The debate "Should we take in more Syrian refugees" was started by
March 8, 2017, 6:51 am.
4 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Pugsly posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
PsychDave, syed_01, thereal and 1 visitor agree.
Pugsly, mmjd14, human and 3 visitors disagree.
We absolutely need to national destabilizing the region, but that won't immediately help the people already displaced by the conflict.
Look at Sweden! No we need to stop destabilizing their country.
although I agree with everything you said, I think that our discussion of this issue often overlooks the effect on our security of refusing them, or sending them back.
While it is theoretically possible for ISIS to sneak someone in as a refugee, it is very unlikely.
First there is a thorough, time consuming vetting process. While this can never be 100% guaranteed, it has proven to be effective so far.
Second there is the sheer volume of refugees. There are more than 10 million refugees either displaced within Syria or already in camps elsewhere having fled. Since 2011,the is has taken in about 18,000. That means 0.18% have been allowed to come to the US. If you were planning to attack, would you like those odds of your fighters sitting idle for years and possibly never getting to their target?
Finally, there are easier ways for them to infiltrate that actually include less vetting. First is the obvious, already have fighters in the US. That is what we have seen with homegrown attackers. Second is to choose easier targets. There are land and sea routes to Europe that are substantially easier to move people through, so why bother trying to get through to the US? Finally, they can come as tourists and travelers. There is some screening for tourists, but no where near as time consuming or intensive as that of refugees. They have access to fake passports and documents, as we have already seen, so the easiest way to get into the US would be to fake a Saudi passport and bypass not only the refugee process but the "travel ban" ad well.
All things told, the refugee process is one of the hardest, most time consuming ways they could pick to try to get fighters into the US. With easier methods and targets available, why would they bench fighters for years for a slim chance to get to the US?
there is certainly the potential of a threat, but that is why Obama already Instituted extreme vetting, and thus far, 0 external attacks, and 0 slip through extemeists.
also, do you feel that sending them back would have no effect on our security?
Some type of solution should be worked out. ISIS might come in through refugees.
i feel lucky that iam not from Syria or Iraq or middle east.
what about you?