Okay, going to post something that will probably be considered very controversial. I lived in Paris in the mid nineties, and experienced the horror
of the St. Michelle Metro attacks. My husband and I helped and watched the emergency crews carrying the victims out on stretchers. In reaction to the
attacks there was a strong movement for a more stringent vetting of migrants, refugees, etc.
It was proposed that all migrants, refugees and first generation migrants would have to leave the country and reapply, that they would have psych
exams and would have to have a French sponsor who was not of ME or African descent write a character reference and guarantee that the person would not
commit any crimes. If said person committed any crimes the sponsor would share the same jail sentence.
I know, pretty intense, right? But that was the sentiments at the time. Perhaps Europe should revisit this method in a watered down version? For
A 6 month warning that this will begin:
1. The migrants, refugees and 1st generation do not have to leave but must report for a psych exam to see how well they have assimilated into
society, i.e. learning the language, getting involved in local events, etc.
2. A sponsor not of ME or African descent and who is a citizen of said country would write a character reference and guarantee that the migrant will
not commit any crimes and if they do commit a crime the sponsor will share the same jail sentence.
3. The sponsor can only sponsor one family.
4. If it is found the migrants/refugees are not assimilating or if any family member has committed a crime the whole family is deported to whatever
their country of origin is. Even if it was a generation ago. Any property that was owned will be sold and the funds sent to the migrant/refugee.
Some sort of guidelines are needed, if not the above then what?
Okay, there ya go, attack me in 3 . . .2 . . .1 . . .
edit on 22-3-2016 by seentoomuch because: (no reason given)