Despite seeming innocent the child could be dangerous because their parents could have influenced the child in a negative manner. The child could be carrying guns or bombs or anything that harm another person. Again, no matter the age of the person they could still be a threat. This may sound superfluous but in times of hopelessness and peril it is perfectly reasonable.
Yes because if they let in a five year old, it shows weakness and not showing a strong stance on the ban. Then the administration could make exceptions, then letting in six year olds, seven, ten, twelve. Soon people will realize that everyone is being let in. That is why there needs to be a strong line in that NO person from a specific region is entering.
They might be five years old, but they can still pose security risks. The child could be innocent, but an adult can get a child to do things that cause a security risk. In Afghanistan they take children, fit them with a bomb vest, and brainwash them into thinking that they won't die, only there target will. You never know what could happen. Better safe than sorry.
Yes, he could have been told to do something illegal. I am not doubting his innocence, however, I am doubting others innocence. You can never be too safe! If we trust a five-year-old, where should we draw the line? 7..8...9? You need to think it through in order to be as safe as possible.
Anybody can pose a possible threat to security, no matter the age. Many instances have occurred where a bomb, drugs, illegal weapons, etc., have been strapped onto a child body. There's a reason why the evil adults choose children, because who would possibly think such a thing would be strapped on a child. Well, it does happen.
The American sniper once sniped a child that was manipulated by adults into becoming a threat by physically wearing bombs. Chris Kyle yolo'ed on that poor kids face to save other people who were going to become victims of war-torn terrorism had he not blown the kids body to smitherines. The kid could've known and not cared, or not known. Children are easy to manipulate, especially when it is their loved ones, the ones they trust, manipulating them
While I think the reasoning for them detaining the child was unfair, a 5 year old can pose a security risk. First off, what 5 year old can travel alone? If their guardian has evil intention, they can hide the bomb, drugs, etc. in one of the kid's suitcases, shoes, in their shirt, etc. because they're a child and no one will expect that. The child can also be raised into believing evil is good, and therefore also pose a security threat to a place, even if the threat is just kicking a bunch of white security guards
The Debate Question is unclear, since it is not specified if the five-year old is travelling alone or with an Adult. Of course, on their own, it would not seem like a five year old would pose a security risk. However, if traveling with adults that may be a suspect in some way, then in all likelihood a five-year old remains with the adult as immigration checks the security risks..
I'd say it's extremely easy for a terrorist to place an explosive in a child's attire or backpack without them being suspicious. Why? Because they wouldn't know any better than to allow the device to be placed on them. It's not their fault, but the attacker's fault - meaning they shouldn't be chastised.
I do suppose under certain circumstances that the child could be aware, but that'd be hard to prove.
This question is designed to ignore the opinions in favor of stronger border protection. The question is not whether or not a five year old can commit a terrorist attack, but a matter of whether or not we should allow immigrants to blatantly ignore the laws of the land. And yes, a child could be a link for a terrorist, or be a pawn, but that is not the issue.
"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself". In a time where we cower from the "what if", this quote is more important than ever. A five year old boy who is a US citizen was detained and reportedly handcuffed. That is unbelievably abhorrent. I want to see the rest of the world's reaction to this.
If you detain a 5 year old all you are really showing is how fearful and weak your defenses are. It is a shame that a country is fearful of a young innocent child. Yes i agree they could have influences from the outside and you can be weary of that. Just keep a close eye on the child if you are so afraid. Who else are you going to ban? Infants, Toddlers, disabled people. I'm not saying neither of these people don't pose a threat but look at the rationality of everything.
Perhaps the child could have lived in a dangerous environment for the beginning of his years it doesn't put in risk a whole nation. We are talking about a child innocence is going through him, of course he has to follow all the procedures but USA should guard the child in honor of his innocence
Of course, there is a risk for everything, but an innocent child? The world has become so jaded and cynical because of 9/11 and these tragic events that seem to happen almost everyday. However, we cannot live in fear, that is no way to live. If we continue to be cynical over children, more situations like Alan Kurdi will happen. We should not let the wrongdoings of some people be a determining factor for everyone else, especially not children. We need to stop blaming everyone for the actions of a few.
They're literally five year olds. It doesn't matter if they will do what adults tell them to do; they're just kids, and in an event where the parent hides drugs/weapons in their clothing/baggage, why should the kid be detained? Why not the parent? Children are just children; they don't willingly do these things. We need to stop being paranoid over immigrants, and we need to focus on our interior problems instead. Education, the economy, and healthcare are all bigger problems than the recent influx of immigration, and yet we have a migrating five year old detained. It doesn't make sense.
Although there is a chance a 5 year old could have unknowingly been tricked or manipulated into caring out baddie's tasks, it is most unlikely. They should simply be scanned and checked but not detained. That is just plain weird. Come on! A 5 year old would never pose a security risk, they are however naive and easily tricked so the possibility (for anything) should be considered, mildly.
The question is only about the kid. Not his family. NO. The 5 year old cannot be a security risk. You know what's a security risk? Making ISIS desperate. When they come, and they will, they're gonna hit hard.
Pass every human through a security check. Don't detain for spite is what I'd say.
A simple body scan should eliminate a five year old from being a potential threat, there is no need for him to be detained. I understand that if a potential threat goes through the airport thousands of lives are instantly at risk. That does not mean common sense needs to be thrown out of the window. Officials could have simply checked the boy and his baggage without detaining and traumatizing him.
This is getting way out of control and now we are treating children as if they were terrorists. Immigration officials need to re-examine what they are doing because they are creating way more damage than actually resolving any real issues. They are turning America into dictatorship and the rest of the world will finally see how racist America really is.