Syria

No, Ben Carson and Donald Trump, the Majority of Syrian Refugees to the U.S. Are Not 'Young Males' [UPDATED]

It's stupid season for American political commentary about the refugee crisis

|

Thath righth I with my thongue! ||| Fox News
Fox News

On Sept. 14, Ben Carson, who has been the number-two GOP presidential candidate in every national poll for more than a month, was asked by CNN's John Berman the following question about the Syrian refugee crisis: "Do you think that the United States needs to be willing to let more of these refugees into this country?" Carson's answer, in part:

the majority of them are young males. And they could easily be people who are being infiltrated by terrorists and recognize that once you bring them in, then you have got to bring other members of the family in. 

This echoes sentiments from Donald Trump, who has topped every national Republican poll since mid-July. On Sept. 9, when asked by Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity about whether we should be worried about radicals being mixed in with refugees coming to the U.S. from Syria and Iraq, Trump said, in part,

And if you look at a lot of the people that I've been watching on television, it's men. There aren't that many women, relatively speaking.

Trump, whose shifting answers on the question have settled on a policy of accepting zero Syrian refugees, has also made repeated claims that Christian refugees from Syria "cannot come into this country," which is an easily disprovable lie.

I used to live about a mile from this picture. ||| Wikimedia Commons
Wikimedia Commons

There are actual statistics about what kind of refugees the United States has accepted from Syria, available at the State Department's Refugee Processing Center website. I searched between March 1, 2011, and Sept. 30, 2015*, and found the following stats about the 1,849 admitted refugees during that time period:

52.5% are male, 47.5% are female

30% are between the ages of 21 and 40, 42.4% are under 14

95.6% are Muslim, 2.3% are Christian (this compares to an estimated population within Syria of 87% and 10%, respectively)

These numbers track with what we know about Syrian refugees overall. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has estimated that 50.5 percent of all 4 million-plus Syrian refugees are female, 51.1 percent are children (17 and under), and that just 21.8 percent are males between ages 18 and 59.

Nevertheless, fear of the Muslim "military-aged male" has shot through the commentary about the refugee crisis, particularly as it concerns Europe—where at least the assertion has more statistical validity. Here's a typical recent claim, from Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas):

Seventy percent of these people that are going into Western Europe today are military-aged males 20-30 years old. According to the UN, only 15 percent are [children] and 13 percent are women.

The most recent figures from the UNHCR about sea-born arrivals to Europe in 2015 do bear some resemblance to Babin's math: Just 13% of the nearly 521,000 transplants (of which 55% come from Syria) have indeed been female, 18% have been children, and 69% men. But note that that 69% is for all men, not those in their 20s (as in the congressman's claim), or those between 20 and 40, as you also often hear.

So just how many of those 69% are of military age? I've got a request into the UNHCR for clarification. But it's safe to assume that the proportion is considerably larger than that of the overall population of Syrian refugees. Why is that?

Rush Limbaugh, for one, suspects "sleeper agents," and he's hardly alone. But there's another explanation hiding right there in plain sight: Military-aged males are better suited for potentially deadly international travel. What's more, they are precisely the people most likely to be targeted and conscripted by various regimes and armed gangs within a war-zone hellhole.

On the hardiness factor, consider these two charts from the Pew Hispanic Center, showing the demographic differences between legal and illegal immigrants in the United States:

A veritable hornet's nest of Mexicans! ||| Pew Hispanic Center
Pew Hispanic Center
Where all the brown women at? ||| Pew Hispanic Center
Pew Hispanic Center

In the legal-immigrant category, the biggest cohorts are between ages 30 and 50, and the males and females are evenly split. Among illegals—by definition the ones most inclined to take risks, including to their physical wellbeing—the demographics tilt decisively toward—wait for it!—military-aged males.

As for motivation, I can testify having lived not far from Yugoslavia for most of the 1990s that a preponderance of war refugees into the rest of Europe were men in their 20s, for the very good reason that they didn't want to die, or to kill people.

Which makes our Syrian refugees a bunch of goddamned pussies, according to American tuff guys like Kurt Schlichter:

Here's a better response from the United States and Europe to the hordes of primarily military-aged males fleeing Syria, Iraq, Libya and other war-torn Third World hellholes: Go home and fight for your own damn countries, you cowards. The situations their people have created for themselves back home are apparently so bad that we Westerners are morally compelled to open our homes and checkbooks to them, so why the hell would we want a bunch of mostly young men who left behind their women and children? America is supposed to be the Home of the Brave, not the Hostel of the Gutless.

At least we know how Michael Malice is gonna age. ||| Fox News
Fox News

These people "should be back fixing their own countries," concurred Lt. Col. Ralph Peters. It's a helluva thing, decrying the courage of people facing categories of hardship no native-born American has had to endure. Should those Jews have just stayed in Russia in the 1980s? Should the boat people have instead stood their ground against the likes of Pol Pot?

Well, at least no one is calling the refugee crisis a "false flag" operation engineered by Washington elites to trigger a "color revolution" in Macedonia. Ha ha, just kidding.

Refugee resettlements on this scale make for very hard public policy, and security concerns are definitely part of the complexity. There's a reason why the '80s-era party platforms of both Republicans and Democrats talked less about illegal immigration than about the "refugee crisis." I for one think America's first moral obligation should be toward people in Afghanistan and Iraq who face misery as a result of cooperating with us during our long occupations there.

But the challenge of making good refugee policy is that much harder when seemingly everyone is talking nonsense.

* UPDATE: At the prompting of a dozen would-be Internet sleuths, who accused me in various descriptions of "cherry-picking" these numbers from 2011 in order to "intentionally" mislead (as opposed to, I don't know, choosing a date that corresponds to the start of the Syrian civil war), I conducted the same search for 2015 alone. Unsurprisingly, the change of time parameters changes nothing.

Here's the 2015 Syrians-to-U.S. stats, compared to my original series dating from March 1, 2011:

52.9% male (was 52.5%)

29.7% between the ages of 21 and 40 (was 30%)

97.6% Muslim (was 95.6%)

You would find largely the same numbers if you selected only for September, a research exercise that would be considerably more useful to the public discourse than throwing around unfounded accusations at strangers on the Internet.

To repeat a point slowly, and in fewer characters: The majority of refugees from Syria to the United States has not been, is not currently, and likely will not be in the future, "military-aged males," despite the fact that around 7 out of 10 Muslim-world refugees ariving into Europe via the Mediterranean Sea are adult men. The difference in demographic composition is very likely to do with the fact U.S. refugees arrive via filling out paperwork, while EU refugees largely arrive by cramming into boats. The underlying universe of Syrian refugees is actually slightly more female. Basing U.S. policy out of fear of disproportionately military-aged males is at best a confession of ignorance.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

437 responses to “No, Ben Carson and Donald Trump, the Majority of Syrian Refugees to the U.S. Are Not 'Young Males' [UPDATED]

  1. I blame Reagan.

    1. And Bush. I’m sure Bush is somehow responsible for the mess in Syria.

      1. Global warming forced rural farmers into urban areas to find jobs when their crops failed, and that planted the seeds (get it?) for the unrest. So yeah, it’s both Reagan and Bush’s fault because they were both in the pocket of Big Oil and refused to do anything to mitigate the impending climate crisis.

        1. That makes it even more the Koch’s fault.

          1. And absolutely nobody – NOBODY – knows the secret magic incantation to fix it all except Bernie Sanders.

            1. This time, the socialism will get it right!

      2. Destabilization of a whole region? I think there is some responsibility there.

    2. Man, this thread got stupid. I’ve been enjoying Corning’s rapid decent into insanity though.

  2. “30% are between the ages of 21 and 40, 42.4% are under 14”

    This seems a confusing way to phrase 28% are 15 to 20 years old.

    1. Is there no one over 40?

      1. Okay, that makes the statistic even more weirdly useless. Why did he break out those two demographics?

        1. Probably because the first one is the relevant age range to people worried about “young males,” and the second shows there are shitloads of children coming, i.e., people who are almost certainly not terrorists.

          1. The exclusion of 15-20 year olds is a bit odd, though. I tried to repeat the query on the State Department’s website but I didn’t get useful information out of it.

            1. This. Just because a Republican specified 21-40 year olds we have to assume that’s what Carson and Trump meant too?

              1. Yeah, when your talking about the war torn societies these folks are coming from it seems really odd to start counting at twenty. Our own military folks generaly start at 18.

                1. John “Johnny Shiloh” Clem was 13 when he enlisted?

    2. You’re leaving out the population over 40.

      1. They were all murdered by the young males Nicole!!!

        1. That makes so much sense. After all the only thing Arabs hate more than Jews is other Arabs.

          1. After all the only thing Arabs hate more than Jews is other Arabs.

            What are Persians, chopped liver kabab koobideh?

    3. The confusing thing is that Welch conflates the current refugees with refugees that the US has let in, in the past. The majority of refugees entering Europe are male (75%) and most are young. The US has previously given preferential treatment to families.

      What’s the US policy going forward? To take anyone? Or to preference families?

      1. What’s the US policy going forward? To take anyone? Or to preference families?

        First we accept the gays, then the clockmakers.

      2. What’s the US policy going forward?

        1. Immediate increase in funding to the NSA for expanded domestic surveillance.
        2. Focussed public policy and legislative efforts to implement “common sense laws” to prevent terrorists accessing weapons.
        3. National ID system operated by mobile telecoms and the NSA tying all communication and location data to civilians on a real time basis.

        Want more?

        1. Don’t give them any more ideas!

          1. I figure at this point we’re so far behind it’s going to take a major shift in technological capabilities for the citizens to regain their freedom, or a dawning awareness that leviathan must be destroyed.

            So yeah, we’re screwed.

      3. I would like to see the numbers on economic refugees vs. war refugees. I read somewhere a lot of people going into europe are not so much running from the war as they are for economic reasons.

  3. they could easily be people who are being infiltrated by terrorists

    OMG ACTUAL POD PEOPLE

    1. Wait, I saw this in a movie once. Was it Mimic?

      1. +1 Overgrown Cockroach

        1. Honestly it wasn’t a great offering from del Toro. I was excited going into the theater and pretty disappointed when I left.

          1. The sequels were soooooo much better.

        2. Men in Black?

  4. Obviously, the United States needs to be conscripting these military-age men into service to be sent for deployment overseas. That way, we’re arming the rebels but they’re actually US military, and we’re keeping our incoming refugees from actually living in your neighborhood. Do I have to think of everything?

    1. That is………GENIUS!!!

    2. Fist for President ’16

      1. Almanian may have just found his running-mate.

    3. Just like what we did to the Irish. Welcome to America your now a citizen, here is your uniform you will be fighting in our Civil War now.

  5. Did the “give them a Greek island” proposal really go nowhere? It seemed like an elegant solution to two problems.

      1. Don’t give them a choice. Go back to Syria or live on a beautiful island in the Aegean.

        But this makes Europe seem heartless, so they won’t consider it.

        1. I would be happy to accept such heartlessness. Give me an island in the Aegean!

    1. It did seem like a reasonable solution, didn’t it? Hell, give ’em all the Aegean islands that lack a permanent population — there’s at least 20-30 of them, last I checked. And at that point you also have a good way to concentrate relief and construction to one geographical area.

      1. That’s not a bad idea. Pay off all Greek debt in exchange (they are going to do so anyways. At least this way they get something out of it), and ship all refugees to the islands from this point forwards.

        1. Worked for the Jews and Israel. Well, kind of. Maybe Israel 2.0 can be put next to Costa Rica and Guatemala, instead of religious fanatics and Brit-supported strongmen.

          1. The Palestinians will be pissed when Israel takes the Temple Mount with them.

            1. All of Islam, not just the Palestinians.

          2. No, TIT, because the Zionists asserted an historical claim to the land of Palestine. This would be more akin to having settled the WW2 Jewish refugees in Western Australia, which quite frankly would have been a better idea.

            1. settled the WW2 Jewish refugees in Western Australia, which quite frankly would have been a better idea

              You’re probably right, and I say that as someone who’s generally sympathetic to Israel.

              That said, I was referring more to Israel’s internal state when I say it went “mostly well” (e.g., wealth creation, violence, rapidity of migrants in building a society, etc), foreign policy aside.

            2. It seems to me the obvious place for a new Jewish homeland after WWII would have been a piece carved out of Germany.

      2. And at that point you also have a good way to concentrate relief and construction to one geographical area.

        Aha! Concentration camps! Right there in black and white, you xenophobe!

        1. Dammit man, that’s not what I’m trying to say! I’m merely suggesting that there’s a final solution somewhere to this whole mess. Presumably the immigrants could wear green crescents, so as to identify themselves when we take them in to get their showers before arrival.

          1. Hmm. Clean, orderly, and efficient…

            It would appear I was wrong about you, sirrah. Carry on!

          2. Hmm. Clean, orderly, and efficient…

            It would appear I was wrong about you, sirrah. Carry on!

      1. Only dial-up.

        1. That’s inhumane.

          1. Send me back to Syria, you barbarians!!!

  6. So the majority of them are males. And the vast majority of the males are under 40. But it’s crazy talk to say the majority are young males.

    1. So you can’t read. It’s good that you can admit it. It’s the first step toward fixing the problem.

    2. Hate to break this to you but a majority of a majority is not necessarily a majority.

      1. Correct (if you agree that Matt’s 4-year sample is representative of the current wave).

        1. Distinct issue, though.

        2. Here’s the 2015 Syrians-to-U.S. stats, compared to my original 03/01/2011-:

          52.9% male (was 52.5%)
          29.7% 21-40 (30%)
          97.57% Muslim (95.6%)

          If you broke it down for this month, it would also look like that.

          1. Thanks, Mr. Welch. Good information.

          2. What’s the percentage of 15-21? Isn’t that a pretty important number to factor into “young males”.

    3. At most, it would make a plurality young males.

      1. Oh no! People said “majority” when they should have said “plurality’ according to Matt’s deeply flawed data!

        Liars!

        1. Are you suggesting a majority and a plurality are the same thing? That it’s not appropriate to correct that? They can be vastly different.

          1. Math is hard, Nikki. Let’s go shopping.

            1. Ooh, I love shopping!

          2. I’m suggestion that this is an overblown article. Matt gets hysterical, plays word games, supplies outdated and irrelevant data, then calls people liars.

            Trump is obviously talking about the European crisis we have been seeing on the news – so Matt immediately uses data on American immigration 4 years ago to prove something then blow his open borders dog whistle.

            1. Can somebody at least post some fucking data that shows that a majority of Syrian refugees going somewhere are “young males”? Because as far as I can see, none of the data actually show that. A majority are male, sure. And at least a plurality of the males are “young” (for some definition of young). But nowhere do I see that at least 50% of all the migrants are young males.

              1. JWatts already posted the link that leads here – the UN Refugee Agency.

                http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

                69% are men. It doesn’t break down ages. Might be in the sub documents.

                1. It doesn’t break down ages

                  Well then, it doesn’t answer the question, now does it?

                  1. It also doesn’t fit at all with Matt’s baseline data that has males at 52.5%

                    1. It also doesn’t fit at all with Matt’s baseline data that has males at 52.5%

                      Which might be why Welch pointed out that the demographics of migrants into Europe are different than those into the US, and cited the exact same source (UNHCR) that you claim “refutes” him.

                      But I’m still waiting for any evidence that Welch has lied, or even misrepresented the situation as it currently exists.

                    2. Which be relevant if they had been talking about historical U.S. immigration.

                    3. So then, pony up with the new numbers.

                    4. I’m waiting for evidence that Trump or Carson misrepresented the situation as it currently exists in Europe.

                    5. I’m waiting for evidence that Trump or Carson misrepresented the situation as it currently exists in Europe.

                      As am I, but as Matt Welch did not make definitive claims about the situation in Europe, it is irrelevant to whether or not he is a liar.

                    6. Just as the American immigration numbers quoted by Welch when he called Trump and Carson liars are completely irrelevant since they were clearly talking about Europe.

                    7. Amazingly, there is a difference between lying and being wrong. Welch only calls out one thing as a lie–relating to the migration of Christians from Syria into the United States–and otherwise just says that Carson and Trump are wrong. On the other hand, the word lie (and its related forms) has been thrown around like candy in the comments.

            2. These are politicians spouting bullshit. None of them are “obviously” talking about anything specific, for a reason. But as kbolino points out, that doesn’t really seem to matter here at this point.

            3. Carson and Trump want to get us excited about wayward young males who are going to come and destabilize places they arrive at. This completely ignores that this is absolutely *not* the demographic that is fleeing Syria.

              The demographic that is fleeing are largely college-educated middle class professionals who are selling/dumping their shit, gathering their cash and fleeing for greener pastures. The wayward young males are staying because Syria is just the kind of place wayward young males would be attracted to at the moment, hence the driving out of those who would seek stability elsewhere.

              Which is so much as to agree with kbolino that if there is evidence contradicting these findings, I have not yet seen it.

              1. The demographic that is fleeing are largely college-educated middle class professionals who are selling/dumping their shit, gathering their cash and fleeing for greener pastures.

                That’s what I was wondering about. I don’t see terrorists hiding behind every bus bench, so I want to know how many of these people can be contributing members of society before we take them in.

              2. but.. but… but.. I SAW pictures of all those Syrian musclemen terrorist refugees on the facebook!!

                1. On the facebook? Bro, all you need to do is copy and paste the following into your status:

                  I DECLARE AS OF THIS DATE FACEBOOK DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO IMPORT SYRIAN MUSCLEMEN TERROR REFUGEES PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 813-5 OF THE UN CHARTER AND SHADOW PROCLAMATION. SHARE WITH YOUR FRIENDS!

                2. Musselmen.

                  1. +1 foundingfatherspeak

    4. Is math that hard for you?

      52.5% are male, 47.5% are female

      30% are between the ages of 21 and 40, 42.4% are under 14

      If you assume that all of the people between 21-40 are males, then 15.75% of the total population of incoming refugees are males between the ages of 21-40.

      1. 13% are female, 18% are children, and 69% are male for the current refugee crisis. The numbers you are looking at predate the flood of Syrian refugees everyone is talking about.

      2. No. If you assume that all of the people between 21-40 are males, then 30% are males between the ages of 21-40. I think you’re saying if you assume that age and sex are independently distributed.

  7. I don’t think the USA can admit everyone, but we can take a certain number of refugees, focusing, I suggest, on victims of religious persecution.

    I suppose it’s possible that Muslim militants are victims of religious persecution, but it’s unlikely. It’s generally the *persecutors,* not the persecutees, who are radical Muslims.

    Pick some persecution victims, and they’re less likely to become Muslim terrorists in the U.S. They may even offer to fight said terrorists.

    1. I suppose it’s possible that Muslim militants are victims of religious persecution. but it’s unlikely.

      You know there are several flavors of Muslims and they spend a great deal of time killing each other, right? Sunnis and Shias aren’t exactly the best of friends.

      1. I said Muslim *militants.*

    2. Don’t forget the Yazidis, Eddie. ISIS are persecuting the fuck out of those people.

      1. Who cares about devil worshippers? They are almost as bad as atheists…

        1. SugarFree cleared his mind and meditated, calling up a vision of the Eddie in his head.

          “Screw the Yazidis,” the Eddie in SugarFree’s head said. “They will all burn at the stake when the Papal flag is planted in Damascus.”

          SugarFree woke up from his reverie in a cold sweat.

          “Someone must warn the world about Eddie’s theocratic agenda!” SugarFree exclaimed, and hastened to his computer…

          1. In his haste, SugarFree had forgotten to refill his mind after emptying it.

          2. It is a well-known characteristic of religious nuts that they don’t recognize humor and can’t take a fucking joke. I might have some sympathy if you didn’t so richly deserve the mocking you receive here.

            1. And what do you call my SugarFree story, if not a joke?

              Didn’t you recognize it?

              1. And what do you call my SugarFree story, if not a joke?

                Whining.

                1. Closing the italic tag.

                  1. If by “italic tag,” you mean your mind, then you’re already there, dude.

                2. Yes, they frequently think their whining is funny. And that my reply to you, Tonio, was really about him. His ego is boundless.

                  1. Oh, don’t get your tentacles in a twist, I was only teasing you.

      2. When did I forget them? I said “victims of religious persecution.” I didn’t add any qualification, except to say it was unlikely that Muslim militants were victims.

        1. Its entirely possible to be a militant *and* a victim. Imagine there’s a sect of your religion that starts killing people from your sect – so you start fighting back.

          Now you’re a militant also.

          1. Now all I can think of is bearded military aged males having sects.

    3. And you’re ignoring that fact the Islam is not a unified religion – same as Christianity is not. That’s why you can have Anglican persecution of Catholics, even though their *all* Christians.

  8. OT: What’s “Reasonable?” Seen it mentioned in a few recent threads. Is that a better version of the Reason app, and if so, where can I find it? Thanks.

    1. It’s a Chrome extension. Search the Chrome add-ins. It makes the comments easier to read and navigate.

    2. Here’s a link to reasonable on the Chrome store. There’s also an extension for Firefox that does similar things called fascr.

  9. You’re using past immigration data to project onto the new massive wave of refugees? That’s some wobbly logic you got there.

    1. Glad somebody else noticed the sample size and time period.

      1. Sorry for using the beginning of the Syrian civil war! Anyway, the same percentages play out in every time period you can put together. THOUGH BY ALL MEANS, put together your own non-cherry-picked time periods, and share with the class.

      2. Sorry for using the beginning of the Syrian civil war! Anyway, the same percentages play out in every time period you can put together. THOUGH BY ALL MEANS, put together your own non-cherry-picked time periods, and share with the class.

        1. Matt, do you NOW SEE THE SQUIRREL PROBLEM?! Do you see??!!

          1. Lee G will feel vindicated.

    2. Wait, data from 2008 doesn’t reflect the current mass exodus from Syria?

      No, Ben Carson and Donald Trump, the Majority of Syrian Refugees to the U.S. Are Not ‘Young Males’

      It’s stupid season for American political commentary about the refugee crisis

      Yeah, data going back as far as 2011 certainly justifies the snarky headline. Without data specific to the current mass of refugees which is fairly recent, that really is sloppy.

      1. “Of the European host countries, Greece takes on most of the arrivals, with 244,855 so far this year, followed by Italy, receiving 115,000. In total, 75 percent of the refugees are reported to be men, 12 percent women and 13 percent children.”

        http://www.ibtimes.com/europea…..rt-2084862

      2. Reason telling fairy tales about immigration is as American as mom, apple pie and the flag.

      3. Data going back as far as when the civil war started? Are you suggesting that before “the current mass of refugees,” they were predominantly women or old/young men, so much so that it is only recently that the demographics were tilted back to the unremarkable percentages he found?

        Matt gave you his source. Go catch him in a lie if you think he’s misleading.

      4. Here’s the 2015 Syrians-to-U.S. stats, compared to my original 03/01/2011-:

        52.9% male (was 52.5%)
        29.7% 21-40 (30%)
        97.57% Muslim (95.6%)

        1. And we are currently being asked to change that policy to accept more of the refugees flooding into Europe. No proposal has been made to limit the demographic mix to the same as our historical one.

      5. “Without data specific to the current mass of refugees which is fairly recent, that really is sloppy.”

        Do we have the data that Trump and Carson are relying on?

    3. What’s the wobbly logic? Do you understand why he brought up illegal immigration?

    4. Here’s the 2015 Syrians-to-U.S. stats, compared to my original 03/01/2011-:

      52.9% male (was 52.5%)
      29.7% 21-40 (30%)
      97.57% Muslim (95.6%)

      It looks the same for September 2015. Feel free to bring any evidence of your own to the table.

      1. Clearly Trump and Carson were talking about refugees in Europe, not the U.S. They were talking about the proposal that we take a slice of the flood going into Europe – which has a different mix according to the UN.

  10. If it’s not taking place in the western hemisphere the US should not be involved. Let the EU, Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia deal with it.

    “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”
    John Quincy Adams.

    1. ^This. Syria is not our problem. Nor is the mass exodus into Europe.

    2. if it’s not your problem, then you certainly won’t mind if I invite some of them over here?

      See, when you say something is not your problem, that means you want to stay out of it ***entirely***. Are you willing to do that?

      1. By staying out of it, I also don’t want to be made to support them through my taxes, so inviting them over here is fine if you want to pay for it yourself. And be responsible for any problems their presence may result in.

        1. If you applied that equally to people who give birth without your permission, then ok. but I know you don’t.

          1. Don’t really know what your point is with that one. I resent being forced to pay for anyone under any circumstances.

      2. You can invite anyone you want but since only Congress has the authority to make rules concerning immigration it would be a fool’s errand.

    3. Monroe Doctrine FTW

  11. Matt, the current population of refugees entering Europe do not match the percentages you list. Your article seems more misleading than the statements you are criticizing.

    “Of the European host countries, Greece takes on most of the arrivals, with 244,855 so far this year, followed by Italy, receiving 115,000. In total, 75 percent of the refugees are reported to be men, 12 percent women and 13 percent children.”

      1. Did Matt tell an easily disprovable lie?

        1. He used older statistics and tried to relate them to the current set of refugees. “Lie” may be a little strong.

          1. Cherry picking, at the very least.

              1. Here’s the 2015 Syrians-to-U.S. stats, compared to my original 03/01/2011-:

                52.9% male (was 52.5%)
                29.7% 21-40 (30%)
                97.57% Muslim (95.6%)

                Go ahead and cherry pick your own preferred timeline, and get back to me.

        2. Where is the lie? There isn’t an ocean of difference between 69% and 75%, and Matt stated his source (UNHCR) upfront. Their data might be wrong or out-of-date, but that’s not Welch’s fault.

          1. Ah, I suppose the lie may be in the headline itself (“the majority are not young males”). But nobody has yet posted something definitively refuting that claim.

            1. No the problem is that some people don’t seem capable of understanding that the Syrian refugees coming to the US and those flowing into Europe are two different populations with different demographics.

              1. Do we have actual statistics on the current refugees coming to the U.S.? If not, is it really unfair to note that Matt’s headline regarding the ‘stupidity’ of Trump and Carson may not really be justified based on the available facts?

              2. Is Carson talking specifically about refugees coming to the U.S. or is Matt purposely taking him out of context?

                1. It’s the first two goddamn paragraphs, for fuck’s sake.

                  On Sept. 14, Ben Carson, who has been the number-two GOP presidential candidate in every national poll for more than a month, was asked by CNN’s John Berman the following question about the Syrian refugee crisis: “Do you think that the United States needs to be willing to let more of these refugees into this country?” Carson’s answer, in part:

                  the majority of them are young males. And they could easily be people who are being infiltrated by terrorists and recognize that once you bring them in, then you have got to bring other members of the family in.

                  Maybe argue Carson didn’t understand the question, but if he did and that is his answer he is either wrong or lying, because what else do we have to go on except who we let in in past?

                  1. You can look at the transcript: Carson basically turns the question from the US to the refugee crisis generally, talking about how neighboring countries should be taking in refugees. So he is talking about the percentages over there, not the US, which is why Matt addresses both.

                  2. what else do we have to go on except who we let in in past?

                    We could go on who exactly is showing up in Europe right now and asking for refugee status.

              3. “…the Syrian refugees coming to the US and those flowing into Europe are two different populations with different demographics.”

                ^This.

                I am still not convinced that we should be taking any in despite the fairly strong argument that can be made hanging a fair amount of responsibility for the crisis there on Obumbles arming the ‘moderate’ rebels in Syria. We had no business fucking around there in the first place. We elected a demoralized idiot that can’t think his way out of a paper bag and he subsequently turned the middle east upside down. Getting rid of the secular dictatorships has resulted in an ocean of blood, violence, impoverishment, oppression and the rise of radical islam.

                Arab spring, my ass. Obumbles should be fed into a woodchipper for what he has done.

                1. demoralized idiot= every President since 1960

            2. Matt posted this headline:

              “No, Ben Carson and Donald Trump, the Majority of Syrian Refugees to the U.S. Are Not ‘Young Males

              It’s stupid season for American political commentary about the refugee crisis”

              Then he posts this:

              “So just how many of those 69% are of military age? I’ve got a request into the UNHCR for clarification.

              So, he says they’re wrong and calls them stupid, but then buried in the article admits he doesn’t know. I lost respect for Welch with this ‘click-bait headline’ article.

              1. JWatts, get someone to read the article to you, if that’s what it takes.

                1. SugarFree, I don’t see anything in that question that says anything about a requirement that the new refugees must match the demographic of the previous refugees. Did I miss the fine print?

                  1. No, Carson just assumed that the old demographics wouldn’t be used, or, more likely, was just talking out of his ass, something he seems fond of.

                    1. Well since President Obama has explicitly ordered the government to expedite the process 6-fold, it would seem pretty logical to assume that the demographics would shift to the current mix that’s been widely reported in Europe.

                  2. JWatts, look closer at your quotes:

                    “No, Ben Carson and Donald Trump, the Majority of Syrian Refugees to the U.S. Are Not ‘Young Males’

                    “So just how many of those 69% are of military age? I’ve got a request into the UNHCR for clarification. “

                    Here’s the text you omitted from just before the second quote:

                    The most recent figures from the UNHCR about sea-born arrivals to Europe in 2015 do bear some resemblance to Babin’s math: Just 13% of the nearly 521,000 transplants (of which 55% come from Syria) have indeed been female, 18% have been children, and 69% men.

                    The first refers to refugees admitted to the US and the second refers to refugees in Europe.

    1. Those numbers are very close to what Matt posted about the European refugees, numbers he got from the UN (which are 69% men, 13% women, 18% children).

    2. Did you read the whole post? Because I talk about reasons for the EU/US disparity, and I also have fresher numbers than the IBD.

      1. Matt, meet the yokels. Yokels, Matt. WHYCOME U TELL ME TO REED I AIN’T NO FUCKIN FAGGOT

        1. Warty, I don’t feel that you’re shitting your pants over the scary boogeyman immigrants enough. Show a little respect!

          1. “scary boogeyman immigrants”

            I thought they were refugees?

            And by refugees I mean hand picked immigrants in Germany used to shore up EU support and that will soon be used as poster children by warmongers to further US intervention in Syria and Iraq.

        2. You know, not everyone that disagrees with Matt or questions the articles is a yokel who hates college edumacated people.

          Now, I’ve been waiting in the dungeon for over an hour for our bi-monthly caning.

          1. Indeed not. But they’ve become far more belligerent and numerous ever since the Homocaust.

            1. You are not the law, Wartycat is the law.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu93UW0d__Q

            2. Also the 3 inch flint spear head embedded in Kennewick man’s hip wonders if by “Homocaust” you mean the extinction of Neanderthals 40k years ago….

              Cuz that is totally not its fault. Probably the domestication of wolves did it.

              1. I assume you’re joking, but Kennewick Man was not a neanderthal. Neanderthals never even got close to North America.

                1. Yes the “the 3 inch flint spear head embedded in Kennewick man’s hip” is my comedy character when ever discussing anything that happened prior to the bronze age and/or in regards to natural evolved human instincts.

                  It is a catch all meant to counter claims of peaceful gamboling prehistory pre-Christian pre-agriculture people.

                  And yes I am fully aware of when and where Neanderthals and Kennewick man lived.

      2. “Did you read the whole post? Because I talk about reasons for the EU/US disparity, and I also have fresher numbers than the IBD.”

        Matt, I did read the whole post. And I agree you did talk about the disparities. But first, you started by calling people ‘stupid’ for making a statement that may not even be wrong. It’s clear that when people are talking about the current refugees crisis they are specifically referring to the wave rolling through Europe this summer.

        If you wrote an article saying, “The US should and will preference Syrian families, and so we won’t end up with the demographic that Europe is getting”, that would be a good article. That’s not the article you wrote.

        Furthermore, there is this: “President Obama has directed the U.S. government to accept at least 10,000 refugees from Syria in the next fiscal year, White House press secretary Josh Earnest announced Thursday, a six-fold increase over the number admitted this year to the United States.”

        If the US is going to have a six-fold increase it’s quite likely the underlying demographics will change. Will a majority be 18-45 year old males? I have no idea. But neither do you.

        1. Well, you are clearly a xenophobic racist yokel for insisting on any kind of accuracy in this matter. Good day, sir!

          1. don’t forget nativist! *shakes cane*

          2. any kind of accuracy

            Yes, the overblown histrionics–which have not yet managed to establish that Welch is wrong–are definitely in pursuit of greater accuracy.

            1. Yes, current statistics on the demographics of the current refugees would settle the matter, but we don’t seem to have those. But I guess pointing that out is “histrionics”.

              1. What part of “xenophobic racist yokel” is not histrionic?

                1. So, you don’t understand hyperbole and joking. Okay, then.

                  1. So you’re gonna go with the Jon Stewart defense? Nothing Welch said is inaccurate, so far as anyone has established. The salient point that has been made–the needle in the haystack of whining–is that the situation is more nuanced than his analysis admits. Fair enough. But that does not make anything he said a lie.

            2. kbolino – Ben Carson and Trump didn’t write an article titled: “No, Matt Welch, the Majority of Syrian Refugees to the U.S. Are ‘Young Males'”

              If they had, I would expect them to prove it.

              Since this is the article Welch wrote, he has the burden of proof. And we have pretty well established that he didn’t prove his case.

      3. Look Welch, there’s a reason Postrel says to not read the comments.

  12. But the challenge of making good refugee policy is that much harder when seemingly everyone is talking nonsense.

    It is America!

    (though I assume this is characteristic of politics everywhere)

  13. 95.6% are Muslim, 2.3% are Christian (this compares to an estimated population within Syria of 87% and 10%, respectively)

    Q: Why the hell are we disproportionately taking on Muslims from Syria, instead of Christians? The Christians of Syria are, as an aggregate, far more educated and less violent, and therefore more likely to be able to support themselves without causing harm to others while they are here. Moreover, they have very few allies in the region (outside a Kurdish militia or two) and find themselves at great risk, especially from ISIS and similar groups.

    Besides which, I would rather have Christians who presumably have more ties to the West through business and general ideology, than Muslims whose ethics are informed by an incredibly statist religion and the parochialism of the region.

    1. You can’t really draw conclusions without knowing who is applying. Perhaps it’s more difficult for the Syrian Christians to get into a position to even apply for refugee status in the US.

      1. True, but it is strange considering that this is the dynamic with the rest of the region (e.g., Egyptian immigrants to the US are disproportionately more likely to be Coptic) and that most of the Muslims in the region would be able to affiliate themselves with a militia or source of protection more easily than a Christian.

        I call secret Muslim President conspiracy (kidding)

  14. Matt you are lying. Trump and Carson both described the refugees coming to Europe (not the US) which are majority young males.

    1. Yeah, but Trump and Carson are teh STUPID!!11!!!!!!

      1. Agreed. Why not report on their true stupidity rather then make ones up?

        Oh yeah I forgot cuz cosmotarians think we should spend blood and treasure dicking around in a land war in asia.

        1. cosmotarians think we should spend blood and treasure dicking around in a land war in asia

          Such people would include…?

        2. Josh, I’m frequently maligned as a cosmotarian here and I’ve never advocated for US intervention in this. Granted, I don’t constitute the entire set of cosmotarians, but you’re throwing that term around with fairly reckless abandon.

          1. Yeah, I thought cosmotarians were limp-wristed pacifists that wouldn’t lift a finger to save their country from the raving Muslim hordes.

            1. Well, I am a bit of a poofter, you know.

              1. You’re GAY?!?

          2. I am a cosmotarian as well.

            And yes i am throwing the term around with total reckless abandon.

            Point being recruiting refugees for US import from a war zone in Asia is dicking around in a land war in Asia.

            Note: “recruiting refugees for US import” is a convoluted way of putting it but it needs to be emphasized that these are not people washing up on our shores.

    2. So Carson didn’t understand the question?

      1. Well, the full question is:

        “I want to talk about the Syrian refugee crisis right now. You are a man of faith. A man of faith, Pope Francis, has called on people around the world, particularly in Europe, to open their hearts, and in some cases open their homes. Do you think that the United States needs to be willing to let more of these refugees into this country?”

        At the risk of defending Carson, even the questioner seems to be referring to the refugees/migrants to Europe.

        1. Carson is still assuming that we will let in the exact same demographic ratios that exist as refugees in Europe, which our past behavior doesn’t reflect.

          I think Carson just made the comment that seemed the most alarmist, not even attempting to make it accurate.

          1. Right, whatever else, we all know what Carson was doing: fear-mongering about scary young Islamist terrorists.

            Matt’s explanation as to why we should expect young males to be overrepresented among refugees is the important point here, as it is a plausible factor that is not getting much if any exposure.

          2. The proposal on the table is that we import a slice of those refugees. Assuming we take a representative sample, Carson is right.

    3. “Do you think that the United States needs to be willing to let more of these refugees into this country?”

      when asked by Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity about whether we should be worried about radicals being mixed in with refugees coming to the U.S.

      Both Carson and Trump may very well have been talking about the refugees going to Europe, but why should the US give a shit about what refugees Europe takes in? The question was about the refugees coming to America. It’s a little harder to hop a boat across the Atlantic than it is to hop a boat across the Mediterranean so I think the US doesn’t have to worry about uninvited refugees just popping up without our being able to pick and choose who we’ll allow in.

      1. why should the US give a shit about what refugees Europe takes in?

        Because a lot of those countries are our allies and we don’t want to see them come to harm. FWIW.

    4. They were asked direct questions about Syrian refugees coming into the United States.

      1. And they answered with an indirect answer about refugees in Europe.

        Hey why not point that out instead of lying?

  15. “from Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas):
    “Seventy percent of these people that are going into Western Europe today are military-aged males 20-30 years old. According to the UN, only 15 percent are [children] and 13 percent are women.””

    So he’s only one percentage point off on women and children, and if as little as 40% of the grown men crossing the borders are between 20 and 40 (an incredibly reasonable and likely thing) then the majority of the refugees are military age men. Most of whom are probably unattached considering how much their numbers outnumber the women folk.

    Look, argue that we should not care about unattached members of this age group coming to the states in large numbers, but your statistics are only highlighting that these guys are essentially right in their analysis of the current Syrian refugee population.

    1. if as little as 40% of the grown men crossing the borders are between 20 and 40 (an incredibly reasonable and likely thing) then the majority of the refugees are military age men

      0.4 * 0.7 = 0.28 < 0.5

      1. 28% is a majority, right?

      2. Yep, sorry. Math was off. This is what happens when I try to do things while in the after lunch food coma.

    2. They are not “essentially right” in discussing the current demographics of Syrian refugees coming into the United States.

    3. And while YMMV, the age range for military-aged males is often given as 15-40. Because there are a lot of very young young men soldiers/insurgents/whatever globally.

    4. if as little as 40% of the grown men crossing the borders are between 20 and 40 (an incredibly reasonable and likely thing) then the majority of the refugees are military age men

      How could 40% of a subgroup be a majority?

      1. Magic…
        *throws glitter into air*

        Actually this is all very interesting since I just read “Lying with statistics” today.

  16. Why is it than only a certain demographic is a problem? What would stop old men, women or kids from putting on bombs?

    1. Mom genes. Seriously, when most women become a mother a bunch of hormones get released that make them prioritize the wellbeing of their offspring. Humans are varied so some will overcome this and abandon their children by killing themselves anyways, but they are a lot less likely to than young males hopped up on testosterone without wives or children to moderate them.

      1. Such insight. Many reasons. Wow.

        1. If you don’t think having children doesn’t have somewhat of a civilizing influence on you, I don’t know what to say to that. It’s patently obvious.

          1. Oh, you’re right. My bad. I’ve definitely never seen an irate mother at her wit’s end because her children are a shitstorm of misbehavior. That would be a sight to see.

            1. I’ve killed 3 people today because I don’t have kids to “mellow” me out.

              1. I gather this is standard Floridian behavior.

                1. He didn’t say he went bath-saltz-induced cannibal on them.

                2. I’m not the emperor of Florida, but this is my standard behavior.

            2. Oh, you’re right. My bad. I’ve definitely never seen an irate mother at her wit’s end because her children are a shitstorm of misbehavior. That would be a sight to see.

              Let’s try reading my comment more honestly next time.

              I didn’t say it was a panacea. But marriage and children does in fact have a way of calming the blood, if you will, of young men in particular.

              1. Sounds like a mystical and super powerful force, this parenthood business.

                You’re right–marriage and children does calm the blood. I’ve definitely never heard a young man with a new baby go on about all of the terrible things he would do to unnamed aggressors if they visited something unpleasant upon his kids…or his wife, for that matter.

                I’m not even sure I can think of a single example of a married couple with a kid or two who have done something horrible to someone else.

                I guess it’s just sunshine, rainbows, and puppies until the end of their days once the happy couple shoves wedding cake at each other.

                1. all of the terrible things he would do to unnamed aggressors if they visited something unpleasant upon his kids

                  What about the terrible things he’d do to people who weren’t aggressors, because they participated with his child in activities he disapproved of? Don’t forget those!

                2. So you don’t believe in instincts Riven? Why exactly do you think people go through the trouble of raising infants (needy unrewarding bastards) instead of adopting toddlers? Why do you think parents risk their much more valuable lives trying to save even one of their children from a dangerous situation? Why do you think all these parents talk about having a near religious experience the first time they see their child on a sonogram or hold them in their arms? Why do you think the phrase ‘face only a mother could love’ exists?

                  We are not fully logic driven beings. We come preprogrammed with instincts and hormones that aid us in creating the next generation, and those instincts and hormones do effect changes in our behavior after our offspring come into existence.

                  1. Did you have a point? Or was this just a long rambling post about how baby crazy you are?

                  2. Why exactly do you think people go through the trouble of raising infants (needy unrewarding bastards) instead of adopting toddlers?

                    Haha, unrewarding. Yes, this is the magical time when people are selfless, and totally don’t decide that having a tiny realdoll they can control and force a relationship with for years and that will resemble them would be, like, a really awesome way of getting attention.

                    1. You can find toddlers that look like you and adopt them. There young enough you will be responsible for their personalities. Only difference is no nine months of pregnancy (and ensuing risk to your life) and being able to start with a semi-regular sleep schedule.

                      Wanting a child isn’t selfless, it’s instinct to pass on your genetics that has been honed for thousands of generations. Seriously, this is basic fucking biology. It’s the same reason sex feels good, and that we start getting horny once our bodies begin to be capable of bearing children.

                    2. Still waiting for the goddamn point, Illocust. What does this have to do with your very flawed philosophy regarding “Mom genes, guise, for srs”?

                    3. A little late but:

                      Riven, I get that you have an issue with kids, fair enough, but there’s legitimate scientific research that has shown sufficient changes in post-pregnancy females’ brain chemistry. For example, oxytocin, a chemical known to influence human bonding, builds up in response to increased estrogen levels. Also, for the record, they’ve also found brain chemistry changes in men that are exposed consistently to a pregnant mate. Hop onto JSTOR and read some studies on post-pregnancy neurology, then make up your mind.

                      This is not to take away from the quality parenting of many adopted children, but lllocust does have a point in that we are heavily influenced by our biology.

                    4. I feel like you don’t have a ton of experience with blended or adoptive families, Illocust. It’s tangential to the point you’re trying to make, and I don’t necessarily want to derail the productive discussion you and Riven are having, but as someone who comes from a heavily blended family and who grew up around heavily blended families I’m worried that you’re imputing less value to adoptive or step relationships because it’s convenient to your point and also playing up how much parents have conscious control over how their kids turn out.

                    5. Where do you think she sees less value?

                    6. Why exactly do you think people go through the trouble of raising infants (needy unrewarding bastards) instead of adopting toddlers? Why do you think parents risk their much more valuable lives trying to save even one of their children from a dangerous situation? Why do you think all these parents talk about having a near religious experience the first time they see their child on a sonogram or hold them in their arms? Why do you think the phrase ‘face only a mother could love’ exists?

                      The way she talks about biological parenting implies that there’s something inherently biological about the feelings parents have for their children. Her point requires a primacy of the biological need for parenthood but she leaves out parents weeping when they take home the child they’ve adopted from the courthouse or the way step parents who keep the kids when a biological parent implodes and threatens to take the children with him or her.

                    7. I see what you mean. But it’s fairly compatible. You can have great love for adopted children, and great love + X for biological children. Clearly, there is a lot of love to go around. Draw it widely, and you have people who weep for strangers, even fictional characters. Then there are friendships. And women* who take care of the children of others (day care, kindergarten etc.). I don’t doubt that many have deep feelings of love for others they are not biologically related to. Still I tend to share her view. (Perhaps checking out “cinderella effect”, and “inclusive fitness” is of interest to you. Naturally there’s controversy.)

                      I respect how courteous you’ve been here. Though calling Riven’s behavior productive might be stretching it; he may be mediately productive, by inciting her to be productive. Nikki’s selflessness-amusement is sort of productive (and shared genes tend to get you someone who is – looks – more like you).

                      *primarily, not exclusively; I’m not adding such qualifications everywhere they do apply; I’d appreciate well-meaning common sense

          2. somewhat of a civilizing influence on you

            It’s because you become too tired and poor to do fun stuff anymore. Mostly.

            1. It’s because you become too tired and poor to do fun stuff anymore. Mostly.

              Yeah. This. I want to rob, rape, and commit arson but I’m too tired at the end of the day and really need to soak my feet in paraffin wax and watch t.v.

      2. What about women without kids? Those do exist.

        1. Nonsense, Nicole.

          You must be bleeding out of somewhere to post that kind of comment.

        2. I think most women of birthing age in that society have in fact birthed. They’re not putting family on hold for a career.

          1. Most ain’t all.

            1. No one is talking about all Nikki. The question was why one demographic (young men) might be more worrisome than another demographic (women), and the answer is because on average unattached young men or more likely to be violent than women with children. That’s just a fact.

              It doesn’t say anything about a single individual inside those groups, but it does say something about how much violence you are likely to see if you have a thousand member of one group vs a thousand members of another.

              1. This is the question you answered: “Why is it than only a certain demographic is a problem? What would stop old men, women or kids from putting on bombs?”

                1. You have two options, 1) interpret the question as “Why are young men considered much more problematic than other groups?”, or 2) assume that the person who asked it believes that the other groups are considered to be just super. Personally, I think no one is oblivious enough to think that the other groups (of immigrants) are considered to be just super. It’s a common threshold thing. She answered to 1). Are you complaining?

                  1. What I’m saying is that just because someone isn’t a part of a particular group it doesn’t mean that they are any more/less of a threat. women in children in terrorist groups and irregular paramilitary groups are far from unheard of. And a particularly ruthless group like ISIS isn’t going to say “What? You want to slay infidels? Not until you’re 18!”

                    1. “What I’m saying is that just because someone isn’t a part of a particular group it doesn’t mean that they are any more/less of a threat.”

                      Yeah, they are. It’s a probabilistic thing. (Threats are probabilistic, too.) And this is even about the migration of numbers of definitely statistical relevance, an excellent cohort, excelling a cohort.

                      Throwing a knife is more dangerous than throwing a banana, because the knife is part of the group “knives”. Of course bananas are the most dangerous fruit.

                    2. It’s not the banana, it’s person who wields it.

                    3. I wanted to call you bananas, but I slipped.

                    4. (Tony could be the most dangerous vegetable.)

          2. And they could have lost those kid(s) in the war, meaning their mom hormones feed into their desperation to make some kind of super soldier.

        3. They exist, but they are a hell of lot rarer in the places these people are immigrating from.

          Remember, demographics aren’t individuals. Demographics deal will large groups of people who share common features.

          1. …which is exactly why only caring about young men makes no sense.

            1. Okay. Someone care about Nikki.

      3. We really could use fewer migrants in mom jeans. … Oh.

        1. Mother of Uday Abu Jamal recited a poem while receiving guests in her mourning tent:

          “I’m wearing the embroidered gown.
          How beautiful is your Martyrdom.
          You have placed a crown [upon my head] and a star upon my shoulders.
          O Ghassan and Uday, who carried out the operation (i.e., murder of 5),
          blessed be your hands and the tips of your fingers.
          Blessed be the womb that bore you,
          blessed be the breasts that nurtured you.
          The daughter of Gaza said:
          The people of Jerusalem sacrificed their blood, children and wives for the cause.
          I, daughter of Jerusalem, am giving Gaza the most beautiful gift.
          Ghassan’s mother and Uday’s mother said:
          I brought up my children on the religion of Islam.
          Yesterday [I gave] the most beautiful gift.
          The Martyrs’ blood was not spilled in vain. I am a Palestinian.”

            1. TED got played out around the time TEDx was formed. As you mention, if you let everyone and anyone talk…you get a lot of “noise” while giving an air of legitimacy to absolute crackpots and frauds, like this guy.

        2. Well, that is certainly sick.

        3. Never claimed all Mulatto. In fact, I went out of my way to talk about how humans are a varied bunch.

          1. Really? I thought we were an instinctual bunch.

            1. How do instincts and varied contradict each other? Next your going to say human sexual dimorphism directly contradicts variety in body types.

              1. Actually, next I’m going to say that your contributions to this thread and inability to do basic math have been very entertaining, if not particularly interesting or informative.

                I’m wondering if you still think your “mom genes” theory has a basis given the damning evidence above. I guess that’s what you expect you’ll be like on the eventual, far off, glorious day when you finally have the mewling spawn you so desire.

                1. Never run an insurance company Riven. I’d hate to see you go bankrupt claiming young men aren’t more likely to get in wrecks than women with children.

                  1. Yeah, I’m going to take life advice from a 25 year old, baby crazy, “female” who can’t do math.

                    1. I can’t believe you just went Clueless on her.

                      Tai: Why should I listen to you, anyway? You’re a virgin who can’t drive.

                      Cher: That was way harsh, Tai.

                    2. Sometimes life imitates art, Jesse. I can’t help it that she set it up so well.

                    3. She didn’t set that up. You merely pretend. Poorly. The commonly used, simple analogy. “Men are taller than women.” Not every man is taller than every woman, but men in general are. That’s physical dimorphism. She’s been outlining psychological dimorphism (which corresponds, by the way). Go through with the analogy yourself. As for propensity to violence, read Anne Campbell, A Mind of Her Own, Oxford UP. (Fortunate for females, most male violence is male versus male.)

                      If your pathetic behavior is somehow motivated by concerns of gender equality, then you’ve set yourself up as a piece of satire. Not just pretending.

                    4. Thanks, bro. You’ve really opened my eyes.

                    5. You’re welcome.

                  2. Well, it… “works”… for the EU: https://goo.gl/m2Kt6a

      4. Wow, someone has not seen the mothers encouraging their kids to become suicide bomber videos.

        And someone is completely ignorant of history.

        1. No, no, no. You see, when a woman becomes pregnant, she just gets this flood of endorphins that make her just looooove babies.

          Every woman everywhere who has ever been pregnant loves babies. They can’t help it! It’s the hormones! They’re just slaaaaaves to their hormones, Agammamom. I mean, if you don’t think that, I just don’t know what to say to you.

          It’s patently obvious!

          1. Mom genes. Seriously, when MOST women become a mother a bunch of hormones get released that make them prioritize the wellbeing of their offspring. HUMANS ARE VARIED so some will overcome this and abandon their children by killing themselves anyways, but they are a LOT LESS LIKELY to than young males hopped up on testosterone without wives or children to moderate them.

            1. Oooh, you sound so scientifically informed! Gosh, I totally take you seriously and respect your opinions now.

              1. Go look up oxytocin.

                1. Super fascinating stuff, really.

                  I particularly enjoyed this part:Oxytocin increases defensive responding to unpredictable stimuli, but not to predictable stimuli. This result leads to the assumption that oxytocin’s effect is context-dependent. Thus, oxytocin may reinforce prosocial behaviors after an initial bond is formed, but may enhance defensive behaviors to unfamiliar individuals.

                  Which totally also supports the links posted above where women just love that their sons blew themselves up. Guess it’s not so clear cut, huh?

                  1. Calm down, Riven. It is riveting stuff, but you all over the place is annoying. I didn’t claim the thing is “clear cut”. I made no absolutist claim. There are several relevant things, and it’s impossible to cover the entire science here. Consider that a mothers “love” is not unconditional. Mothers’ infanticide is well-documented, for human and other animals. That doesn’t dispute the normal modus (no killing), under less than extreme conditions. Couple the overview of oxytocin with the “tend-and-befriend” hypothesis.

                    Consider sex differences, such as women’s person versus thing orientation: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~cdeyoun…..s_SPPC.pdf — (For safety reasons: that orientation doesn’t mean that men blow up things whereas women blow up persons.)

                    http://journals.plos.org/ploso…..ne.0029265 (critical discussion in the comments section).

                    Simply, cut the aggrandized outrage act. What Illocust expressed is fairly reasonable. At the very least it’s plausible, and – unlike your act – not ridiculous. If you can, express reservations. Your circus doesn’t add anything. Like most clowns, you’re not funny.

                    If you want to read more, check out Hrdy, Mothers and Others, Harvard UP. She’s also written on infanticide.

                2. Wasn’t the role of oxytocin massively overblown by the media because “the love hormone” makes great headlines?

                  1. Admittedly oxytocin’s the ‘go to’ example of brain chemistry changes (hell, was the first thing off the top of my head above) and it has indeed been overhyped by media portrayals. Doesn’t change the fact that yes, it does influence behaviour. As Sevens suggested, rather than ad hominems about being ‘baby crazy’ it’s probably a better idea to go actually read some scientific studies on the subject.

    2. Nothing, obviously, but they are statistically less likely to do so.

    3. “What would stop old men, women or kids from putting on bombs?”

      Cuz none of those actually flew planes into the towers or planted bombs during the Boston marathon.

      1. “Cuz none of those actually flew planes into the towers or planted bombs during the Boston marathon.”

        Did you mean the 19 year old Boston Bomber? (The US traditionally considers 18-45 year olds top be military age.)

        1. Actually the US considers *13 to 50* year olds to be of military age – when they’re on the other side of the sight.

      2. This in a discussion with people bitching about sample sizes.

      3. So, because no women were used in one specific incident of terrorism, now woman anywhere will ever commit an act of terrorism. When did you descend in to Sullum levels of idiocy, Josh?

        1. Oops, two specific incidents. But my point still stands. See all the women vest bombers in the Al-Aqsa Martyr’s brigade.

          1. The French experience in Algeria also demonstrates that Islamic insurgents can be women. Indeed, any time you exercise profiling against a committed opponent, they will likely find a way to subvert the profile.

            1. Thank you. I was using the example with which I was familiar, but thanks for filling it in a bit.

        2. What a weird issue to spill SJW bullshit over.

          Men fight wars women and children don’t.

          Sorry if that fact triggers you.

    4. Why is this certain demographic a particular problem? Simply, young men are – on average – much more aggressive and risk-taking than any other group (constituted by age and sex).

      1. Then talk about status/dominance hierarchies. (Even forgot to mention physical capability. The most dangerous group in that too.)

        1. talk about status/dominance hierarchies

          I don’t even want to talk to anybody who knows what the fuck a status/dominance hierarchy is.

          1. Sounds like good heuristics.

  17. Should those Jews have just stayed in Russia in the 1980s? Should the boat people have instead stood their ground against the likes of Pol Pot?

    This is just sentimental and manipulative. Just because the examples pull the heartstrings doesn’t mean they’re relevant.

    1. All conversation about immigration – past, present and future – is saturated with sentimentality. There were never negative consequences to past immigration waves and there never will be. EVAH!

    2. They are relevant to a discussion about Americans calling Syrian refugees cowards, given that America in the past has offered different policies to the persecuted and vulnerable other than “Go back and fight, ya pussy!”

      1. “Americans” calling Syrian refugees cowards or a couple of fringe right-wingers with little credibility? Col. Ralph Peters isn’t exactly influential in policy circles.

        1. They are Americans, are they not?

          Words!

      2. “Go back and fight, ya pussy!”

        This was exactly my reaction when I saw how many Serbian/Bosnian/Croats were settled into my community. Then this happened. Some terrorist guerilla on one side ran into the guy who tortured him in a concentration camp. Both were in the USA on refugee asylum visas because that’s who gets then in worn torn countries. People with some degree of power and influence.

        1. Links not working.

      3. given that America in the past has offered different policies to the persecuted and vulnerable other than “Go back and fight, ya pussy!”

        I’m not endorsing his view, and I don’t think anyone else is. But it’s telling that you had to use examples using refugees that are considered much more vulnerable, using the benefit of hindsight, than the current migrants.

        1. That said, the main reason I wouldn’t say it is because I don’t think it’s for me to say. That’s not to say he doesn’t have a point. It’s a bit arrogant to tell someone else to go fight, but fighting is still more noble than running away.

      4. They are relevant to a discussion about Americans calling Syrian refugees cowards

        They are also relevant in regards to whether or not they are economic immigrants or refugees.

        Reading my European great grand parents letters it would seem it is common practice to have the men immigrating move first and then once they are settled have their wives and children come later.

        Having a larger proportion of men being “refugees” from a war zone begs questions.

        Like why is gender disproportion different with this refugee crisis then every other refugee crises ever.

  18. Terrorphobia wrinkles the psychosomatic national brow.

    1. You just like the idea of two Tom Hardys.

      1. There’s never enough Tom Hardy.

        1. This is false. There’s never enough attractive Tom Hardy. There is often too much homeless Tom Hardy.

          1. Homeless Tom Hardy is hot like the Sun, while attractive Tom Hardy is hot like 1000 Suns. So, never enough Tom Hardy.

            1. I find your interest in Homeless Tom Hardy confusing, but will try to empathize as someone who would still totally do fat Chris Pratt, even though I’d much rather have hot Chris Pratt naked on a bearskin rug.

              1. Super nice guy that Chris Pratt.

                1. I’m still upset that you didn’t sleep with him so you could report back that he was a nice guy AND athletic lover.

                  1. Sorry. I doubt I’m his type. In other celebrity news my BIL called Sidney Poitier’s assistant to set up a lunch, but he answered and proceeded to pretend to be his own assistant just to screw around. Evidently he’s a really nice guy too.

                    1. What do we even practice negging here for if you can’t seduce Chris Pratt with it!?

                      I’ll tell my mom about Sidney Poitier she’s had the hots for him since Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.

                    2. I didn’t even know what negging was until that Trump article and I’m still horrified that it works. I’m going to write my own pick-up book for guys.

                      “Don’t Be a Dumbass; The Red Foreman Technique”

                  2. Did you see Chris Pratt on the Graham Norton Show?

                    He’s super charming and funny AND can totally do a British accent.

                    I like him but he’s not Tom Hardy hot.

                    1. I have a soft spot for charming goofballs.

          2. I had to look him up. Now I recall that he played Picard’s “clone” in the horrible Nemesis. Anyway, he’s all yours.

            1. I prefer the Hardy boys. I’m getting a raging clue right now.

          3. Homeless Tom Hardy? I only know of a split between Unintelligible Tom Hardy and Posh Tom Hardy.

            1. Ha. That was addressed recently by the venerable news source Entertainment Weekly.

              Homeless Tom Hardy. Wild hair and a controlled beard or a wild beard and controlled hair are fine, but if he lets both go he looks like someone I’d try not to make eye contact with when they’re begging at a freeway exit.

              I’d sleep with him when he looked like a pale pudgie dork in his skivvies, but not when he looks homeless.

      2. There’s only one Tom Hardy, and he wrote Far From The Madding Crowd.

    2. That is not the trailer to Revenant

      but this is.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoebZZ8K5N0

      You did say looks good and not looks great so you get a pass….for now.

  19. Since we’re all here and we’re all talking borders, let’s throw some chum in the waters:

    How Would A Billion Immigrants Change the American Polity?

    A couple of years ago, I wrote a post called “The American Polity Can Endure and Flourish Under Open Borders.” I would not write that post today. The American polity might endure and flourish under open borders, but I wouldn’t claim that confidently. What changed my mind? A greater familiarity with the theoretical models that are the basis for “double world GDP” as a claim about the global economic impact of open borders, especially my own. It turns out that these estimates depend on billions of people migrating internationally under open borders. Previously, my vague and tentative expectations about how much migration would occur under open borders were akin to Gallup poll estimates suggesting that 150 million or so would like to migrate to the USA[….] Puerto Rico, which has enjoyed open borders with the USA for a century, has experienced so much emigration that most (about 60%) people of Puerto Rican descent live on the US mainland, even though Puerto Rico isn’t all that poor, with a GDP about half that of the USA as a whole. Puerto Rico’s experience, or that of 19th-century Ireland, may be more predictive of an open borders future than contemporary Europe is. In that case, many billions would migrate

    1. My new doubts that the American polity could survive and flourish under open borders do not in the least undermine my support for open borders. For one thing, the American polity is too small a thing to have much weight in these scales, when the well-being of so many billions is at stake.

      oh yay.

      1. That website is much more honest than this one.

        1. So why are you here?

      2. “For one thing, the American polity is too small a thing to have much weight in these scales, when the well-being of so many billions is at stake.”

        So fuck America, everyone in the world deserves food stamps and an Obamaphone.

        This fuckwit is imagining that all those people will come here and flourish? In 20 years the country would just be another 3rd world shithole.

        Uncle Sam isn’t Jesus passing out loaves at a wedding.

        1. Uncle Sam isn’t Jesus passing out loaves at a wedding.

          But if we just believe really hard…

    2. This sums up the open borders movement:

      What changed my mind? A greater familiarity with the theoretical models that are the basis for “double world GDP” as a claim about the global economic impact of open borders, especially my own. It turns out that these estimates depend on billions of people migrating internationally under open borders.

      Nathan Smith is one of the most prolific promoters of “double world GDP” and it turns out he never even looked at the charts in the famous Clemens paper.

      BTW “theoretical models” are different fudge factors for multiplying population by Y yields GDP*Y*fudgefactor.

    3. Thanks, TIT, what about abortion and deep dish?

  20. Matt Welch is less truthful about Syrian refugee immigration than Carly Fiorina is on Planned Parenthood. I award him an infinite number of Pinocchios wearing flaming pants.

      1. Yeah, a bunch of those. If Welch want’s to let in some ISIS fighters and Ba’ath Party secret police he should fuckin’ pay for them out of his own pocket.

  21. OT:

    ‘It’s hard for me to shoot an animal unless it’s trying to eat me’: Police officer suspended for refusing to shoot skunk that bit a girl, 6, so it could be tested for rabies

    Police officer David Dean was called out after a skunk bit a six-year-old girl
    An animal control officer told him he needed the animal shot dead so it could be tested for rabies
    Local police rules state that wild animals can only be killed by policemen
    But Dean said he could not shoot the skunk because it was hard for him to kill an animal ‘unless it’s trying to eat me’
    He gave his gun to a fireman who shot the creature three times, killing it
    Cop was suspended for 3 days for giving his gun to unauthorized person

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..abies.html
    To be fair, it would have taken a cop a lot more than three shots to hit the thing, let alone kill it.

    1. Local police rules state that wild animals can only be killed by policemen

      Ah, of course. No poaching creatures from the domain of the king’s men.

      Seriously though, is anyone else surprised that a police officer passed up the opportunity to shoot something?

      1. So, of course the cop reluctant to kill at any opportunity gets suspended.

        1. It’s a backwards, topsy-turvy world, I tell you.

    2. This is the kind of insane shit you get when a culture loses its balls. People pissing their pants at the sight of a toy gun and only the police are allowed to control vermin.

      It has been a while since I got really pissed off reading here, but today for some reason, I did.

      It also just popped in my head a story about my great grandmother. When she turned 74 my father gave her a stevens single barrel 410 ga because she couldn’t handle her 12 ga anymore. About a week later she shot a thief that was rummaging around in her barn at night. She told the sheriff about it. He congratulated her and then went to the local doctor’s office. The doc was in the process of removing pellets from the thief when the sheriff arrived. The thief went to jail, not my great grandmother.

    3. What happened to the fireman? I mean HE BROKE THE LAW!!!

      Did the cop shoot him immediately after?

  22. “Should those Jews have just stayed in Russia in the 1980s?”

    Maybe not, but the Russians should have.

    “Should the boat people have instead stood their ground against the likes of Pol Pot?”

    Yes. Yes they should have. (The next time you hear anyone talking about restrictions on the 2nd amendment, punch them in the fucking mouth)

    If these refugees are seeking safety, why not go to the nearest safe place?

    *Hint – they aren’t.

    The more drivel I hear from open-borders types the less convinced I am.

    1. Maybe not, but the Russians should have.

      So… those Jews weren’t Russian?

      If these refugees are seeking safety, why not go to the nearest safe place?

      1. The nearest “safe places” are still dangerous, oppressive shit holes.
      2. Why not go for a safe place with nicer amenities and more opportunities? Is that not what you would do?

      1. “The nearest “safe places” are still dangerous, oppressive shit holes.”

        It’s almost as if some ethnic groups create different kinds of societies than others.

        1. Our ethnic group produced you, so it’s not like we have a great track record.

        2. No, dude, violence and oppression are natural features of certain territories, like mountains or rivers. Heaven forfend we suggest that people (other than Westerners) are responsible for the shittiness of other parts of the world and would bring that shittiness along with them when they leave.

          “If I could start again. A million miles away. I will keep myself. I would find a way.”

          1. The people not fighting in the war are responsible for the war?

            1. How do you know they weren’t fighting in the war before they fled/applied for asylum?

                1. In any war torn country there are a shit load of people who would prefer to locate elsewhere, particularly with a starting grubstake of social welfare benefits. Now there are only a handful of golden tickets and lots of people who would like to GTFO. Who has the connections, power and influence to score these US taxpayer-funded relocation bonuses?

        3. Cultures, not ethnic groups. But yes, it is almost as if they do.

          It isn’t rocket science. Fill a place up with people from xyz and the place will soon be just like xyz.

      2. “Why not go for a safe place with nicer amenities and more opportunities? Is that not what you would do?”

        I would personally look for an opportunity to participate in trade rather than to live of the proceeds of theft, but that’s just me.

        1. And you think you’d have a better opportunity to do that in Saudi Arabia than in Germany or the US?

  23. And if you look at a lot of the people that I’ve been watching on television, it’s men. There aren’t that many women, relatively speaking.

    Headline: Doofus Trump Comes Out of the Closet During Immigration Interview

    1. Same thought occurred to me.

  24. This post is missing some vital information, so it’s understandable that many posters are annoyed.

    Matt, can you tell us how many cute, young refugee girls were sent to Old Man with Candy’s house?

  25. So, 52.5% are male, and 70.4% are under 20.

    It is possible that more of that 70.4% is female than male, but without an actual statistic backing it up, it is more likely that the 70.4% follows the same distribution as the wholw.

    This would mean that the majority of Syrian refugees that you referenced(who are NOT the group Carson’s referring to) are mostly young and male.

    1. This would mean that the majority of Syrian refugees that you referenced(who are NOT the group Carson’s referring to) are mostly young and male.

      60% of the time, it works every time

  26. unless my spatial math is wrong, those charts don’t all add up to 100%.
    and yes, there is definitely a difference between immigration numbers between 2011-2015 and 2015-2015. and between US immigration from syria vs european immigration from syria…

    1. between US immigration from syria vs european immigration from syria…

      Yes. This and between legal and illegal.

      The Syrian immigration to the US is mostly legal and some weeding is happening. The immigration into Europe is illegal (not with visas) and those countries can’t pick and choose who they grant status to, at least not currently.

      1. They have two EU laws (“Schengen”, “Dublin”) governing much of it, in legal theory. Practically, most of it is not in effect anymore. Germany’s Merkel chose to welcome and direct refugees to Germany. Those actually are legally supposed to be registered and apply for asylum in the first EU state they set foot in. Merkel asked for trains with thousands (unregistered) to be let through and into Germany (where they apply for asylum). What happens is arbitrary, and no one has publically explained what laws this is supposed to be based on. I guess the attempt wouldn’t be glorious.

  27. I find it a tad odd that true libertarians are supposed to be non-interventionalists about government affairs…but 100% interventionist when it comes to having to take refugees from those same countries we are supposed to be ignoring.

    I would like to think I am libertarian…but until we rid the world of terror and rid our country of welfare/socsecurity/medicare/medicaid….I say shut the fcking borders and go away.

    meanwhile we (the US) are expected to take every Central and South American that wanders up from the south…PLUS take some huge number of refugees from another fcking continent. Insane.

    1. We don’t need to end the welfare state to have a libertarian refugee immigration policy. Just make them ineligible for public assistance. Theen we’ll get refugees of means, refugees with family and social contacts already here and refugees sponsored by individuals or charitable institutions.

      1. We don’t need to end the welfare state to have a libertarian refugee immigration policy. Just make them ineligible for public assistance.

        Do that and most of the Democrats will suddenly lose interest in advocating for open borders. Totally coincidental, I’m sure.

        1. Also, every Democrat would vote against such a measure anyway.

          1. True. They’re economically illiterate but they’re not stupid. The more people benefiting from their inane policies, the more power they have.

      2. Most immigrants ARE ALREADY ineligible for most public assistance.

        I find it a tad odd that true libertarians are supposed to be non-interventionalists about government affairs…but 100% interventionist when it comes to having to take refugees from those same countries we are supposed to be ignoring

        Comparing the application of military force in the affairs of governments overseas is not even remotely the same thing as failing to use military force to meddle in the freedom of movement and the freedom of association. Because I am non-interventionist, I also believe that you have no right to intervene in the freedom of movement.

        1. Most immigrants ARE ALREADY ineligible for most public assistance.

          All admitted under the refugee/asylum program are eligible for full welfare benefits. I suppose if they declare enough wealth to make them ineligible they aren’t but I suspect that would be enough to disqualify them for the visa in the first place.

        2. in theory – but they get welfare through their children.

          You can check out the CIS report on legal and illegal pubic assistance usage here:
          http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Imm…..Households

          1. and their children are…what?

            Oh, right, citizens. So there you go. Just ban citizens from receiving welfare. I support that.

            1. uh… yeah… so you want a big welfare state. Congrats.

              1. How does me wanting to eliminate welfare mean I want a big welfare state? How did you possibly get that?

                1. None of these refugees have US citizen children yet they qualify for full welfare benefits. You’re using the anchor baby-argument which doesn’t apply to people who haven’t even moved here yet. Try to keep up.

    2. we rid the world of terror

      Wait, I thought you were advocating non-intervention.

      1. This thread is full of slavers who want to take other people’s money to pay for free shit for the families of Ba’ath secret police who had the misfortune to live in the wrong part of Syria.

  28. You’re all losing sight of the important issue which is keeping these motherfuckers out. You want asylum/refugee immigration? Fine, persuade individuals and non-taxpayer funded institutions to pay for it. Otherwise you’re all squawking like a bunch of progs wanting yet again to take other people’s money to give away free shit.

    1. what free stuff would that be? Most immigrants are ineligible for most forms of welfare. If you have a problem with how welfare is distributed, take it up with welfare. It has no bearing on whether people have the right to move without having ihre papiere bitte.

      1. You’re wrong. see report above:
        http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Imm…..Households

      2. Refugees have a different status than legal immigrants. They have access to supports because of their status. I’ll just point out, illegal immigrants do have access to social welfare benefits because many state don’t check the status of those applying as a matter of policy. Also, as soon as a female illegal immigrant has a child in the U.S. that child then has access to the same benefits as a citizen.

        I help illegals apply for food stamps, WIC and housing as part of a volunteer job I do, so I’m pretty familiar with the process – at least the process in NJ.

        1. I help illegals apply for food stamps, WIC and housing as part of a volunteer job I do

          No offense, but why would you do such a thing?

            1. Yokels all the way down

          1. Why would I do that?

            I volunteer at a food bank/soup kitchen every other Friday. It’s privately funded.

            Basically, it’s a service we offer to those who ask for assistance. It’s legal and part of my “job”.

            Don’t hate the player; hate the game.

            1. But you’re not asking visa status, right?

              1. The anchor clump of cells qualifies for WIC.

              2. No. We don’t check status at all. We help them get the appropriate paperwork filled out and direct them on the ‘how to’ part. We don’t process it ourselves, but we do know what’s required from the state.

                The state requires two forms of id with current address. They’re pretty flexible about the types of id. Utility bills work.

            2. that’s not a great defense. If you didn’t like the game, you wouldn’t be party to it.

              1. It’s not a defense at all.

                I do it because it’s available to them and I cannot deny them access to it.

            3. “Don’t hate the player; hate the game.”

              Are you sayingyou have no viable other game to play? This volunteer service does not seem mandatory.

        2. illegal immigrants do have access to social welfare benefits because many state don’t check the status of those applying as a matter of policy

          While this is undoubtedly true (with some qualification, at least), that makes it a state problem, not a federal one.

          1. It’s usually Federal money.

            1. Then the Feds should put some terms on how it is spent. While I wouldn’t be surprised if the courts struck those terms down (in plain contravention of established precedent a la highway funds and drinking age), they should at least try. Otherwise, whinging about national immigration policy vis-a-vis welfare is disingenuous.

      3. Most immigrants are ineligible for most forms of welfare.

        Refugee/asylum immigrants are eligible for the whole panoply of benefits before they step off the plane, SNAP, TANF, Section 8. That’s part of the program. If they’re ineligible based on finances I don’t think they can even qualify for the visa at all.

  29. related: U.S. Gives 1,519 Engaged in Terrorism “While Under Duress” Residency, Asylum

    The biggest chunk of exemptions was processed for refugee applicants and lawful permanent resident status, with 806 and 614 respectively. The rest were processed under other DHS programs such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS), asylum and relief through a Justice Department initiative. The bottom line is that the U.S. government is allowing them all to stay in the country with rights and benefits afforded to legal residents despite their terrorist connections and associations.

    More than half of the candidates rewarded by DHS last year provided material support to terrorist organizations, according to the DHS report. The others received military-type training from a terrorist organization, voluntarily provided medical care to members of a terrorist group and solicited funds or individuals for membership in a terrorist organization. After a case-by-case review, Obama’s DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, determined that the recently admitted terrorists only participated in these activities “while under duress.” So, welcome to America!

    1. Like I’ve said upthread, you have to have power and connections to score a visa. That’s how Nguy?n Ng?c Loan ended up owning a pizza parlor in N. VA.

  30. These people “should be back fixing their own countries,” concurred Lt. Col. Ralph Peters. It’s a helluva thing, decrying the courage of people facing categories of hardship no native-born American has had to endure. Should those Jews have just stayed in Russia in the 1980s? Should the boat people have instead stood their ground against the likes of Pol Pot?

    Germany would have been much better off if Jews like Einstein has stuck around. If all those Jews, Gypsies, whatever had just *obeyed the law* . . .

  31. “Should those Jews have just stayed in Russia in the 1980s? Should the boat people have instead stood their ground against the likes of Pol Pot?”

    Apples and oranges, and a lot of these current refugees are economic migrants. Were there nations going out of their way to accept thousands of Jews and Vietnamese refugees back in the day?

    If a dictator was gassing thousands of people to death, Reason would argue that we should do nothing. “We can’t risk a war” is their ready made response. But when people escape the death trap we did nothing to stop, we should actively admit them without restraint? That’s REAL fair to victims who can’t afford to pay smugglers or were persecuted before they had the chance to escape.

    We contributed to the mess in the middle east, that’s for sure. But if Obama just stayed out of the Arab Spring and the dictators crushed the rebellion, then there would lead to other problems.

    The middle east is not comparable to global conflicts from 50,60 years ago. Nation building worked in places like Japan because the nation already modernized before the war and the emperor assisted the Americans in making the transition. The middle east is beyond broken an a hotbed for extremism and middle ages ideology.

    1. if the Middle East is broken, having its refugees spread across the world is not going to fix it. Instead, it’s going to be the religious version of liberals moving into areas that are not liberal – they try to bring the same shit that created their previous problems with them.

    2. Were there nations going out of their way to accept thousands of Tribes and Vietnamese refugees back in the day?

      There was a country called “Israel” there for them. It’s actually a funny story, ultra-zionist American Jews lobbied the U.S. government to deny the Soviet Jews “refugee” status so they would have no choice but to go to Israel.

      1. Sorry about “tribes,” that was unintentional.

  32. The demographics of past Syrian refugees does not relate to the demographics of the current wave of refugees in Europe. Why are you trying to refute their statements with unrelated data? The data from every source that I can find, including the UN, confirms that the current influx is overwhelmingly young males, and the German aid agencies are reporting that even though all of the refugees claim to be Syrian, most are not. I am no supporter of either Trump or Carson, but we should not have to lie to argue against them.

    1. The data from every source that I can find, including the UN, confirms that the current influx is overwhelmingly young males

      This readily available data sure is awfully hard for people to present.

    2. Here, let me help you re-write your comment so that Matt understands it:

      Matt, you stupid fucking idiot. It’s not that *just* you “cherry picked” the numbers.You’re comparing apples (the demographics of the current wave of refugees marching across Europe from various places in the Middle East) to oranges (the demographics of Syrians admitted to the US who have refugee status.) You seriously are too stupid to be a journalist. You’re probably too stupid to throw yourself into a wood chipper.

      There, that’s better.

  33. That’s questionable. The European numbers move around 2/3+ male.

    1. “The distribution of asylum applicants by sex shows that men were more likely than women to seek asylum. Across the EU-28, the gender distribution was most balanced for asylum applicants aged less than 14, where boys accounted for 53 % of the total number of applications in 2014. There was a greater degree of gender inequality for asylum applicants aged 14?17 or 18?34, where around three quarters of applicants were male. Female applicants outnumbered male applicants for asylum seekers aged 65 and over, although this group was relatively small, accounting for just 0.8 % of the total number of applications in 2014.

      The gender difference was even more apparent when considering unaccompanied minors, as 86 % of asylum applicants in the EU-28 in 2014 that were unaccompanied minors were male, compared with 54 % for accompanied minors.”

      http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s…..applicants

  34. The majority of refugees from Syria to the United States has not been, is not currently, and likely will not be in the future, “military-aged males,” despite the fact that around 7 out of 10 Muslim-world refugees ariving into Europe via the Mediterranean Sea are adult men. The difference in demographic composition is very likely to do with the fact U.S. refugees arrive via filling out paperwork, while EU refugees largely arrive by cramming into boats.

    GOD BLESS THE ATLANTIC OCEAN

  35. “95.6% are Muslim, 2.3% are Christian (this compares to an estimated population within Syria of 87% and 10%, respectively)” So, 2.3 is pretty much the same as 10, is some kind of math?

    1. So, 2.3 is pretty much the same as 10, is some kind of math?

      I don’t know the answer to this, Bunker Bill, but I would ask when the census of Syrian Christians was done, whether that was before the Civil War, and whether many of the Christians disproportionately died. Hence were unable to migrate.

  36. Carson said the majority are young males when asked if the US should take more of the Syrian refugees – not that the refugees coming to the US were mainly young males.

    And Trump commented on those he had seen on TV – I don’t recall seeing any pictures of Syrian refugees in the US on TV – only in Europe.

    According to the EU, only 20% of the “refugees” are from Syria and 72% are male.

    I would hardly describe this article as “Reason” – seems like its “stupid season” for being capable of understanding English.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..f-staying/

    1. They should really change the name of the magazine to “Open Borders”. They seem to be pushing that at all costs, twisting logic and facts…

  37. I would hardly describe this article as “Reason”

    DRINK!

    If you thought this place went down hill when Postrel left it’s nothin’ compared to whats happened since Sheldon Adelson bought it.

  38. How are the “admitted refugees” selected, how does “admitted” relate to “legal”, and “unauthorized”, respectively?

    If I’m not mistaken, you didn’t include the number of all refugees to the EU. Why restrict that to those via the sea?

  39. “so why the hell would we want a bunch of mostly young men who left behind their women and children?”

    Cause you know, a man’s existence is only justified to the extent that he serves the needs of women and children.

    1. I think, buybuydandavis, that the question is important because the thought is that young men with families are less likely to start shit in their new homes than young men without them. And the question of whether these young male Muslims are going to start shit: (terrorism and demanding a shariah-governed Muslim environment) in their new homes, is a big one when determining whether to let them into your country in the first place.

      Fuck, I mean, if these migrants are so harmless and helpful, why aren’t the Gulf States/Saudi falling all over themselves to admit their fellow Sunnis? Not like the Gulf States don’t have the cash—I mean, shit, convert a few of the air conditioned Qatari World Cup stadiums to refugee camps.

      Maybe they learned what Jordan went through with Black September and don’t want any part of it?

      1. This is one of the side effects of Islam’s polygamy. You end up having lots and lots of pissed off, horny young men.

        If you are fighting a war of expansion, that’s actually a good thing, you can channel them into attacking your neighbors and enslaving them. But if you can’t expand, you simply get unrest Unless you can pawn the off on another country.

  40. Here we go, Muslim “refugees” are attacking Christians (who probably are actually refugees) in Germany

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..chief.html

    Yup, let tends of thousands of young male Muslims into the country. Won’t harm a thing.

  41. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  42. When you refute an assertion that the “current” wave of refugees are predominately young men with statistics from as far back 2008 you are doing the exact same thing you are chastising the others for doing.

    What is the make up of the current mass of refugees? Another part of Carson’s and Trump’s assertion is they are going to countries with genorous welfare systems. Can you get statistics from those agencies?

    1. Yes, Welch is a disingenuous, bordering on mendacious tool who just wanted his headline.

  43. Arguing about the percentages of young males is totally stupid. It’s obvious that there are more than enough young males – they are responsible for the chaos in refugee camps everywhere.
    Matt Welch is one jerk, day after fay.

  44. Matt, as editor in chief of a libertarian website, says “we” are obligated to take in refugees. Well, Matt, when you and “your” bunch who qualify as the “we” who you have declared as obligated – what? No way! You meant to say that all 300 plus million Americans are obligated to whatever has tugged on your heartstrings in the past minute, hour, week? Say, Matt, does your big heart extend to Africa, Asia – I won’t bother with south of our border down to the Antarctic, because the logic says gee, as long as they can get here, shucks, we – that we, again – are obligated.

    Thanks for the insight, Moses. Oh, wait, you aren’t Moses. No stone tablets, no divine authority. Just a voice. Whew!

  45. This article has really changed my mind set
    http://www.mytricks.in/

  46. Me thinks Matt Welch (for whom I usually have high regard) protests too much. I understand that Trump and Carson said a majority of the Syrian immigrants pouring into Europe this year are young males. So what do statistics of Syrians immigrating to the U.S. have to do with that? Those numbers disprove nothing.

    Trump, we know exaggerates. But if 10% of the population of Syria are Christians and only 2.3% of the Syrians immigrating to the U.S. are Christian, then I would suggest that the Christians are significantly underrepresented. Given that Christians are under threat in Syria, one might have expected a ratio above that of the population at large.

    This is the first Reason comment section at which I have looked. I was disappointed. I had expected a more rational conversation from libertarians.

  47. The fact remains that the majority ARE Muslims, members of a foreign and violent cult no different from the Manson Family or Branch Davidians that does pose a threat to the Western way of life.

    Need I remind anyone that Dzhokhar and Tamerlan were considered “refugees” too? We gave them $100,000 in welfare and a free ride to college, and they said thank you for it by killing 4 people and blowing off 400 others’ legs at an outdoor sporting event.

    Comparisons of these barbarians to the Jews aboard the St. Louis are insulting, particularly when one of the stated goals of Islam is to wipe out the infidels or convert them all to Islam — especially their mortal enemies the Jews.

    Let them go to one of the myriad other countries where this terrorism cult is followed. I don’t want any more Dzhokhars in my backyard.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.