Simon: If you look at e.g. Denmark or Norway the path to citizenship is very long and hard and the idea is to send the refugees back again when things stabilize (refugee politics in Scandinavia has changed a lot the past years, except Sweden).
We need to clarify the argument: There is both the (immediate) concern about letting refugees in as it relates to safety (terrorism, crime and unrest) and there is the long-term concern (25 years).
Our discussion last week was mostly centered on the immediate concern (safety), which is where e.g. the experience of Denmark & Norway is immediately relevant IMO. What do you think?
Then there is the long-term question. This is a much more complicated question, but again I think it is useful to use European experience, but noting that refugee policy has changed to become much stricter over the past 10 years (and rightly so). I agree that Mohlenbeck or the suburbs of Paris should not be imitated, but the immigration that is currently happening in the US is minuscule relative to what lead to those and there are (likely) difference in the refugee populations.
I think a better example is the experience of Scandinavia with Turks in the 70s. There was a fairly large immigration, however Turks are not insofar as I am aware very disproportionally represented in the criminal statistics today.