Or should we be taking refugees at all? If they go to places like Saudi Arabia instead, we could help them better there. One refugee probably costs us about £10,000 when they come here

1. Children grow up. I think if any terrorists do arise from Syrian migration, it will be people who have grown up in the UK, not people who fled from Syria when they had the option of joining ISIS and chose not to.

2. Not taking men would mean having single-parent families without a father figure, which is certainly a good way of ensuring that migrant children grow up with emotional issues and thus are more susceptible to criminal behaviour and lack of respect for women.

3. Most refugees who come to Europe are men, often with families who they can then bring over according to asylum rules which allow for the reuniting of families. So bringing women and children would require deporting several hundred thousand men first.

Reply 30

KimKallstrom

14

Original post by teenhorrorstory

Which of the recent terror attacks were committed by refugees?

Original post by snikerio

i love it when i see an inkling of intelligence on this website it gives me hope

Posted from TSR Mobile

What are you talking about? It was a staggeringly dumb and ignorant comment. Not only did ISIS explicitly state they were using the refugee influx to transport terrorists without issue, they did so! At least one of the Paris attackers was able to get from Syria back to Europe in this exact way :rolleyes:

Reply 31

KimKallstrom

14

Original post by teenhorrorstory

Which of the recent terror attacks were committed by refugees?

Original post by snikerio

i love it when i see an inkling of intelligence on this website it gives me hope

Posted from TSR Mobile

What are you talking about? It was a staggeringly dumb and ignorant comment. Not only did ISIS explicitly state they were using the refugee influx to transport terrorists without issue, they did so! At least one of the Paris attackers was able to get from Syria back to Europe in this exact way.

Reply 32

KimKallstrom

14

Original post by manofsoil

Refugees do not make up any real relevant percentage when it comes to terrorist statistics. By far the majority of them were brought up in the West and some even have been here for several generations. The refugee program is far more struggle for a terrorist to go through, a lot easier to get someone with a visa to do it, right?

Some of the recent terror attacks (ie the Paris attack) were committed by European-born terrorists who were able to move freely back from Syria (where they were trained etc) back into Europe by posing as refugees. ISIS explicitly stated they were doing this and furthermore, if you were ISIS you'd have to be a complete mong not to do the same. Most of these guys are on watch lists so they can't just go back to Europe from Syria without problems. This migrant crisis allows them to do so incredibly easily.

Reply 33

KimKallstrom

14

Original post by Tsrsarahhhh

You want children and women be torn away from their fathers, husbands, sons and brothers!?

You mean like they are now? The vast majority of the migrants are men who are either single or leaving the women and children behind. Have you even been following the events at all?!

Reply 34

teenhorrorstory

21

Original post by KimKallstrom

What are you talking about? It was a staggeringly dumb and ignorant comment. Not only did ISIS explicitly state they were using the refugee influx to transport terrorists without issue, they did so! At least one of the Paris attackers was able to get from Syria back to Europe in this exact way.

The OP claimed terrorist attacks carried out by refugees were occurring far too often, yet was only able to give one example. But my comment was 'staggeringly dumb and ignorant'? :lol:

It's become evident that most of the terrorist attacks were carried out by people who've been raised in Europe practically all the lives(like the Paris attackers), not by genuine refugees.

Reply 35

Chakede

15

Original post by FolloUrDreams

Would that eliminate the risk of terrorism from refugees, which currently is happening far too often?

Or should we be taking refugees at all? If they go to places like Saudi Arabia instead, we could help them better there. One refugee probably costs us about £10,000 when they come here

tens of millions of refuee immigrants have come to europe in last few decades
from non-islamic countries ingroups of men women and children without any sort of the problems of the last coupe of years - it isnt the gender that i cassing the problem

Reply 36

KingBradly

1

Original post by Zargabaath

That's pretty sexist tbh, I don't see why women's lives are being valued as higher then men's

The women don't rape on mass.

Reply 37

Zargabaath

21

Original post by KingBradly

The women don't rape on mass.

So all men are responsible for the rapes of a few?
I didn't have you down as a tumblr type tbh

Reply 38

KingBradly

1

Original post by Zargabaath

So all men are responsible for the rapes of a few?
I didn't have you down as a tumblr type tbh

No. But male migrants are far more likely to rape than the rest of the population, and allowing them in has created serious problems with rape and sexual assault. It's not about responsibility. If you had a hotel and you had a bus load of people who wanted to book rooms and make you a load of money, but you knew one of them was a rapist who was likely to assault people in the pool, would you let them in?

Reply 39

Zargabaath

21

Original post by KingBradly

No. But male migrants are far more likely to rape than the rest of the population, and allowing them in has created serious problems with rape and sexual assault. It's not about responsibility. If you had a hotel and you had a bus load of people who wanted to book rooms and make you a load of money, but you knew one of them was a rapist who was likely to assault people in the pool, would you let them in?

This is tumblr feminst logic again.
"Cis Men are more likely to rape then the rest of the population, so we should assume all cis men are rapists"
"If you had a bus full of cis men wanting to enter a nightclub, knowing one might be a rapist, would you let them enter? No because they clearly can't control themselves. #BanAllMen"

Should we limit refugee intake to just women and children?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you