the paradox of vetting millions of immigrants in practice

Submitted by myth (Germany), Oct 18, 2016 at 16:59

Dave, you are right in a way and wrong in another.

In principle the anti-islamists within the refugees provide all the competence and motivation to single out the islamists.

In practice however were are talking a million refugees - give or take a 100 thousand. These people speak Arabic not German. Our 3 million Turks don't speak Arabic either. It takes Arabic-speakers to vet the refugees. Germany needs to recruit an extra 200 thousands or more Arabs to do the vetting for us. You see where this is going. If they refuse say 100 thousand we'd still have more than we have now doing nothing. Given the numbers a paradox is laughing at us.

If we were to train the entire German administration to speak Arabic we wouldn't need our extra Arabs but we'd essentially have an Arab by language administration. Paradox again.

As stupid as the situation is now, somehow it is still the least stupid situation. It illustrates the point that the refugees driven by the islamists hold Germany's future in their hands.

If anyone actually did need vetting it was Angela Merkel before she was placed at the top of the government. Next in line would be vetting 15 million amateur-Nazi East-Germans.

A couple of times every year construction workers dig up WW2 bombs in large cities. My hope is that the common refugee is reminded that war back in Syria is real an more important that Germany is a good and safe place after all. I even hope that the ambitious islamist learns that Germany has their own explosives and the we have done our excessive share of killing ourselves 70 years ago. Been there done that.

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".