We have nothing to fear ... except all the WRONG things.

[Karl R]

It's election season, so we're continuously being bombarded by fear-mongering by politicians trying to get our votes. (And if it wasn't election season, companies would still be filling the airwaves with fear-mongering to sell us stuff.)

This morning, Donald Trump tweeted:
"Crooked Hillary Clinton wants to flood our country with Syrian immigrants that we know little or nothing about. The danger is massive. NO!"

How "massive" is the danger?

In 2014, 2015 and 2016 combined, 109 people in the U.S. have been killed by terrorists (this includes attacks that were potentially politically motivated, like the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting and the recent murder of five police in Dallas; this number excludes the perpetrators, who are sometimes listed among the dead in the source).

For comparison:
During the same period, 73 people in the U.S. were killed by lightning.

Each year, 60-70 people in the U.S. are electrocuted by consumer electronics.

Each year, about 355 people in the U.S. die falling off of ladders.

Each year, about 450 people in the U.S. die falling out of bed.

Based on the statistics, my bed at least 10 times more dangerous than terrorists.

How dangerous are Syrian refugees?
Germany has accepted 1 million Syrian refugees. In 2014, 2015 and 2015, they have had 11 deaths and 27 injuries due to terrorist attacks. Two of those attacks were committed by Syrian refugees, making them responsible for 1 death and 14 injuries.

Turkey has accepted 2.5 million Syrian refugees. In the past 12 months, they have had 125 deaths and 485 injuries due to terrorist attacks (some of those attacks were committed by Turkish Kurds, not Syrians).

So Turkey, which lacks adequate border controls with Syria, has had one death and four injuries per 20,000 Syrian refugees. Germany has (with greater control over which Syrian refugees immigrate) has had one death per 1 million Syrian refugees.

By comparison, Hillary Clinton is proposing accepting 10,000 to 65,000 Syrian refugees through the U.S screening process, which takes 18-36 months.

What is the worst-case scenario?
Baghdad and Mosul, Iraq are rank #1 and #3 in the world for terrorism. Their annual terrorism death rates (about 30-45 per 100,000 population) are roughly equal to the homicide rate in Kingston, Jamaica ... where I've been ... on vacation ... twice. (They're also similar to the homicide rates for Baltimore, Detroit, Newark, New Orleans and St Louis)

Other than the four worst terrorism cities in the world, The per captia annual terrorism death rates (less than 10 per 100,000 population) are numbers that I'm very familiar with. I live in Houston (homicide rate of 10.9 per 100,000 population).

 

[Karl R]

The five worst countries in the world for terrorism are Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan.

In Pakistan, terrorists killed 1,761 people in 2014 and 1,081 people in 2015. That means we could ship every Al-Qaeda member, Taliban member and domestic terrorist from Pakistan to the U.S., and you would still be at higher risk of being killed by a significant other or family member (2,259 murder victims in the U.S. in 2013).

In Syria, terrorists killed 1,698 people in 2014 and 2,748 people in 2015. That means we could ship every ISIS member from Syria to the U.S., and you would still be in greater danger from distracted drivers (who caused 3,179 deaths in the U.S. in 2014).

In Afghanistan, terrorists killed 4,507 people in 2014 and 5,292 in 2015. That means we could ship every Al-Qaeda member and Taliban member from Afghanistan to the U.S., and you would have an equal risk of being killed by your food (approximately 5,000 deaths in the U.S. annually).

In Nigeria, terrorists killed 7,531 people in 2014 and 4,886 in 2015. That means we could ship every Boko Haram member from Nigeria to the U.S., and you would still have a greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver / drunk driving (9,967 deaths in the U.S. in 2014).

In Iraq, terrorists killed 9,926 people in 2014 and 6,932 in 2015. That means we could ship every Al-Qaeda and ISIS member from Iraq to the U.S., and you would still have a greater chance of being killed by smokers, even if you're a non-smoker (approximately 41,280 deaths due to second-hand smoke in the U.S. annually).

Worldwide, terrorists killed 32,763 people in 2014 and 28,328 people in 2015. We could bring every terrorist in the world into the U.S., and they still wouldn't be able to keep up with the deaths caused by air pollution (approximately 200,000 deaths in the U.S. per year).

Actually, the terrorism deaths above are overstated, because they include the dead perpetrators. For example, of the 28,328 people killed worldwide in terror attacks in 2015, 6,924 were perpetrators.

Fear-based political policy:
If someone wants to genuinely "make America safe," wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the things that actually kill Americans, rather than claiming there is "massive" danger from some barely-existent threat?

Ironically, Donald Trump intends to balance the budget by cutting funding for U.S. agencies ... possibly including ones like CPSC, OSHA, FDA and EPA (the ones that protect us from the far more deadly consumer products, work hazards, contaminated food and air pollution).

 

[sun rise]

The pilgrims came to America based on hope for a better future. The country's founding documents are based on a positive, hopeful vision for the future. Abraham Lincoln's speeches and messages embodied a positive message for the future.

Of course we as a nation have done some terrible things and made bad mistakes. But America's strength lies in acknowledging past mistakes on the way to building a better future.

Those who promote fear and anger are trying to destroy the bedrock of America. Those who consort with dictators, encourage our rivals to attack us, promote hatred and bigotry will find that ultimately they are failures and will be washed away in the judgement of history.

To the specific points in the OP, I agree that we need to be realistic and not captured by the media and the politicians who feed off and promote unthinking fear and anger.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

My concern would be more about the cultural impact of importing thousands of Syrian migrants rather than the risk of terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

There are disturbing things that have happened in Germany related to migrants that aren't just terrorist incidents. (And obviously that isn't meant to generalise all or most migrants, but there are legitimate causes for concern)

In general I wouldn't want to see a further dilution and weakening of my own country's culture (and thereby social cohesion and wellbeing) by importing thousands of Syrian refugees. Already we have divided communities in some parts, where the multicultural mass immigration project has resulted in different groups sticking together and forming their own communities with their own values, damaging social cohesion between different sectors of society.

I'm speaking about the UK though. The USA is a big place, maybe you can take them all for us.

 

[Underhill]

My concern would be more about the cultural impact of importing thousands of Syrian migrants rather than the risk of terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

There are disturbing things that have happened in Germany related to migrants that aren't just terrorist incidents. (And obviously that isn't meant to generalise all or most migrants, but there are legitimate causes for concern)

In general I wouldn't want to see a further dilution and weakening of my own country's culture (and thereby social cohesion and wellbeing) by importing thousands of Syrian refugees. Already we have divided communities in some parts, where the multicultural mass immigration project has resulted in different groups sticking together and forming their own communities with their own values, damaging social cohesion between different sectors of society.

I'm speaking about the UK though. The USA is a big place, maybe you can take them all for us.

That may be true if we were talking about millions of them. But even 65,000 is going to have a negligible impact. You could put all of them in a burrow of NYC and they still would just be another neighborhood.

 

[Laika]

It's election season, so we're continuously being bombarded by fear-mongering by politicians trying to get our votes. (And if it wasn't election season, companies would still be filling the airwaves with fear-mongering to sell us stuff.)

This morning, Donald Trump tweeted:
"Crooked Hillary Clinton wants to flood our country with Syrian immigrants that we know little or nothing about. The danger is massive. NO!"

How "massive" is the danger?

In 2014, 2015 and 2016 combined, 109 people in the U.S. have been killed by terrorists (this includes attacks that were potentially politically motivated, like the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting and the recent murder of five police in Dallas; this number excludes the perpetrators, who are sometimes listed among the dead in the source).

For comparison:
During the same period, 73 people in the U.S. were killed by lightning.

Each year, 60-70 people in the U.S. are electrocuted by consumer electronics.

Each year, about 355 people in the U.S. die falling off of ladders.

Each year, about 450 people in the U.S. die falling out of bed.

Based on the statistics, my bed at least 10 times more dangerous than terrorists.

How dangerous are Syrian refugees?
Germany has accepted 1 million Syrian refugees. In 2014, 2015 and 2015, they have had 11 deaths and 27 injuries due to terrorist attacks. Two of those attacks were committed by Syrian refugees, making them responsible for 1 death and 14 injuries.

Turkey has accepted 2.5 million Syrian refugees. In the past 12 months, they have had 125 deaths and 485 injuries due to terrorist attacks (some of those attacks were committed by Turkish Kurds, not Syrians).

So Turkey, which lacks adequate border controls with Syria, has had one death and four injuries per 20,000 Syrian refugees. Germany has (with greater control over which Syrian refugees immigrate) has had one death per 1 million Syrian refugees.

By comparison, Hillary Clinton is proposing accepting 10,000 to 65,000 Syrian refugees through the U.S screening process, which takes 18-36 months.

What is the worst-case scenario?
Baghdad and Mosul, Iraq are rank #1 and #3 in the world for terrorism. Their annual terrorism death rates (about 30-45 per 100,000 population) are roughly equal to the homicide rate in Kingston, Jamaica ... where I've been ... on vacation ... twice. (They're also similar to the homicide rates for Baltimore, Detroit, Newark, New Orleans and St Louis)

Other than the four worst terrorism cities in the world, The per captia annual terrorism death rates (less than 10 per 100,000 population) are numbers that I'm very familiar with. I live in Houston (homicide rate of 10.9 per 100,000 population).

It's very pleasant to see someone use facts and statistics to make a point on RF, particularly as they weigh up a controversial issue like this one. Nicely done.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My concern would be more about the cultural impact of importing thousands of Syrian migrants rather than the risk of terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

There are disturbing things that have happened in Germany related to migrants that aren't just terrorist incidents. (And obviously that isn't meant to generalise all or most migrants, but there are legitimate causes for concern)

In general I wouldn't want to see a further dilution and weakening of my own country's culture (and thereby social cohesion and wellbeing) by importing thousands of Syrian refugees. Already we have divided communities in some parts, where the multicultural mass immigration project has resulted in different groups sticking together and forming their own communities with their own values, damaging social cohesion between different sectors of society.

I'm speaking about the UK though. The USA is a big place, maybe you can take them all for us.

So it's okay for the UK to go around conquering, exploiting and controlling nations but having immigrants, mostly from those same former conquered nations, live among you at home is too much for you? Hmm.

And that argument can't apply to the US in the first place, since we're a nation of immigrants. There is no overall "American culture" and there never has been.

 

[metis]

It's very pleasant to see someone use facts and statistics to make a point on RF, particularly as they weigh up a controversial issue like this one. Nicely done.

I'd like to ditto that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And that argument can't apply to the US in the first place, since we're a nation of immigrants.

So is the UK really. We are a bunch of mongrels.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

So it's okay for the UK to go around conquering, exploiting and controlling nations but having immigrants, mostly from those same former conquered nations, live among you at home is too much for you? Hmm.

Conquering, exploiting, controlling? You talking about ye olde Imperial times?

So what, in penance for having an empire, we should sacrifice our nation because other people who lived generations before us made mistakes? Try explaining that to ordinary working people who have to deal with living in a divided community. I'm sure they'll be all ears.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

So is the UK really. We are a bunch of mongrels.

A nation of immigrants we may be, but never before on the scale we've seen over the past few decades. The Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Huguenots have nothing on the millions of immigrants that have reached our shores over the past few decades, a rate far too high to integrate into our culture.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Conquering, exploiting, controlling? You talking about ye olde Imperial times?

So what, in penance for having an empire, we should sacrifice our nation because other people who lived generations before us made mistakes? Try explaining that to ordinary working people who have to deal with living in a divided community. I'm sure they'll be all ears.

How does having immigrants live in your country "sacrifice" "your" nation? This is sounding awfully xenophobic, even racist. Since I have a bit of experience with living among immigrants, I can tell you that a lot of the problems that communities have with immigration are the fault of the "native-born" community being xenophobic, suspicious and hostile to the new members of the community in the first place. They don't accept them in the first place and this contributes to the immigrants feeling the urge to segregate themselves. Even after most of a century, black British people still suffer from racism from white Brits. Brexit itself was basically a racist temper tantrum, and people who appeared to be non-white and non-English were being taunted and harassed in the streets.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

How does having immigrants live in your country "sacrifice" "your" nation?

Compromises the culture, social cohesion, etc. National identity is at risk, "multiculturalism" is enforced, but I don't want many cultures, I want one.

This is sounding awfully xenophobic, even racist.

Nonsense.

Since I have a bit of experience with living among immigrants, I can tell you that a lot of the problems that communities have with immigration are the fault of the "native-born" community being xenophobic, suspicious and hostile to the new members of the community in the first place. They don't accept them in the first place and this contributes to the immigrants feeling the urge to segregate themselves.

More nonsense. Immigrants should make an effort to integrate.

Even after most of a century, black British people still suffer from racism from white Brits.

Not to the same extent as in the USA. I haven't heard it or seen it happening personally. All racism is wrong and to be condemned.

Brexit itself was basically a racist temper tantrum, and people who appeared to be non-white and non-English were being taunted and harassed in the streets.

Brexit wasn't a racist temper tantrum. Your lefty-tinted goggles are distorting the world again. Mass migration has divided communities. I'm not against immigration in general, but mass immigration. People have rightly had enough, and also had enough with globalism in general, with the loss of manufacturing industry and their wages being driven down by the cheap labour provided by immigrants, and the exporting of jobs to China and elsewhere.

52% of the British population is not racist (and many of whom were non-white). There were other issues as well, of national sovereignty and independence, the right to rule oneself, and not be governed by undemocratic bureaucrats in Brussels.

And there is of course Lexit as well, which gave the left-wing case for leaving the EU, and actually wanted more immigration, and saw the EU as an impediment to that by giving free movement to Europeans and unfairly disadvantaging non-Europeans.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Compromises the culture, social cohesion, etc. National identity is at risk, "multiculturalism" is enforced, but I don't want many cultures, I want one.

Nonsense.

More nonsense. Immigrants should make an effort to integrate.

Not to the same extent as in the USA. I haven't heard it or seen it happening personally. All racism is wrong and to be condemned.

Brexit wasn't a racist temper tantrum. Your lefty-tinted goggles are distorting the world again. Mass migration has divided communities. I'm not against immigration in general, but mass immigration. People have rightly had enough, and also had enough with globalism in general, with the loss of manufacturing industry and their wages being driven down by the cheap labour provided by immigrants, and the exporting of jobs to China and elsewhere.

52% of the British population is not racist (and many of whom were non-white). There were other issues as well, of national sovereignty and independence, the right to rule oneself, and not be governed by undemocratic bureaucrats in Brussels.

And there is of course Lexit as well, which gave the left-wing case for leaving the EU, and actually wanted more immigration, and saw the EU as an impediment to that by giving free movement to Europeans and unfairly disadvantaging non-Europeans.

You're just confirming my point with your xenophobic ranting.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

You're just confirming my point with your xenophobic ranting.

Haha how am I ranting?

Baby please don't hurt me like that

Is it entirely impossible for you to see things from another point of view other than your own? Is it that hard to entertain the notion that I am not a xenophobe, and have legitimate concerns about mass migration?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Haha how am I ranting?

Baby please don't hurt me like that

Is it entirely impossible for you to see things from another point of view other than your own? Is it that hard to entertain the notion that I am not a xenophobe, and have legitimate concerns about mass migration?

No, I can see things from your point of view, but it does just add up to xenophobia at the end of the day. You have some mythical fantasy of the UK being of "one culture", when that's just not true at all and never was, and that most immigrants don't integrate into the culture and that's not true, either. It's just sounding like you're complaining about people who have a different religion and who speak a different language living in your neighborhood.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...es-show-fall-in-non-eu-arrivals-a6895341.html
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/10-myths-about-the-uks-migrant-crisis-debunked--bJiNkKwaml

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No, I can see things from your point of view, but it does just add up to xenophobia at the end of the day. You have some mythical fantasy of the UK being of "one culture", when that's just not true at all and never was, and that most immigrants don't integrate into the culture and that's not true, either. It's just sounding like you're complaining about people who have a different religion and who speak a different language living in your neighborhood.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...es-show-fall-in-non-eu-arrivals-a6895341.html
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/10-myths-about-the-uks-migrant-crisis-debunked--bJiNkKwaml

It's not a mythical fantasy, there has been a single national identity that united the British, enough to go and fight and die for their King, and a shared belief in the rule of law, ancient liberties, and belief in family. Much of that Britain is gone, but that doesn't mean I want it to waste away entirely with an influx of people from other countries.

The vast majority of immigrants, if coming at a slow enough rate, will indeed integrate, or at least their children or grandchildren will. When they come at such high rates to form their own communities however, this doesn't work.

It doesn't just 'add up' to xenophobia at the end of the day. I wish to preserve the culture of my country, as generations before have done. There is nothing xenophobic about it.

 

[Karl R]

My concern would be more about the cultural impact of importing thousands of Syrian migrants rather than the risk of terrorism.

I agree with Underhill. You could throw all 65,000 into Houston, and it would just be enough to make a "Little Syria" neighborhood. The cultural impact would be limited to: "Hey! Do you want to go down to Little Syria and check out the restaurants?"

28% of Houston's population is foreign-born. Throw in 65,000 Syrians and Houston would be 29% foreign-born. Not exactly the recipe for a major cultural impact.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's not a mythical fantasy, there has been a single national identity that united the British, enough to go and fight and die for their King, and a shared belief in the rule of law, ancient liberties, and belief in family. Much of that Britain is gone, but that doesn't mean I want it to waste away entirely with an influx of people from other countries.

The vast majority of immigrants, if coming at a slow enough rate, will indeed integrate, or at least their children or grandchildren will. When they come at such high rates to form their own communities however, this doesn't work.

It doesn't just 'add up' to xenophobia at the end of the day. I wish to preserve the culture of my country, as generations before have done. There is nothing xenophobic about it.

What history books have you been reading? Ones on some EDL or BNP reading list? Your view of British history is so one-dimensional as to be laughable. You people have always been bickering and fighting among each other, whether over nationality or religion. You seem not to understand that Britain is not one country. Go tell a Scot that they have the same culture as the English and see if you walk away with all of your teeth or can walk away from it at all.

Also, you English didn't have much of a problem flooding into Ireland, crowding out the Irish and stealing their land. You still occupy it.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

What history books have you been reading? Ones on some EDL or BNP reading list? Your view of British history is so one-dimensional as to be laughable. You people have always been bickering and fighting among each other, whether over nationality or religion.

And what were the values I mentioned? There has been a mutual national British identity, a mutual respect for law, a mutual belief in ancient liberties. I am not saying all are the same in all respects. I didn't say the religions were the same, etc.

You seem not to understand that Britain is not one country. Go tell a Scot that they have the same culture as the English and see if you walk away with all of your teeth or can walk away from it at all.

There is indeed a distinct British culture that unites us, so far as the British national identity is concerned. Of course, those who voted for independence or were tempted by it may not share it.