Suppose you were living in what is now California in the year 1769 when Father Junipero Serra founded Mission San Diego. He and his fellow missionaries are peaceful and kind but within a few years, the native Americans are essentially slaves to the Spanish. Why? Because behind those peaceful missionaries was an entire culture of conquest and exploitation. Would you have voted to allow the Spanish in?
Who
Its not the same.
The Spanish were over powered and had more knowledge.
Basically they were superior in every way (those tribes were not nature loving philosophers as some hippies like to think).
Do you think its the same now ?
Edit:
To answer your question, I would vote yes, only because I'd like the favor to be returned.
And America can't be conquered by the Syrians, if the Russians can't no one can.
Anonymous
ISIS have said they will hide their men amongst the refugees. If you don't want another 9/11 (or worse) you will not let them in. You have many homegrown ones that would happily do the job but these men who are on their way will be fully trained and ready. Be smart and don't accept any.
queenreina
What are you even asking.
Syrian refugees deserve to come.
750,000 refugees have been accepted into America since 9/11.
Not one has even been arrested or charged with domestic terrorism charges.
Look at that.
Let them in.
Outlook
I favor establishing a defensible "safe zone" for them in Syria. It seems ISIS is trying to use refugee traffic as a tool, just like the Nazis did when they ravaged Europe.
M
In the eyes of a "morality snob," yes. Because it's the compassionate thing to do.
But in the eyes of a "practical person," no. Because we have enough on our plate. And to properly screen these people will only cost more tax dollars.