Should America accept Syrian refugees?

Yes.

Emma Lazarus stated it with eloquence.

@canidmajor said it very well.

Please elaborate. How do we accept those and make sure there’s no terrorist disguised as an innocent? Some argue that.

@chelle21689 they do have to go through a pretty hard screening process to make sure that isn’t going to happen, for your country and mine(canada) .
And your right because of the Paris events and the rumour one might have slipped in posing as a refugee has people up in arms.
But if we slam the door shut on these people who are trying to escape terror themselves ,then the real terrorists win.
Lets just make sure our Governments do not get lax with the screening process and all will be fine.

I could see another holocaust/genocide starting.

There are so many ways for a terrorist to get into a country with literally thousands of miles of undefended borders that abandoning all compassion and the basic tenets upon which this country was founded would be silly and ineffective.

Nice answer @canidmajor you and I don’t agree on much, but totally with you on this one.

How do we make sure anyone isn’t a terrorist disguised as an innocent?

Through proper screening of course. @Darth_Algar

Right.

How do we make sure every white guy near a school isn’t the one who will slaughter children?
We can’t, of course. We just do the best we are capable of.
Such a closely scrutinized group is less likely to successfully cover for terrorists than a car full of tourists crossing the border into Minnesota.

Benjamin Franklin said it well:
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

Of course.

There are easier ways then applying as a refugee. Clean criminal record, passport, and Expedia will do the trick. I am fairly certain that if ISIS wanted they could get ten people with valid European passports to hop on a plane over here.

I looked into housing a Syrian family, but found the US government doesn’t want them to share a residence. The government also wants the relocated families to be close to their field offices. Since we live 160 miles from the closest, we failed that retirement as well.

Yes, of course.

Yes, because otherwise, we might as well sink the Statue of Liberty.

Yes, if the past two decades Uncle Sam would have minded his own bees wax and dealt with much needed problems here at home, they would not be trying to escape.

Ack! That should have read “requirement”. You can see where my head is.

no, not up there.

If people want the greatest amount of reassurance that no terrorists are slipping through there’s a simple limitation which could go a long way.

Eliminate any single men under the age of 25 (or 30). This is the demographic from which violent Jihadis recruit their terrorists/suicide bombers.

Women and children are the real vulnerable ones in this whole mess so they should be given first priority. And what are the chances that their husbands and fathers are going to be volunteering for suicide missions ? Theyre not. They have a wife and kids depending upon them.

(I suppose one could argue that’s not foolproof, but what really is? At some point, you have to use some common sense in making judgement calls and common sense says that ISIS isn’t focusing upon guys with dependents to try to talk into strapping on a bomb vest. It’s a whole lot easier to focus on young single guys with little to lose.)

And let’s face it, historically that’s been overwhelmingly the primary demographic of terrorists.

So, it’s not necessarily a perfect solution but I believe we would be a whole lot safer if young single males are at the absolute end of the line (and only if they can be verified with certainty)

The ease with which one of the French terrorists slipped through in October rightfully has people alarmed. So, just eliminating young single males may not exactly be all PC but it does make an awful lot of sense. Besides, young single guys can survive in a refugee camp a whole lot easier than Mothers trying to care for children.

Right now there are currently 28 states unwilling to take any refugees. I think that number could be significantly lessened if they realized that it’s primarily Mothers and children to whom they are extending mercy rather than potential terrorists.

But I’m assuming there will be the PC outcry about “discrimination” so I don’t forsee that becoming part of the policy and the number of states refusing ANY refugees will likely remain the same or increase. And that’s really a shame because the problem is not with Muslims in general but with violent Jihadists.

Separating out the demographic of those most likely to participate in terrorism makes much more sense than just excluding them all. Unfortunately it makes far too much sense to be ever enacted. What a shame.

We absolutely should, yes.

Europe is taking in the Syrian refugees, which is nearer to Syria, by the way. The EU countries could share the loads among them. So America should get out of the way.

Just out of Paris:

One of the suspected terrorists blew herself up with a suicide vest, officials said.

Can’t resist, but I think another quote works here, from Martin Niemöller (1892–1984), a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

I post this today because I have seen a number of things this morning talking about why we should not take in refugees. So many people saying “My heart breaks for the refugees, but I am more worried about the possibility of a potential for maybe some danger…”
Gotta wonder. Do these people also say that to avoid helping their neighbors during floods? I shovel the walk of the old lady down the street when it snows. I could get hurt.
The stories of help and the heroism, at great personal risk to themselves, of ordinary citizens during Katrina and Sandy were legion and uplifting. If Americans can help strangers when they know there is personal danger, can we show no less compassion to the refugees?

Really, this is obvious. This isn’t about safety. It is pretty much racism. And it is totally easy way to be publicly racist with very little downfall. Look at a map of the Governors wanting to outlaw Syrian refugees. There is a trend there.

Yes, we should!

Yes. All countries that can should.

Yes. These people are fleeing killers. We absolutely need to accept them, and welcome them into our society. I am dismayed by some Republican governors and GOP candidates who are talking about refusing these refugees—forgetting what this country is all about and how it has been built and sustained.

@johnpowell I just did that a few minutes before I read this thread. There aren’t even any outliers! How on earth did Mass get a red governor?

When we do screenings what do they even look for?

Yes.

Note: State governors have no legal power to deny refuge to these people—that’s a federal thing—but they can use this as an excuse to further cut programs to the needy by denying the refugees State services after they arrive.

Are peas and beans in the same family?