Why the hell would it ever be the right thing to take radicals in? There are millions and millions of people suffering and without any perspective that could give them hope. Many, many more than even the most generous country could ever take in (as Sweden has already realized and Germany is in the process of realizing. All others knew that before...). I think it is not only our right but our obligation to screen whom to take in. For our own sake and for the sake of the victims of the radicals.
My point with the demographics is that it doesn't matter either way. The majority being young men doesn't make them any more or less dangerous. It'd be like if Donald Trump said the majority of them being women meant they were more stupid. It's nonsense, with no basis in fact, and trotted out there to play on fears. Regardless of the demographic makeup, the right course of action is to take them in. Screen them for terrorists to the extent that is possible, but don't think a society that keeps them out was worth protecting.
I was using a broader definition of radical, the one that goes something like:
When asked about the practice of [sharia law, honor killing, religious persecution in general, women as full citizens] they say something that makes all of us go "wtf?".
Not, "do you plan to blow something up/shoot tons of people" they say "yes".
Just because someone has radical ideas doesn't mean they have actually or will hurt someone.
It's a spectrum like this:
Normal person -> Star Wars Enthusiast -> Star Wars Re-enacter -> Thinks he's a Jedi -> Kills people with his lightsaber.
Christian -> Missionary Christian -> Religious Protestor at a military funeral -> KKK member -> KKK member that kills Jewish people.
Muslim -> Prays many times a day/won't shave/beer/pork -> Unhappy his wife drives Muslim -> Thinks it's OK to wage religious war but personally it's not for him -> asshole who blows himself up to kill others.
Probably everyone to the right of "Enthusiast" meets my definition of radical, but everyone left of "kills people with his lightsaber" is deserving of my compassion. As I understand it, the "radicals" by my definition account for like 70% of worldwide Muslims, but the "radicals" that will actually go blow stuff up accounts for like, way way less (still a scary high number though).
Until they do violence, they haven't done violence. Everything else is future-crimes land and that's not someplace you want to live. That isn't about safety, security, or crime prevention. It's about fear and hate.
Understand, I'm not saying there is no risk here, or that none of them will be dangerous. I'm saying you do it anyway. I'm saying that it is what the right thing to do is.
Legally, I don't think it's wise, in a time of crisis, to overrule what those that came before set up as the rule of law when they had time to consider it in their right minds when they were not afraid. Trust them and follow the law.
As a Christian, you let them in. As I understand it, the Jewish faith says something similar.
I know of no creed or ethos that advocates barring your door, taking shelter from the cold, and plugging your ears until the screams and the pounding gradually subside.
And it is about saving lives. A body saved from death is not a life without opportunity.
I think Germany for one has taken on too many, but you do what you have to when others won't do their part. The U.S. needs to step up and agree to take in millions instead of arguing over how few thousands.
My own Senator was vowing today to try and stop the few dozen who made it to Texas, and I'm just shaking my head at the insanity of it all. So far (to date) Texas, a state larger than Germany (1.95x baby!) with millions upon millions of people, a vast immigrant population, and loads of opportunity for someone to feed me good shish, has taken in 250 Syrians. That's shameful just because I could have almost funded that out of my own pocket
It's all bullshit *waves hands in the air*