There's an intriguing article on counter-terrorism at StrategyPage. Here's an excerpt.
Since 2015 European nations have been comparing information on known Islamic terrorists with the lists of the most recent Moslem refugees it had accepted and has found more and more asylum seekers with Islamic terrorism backgrounds. This is most common in countries that accept these refugees via a UN resettlement program.
. . .
There are other reasons why Western nations are increasingly reluctant to accept refugees from Moslem nations, especially Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. One reason is that the UN has shown itself incapable of screening out refugees likely to be Islamic terrorists or supporters of Islamic terrorism. Then there is the fact that the UN rarely recommends Syrian and Iraqi Christian refugees for resettlement in the West despite the fact that these non-Moslem refugees have the most to fear from Islamic terrorism. The United States also noted that among the first thousand Middle Eastern refugees it accepted only two were Christian and all the rest were Moslem. Further investigation (often by journalists or other non-government groups) found that the UN run refugee camps were dominated by Islamic radicals who not only persecuted non-Moslem refugees but coerced the UN officials to select refugees for resettlement that were approved by the Islamic radical thugs.
Refugee camps worldwide, whether they are administered by the UN or not, tend to be terrorized by local criminals and when Moslem refugees are the majority the gangs tend to be run by Islamic terrorists or other Islamic radicals. These groups control the selection of refugees for admission to Western nations despite the fact that the camp administrators assure Western nations that the refugees they recommend are screened to eliminate criminals and Islamic terrorists. In fact the gangs that dominate the camps often sell “approval” to refugees who can pay, even if the payment is supplied by criminal gangs or Islamic terror groups. Western countries, like the United States, that insist on doing their own screening are accused of racism or anti-Moslem bias. While this independent screening keeps many criminals and Islamic terrorists out of the “racist” Western countries the gangs have been able to continue controlling, and selling, access to Western nations that accept the UN run screening and letting the more affluent (and capable) criminals and Islamic terrorists to bribe their way in.
There's more at the link.
FBI Director James Comey recently admitted that the USA cannot screen most of the Syrian refugees it intends to admit to its shores. Now it seems we can't even be sure that they're the most deserving of sanctuary, or have been adequately screened in their refugee camps before selection to come here.
Mr. Trump's call for a temporary halt to Muslim immigration, until we can understand this problem and find solutions to it, seems to make more and more sense in the light of revelations such as those from StrategyPage. I'd also like to know whether there's any spillover between radical Muslim hatred of this country, and radicalized domestic groups such as those responsible for the current wave of violence directed against police. The two groups do have certain contact points in common. For example, in my work as a prison chaplain, I was aware of efforts by radicalized Muslim inmates to recruit others to their faith, and use that as a springboard to radicalize them in their turn. Food for thought, that . . .