A major objection to my argument has to do with the safety.
Paul Ryan said “We think the prudent, responsible thing is to take a pause on this particular aspect of this refugee program until we have a more reliable process.” Donald Trump suspended admittance of all Syrian refugees.
Peter Bergen, a CNN National Security Analyst, has written on the failure of this argument regarding Syrian refugees:
First of all the ISIS terrorist would have to travel to a refugee camp in a country like Jordan or Lebanon or Turkey, joining the 4 million other Syrian refugees outside Syria.
Then he or she would have to be among those selected from the relatively tiny number of 23,000 refugees that the United Nations agency for refugees has flagged to the United States to be worthy for consideration to be admitted. Then he would have to be among the only 10,000 Syrian refugees the States is planning to admit next year .
An ISIS fighter will more than likely be an able-bodied male. The vast majority of people who are accepted into the US are women, children, the sick and elderly. Only 2% of the people admitted into the US are military-aged males 18-30. The statistical odds are just too slim.
Another point worth considering is, as we detailed in a previous post on December 30, 2016, Syrian refugees are subject to heightened screening. Why would a terrorist take a route that would subject him to such heightened screening?
There is always a risk when you engage in any act. There is the risk of making a medical condition worse by surgery or getting into a car crash while driving. In this case we are required to weigh the benefits of admitting refugees and immigrates to the danger they might pose to the citizenry.
What guidance can history provide? The US admitted 2 million refugees since 1990. Just 0.0002 percent of refugees turned out to be terrorists. Imagine how much more confident you would be in taking a flight if you had those odds of getting into a plane crash.