10k refugees is statistically insignificant and a nice symbolic gesture.

It also means they can be well-vetted. I don't understand people who don't want to vet them but my FB feed is horrified by the idea.

The German-American Bund, also, had about 10,000 members and sought to create a "Society within U.S. Society." However, I doubt that any of those criticizing people who are now seeking better vetting of supposed refugees to identify and block potential Jihidias believe that the FDR administration was wrong to investigate and prosecute its members (it dissolved in 1941, when the U.S. was still technically at peace with Nazi Germany), including imprisoning its leader, Fritz Kuhn, who was naturalized a U.S. citizen in 1934, had his citizenship revoked in 1943, and was deported to Germany in 1945. But, back then we had American leaders who understood that when attacked by followers of a totalitarian ideology, you must relentlessly pursue victory - not containment, nor degrading, nor managing, nor engaging in symbolism. I doubt that Eleanor Roosevelt would have felt that a hashtag was the sufficient response to slavery and death camps.
And, as far as arguing that 10,000 is a statisticly insignificant number, recall that it only took 8 people to bring down the Twin Towers. A small number of people who seek death can kill thousands and cause $Billions in damages. Their small numbers make them harder to identify and separate. But, the results are deadly if you don't.

I have a post on this -- how a small number can kill many. It's thanks to Enlightenment-driven western technology that this is possible -- their attempt to drag us all back into the Dark Ages.

It also means they can be well-vetted.

What does that mean, "well vetted"?

By whom?

Do you honestly think Assad will share his data with anyone not Russia, Iran or Hezbollah?

Do you really think that Assad will assist us in stopping ISIS operatives who want to infiltrate the West and conduct attacks there? if anything, he'd want them to succeed.

That does three things:

Who is a greater threat to Assad? ISIS or the West?
ISIS operatives in the West are no longer a problem for Assad or his partners.
If ISIS carries out more successful attacks in the West, the more pressure that will be brought to bear on ISIS in Raqqa.

With the collapse of the Syrian government in most of the country, that means that forgers have their hands on government issued materials and machines for making government issued identity documents. Without Assad's assistance, you will have no chance at spotting those fakes.

Assuming that they still have records regarding legitimately issued IDs. At best, that is incomplete. At worst, they don't have jack.

Also, 10,000 is a large number. 1% of that is 100. If ISIS can get 100 operatives into the US, and they divvy that up in, say, 10 teams, then they could in theory conduct 10 Paris style attacks.

Or... 1,300 killed, 3,500 injured.

To put it another way, I bring you a big box of cookies, 10,000 to be exact. 100 of those cookies are laced with cyanide.

Will you eat a cookie?

I have a hard time sympathizing with people who hate me. Whether they hate me because I'm a white male or because I'm an infidel doesn't matter. So as far as I'm concerned the Muslim refugees can suck it. I'd prefer not to encourage their brand of social cancer to grow in the U.S.

The sign on the door to America says "Welcome Refugees" -- or, in Emma Lazarus's exact words on the Statue of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor..."

I would like to be a country that welcomes refugees, but it simply seems idiotic to just let everybody in and hope it turns out okay.

I am for open immigration, but that sign we have in the front of the Statue of Liberty, "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." Can’t we just say, "Hey, the door’s open. We’ll take whoever you got." Do we have to specify "The wretched refuse?" Why not just say, "Give us the unhappy, the sad, the slow, the ugly, the people that can’t drive, people that have trouble merging, if they can’t stay in their lane, if they don’t signal, they can’t parallel park, if they’re sneezing, if they’re stuffed up, if they have bad penmanship, if they don’t return calls, if they have dandruff, food between their teeth, if they have bad credit, if they have no credit, missed a spot shaving… In other words, any dysfunctional, defective slob that you can somehow cattle prod onto a wagon, send them over. We want them." ~ Jerry Seinfeld

Yea, it is horrible what is happening to the refugees.

But, when Poles, French, and other Europeans fled Nazis they didn't ask for free handouts - no, they asked where do I sign up to fight! Thousands of Poles in the West joined the British in fighting the Nazis. Why are all these young "Syrians" not asking to do the same?

As for being "mean" or "horrible" - well, it is equally mean or horrible to not try to protect your own citizens when you don't know who exactly you're moving next door to them.

The part that troubles me is that even though they are surrounded by Arabic speaking Muslim countries, they don't want to live next to Muslims. They could walk a relatively short distance and be in any of half a dozen countries where they already speak the language and have almost the same religion, but they are going way, way, out of their way rather than have Muslims for neighbors. Do they know something that we should know?

You gotta wonder if we're doing these refugees any favors, bringing them over from a Third World culture and economy to a First World culture and economy and demanding they fit in right away.

The Tsarnaev brothers came from Chechnya and had trouble fitting in. We know their response to that frustration.

Nidal Hassan was unable to reconcile his desire to live as a Muslim with his desire not to live under Islamic rule. That cognitive dissonance found violent expression when he shot and killed 13 fellow soldiers.

One questions, however, if the violence in these examples was driven by Islam or if Islam was used by the perpetrators to rationalize and justify their already-violent natures.

Bringing people who have only ever known a culture that says gay people and women who wear mini skirts should be killed into a culture that bombards them with gay people and sexual imagery through mass media may not be doing them a favor and may be asking for trouble.

Their work skill sets are also likely to hold them back. What is considered a desirable skill in their country may be render them semi- or un-skilled labor in this one and may leave them feeling frustrated at their lack of socio-economic success.

It may be better that they go to a culture more like their own - if you can find an Islamic country that will risk admitting them for fear of admitting radicalized Muslims hidden among them.

I was listening to the radio last night and some expert was being interviewed on it. It wasn't a name I recognized at all. It sounded like most of his comments were from personal contacts - not media, etc. The one interesting thing he said I thought was that his "contacts" were telling him there was a disproportionate number of men of what "would be draft age in the US" travelling without family. There was speculation why this might be... they fear getting forced into army or another or any number of reason. No real conclusion.

Amy, I started reading you years ago for your wit and your fascinating insights into contemporary American life (never having been there) but of late the discussions are getting a little depressing - rampant Republicans on one side, ridiculous university PC on the other, and now the astonishing backlash against Syrian refugees on the grounds that a couple of these people might somehow pose a threat to the 320 million of you.

And this in a huge diverse country where home grown terrorism happens just about every week with no help from sinister foreigners at all, fellows like Adam Lanza or Timothy McVeigh or Dylann Roof. Of course, these were all good ole downhome boys, exercising their Second Amendment rights at authentic American venues like Virginia Tech. No problem with that sort of terrorism, then; very different when it's foreigners, right?

Fears of refugee "terrorism' are true insofar as war-traumatised people from anywhere are apt have trouble settling back in (think Vietnam or Iraqi vets) let alone dealing with a new language and a new culture, and yes, this occasionally does end in violence.

But in a great nation which was built on mass immigration (and they really WERE the huddled masses), you'd hope that present-day Americans would willing to extend at least a modest helping hand to these mostly ordinary harmless people blasted out of their homes by the real uglies.

I've noticed that when people bring up the quote on the statue like this, they always seem to leave out the last bit. You know, the "yearning to be free," bit. Those people, I'd be more comfortable with. Not so much the, "yearning to convert or kill you," or the, "yearning to latch onto the gov't teat," ones.

"and now the astonishing backlash against Syrian refugees on the grounds that a couple of these people might somehow pose a threat to the 320 million of you."

Remind me again, Mr. Google Alerts poster, how many attackers there were in Paris.

"And this in a huge diverse country where home grown terrorism happens just about every week with no help from sinister foreigners at all."

Bullshit. The number of coordinated, paramilitary-style attacks in the U.S., with a number of casualties comparing to Paris, numbers... exactly one, the McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing. And at that, it wasn't even a very good conspiracy. It's just that with the blast dynamics of that particular situation, they got lucky, so to speak.

(This is all just for the record. Mr. Bazza43, almost certainly a funded political operative who has probably posted the same spiel to dozens of different blogs this week, doubtless won't be back.)

Yeah, his post was almost exactly the same as one a couple of weeks ago by another person claiming t have been reading for years and was now oh so disappointed at the tenor

fellows like Adam Lanza or Timothy McVeigh or Dylann Roof. Of course, these were all good ole downhome boys, exercising their Second Amendment rights at authentic American venues like Virginia Tech. No problem with that sort of terrorism, then; very different when it's foreigners, right?

Here's the difference: Islam commands the death or conversion of the infidel.

There are, as Cousin Dave points out, a tiny handful of people who go on attack here. Adam Lanza was mentally ill.

Andrew Gumbel explains that it was law enforcement failures that led to the Oklahoma City bombing not being stopped.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gumbel/post_3301_b_1456757.html

Do we really want to just hope the FBI catches people who come here under cover of being "refugees" -- like those Paris murderers who came through Greece?

And yes, these are depressing times, but ignoring the attacks on free speech at universities and the fact that there's a push to let in people who don't just want to join the melting pot by may want to blow it the hell up...well, that seems to merit some conversation.

I have to admit I would be more open to 'Syrian' refugees if Hillary was president. And I'm in no way a Hillary supporter. But the Obama Administration is not known for it's competence. Considering how they've handled so many other situations I half expect we would have government officials handing out 'how to make your own explosives' pamphlets and a map of all the best targets to each refugee.

"but they are going way, way, out of their way rather than have Muslims for neighbors. Do they know something that we should know?"

Lots of them are in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon but those countries are getting pretty full.

Germany and Sweden have been offering great benefits and actively telling the refugees to come.

As for odds...

***
The chance of dying in a car accident in the U.S. is way lower. For the year 2011, there were 2,515,458 deaths in the US (source CDC) and there were 32,479 auto accident deaths (source Wikipedia). Lifetime chance of dying in a car accident is 1 in 77.4 (total deaths/auto accident deaths).Jan 6, 2005
The Odds of Dying - LiveScience
www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html
***

There's a 1 in 77 chance I will die in a car accident. And yes I do ride or drive almost daily, anyways.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that one of the 10k refugees is going to be a successful terrorist. But a) there are 1.6 million arabs in the US already, 10k more is .6% of that.

Terrorists can get in on tourist or student visas more easily than as refugees.

Refugees are more likely to be radicalized in refugee camps, I think you're underestimating this danger. Yes, we all know that there are wealthy Arab Muslims who become terrorists, like Bin Ladin, but recruitment is made easy by refugee camps because there's a huge pool of a) people who live in them and have nothing else going on and b) people who are comfortable but disgusted by the fact that other people are forced to live in these camps.

Consider the Palestinians, they're a rallying cry for Arabs who don't otherwise do anything for them. Many of them also live in camps and have nothing better to do than blow themselves up and become part of the vicious circle of violence.

I do not think that having millions of people in refugee camps is ultimately a good way to assure global safety.

That said, taking 10k does jack shit to solve the problem, as I said it's a token gesture not a real solution.

As for who would vet them, we'd vet them ourselves while they were still in the camps in Turkey.

We'd also cherry pick people with skills we need.

I'd be for taking all the gay refugees, they probably would be psyched to come live in the west and I bet there are 10k of them.

Ah, a response ...

Bullshit. The number of coordinated, paramilitary-style attacks in the U.S., with a number of casualties comparing to Paris, numbers... exactly one, the McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing. And at that, it wasn't even a very good conspiracy. It's just that with the blast dynamics of that particular situation, they got lucky, so to speak.

Yes; but the victims were just as dead, or mutilated or traumatised.

(This is all just for the record. Mr. Bazza43, almost certainly a funded political operative who has probably posted the same spiel to dozens of different blogs this week, doubtless won't be back.)

No: just somebody who enjoys reading Amy, and, very occasionally, adding my two cents' worth.

"No: just somebody who enjoys reading Amy, and, very occasionally, adding my two cents' worth."

And who, and sadly he is not alone in this, likes to apply a "two wrongs" fallacy to minimize the threat expressed by others.

Bazza43: "you'd hope that present-day Americans would willing to extend at least a modest helping hand to these mostly ordinary harmless people blasted out of their homes by the real uglies."

Sorry, Bazza43, perhaps you have become so used to Americans' very generous helping hands around the world for the last half century that you think we have become ungenerous because we don't invite everyone into our homes?

The U.S. in response to the terror that came out of the Middle East sent OUR young men and women to DIE for our own safety; but, also to fight and die for the future of those "harmless" people. And just how were we repaid? Were we thanked for this ultimate sacrifice on our dead's behalf?

Here's a hint on how we were thanked: "Yankee go home. You infidel Bastards!"

Well, guess what - we've finally listened - and went home. Now those folks can kill each other over their own warped cultures and tribal feuds.

And it is really unkind of you, Bazza43, to call us, even by hinting at it, "ungenerous" because we don't want those warped cultures and tribal feuds imported into our society.

And, lastly, Bazza43, have you invited "refugees" into YOUR own location and have them successfully integrated? If so, good for you. Be proud of what you have done. But, don't nitpick because one of the most generous nations on this earth, one of the most generous peoples in history, isn't doing exactly what you think we should be doing.

Please re-read (or read for the first time) my comment above; during World War II, Free French and Poles escaping the Nazis did NOT come looking for free internet access, and a warm bed and free meals. No, they came to the West and asked how can I fight the "uglies." So many of these young and male "Syrians" aren't asking that. No, they are trying to get to the countries that have the most generous handouts. They are turning down free food because it isn't to their liking (not halal). They are rioting because they are not being given exactly what they want. They are NOT offering to make contributions - they are asking (sometimes demanding) for stuff to be given to them.

So, I think you need to ask yourself, just who, exactly, are the "ungenerous" ones in this situation?