Summary:
While ISIS continues their push into Syria, many governors have come out against admitting refugees into their states. Govenor Greg Abbott of Texas claimed “Security comes first” and he demanded “the U.S. act similarly.” These governors have ordered their state bureaucracies to not cooperate with federal relocation programs, citing the cost of it and possible terrorist risks. In the light of the recent Paris attack, their fears are not unfounded, as several of the perpetrators seem to have entered France amongst the refugees. However, Europe’s refugees are drastically different than the ones the White House plan to admit to the United States. For starters, they are thoroughly vetted by the UN, then by the FBI, and finally by the Department of Defense. The United States will also be admitting families only, while most of Europe’s refugees are young males. Given all of these factors, it is highly unlikely that the refugees will pose any risk. Furthermore, they are not entering by the millions, but the hundreds. Since 2012, the US has only admitted 1500 refugees, although the White House plans to admit 10,000 more by the end of 2016. However, these are paltry sums when you consider that over 200,000 Vietnamese and 100,000 Cuban refugees were admitted in 1979-1980. Given this historical background, the situation seems fairly ridiculous; we are not talking about states closing its borders to hundreds of thousands of desperate refugees, but rather Mississippi turning away all 3 people who might want to live there.
Questions:
Should the United States admit Syrian refugees at all?
If not, what should be done about them?
If so, should the United States admit more? Canada has committed to 25,000 refugees. If the federal government were to match that figure proportionally, it would have to admit around 250,000 refugees. Do you think it should admit that many?
Should the states have the authority to say no to federal relocation programs?
Should the US do more to protect Syria from ISIS, thereby eliminating the refugee crisis at the stem?
Should the US do more to protect Syria from ISIS, thereby eliminating the refugee crisis at the stem?
If the United States want to keep their reputation as the "world's policeman", they should accept some refugees. 250,000 seems like a lot of refugees, so the only concern is if they have a comforatble place to go and if we can accomodate them resource wise. Of course the United States should take care of ISIS, on top of all the other bad things ISIS does, we simply can't stand a constant stream of refugees into the States.
ReplyDeleteIf the United States want to keep their reputation as the "world's policeman", they should accept some refugees. 250,000 seems like a lot of refugees, so the only concern is if they have a comforatble place to go and if we can accomodate them resource wise. Of course the United States should take care of ISIS, on top of all the other bad things ISIS does, we simply can't stand a constant stream of refugees into the States.
ReplyDeleteUntil last week, no citizens complained about the homelessness problem in the United States or made any excuses about why we should accept Syrian refugees. Now suddenly because of the terror attacks in Paris people don't want to accept refugees. I understand that people are scared that there is potentially a lot of dangerous people coming to the United States. But in reality, a LARGE majority of the refugees that would come here are nice, law abiding citizens who have been unjustifiably displaced by a corrupt government and precarious rebel forces. The United States doesn't have the right to deny hostel to these displaced people due to the actions of radicals.
ReplyDeleteI believe that instead of forcing Europe to bear the weight of allowing the refugees to enter their countries, the United States should except some of responsibility itself. Honestly, although I sympathize with the refugees' position, I don't believe any one nation has any sort of obligation to let them inside their national borders. If the US were to admit the refugees, they should do so gradually and monitor them heavily or they could run the risk of facing tragic incidents similar to the attacks in Paris. Federal relocation programs would be most effective if they included some way that individuals or corporate entities could sponsor the refugees. I find it difficult to comment on the situation in Syria because while it could potentially be another waste of manpower and resource for the United States, the US has already decided they couldn't let it escalate any further.
ReplyDeleteI believe that instead of forcing Europe to bear the weight of allowing the refugees to enter their countries, the United States should except some of responsibility itself. Honestly, although I sympathize with the refugees' position, I don't believe any one nation has any sort of obligation to let them inside their national borders. If the US were to admit the refugees, they should do so gradually and monitor them heavily or they could run the risk of facing tragic incidents similar to the attacks in Paris. Federal relocation programs would be most effective if they included some way that individuals or corporate entities could sponsor the refugees. I find it difficult to comment on the situation in Syria because while it could potentially be another waste of manpower and resource for the United States, the US has already decided they couldn't let it escalate any further.
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt, we should be accepting these Syrian refugees. I am not sure about how many refugees we should be accepting, but I think that the 10,000 refugees is a good start. I think that because we have only accepted 1,500 in the past few years, 250,000 might be too big of a jump for the public to deal with. Clearly, the public is already upset about possibly accepting more refugees, and not without reason. Fear is a powerful tool that these terrorists in France have not just used against France and Europe, but America too. So the fear is understandable, but should not prevent us from being good people. The states should have the right to voice their opinions against the federal government decisions, but they need to follow the supreme law of the land (the federal government). I am not sure what the US should be doing about Syria; I don't know enough about the situation to make an educated decision. However, I do think that we should focus a little more on the situation at hand there, in order to help the refugees and the citizens.
ReplyDeleteBeing a part of ISIS doesn't mean that you are only a male. Families can be a part of ISIS. If the United States were to allow refugees to come into the country, I believe that they should all get a background check. ISIS is a terrorist organization that will do anything to kill citizens to increase fear. Whether it is using children or women, ISIS will find ways to infiltrate the US security system. Before focusing on the refugees, I believe that we should focus on the thousands of homeless veterans who have fought for our country. It is great that we care about the Syrian refugees, but considering economic benefits, it doesn't help the US at all. In fact it will burden us even more. In order to stop the refugee problem, US must take more drastic measures to defeat ISIS. There needs to be more bombing campaigns and instilling fear in the terrorists. In 1911, General Black Jack Pershing rid the Philippines extremism by executing a group of Muslim terrorists and burying them in a grave filled with pig's blood and entrails. The terrorists fear being contaminated by pigs because they are considered filthy, thus they cannot die in peace. This action stopped terrorism for 50 years in the region. The General's tactic might not be ethical, but drastic measures must be done to prevent further losses.
ReplyDeleteI think that the US should be open to admitting refugees. I know there is the argument about homelessness in the United states already, but the unfortunate truth is that poverty is intrinsically ingrained into our economic and political system. As such, we should readily aid people in need. The United States is still a powerful country and has the ability to make a difference in this issue. There needs to be a limit, as is the case with these issues, so as Malia said, something along the lines of 10,000 is good. That would be significant enough to see a real impact.
ReplyDeleteI think that the US should be open to admitting refugees. I know there is the argument about homelessness in the United states already, but the unfortunate truth is that poverty is intrinsically ingrained into our economic and political system. As such, we should readily aid people in need. The United States is still a powerful country and has the ability to make a difference in this issue. There needs to be a limit, as is the case with these issues, so as Malia said, something along the lines of 10,000 is good. That would be significant enough to see a real impact.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all the statement about the attackers entering paris with the refugees is misleading. They were citizens of the european union and could have entered the country on their own at any point in time. The chances of terrorists coming in with the refugees is extremely thin. Beyond that we would only be admitting a fraction of those who apply to take refuge in the US, and those few would only be admitted after extensive checks on their background and intentions. Even if the chances were higher, I think it would still be a chance we need to take to help those in desperate need.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the United States, and any country, should accept Syrian refugees based on ability. The Syrian situation is obviously a unique situation that is unlike anything the world has seen in a long time. The US should accept as many refugees as possible, as should every country that can. If countries did enact this kind of mindset, there most likely would not be such a serious refugee problem. The ISIS problem, however, is much more complex. At the moment, there is no clear solution to ISIS, and I don't believe there ever will be one without risking lives.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. should accept refugees if they intend to have any credible say in Syrian politics. The U.S. is not accepting the millions that Europe is. I do believe that screening is necessary to minimize the risk that these refugees may pose, but states should not have the right to refuse them altogether.
ReplyDeleteI think the United States should accept Syrian refugees because of the situations and conditions that they are facing at home. While I understand why some Americans may be fearful and wary about accepting the refugees, screening refugees may help with their safety concerns. I think 250,000 refugees may be a little much because I don't know if we have all the resources to support the refugees.
ReplyDeleteThe United States should admit Syrian refugees because of the fact that they are getting away from an unsafe environment. The fact that we have the ability to accept them should be enough to open our arms for more refugees. I understand that there might be a lot of worry especially with the amount of terrorism that has occurred in recent years, but there is a decent amount of screening that the Syrian refugees would go through in order for them to be admitted in the first place. This should deter the few refugees that might have bad intentions if any and still allow the many that need safety to get the treatment that they strive for.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Drake. The United States was a nation built under the principles of people from different parts of the world coming together for a common good cause. I would be unfair to not let Syrian refugees into our country if they have been examined in a thorough background check. As Drake once said, "Love all. Trust a few. Do wrong to none." It would be doing wrong to not give these people a chance as they have few other options to turn to. These people need the help of the United States and need it now.
DeleteAmerica should admit refugees because that is what obama had promised and what our America is. if we admit refugees, the number should not be a problem to the country, but the safety is. Every one comes into America without backgroung check will be a threat of all the Americans. State should have rights to refuse the refugees to come into their state because this is not a supreme court decision and not all the states are capable to accept big amount of refugees. US should do more and being expected to do more because they have involed into middle east once. Also, to help out syria from ISIS will solve the problem of refugees.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the United States should allow Syrian refugees, based on their background, the right to stay in our country. Our country's success has been built on a foundation of hard working immigrants to make their American Dream alive. No one should be restricted from their dreams because of a common misperception and assumptions based on their ethnicity and religion. The atrocities that continue to occur in Syrian has resulted in many Syrians war torn and no access to a functioning society. The US, and in fact the world, should accept refugees. The number of refugees should be based on the country size and if the country can support them for a period of time while the background check will help understand if the individuals have good intentions. To solve the Syrian and ISIS, we must retrieve as many refugees as possible to clear the area so we can go into Syria without harming civilians. Also, we must educate Western Culture to understand the difference between Islam and terrorist. As more people understand this concept, the hype of ISIS will diminish and it will be easier to stop them!
ReplyDeleteThe United States should make efforts to admit as many refugees as we can hold. However, we should not have to compete with other countries to admit as many refugees as possible. It is not competition of who can be the most hospitable to the refugees but more a test of compassion to admit the refugees, regardless of how many a country admits compared to its neighbors. Attempting to make a direct move on ISIS in Syria to aid the refugees would be foolish. There is not a single base of ISIS operations that could be pinpointed and attacked. ISIS can not be eliminated by a string of military moves, it would take years to track and eliminate them.
ReplyDeleteThe US should most definitely be accepting refugees. However, in the face of many hostile people in opposition to opening doors to refugees, 250k might be too large a starting number.
ReplyDeleteIt is understandable that some might fear the effect of refugees in their states in light of the terrorist attacks in 2016. Although the states should have the right to voice their opinions against the federal government decisions, they need to follow the supreme law of the land. If the federal government makes a decision on the refugee crisis, the states shouldnt be rebelling in such a way. I believe US' main mission at the moment should still be aiding the relocation of refugees. The current state of affairs place thousands of refugees in a dangerous predicament if refuge is not secured, as seen by the photographs of the hundreds of dead children washing up on shore.
Despite the recent events, the US should admit refugees to the United States. It is unfair to the Syrian people if we accept refugees from other countries, but not theirs because of the attacks that recently occurred. If we wish to close our borders to them, it is only fair if we do so with all other countries. However, in terms of numbers, smaller is better at this point in time. Many people are upset and sending in 500,000 refugees would probably be pushing it; 10,000 is a good start.
ReplyDeleteI think that America should open itself to more of this latest wave of refugees. America is known for being the policeman of the world by intervening militarily. Allowing refugees into the states would be an excellent opportunity for America to be the policeman and do something good without getting militarily involved. Also, historically the United States has reason to feel better about the refugees it has admitted than about those it has turned away. America is still incredibly frowned upon for disallowing the Jewish refugees from Nazi-dominated Europe to admit when there was still time.
ReplyDeleteI think the US should be allowing refugees into the country in order to be just and fair. The US has a reputation of giving people a new start with opportunities and achieving the "American Dream". Since some Americans are adamant about the allowing refugees in, I think it is only appropriate that the government does background checks and screenings in order to ensure the safety of the nation and its people. At this point in time, I do not think it is smart to allow 250,000 refugees in given that the US may not have the resources nor the support of the people.
ReplyDeleteThe United States should certainly admit more refugees. These people have lost so many things already, including their homes, former lives, and possibly loved ones. They should not lose their opportunity for a new life in America. Not admitting refugees seems to be a selfish act. I believe that America should admit as many refugees as it can, and matching Canada's number proportionally only seems fair. Right now, because we are admitting so few refugees, we cannot say we are doing our part or even our best to help these people, and that is just sad. I believe that the states should comply with federal relocation programs, as it is only to help relocate refugees. I also believe that the U.S should do more to try and stop ISIS, possibly by being more aggressive with foreign policy, coming to an agreement with the United Nations, or other tactics. This war needs to come to an end.
ReplyDeleteBeing from Massachusetts, the map disgusts me. Countries all over Europe and even France are accepting these poor and tired people. This just proves the stereotype that all American are rednecks. These people have been through a lot and just getting away from Syria is a task in itself so why would we not accept people who are just looking for a better place to live. There is no evidence that these people could be terrorists but people like Donald Trump, are making people this crisis even worse. After reading this article i am ashamed and disgusted to call myself an American. the United States is a country of immigrants and now that people think we should deny them access is just plan ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThe United States should accept some refugees, but have a strict cap of how many they are letting in. In my opinion, around 10,000 is a good number to start off. We have to acknowledge, however, that we are taking a form of a leap of faith in regards to these refugees. There is no doubt that almost all of the refugees are good people, but it only takes a few to potentially launch an attack on our soil. However, the risk is extremely small, small enough to allow some refugees into the U.S
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the United States should definitely accept these Syrian refugees. These people are trying to escape the dangers of their home and it would be cruel, and un-American, to not accept them. I am not really sure how many refugees the United States should be accepting, but I believe starting with a relatively small amount of them would be a good start (maybe 5,000-ish). I think by bringing them in a little bit at a time would make it easier for US citizens and for Syrian refugees to quickly be accustomed. In addition, there are many Americans who are upset that the US is accepting more Syrian refugees, so if we suddenly bring in a lot, the US would be expecting protest and disapproval of the government’s decision (as if there isn't already). I think that the states should have the authority to deny federal relocation programs, but I think if it is in a state of emergency (like it is now), I think it should be required. Considering the fact that the US has already placed ISIS as a top priority, I believe that the US is already putting its best foot forward.
ReplyDelete