Canada's Syrian refugee plan limited to women, children and families

[Sally]

The single men should really be back in Syria fighting for their country. So many have sklpped out to avoid the draft.


Canada's Syrian refugee plan limited to women, children and families
Unaccompanied men not included because of ongoing security concerns
By Rosemary Barton, CBC News Posted: Nov 22, 2015 9:00 PM ET Last Updated: Nov 23, 2015 7:35 AM ET



The federal government's much-anticipated Syrian refugee plan will limit those accepted into Canada to women, children and families only, CBC News has learned.

Sources tell CBC News that to deal with some ongoing concerns around security, unaccompanied men seeking asylum will not be part of the program.

The details of the plan will be announced Tuesday, but already Canadian officials have been working on the ground to process people.

In the last six weeks alone, Canadian authorities have managed to screen about 100 people a day in Lebanon to help the government reach its ambitious target of getting 25,000 Syrian refugees here by the end of the year.

These are on top of the refugees being processed by the United Nations Refugee Agency.

The government has so far been mum about both the kind of security screening it is doing and whether it will be limited to refugee camps overseas, or whether some of it will take place in Canada.

Continue reading at:

Canada's Syrian refugee plan limited to women, children and families

 

[aris2chat]

As a first phase, it makes sense. As more vetting is done and if males can be cleared, older men and eventually younger and younger men will be cleared.
We have seen in many countries that 18-35 is a prime age for males trying to sneak in with false documents or that have ties to ISIS.
Mexico, Caribbean, Greece, Turkey, Morocco, Balkans, Europe and even Canada have all had men try to enter as refugees with false documents.

It is not just a suspicion but has been proven a fact. Even vetting has missed many men, and that is the danger. It is what ISIS and other groups hope for. They don't need armies but a few here and there that slip through the system can kill hundreds. Wasn't paris enough of a warning light?

If we do not separate the refugees and put them through even more vetting and questioning we might as well remove all security at airports and major building and let the terrorists do what ever they plan.

Terrorism is an issue in most countries but either we try to prevent it or we sit back and watch, then we use the money we saved on security towards rebuilding and watch it happen again.

I've been injured by three car bomb and I lived in NY during both world trade attacks. I don't know about everyone else but I am not looking forward to more attacks for attempts. A hundred or so attempts each year in the US and 13,000 or so successful attacks around the world in just this year with 30-40,000 deaths and many more injures. When to do begin to say enough, not in my back yard? Will it take a few hundred thousand, a million, more? How close to home do they need to be?
It is not just one of a dozen groups but hundreds of active groups committing terror attacks. In the west the two many groups that people thing of are ISIS and al qaida but there are many groups on the FBI radar that are a read threat.

It might not even be muslims from the middle east and they can be any colour of skin including white converts from right in the US. There have been some basic profiles that most terrorist have fallen into. We have to begin some place, but we are a plural society and it is getting harder. For the immediate we can begin with the most obvious and proven treat, the refugees from syria. Among them the men age 18-35 to put to one side and go over their vetting again, and again until we are satisfied. Even then it might be wise to limit their movement or keep them in a specific location for a period.

Why put america at risk if there are steps we can take to limit treats?