Who said *solely*? Because, guess what, it wasn't me! Please don't over-simplify what folks say - these topics are difficult enough to get through without having to spend effort knocking down strawmen.
Like you did when you made the statement regarding lack of additional radicalization if not accepted as refugees? Clearly your intent was to counter that statement, and you did so by explaining how horrible other people made it for refugees over there with the clear implication that by not rescuing them, we're contributing to their radicalization on a non-trivial basis? Yeah, I think I was being perfectly fair in my characterization of your post. If you'd like to give a more detailed and nuanced version instead of complaining I took your drive-by incorrectly, I'll be glad to listen and reconsider.
Statistically speaking, as has already been discussed, the evidence is that refugees are *less* likely - *half as likely!* - to be terrorists than our own male citizens. And, using the refugee-path, with its long-timescale, risk of being caught in vetting, and indeterminate destination (the refugee doesn't get to pick where they go), is a pretty nonsensical route for terrorists planning something.
This is essentially saying 'well, if we guess these things, then we can show you a model with these guesses and it will say that you're probably, maybe, most likely but not quite, a little bit wrong." Statistical analysis doesn't remove the possibility, nor does it have any ability to correct anything. The threat still exists, and it's rational to be concerned about it. The proper response to people being concerned about a real threat, however unlikely, is not to do a statistical analysis and tell them they're wrong because of your guesses.
And the ideology we're discussing has already shown that it doesn't mind waiting for a payoff. It's very patient and doesn't think like you do. So thinking that you'd not take that route as its not very efficient doesn't mean they don't think otherwise. They think like a nation-state -- the long run. Getting agents in with covers given to them by the target state is optimal. Waiting two years and doing some work to get that isn't much of a concern -- it's just one arrow, not the whole plan.
Be that as it may, consider this: Leaving people in harsh circumstances promotes radicalism, despite Maxperson's assertions otherwise. That increases risk. If the risk of bringing some in is less than the risk of leaving them in place, then taking on refugees is, in fact, the less risky path!
People in non-harsh circumstances are being radicalized as well, though, so I don't think that's a winner of an argument.
As far as data shows, these fears are legitimate only in the sense that phobias are legitimate - the person is actually experiencing the emotion of fear. That is, if their objection is actually rooted in fear, as opposed to racism, which has more roots in disgust than it does in fear.
We've presented reasoned arguments that the fear is hyperbolic. That's not being dismissive, that's actually trying to address the concerns.
This is exactly why people aren't listening to you -- medicalizing people's fears is not a useful way to change minds. This leads me to believe that the desire isn't to change minds and reach a workable solution for everyone, but rather to make fun of people that don't think like you be treating them as if they're defective. You're not looking for a solution, you're looking to say your right and those people are crazy.
Problem - with an unreasonable fear, you probably don't assuage it with reasonable action. That's kind of the definition of unreasonable fear.
You're the person that's said the fear is reasonable. I happen to think it's very reasonable -- that area is controlled, in part, by an ideology that wants to do people in this country as much harm as possible. Those people have said that they will use the refugees as a way to inflict that harm. They have recently shown that they can, in fact, inflict harm on others, both in France and now in California. That those persons weren't refugees is beside the point -- it's rational to be concerned about a process that has admitted holes and an inability vet refugees that will let refugees into the country with possible terror minded inflitrators in place.
I don't share that fear, mostly because I recognize that it's a small risk with a large enough benefit to offset it, but I also recognize that I might be wrong about that. I hope I'm not, but I can see that there's a rational fear of that out there. My response to that, even as I disagree with it, is to find ways to make that fear less rather than tell people that are afraid that they're crazy and are unamerican.
Ultimately, real policy should be based on evidence, not on imagined risks. Assuaging unreasonable fears is, honestly, security theater - it has proven expensive, both in terms of money, and imposition on our freedoms, and should not be undertaken when it gets in the way of actually reducing security. The TSA at airports are a fine example - with their extra measures and complications, they make is *easier* to slip contraband past than earlier, simpler processes did.
All risks are imagined until they occur. And asserting that the only way to assuage fears over a system that is barely functional and has many holes, like our vetting process, is to engage in security theater is a justification to continue on your chosen route of insulting people that disagree with your preferred policy options for no better reason than they disagree with you.
And I make that statement because you're here, explaining to me why I'm wrong, not because I disagree with your policy choice, but because my method actually treats people who disagree as having worthwhile complaints that should be addressed respectfully. Instead you've decided they're unreasonable and should just be pushed to the side in the pursuit of the proper course of action. I advocate treating them with respect and discussion, and you say 'no, not worth it, they're crazy and won't change.' Yeah.
