"Oh, the poor refugees! They just want a place to live where they aren't afraid!"
You've heard it. I've heard it. My heart cannot possibly bleed enough for the plight of true refugees driven from their homes by war. And now, in the wake of the Paris attack, countries and states are pulling down the burglar bars and saying "NO" to refugees. Why? Because they can't be sure they ARE simply refugees.
The mother and her children looking for help, driven out of their house by a man with a gun and a torch, her home burning behind her as the man moves to the next house...that's a refugee. But the able-bodied man, angrily throwing a packet of food and water on the floor of a European train station, stomping on it in rage, shaking a fist at the person who gave it to him and demanding money instead...THAT is NOT a refugee. That's a parasite at best, and a foreign soldier at worst.
Europe is being swallowed by a tide of mostly able-bodied men, some of whom may be refugees helping their families get to someplace safe, but many of them probably aren't. They're probably secret terrorists, getting behind the lines of other countries' borders, being fed and housed by people they consider enemies, just waiting for a chance to strike at them unawares. But it doesn't require an overt attack to weaken your enemy. Just eating his food and taking up space in his buildings, diverting his resources away from uses that might STOP your advance -- that's siege thinking.
Because every closed border is a castle's lord raising the drawbridge against an approaching army. The enemy knows this. They either intend an assault or a siege. An assault is fast. A siege is slow. But a siege can win when an assault would be repulsed. So a very common tactic when breaking a siege used to be driving all of the surrounding lands' peasantry out of their homes, burning them down, so they would run to the castle looking for safety.
The castle lord has a dilemma: Does he let them in, and shorten the amount of time he can shelter everyone? Every mouth he lets in is a division of the available food, water, and other resources. The more he lets in, the less he can do for the ones inside. But if he turns them away, he feels the burden of their lives on his soul, especially if the enemy kills them on his doorstep...which was frequently the next thing to befall them.
These refugees may be just as pitiful as they appear to be. But every one taken in is a drain on the resources of the host. And some of the demands are approaching insane levels.
The German town of Sumte recently found out that they were being told by the government to take in 1,000 refugees. The problem? The town only has 100 RESIDENTS to begin with. They're being outnumbered 10 to 1 with refugees, most of whom are not poor displaced mothers with dependent children, but able-bodied men traveling alone. This is not a case of refugees being taken in out of kindness. This is a case of a country being swallowed by a horde of locusts. The residents are worried about crime. I would be, too. Especially in a country where I wasn't allowed to have a weapon to defend myself, in case a bunch of "refugees" decided I had more than I should and figure they can just take it. What's to stop them? What's to stop 1000 people from stripping the town bare, then moving on to the next town, and the next? When do they cease being refugees and become a modern Mongol horde?
Now we're being told in America that we're going to have a pile of our own Syrian refugees. How do we know they're not sleepers? How do we know they'll be good guests? We've gone down this road before. Just ask Bill Clinton about the Cuban refugees housed at Ft. Chaffee, who rioted and broke loose, rampaging and burning down buildings. They were trusted with "a loose cotton rope across some sawhorses" to delineate their boundary, but they broke that trust and started swarming the area, breaking things. That resulted in the National Guard being called in, and "miles of concertina wire" becoming the new boundary.
Any "refugees" that come into this country must be fully vetted. If we don't have the resources to vet them first, then they shouldn't come in. Period. It was a lack of resources to properly vet the Cuban refugees, and the concern that many of them were Cuban criminal prisoners, freed by Castro to infiltrate our country with crime and strife, that led to the Cuban riot at Ft. Chaffee. Given that our government can't process a simple health care insurance purchase in under six months, when they're just the MIDDLEMAN for a purchase from a regular health insurer, how are they going to vet tens of thousands of refugees when the information needed to do so is unavailable?
They can't. Those refugees will simply disappear into the night, and some of them will try to hurt us at some point in the future. It's already happened in France...one of the attackers had a Syrian passport.http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/1980-crisis-at-ft-chaffee/Content?oid=964922