# Canada not taking unaccompanied male refugees? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 29, 2017, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495 "2017-01-29T09:14:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2017, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495/21 "2017-01-29T16:34:15Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Did you miss where we took in 30,000 desperate Syrians? While y’all looked the other way? Do tell, how is that doing as little as possible! > > Or taking no chances? > > Yeah, you were just asking innocent questions!:dubious::dubious::dubious: Like the US doesn’t take refugees. Trump’s little reign doesn’t count. Did you read the linked articles? > [@](#): > > But if the exclusion of single men in the resettlement program is meant to ease the public’s fears, some experts say it’s ineffective and unnecessary. “The multi-layer vetting process should be sufficient enough to alleviate security concerns,” B enoit Gomis, an international security analyst based in Vancouver, told Newsweek via email. And if the government feels it isn’t, “prolonging the process would be a better option than banning all single male refugees altogether,” he added. > > According to Gomis, there is no evidence that refugees pose a higher security threat than non-refugees. “The Migration Policy Institute recently pointed out that out of the 784,000 refugees resettled in the U.S. since 9/11, only three were arrested for terrorism offenses (and they were not plotting attacks in the U.S.),” he says. “This type of knee-jerk reaction is common after terrorist attacks.” > > Echoing the concerns of other human-rights advocates, Bill Frelik, a refugee program director at Human Rights Watch, feels that even though Canada has no obligation to accept anyone, it has created a superficial criteria that leaves it in danger of “excluding people who are innocent and extremely vulnerable.” That includes political dissidents who might fear for their lives. The US took in 784,000 refugees since 9/11, as of 2015. Refusing single men is just sexist and appealing to Canadians’ xenophobia, as alive and well in Canada as the US. How brave of Canada. “Let’s take the women!” :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2017, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495/22 "2017-01-29T17:32:24Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > A little discriminatory? Not perfect? … > > Saying we will prefer women is not only stupid, it’s dangerous. If we shouldn’t prefer men, and shouldn’t prefer women, and maybe we shouldn’t prefer children because they have also been used by terrorists, what do you suggest? That the US will only accept refugee pets from Aleppo? And then of course only things like goldfish. What’s your opinion on letting foreign-trained lawyers into the United States at all? Seems like a dangerous group… ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2017, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495/23 "2017-01-29T17:47:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If we shouldn’t prefer men, and shouldn’t prefer women, and maybe we shouldn’t prefer children because they have also been used by terrorists, what do you suggest? That the US will only accept refugee pets from Aleppo? And then of course only things like goldfish. > > What’s your opinion on letting foreign-trained lawyers into the United States at all? Seems like a dangerous group… :rolleyes: A person’s gender should not be the determining factor in the decision to admit them or not. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2017, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495/24 "2017-01-29T17:55:19Z")
Aren’t single, young men the most likely one to be shot and killed by groups like Da-esh? Seems like in many case, they are the most vulnerable, if that is what matters. ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2017, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495/25 "2017-01-29T17:58:54Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > The policy prioritizes women and children ahead of single men. As single men are more able to manage life in a refugee camp, escape oppression, **less likely to be victimized** , etc. Just like women and children get into lifeboats first. Where do you get that idea? Around the world most murder victims are men, most people killed in war are men, and most people imprisoned or killed by their governments are men. Where do you get the idea that men are less likely to be victimized? And lifeboats? Women and children go first because men are immune to drowning? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2017, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495/26 "2017-01-29T18:01:29Z")
[del]Mars[/del] Canada needs women. ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Paprika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr_paprika/32/3042_2.png) [@Dr\_Paprika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr_Paprika)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2017, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495/27 "2017-01-29T18:51:42Z")
I don’t fully agree with this discrimination, but neither does the Globe and Mail. The government did tone this down a few days later. I have done medical exams on a few Syrian refugees and one was a straight, single male. Most are from families, not single women. There is probably a security difference, but I agree it’s not absolute. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2017, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495/28 "2017-01-29T19:02:02Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > :rolleyes: > A person’s gender should not be the determining factor in the decision to admit them or not. Literally nobody in the world said it should be. Literally. Nobody. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2017, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495/29 "2017-01-29T19:03:16Z")
The Netherlands allows single young men, untill they are vetted. It turns out many of those refugees are not from Syria but from Africa, and Tunisia Morocco Algeria. They flee for economic reasons. They are usually sent back. Because they know they don’t have a chance they have little to lose and make the most problems. Not terrorist attacks, but shoplifting, being homeless, loitering, being aggressive. The group that a attacked the women outside of the train station of the German city of Koln, New Year’s Eve 2015, was about 95% Northern Africans. Canada’s policy stops this group, and that is sensible. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2017, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495/30 "2017-01-29T23:27:59Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This all seems like classic politics to me. Pat yourself on the back for your generosity while doing as little as possible and taking no chances. Others have already commented on this, but seriously dude, is that really how it seems to you? That’s your impression of a country with one of the most compassionate refugee policies in the world, one that’s been [a model of refugee sponsorship for over 40 years](http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-refugees-privately-sponsored-global-initiative-1.3895704)? You have also mischaracterized the Syrian refugee admission criteria. Giving priority to families with children makes good sense from numerous standpoints including both pragmatic and compassionate ones, and trying to somehow twist that into being a prohibition on single male refugees smacks of a disingenuous attempt to just try to find something to criticize while failing, as a nation, to meet your own humanitarian obligations. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2017, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495/31 "2017-01-29T23:51:35Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You have also mischaracterized the Syrian refugee admission criteria. Giving priority to families with children makes good sense from numerous standpoints including both pragmatic and compassionate ones, and trying to somehow twist that into being a prohibition on single male refugees smacks of a disingenuous attempt to just try to find something to criticize while failing, as a nation, to meet your own humanitarian obligations. There is nothing compassionate about excluding the male victims of war and terror, and yes single males are excluded, unless you can come up with a cite that says otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![FloatyGimpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/floatygimpy/32/7750_2.png) [@FloatyGimpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FloatyGimpy)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2017, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495/32 "2017-01-30T00:38:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > [Canada's Syrian refugee plan limited to women, children and families | CBC News](http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-refugee-plan-women-children-families-1.3330185) > > It’s CBC so I imagine it must be totally true. > > Guardian seems to confirm that this is indeed Canadian policy: > > [Canada to turn away single men as part of Syrian refugee resettlement plan | Canada | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/canada-syrian-refugee-resettlement-plan-no-single-men) > > First, reasonable policy? Second, couldn’t Trump have saved himself a lot of trouble by just copying Canada’s policy? Seriously? Your president’s immigration policy just caused heartache and protests all over the world and your reply is to denigrate my country’s immigration policy because we gave priority to widow’s, children and families?? Deflect much? That’s just so trump-like :smack: “you’re the puppet!”. I suppose you missed our PM’s message that we’ll take the ones your idiot in chief won’t? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2017, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495/33 "2017-01-30T01:13:21Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > There is nothing compassionate about excluding the male victims of war and terror, and yes single males are excluded, unless you can come up with a cite that says otherwise. How about [the statement of the federal government’s special coordinator for Syrian refugees](http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/26/syrian-refugees-groups-canada_n_8657142.html), who was herself citing the assistant deputy minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada? That good enough? Here’s another data point related to that. Between Nov 4, 2015 and July 31, 2016, 29,547 Syrian refugees were resettled in Canada. The largest family-size category was 4 persons, accounting for 6,024 out of the total. Out of 14 family-size categories, the 5th largest was the single person, accounting for 2,830 unattached individuals out of the total for that period. From the dataset “[Canada (including Quebec) - Admissions of Syrian Refugees by Immigration Category and Family Composition](http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/ca243c40-a6d3-4a46-a578-b4fad4369df0)”. Granted that, everything else being equal, the unattached single male is the lowest priority compared to the highest priority being families with children. For several different and understandable reasons. If you have a problem with that, answer me this. The current number of Syrian refugees admitted by Canada as of November 2015 is now almost 40,000. How many has the US admitted in that time, a country nearly ten times the size? How many is it admitting right now? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-not-taking-unaccompanied-male-refugees/778495.md?page=1)