Interesting and concerning piece in Politico on the social problems & instability associated with gender imbalances in favour of males. A disproportionate number of migrants are young, unmarried, unaccompanied males.
They outline research showing sex ratios correlate significantly with violence and property crime—the higher the sex ratio, the worse the crime rate. Sexual harassment becomes more of a concern.
The most extreme gender imbalace now is in Sweden. At the end of 2015, there were 123 boys aged 16-17 in Sweden for every 100 girls.
Trudeau’s Liberal Government in Canada will now only women, accompanied children and families from Syria. Specifically excluded would be unaccompanied minor males and single adult males.
Is that a reasonable approach that other countries should be looking to follow?
Months back looking at the news showing them barrelling into Germany, I noticed this imbalance — and, since they were going to be let in anyway, wondered why the governments didn’t set up special trains to the West, rather than having them climb agonizingly through train-windows and tramp across Eastern Europe ( disregard morality: whether they should be allowed in is not the point: having things efficient is always paramount ).
However, since young men are those most at risk in places like Syria, because all the sides would conscript them if they could, and target them if they are unaligned, I can’t see why they should be excluded from safety.
Those ingrates who commit crimes should be dealt with; the rest ought to be cared for.
In September/October the Liberals made an election promise that if they gained power they would bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by year’s end. Yes, my American friends; they campaigned to increase refugee influx.
After winning the election many were pointing out how hopelessly impossible it was for the Liberals to meet that mark, given the amount security measures/red tape that is required of all refugees (I think they even failed to bring in 10,000).
However in an effort to increase the total bulk of numbers (and not seem people who “promise big but deliver small”) the Liberals decided to deprioritize straight single males by expediting those who did not require lengthy screening (families, women, children, LGBT, etc).
I suspect many Americans would support that, too, and Clinton has pledged a substantial increase in the refugee quota. I think paranoid xenophobia has been somewhat unfairly highlighted by various US political extremists who don’t speak for the majority.
I’ve seen nothing to support the contention that single males have simply been “deprioritized” to a later date, as implied several times here. When the CBC obtained advance information about the policy back in November, it was stated that “unaccompanied men seeking asylum will not be part of the program”. There was no statement or implication that they might be at some later date. And I have no problem with that.
So it is. Any screening process is by definition “discriminatory” because you’re making assessments and judgments and accepting some candidates while rejecting others, based on the best available criteria. When dealing with large numbers, those criteria have to be workable and pragmatic.
In the real world, vetting of large numbers has to use broad first-level criteria and sometimes coarse filters just to narrow it down to the detailed vetting stage, and can’t always be perfectly fair. It’s a hell of a lot more important to have practical criteria that work than idealistic criteria that are useless. It’s also rather important that the federal government protect public safety and national security. If you don’t like it I guess that’s unfortunate for you. It’s a hell of a lot less discriminatory than banning refugees altogether, also known as the “US Republican Platform”.
For their country, that’s who. Pick your side, I don’t care, but there are over a million of them that fled and that many could have easily tipped the balance of power. Now they are languishing in various European countries, waiting for…?
Thanks for that. I wasn’t in any way questioning the sincerity of the Liberals’ resolve on the issue, and frankly I think they’re doing it right. I hope that the statement you quoted can be interpreted to mean that single males are not part of the program, but are not necessarily subject to blanket exclusions in the future if and when they can be suitably vetted. And I don’t think it’s a value judgment, either, but merely a reflection of the fact that this is a demographic that poses a significantly higher security risk. No doubt would-be terrorists or other undesirables could find a fatherless family willing to be mules to facilitate the entry of one of their operatives, but it would be hard for that fiction to pass careful vetting procedures. It’s all about raising the bar and improving outcomes.
They’re not waiting for anything. They’re looking for a better life.
I’m sorry, but honestly it appears you have a very misconstrued view of the Syrian Civil War. There really is no winning this war for any side. I’d say Syria s going to be in this state for at least a decade before things get better. A million additional men won’t do anything except increase the bloodbath.
The idea that one is OBLIGATED to fight in any war (especially a civil one) is absolutely asinine. I’m reminded of the Soviet sneering towards “fellow travelers” during the Russian Revolution. If they feel that they owe nothing to Syria, they don’t.
A person is more obligated to fight in a civil war than any other. Who else does the responsibility to form a stable, representative government lay on? US intervention? Of course not, it depends on the citizen!