• I believe they would be more at risk because the hate needed for terrorism would have more places to hide and fester, and since the country is an intergrated one the government would not be able to act and lance that particular infection without breaking it's own laws.
  • Of course. American and European countries must cope with the problem of civil liberties and those who may use them as a shield for terrorist activities. The perpetrators of the 9/11 terror attack had been in the U.S. for years,...taking flight training classes. They lived and moved here as freely as any citizen. Today, descrimination in visas and immigration is not "bigotry". It is common sense. We (our government) would be incredible fools to allow the same scenario to occur again.
  • Unknown. I do not see how such would apply, considering that most terrorists in the East, have no problem attacking their own countrymen.
  • No, by treating minority groups kindly, we reduce that risk. By treating them badly, we radicalize them and make them receptive to the terrorists messages. +5
  • Possibly, yes. Because it causes them to more easily become fragmented and lose their identity, lose their focus. Which would make them more vulnerable. That is obviously the modus operandi of some entities/bodies.
  • Yes, France is an example.
  • Of course.
  • Integration is not bad if those who come into the nation actually integrate into that society. It's when the immigrants refuse to integrate that the problems occur.
  • Yes, it is. It allows people to enter with little to no discrimination, and some immigrants only want to cause trouble. It is wise to ban people from nations that have many terrorists. Japan bans Muslims, and so does Poland. Some other nations do as well.
  • maybe, i think everyone is at risk

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy