It only takes 1. Refugee Fear.

How can people not be afraid of Syrian refugees? How can people be criticized for not wanting to accept them?

If it only takes 1 in a thousand of them to be a radical islamist, then isn't that enough reason to not risk bringing them in. That one person can find a way to do a terrorist act and kill and harm others.

So why are we obliged to accept Syrian refugees?

 

It would only take one with a fake passport to fly in to the US, so why not cancel all international flights.

It would only take one to drive over the border from Canada, so why not close the northern borders.

It would only take one to sneak in on a private boat via the Caribbean, so why not ban all pleasure vessels from East Coast ports.

It would only take one to use fake papers to work on a merchant ship, so why not ban all crews from coming to shore.

(Remember any perceived odds are irrelevant with a “It just takes one” argument).

 

None of that changes the fact that we can still prevent them from immigrating, if they choose that route to come in. So in that case why not simply deny immigration of Syrian refugees? What's the harm in it. We are not obliged to accept everyone as immigrants if we feel there is a risk within a certain particular group for terrorists to sneak in.

Or are we obliged to accept them anyways. Does the innocence and plight of the majority of them supercede our fears that terrorists could be within them? Are we obliged to take them in because it's the compassionate thing to do?

I say no. We are not obliged to be compassionate at the expense of possible security breaches from terrorism. Also, please respond to the particular topic at hand rather than just making up your own slippery slope hypotheticals about what I stand for. This is solely about those seeking immigration, not those who try to sneak in illegally or through trickery.

 

Reactionaries are afraid of everything. We can't let their hysterical paranoia take over.
The same thing happened with the Ebola epidemic.

 

It's (not only) the obligation..........

Why aren't these proud, fierce Muslim men staying and fighting for their homeland?
Maybe it's because they are NOT proud......fierce.
And I can guarantee they will add nothing, nada, zilch to this country!!
Tell them to go back and FIGHT for their homeland!

 

You could. You could also stop any non-American travelling in to the US since terrorists could be sneak in via any route. Why do you argue for the former but not the latter?

I don’t know what legal obligations there might be (though countries commonly ignore them anyway) and moral obligation is largely a matter of opinion. My question is about the logical principle you’re applying here but don’t seem to be applying to anything else.

It’s not a simply binary. None of are obliged to help any and every one in need with no consideration of the cost or risks but nor is it justifiable to never help any other human being if there is the slightest cost or risk to ourselves. The “right” answer will be somewhere in between. Exactly where is open to discussion but simply stating “No refugees because some might be terrorists!” isn’t a basis for that discussion.

Incidentally, refugee and immigrant are two different things. It’s misleading to use the two terms interchangeably.

 

Good perspective. Let's talk about real risk for a minute:
If one person can be killed by a gun should all guns be banned?
If one pedestrian can be killed by a car should all cars be banned?
If one senior can be killed in a fall should all stairs be banned?

 

Good one!

To add to the list:

It takes only one nutjob with a gun, so why not introduce universal background checks.

Oh wait...

 

When you take a cruise or board a jetliner, you're assuming risk and choose to accept that risk.

When you're walking down the street minding your own business or enjoying dinner in a restaurant and someone starts shooting up the joint, one would assume there is no risk.

Someone, maybe here, said if someone handed you a bowl filled with M&Ms and told you just 1 was poison and would kill you, would you grab a handful and eat them? Sane people would not. Nor would sane people let in potential terrorists.

The world, particularly the USA, has gone mad.

 

Good point. There's like three 9/11s every year due to gun violence. Cue the conservative outrage.

 

Yes, people do, in fact, go mad. In particular those who have no clue about actual risks.

The risk to die from a terror attack in the US between 1970 and 2007 is 1 in 3.5 million.
The risk to die from heart disease is 1 in 4.

Yet, do you see lots of people skipping the heart-attack burger or exercise more often? No! But if we could only reduce the risk of dying from a terrorists attack from 1/3,500,000 to 1/3,600,000!! That would be billions of $ and 100,000s of middle easterners lives spent well (not).

Note in edit: The risk of dying from homicide in the US is 1/22,000. So, maybe we should start here first.

 

The Syrian refugee problem is a global one. It can be scary when an influx of "strangers" come to America, but since The Department of Homeland Security has a strict vetting process, I don't think there is anything to worry about.

 

First of all, it's a global problem for the Europe. But not because of possible terrorist atacks, it's rather a big financial problem.

 

Yes, and as a result two young nurses' lives were ruined.

 

You know what I found really funny (sad/funny!)? It is that the same people who have refused to accept background check and gun regulations for years, in spite of all the death from "irresponsible" or "criminal" gun owners because "we can't make responsible gun owners responsible for the FEW criminals and mentally ills who commit mass murders" are now ready to penalize a WHOLE country citizenship for the minute chance that ONE or ten or even 100 of them would be be criminal!

Talk about hypocrisy! Can everyone stop being paranoid and ridiculous and look at the chances of dying by the hands of a foreign terrorist, and the chances of dying at the hand of a HOME GROWN criminal, a mentally unstable person, or even a "not so responsible" gun owner in this country!

Do you know the statistics on this? I am more than willing to provide them!

 

Only one terrorist.

 

2001 - 2011 is irrelevant as ISIS didn't exist.

Table 10 Number of deaths from 113 selected causes, Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile, drug-induced causes, alcohol-induced causes, and injury by firearms, by age: United States, 2013

Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34) - 505
Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74) - 21,175
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms (*U01.4,X93-X95) - 11,208
Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent (Y22-Y24) - 281

Total: 33,168

Drug-induced deaths (2,3) - 46,471

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

There are 13,303 MORE drug induced deaths than folks dying as a result firearms.

 

Because turning your back on thousands of innocent civilians who are trying to flee a war torn country just because you're afraid one of them might be a terrorist is cowardly and heartless.

 

So we should lock up all young white Christian males? Hmmm... interesting... go on.

 

They are NOT "refuges." They are IMMIGRANTS being brought in by the president for permanent residency. Refuges are contained in refuges camps until they can be returned.

That they are being brought in as refuges is Obama and the EU surrendering to ISIS and in silence recognizing that ISIS is a permanent country.

Actually, it only takes 1 American job lost, $1 spent bringing them here, or just 1 on public assistance, not 1 to commit a crime.

 

I have NO doubt you have not volunteered a room in your house or sent $1 for what they will cost.

That's the left - 100% total hypocrisy. They absolutely do NOTHING themselves, while others must do what they say.

Tell what YOU have done.

 

It is a LIE that the DHS has a "strict vetting process."

BUT, since YOU claim you know, tell us what that "vetting process" is.

You don't have a clue, do you? Just vomiting out the words your ideological and political masters tell you to recite, right?

 

Except this is before bringing in 250,000 extreme religious zealots, women-hating sexist, racial, ethnic and religious bigoted ignorant and impoverished Muslim men taught from birth to die murdering people to get into heaven, to beat and rape girls and women, and pure hatred of free speech and otherwise perfectly intolerant.

 

For starters, I haven't suggested turning our backs on thousands of innocent civilians trying to flee a war torn country like a heartless coward.

And I've been paying taxes for 30 years, so I've sent far more than $1.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, the lie is that they don't have a strict vetting process. A lie spread by cowards.

 

Yeah, all the taxes you paid have all been spent and more.

Obviously you really can't stand women and girls, like them declared no different that dogs to be beaten, certainly despise LGTB, Christians and atheists as that is what you want expanded and promoted in the USA. Such is the view of a heartless person. Cowards believe running and hiding makes a person safe.

Explain the vetting process.