Is no one in charge awake in Europe?

Submitted by Charles Martel (United States), Oct 6, 2015 at 16:35

Leaving aside, for a moment, the nonsensical bromide that it's Europe's responsibility to absorb these so-called migrants, an unanswered question comes to mind. That is, what would have been wrong in setting up local refugee centers close in geographic proximity to Syria, but far from Europe thereby sparing the Western democracies the risky task of absorbing a potentially hostile Islamic population.

Think of the situation in epidemiological terms and the idea crystalizes into even greater clarity. Imagine a large group where an opaque form of Ebola occurs at a 1% infection rate. Would it be wise to import the entire mass into your naive population hoping against hope that the lethal plague could be kept from spreading? Of course not.

As in this analogy, would it not have been far wiser to establish 'safe zones' where Syria's migrating populace could have been localized, cared for and stabilized — without opening wide the floodgates into Europe's general populace. In this way, the West could have done the right thing from a humanitarian perspective while protecting its own secular Judeo-Christian society at the same time.

So how is it that a safe, rather obvious tactic as this was apparently shunned in favor of simply opening the doors wide and letting them all stream right in. It's terrifying to observe that basic common sense is such a vanishingly rare commodity in our so-called leaders today.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".