Refugee immigration from countries that support Islam has increased dramatically. These people that leave their homelands usually bring baggage they rather not share. For some it is legitimate. But for many it is a hidden agenda to live their way of life to wherever they go.
Europe has become an open door to these later groups. They move in and then do their own thing. Usually that means rape and murder.
They terrorize regular citizens around them. And the governments do nothing to end the nightmares their own people suffer.
However, South Korea is not giving refugees that luxury. They actually have standards in who can cross-over to live. And it appears to be working for them.
In what may turn out to be the most sensible refugee policy of all time, the South Korean government has announced that out of the many applications it has received from people claiming refugee status, since 2014, it has actually only granted three people this right.
Contrary to what the media would have you believe, “refugee status” is not an international standard as in fact defined by the nation itself. In nations that are members of the European Union for example, a refugee can be someone who is not only escaping war, but someone who is escaping poverty, hence the literally millions of economic migrants entering Europe under the refugee placement scheme.
But South Korea has a different definition. It actually doesn’t automatically class as refugees people leaving their nation for reasons of civil war. So for a Syrian “Refugee” to receive that status, it requires something more than just turning up (usually without paperwork) and demanding asylum.
According to the spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, there have been grave concerns over the safety of South Korean females because of the risk of Syrian Muslims entering the country. They believe that an increase in Syrian males would lead to an increase in sexual assault as they have witnessed in Europe. “Judging by what we see in Europe, we would prefer to protect our women, rather than potentially place them at risk.”
Seems sensible enough, doesn’t it?