The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is trying to develop “alternative safe pathways” and “innovative approaches” for Syrian refugees seeking admission to the United States.  According to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies, they have a willing partner in the Obama administration.  The State Department has already pledged to up refugee numbers by 40% in the next fiscal year compared with the last one.  The eventual goal is to obtain some form of permanent residence for 480,000 Syrians who have fled the war.

Some of the “alternative” pathways seem to entail dropping the security and background checks that the Obama administration has promised.  For example, one of the proposed programs is devoting our student visas to Syrians instead of to those who qualify for such visas by the ordinary competitive route.  While that would deny our universities the best students the world has to offer, it is a process that usually lacks the security checks aimed at terrorist connections.  The list of required documents does not include the information that security professionals would need to do an effective background check, such as a list of all of your previous addresses and the names of all of your family members.

The existing process for refugees is already too lax, as proven by the dozens of refugees admitted to the United States who have been arrested on terror charges just this year.  Security is running behind both in the United States and in Europe, where one of the Brussels bombers proved to have been allowed to work inside the EU’s Parliamentary building. Germany has been actively raiding the homes of immigration critics, further suppressing public debate on the dangers being courted by our governments.  The risks are not limited to the countries in Europe.  Those admitted to many Western countries, as well as some countries like Singapore, can enter the United States without even needing a visa.

Meanwhile, it is worth remembering that the most serious danger posed by refugees comes with their children.  Second-generation Muslim immigrants have proven much more susceptible to radicalization than their parents.

That a first generation of Muslim immigrants is often succeeded by a radical second generation has been documented by Foreign Policy, PBS, and by statisticians in Denmark.  The first generation came to America or to Europe for reasons they felt strongly enough to make the move.  They understood they were electing to move to a society that was less Islamic, and accepted the trade off.  Their children, born in the West, did not experience the realities that made their parents leave the old world.  They reject the laws and customs of their new society as being opposed to their Islamic identity.  The Danish statistics found that second-generation Muslim immigrants are 218% more inclined to crime than their parents’ generation.

While we do not wish to condemn potential Muslim immigrants simply for being Muslims, this fact of second-generation radicalization is very important.  Our programs to prevent such radicalization have proven complete failures.  Until we have a better understanding of how to prevent such radicalization, Islamic immigration represents a bigger challenge than other forms.  That’s a truth we have to admit even if it is unpalatable.