Cato Institute: Syrian Refugees Don't Pose a Serious Security Threat

[TitanTiger 20,503]

This isn't from some bleeding heart libs. Conservative credentials don't come more iron-clad than the Cato Institute.

Syrian Refugees Don’t Pose a Serious Security Threat

By ALEX NOWRASTEH

Of the 859,629 refugees admitted from 2001 onwards, only three have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks on targets outside of the United States and none was successfully carried out. That is one terrorism-planning conviction for a refugee for every 286,543 of them who have been admitted. To put that in perspective, about 1 in every 22,541 Americans committed murder in 2014. The terrorist threat from Syrian refugees in the United States is hyperbolically over-exaggerated and we have very little to fear from them because the refugee vetting system is so thorough.

The brutal terrorist attack in France last Friday reignited a debate over accepting refugees from Syria and the Middle East. A Syrian who applied for asylum could have been one of the attackers although his passport was a forgery. (As of this writing, all identified attackers have been French or Belgian nationals.) Governors and presidential candidates have voiced opposition to accepting any Syrian refugees while several bills in Congress could effectively end the program.

There are many differences between Europe’s vetting of asylum seekers from Syria and how the United States screens refugees. The geographic distance between the United States and Syria allows our government to better vet those seeking to come here while large numbers of Syrians who want to go to Europe show up at their borders and are less carefully vetted. A lax security situation there does not imply a lax security situation here.

The Differences between Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Much of the confusion over the security threat posed by refugees is over the term “refugee” itself. It’s not yet clear how any foreign attackers in Paris entered Europe, but one or more may have entered disguised as asylum-seekers.

In the United States, asylum seekers show up at U.S. borders and ask to stay must show they have a well-founded fear of persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or their political opinion if they return to their country of origin. There is an application and investigation process, and the government often detains the asylum-seeker during that process. But the investigation and vetting of the asylum seeker often take place while he is allowed inside of the United States. Many of the Syrians and others who have entered Europe are asylum seekers who are vetted through similar less stringent security screens.

Refugees are processed from a great distance away and are more thoroughly vetted than asylum-seekers as a result. In the United States, a refugee is somebody who is identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in a refugee camp. UNHCR does the first round of security checks on the refugee according to international treaties that the United States is a party to and refers some of those who pass the initial checks to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). The referrals are then interviewed by a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer abroad. The refugee must be outside of the United States, be of special humanitarian concern to the government, demonstrate persecution or fear of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, not firmly resettled in another country, and is admissible to the United States.

Because the refugee is abroad while the U.S. government checks their background, potential terrorist links, and their claims to refugee status, the vetting is a lot more thorough and can take up to two years for non-Syrians. For Syrians, the vetting can take about three years because of the heightened concerns over security.

Asylum seekers, on the other hand, face rigorous checks, but they are conducted while the asylum seeker is inside of the United States and not always while he is in a detention center. Syrians fleeing violence who come to the United States will be refugees, whereas many getting into Europe are asylum seekers. This crucial distinction shows that the United States is in a far better security situation vis-à-vis Europe on any potential terrorist threat from Syrians.

The distinction between asylum seekers and refugees is usually lost when discussing the security threat from refugees. The father of Boston Marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev was granted asylum status, which conferred derivative asylum status on the children. None of the Tsarnaevs were ever refugees.

Both Tamerlan and Dzokhar were children when they were admitted through their parent’s asylum claims. They did not adopt a radical interpretation of Islam or start plotting a terrorist attack until years after coming here. Their case does not reveal flaws in the refugee vetting process. There were some other terrorist attacks in the early 1990s from applicants for asylum status, but none of them were actual refugees.

Security Screenings for Refugees

Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark Toner called the security checks for refugees, “the most stringent security process for anyone entering the United States.” Coming here as a refugee requires numerous security and background checks that are more intense and invasive than for other migrants or visitors – which is partly why refugees have not successfully carried out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil (three have been convicted of attempting to carry out attacks abroad, and there was one borderline case from a refugee who entered in 1997).

The first step for a refugee is to arrive and register in a UNHCR refugee camp outside of Syria. The UNHCR then refers those who pass the first stage of vetting to the U.S. government refugee process (as described above). The National Counterterrorism Center, the Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Defense, the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department use biometrics and biographical information gleaned through several interviews of the refugee and third-party persons who know him or could know him to make sure applicants really are who they claim to be, to evaluate their security risk, and to investigate whether they are suspected of criminal activity or terrorism. Numerous medical checks are also performed. During this entire screening process, which takes about three years for Syrians, the refugee has to wait in the camp. If there is any evidence that the refugee is a security threat, he or she is not allowed to come to the United States.

Refugee security screenings go beyond weeding out actual terrorists but also seek to those who provided material support to them. This material support standard is very elastic and weeds out many otherwise deserving refugees. Human Rights First claims that under current interpretations of the material support standard, Syrians would be turned away under all of these circumstances:

• A family who, while their residential neighborhood was being bombed by government forces, sheltered a wounded opposition fighter in their home;
  
• A boy who, after his father was killed, was recruited by opposition forces and, after serving with them for a time, left the conflict to join his mother and younger siblings in a neighboring country;
  
• The owner of a food stand in a neighborhood under opposition control from whom opposition fighters bought falafel sandwiches.
  

A refugee from Burundi was detained by DHS for 20 months for materially supporting a terrorist group because rebels beat him up, stole $4 from him, and took his lunch (it’s unclear from the story, but might have been an asylum seeker). Many good candidates for resettlement in the United States are turned down for these silly reasons.

How Many Refugees Make It Here? How Many Are Syrians?

The UNHCR annually refers less than one percent of all refugees for resettlement. In 2014, they referred a mere 103,890 to all resettlement nations. That year, the United States accepted 69,933 refugees or about 0.5 percent of the total number of all refugees in the world, but over 67 percent of all those referred by UNHCR.

In 2015, the United States has accepted only 1682 Syrian refugees, or 0.042 percent of the 4,045,650 registered Syrian refugees. Only one out of every 2,405 Syrian refugees in a camp was resettled in the United States in 2015.

Evaluating the Risk

Few Daesh soldiers or other terrorists are going to spend at least three years in a refugee camp for a 0.042 percent chance of entering the United States when almost any other option to do so is easier, cheaper, quicker.

If the United States still takes in 10,000 Syrian refugees in 2016, and the number of refugees rises to 4.5 million, a mere 0.22 percent of them–one out of every 450–will be resettled in the United States. That number is still so small and the process so well monitored that potential terrorists are unlikely to see the refugee system as a viable way to enter the United States.

Foreign- born terrorists tend to enter on student visas, tourist visas, business visas, have asylum applications pending, or are lawful permanent residents – all nonimmigrant or immigrant categories face fewer security and background screenings than refugees do.

Of the 859,629 refugees who have entered the United States since 2001, three have been convicted for planning a terrorist attack abroad and exactly zero attacks domestically – that’s one conviction for every 286,543 refugees admitted. Focusing on the 735,920 refugees from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and South Asia, that’s one conviction for every 245,307 refugees admitted. Just to hammer the point home, these are convictions for planning terrorist attacks abroad, not for carrying out actual terrorist attacks in the United States or anywhere else.

In 2015, 53 percent of the Syrians admitted were men while only 41.5 percent of those men were between the ages of 14 and 40. Of all the Syrian refugees in that year, only 22.3 percent of them were men between the ages of 14 and 40. Terrorism-related convictions are almost always of men so any risk-assessment should note the small number of men in the applicable age ranges.

Let’s assume, for the same of argument, that individual Syrian refugees are three times as likely to attempt terrorism in the United States than non-Syrian refugees because they are super-radicalized and very good at hiding it while waiting for years in refugee camps for their chance to strike. Assuming this fantasy is true, the United States can expect to convict a single Syrian refugee for attempting a terrorist attack for every 95,514 of them allowed in as refugees. There are many more convictions for attempted terrorism than successful terrorist attacks. Without even attempting to estimate the damage caused by such hypothetical terrorist attacks, it’s clear that the present political panic and calls for a moratorium on refugee admissions from Syria are totally unwarranted.

This situation may be different in Europe where 681,713 Syrian asylum seekers have sought refuge since the beginning of their civil war in 2011. So far, one of them may have participated in the Paris terrorist attack, and that is far from clear.

John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart have been critical of counterterrorism agencies that “simply identify a source of harm and try to do something about it, rather than systematically thinking about the likely magnitude of harm caused by a successful terrorist attack, the probability of that attack occurring, and the amount of risk reduction that can be expected from counterterrorism efforts.” These criticisms could easily apply to the U.S. refugee vetting process. To my knowledge, there has been no systematic evaluation of the costs and benefits of this refugee vetting process. The marginal costs of outlays and security procedures may exceed the marginal benefits, but that means we have even less to fear from those refugees admitted even if the price we pay for that safety is irrationally high.

There is also a risk of not letting in more Syrian refugees that policymakers should consider. Syrians could languish in refugee camps for years or decades to come unless the Turkish government suddenly becomes more classically liberal and hands out millions of work permits. There is one clear lesson from the limited academic literature on this issue: Allowing the current UNHCR refugee camp situation to grow and fester for years can only produce more radicalization and terrorism. A more expansive refugee policy with adequate security checks that resettles large numbers in safe countries can drain the swamp of potential future terrorists and decrease that risk.

Where the Refugees are Settling in the United States

The pace of Syrian refugee admissions is scheduled to pick up in 2016 unless Congress prevents it. In October 2015, the government took in 187 Syrian refugees and settled them in several states (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1

Syrian Refugees Resettled in October 2015 by State

Source: U.S. Refugee Processing Center

Figure 2

Other Refugees Resettled in States with Syrians October 2015

Source: U.S. Refugee Processing Center

In October 2015, Syrians were approximately 3.6 percent of all refugees admitted and many states didn’t even receive any (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Syrian and Other Refugees by State

Source: U.S. Refugee Processing Center

From the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011 through the first month of the 2016 fiscal year, a mere 0.63 percent of all refugee admitted to the United States were Syrians or about 2070 out of 329,856 (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Syrian and Other Refugees Admitted Since 2011

Sources: U.S. Department of State and U.S. Refugee Processing Center

Conclusion

The security threat posed by refugees in the United States is insignificant. Halting America’s processing of refugees due to a terrorist attack in another country that may have had one asylum-seeker as a co-plotter would be an extremely expensive overreaction to very minor threat. Resettling refugees who pass a thorough security check would likely decrease the recruiting pool for future terrorists and decrease the long run risk.

The current refugee vetting system is multilayered, dynamic, and extremely effective. Daesh fighters or terrorists who are intent on attacking U.S. soil have myriad other options for doing so that are all cheaper, easier, and more likely to succeed than sneaking in through the heavily guarded refugee gate. The low level of current risk does not justify the government slamming that gate shut.

http://www.cato.org/...security-threat

[cooltigger21 0]

Did anyone even bother to listen to the FBI director when he said in testimony before Congress that they didn't have the ability to properly vet people. The UNITED is a joke. They'll declare anyone a refugee. The standards are so pathetic now it's not even funny.

[TitanTiger 20,503]

He didn't say that. He said that if someone isn't in certain databases, they won't be able to flag them for terrorist ties:

FBI Director James Comey hit on the issue at a congressional hearing last month, when he told lawmakers, "If someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them."

This particularly comes into play when trying to evaluate an applicant's criminal history.

"In terms of criminal history, we do the best we can with the resources that we have," one senior administration official said.

Another official emphasized that the vetting process is a holistic one, and they try to take a broader view of an applicant with the available information they're about to aggregate and verify.

Now think about that for a second and realize that this still doesn't change anything. Those same people would be able to apply for student or work visas, and wouldn't show up in any databases. Those same people could come in a half dozen other ways with much less scrutiny, and not show up in any databases.

So if you shut down the refugees program, you shut down the avenue that is still the most stringent and most detailed and extensive check system we have....and don't prevent any bad people from coming in. But you do prevent 99.9% of the people who are desperately needing a place to go.

The logic doesn't hold up.

[japantiger 4,051]

Folks, I think the real issue is Daesh loyalists posing as refugees on fake passports...which it appears is what happened in Paris. Similar situation with the folks just arrested in Honduras. Bounced from Syria thru Turkey and Brazil on their way up central America thru Honduras; with plans to go thru Guatemala, Mexico and into the US.

I love it that when a muslim slaughters 130 people (or tens of thousands in Syria, Iraq, etc.); liberals here say not all muslims are bad...we can't ban them from the US...but when one US citizen kills someone with a gun, all guns must be stripped from every citizen....hhmmm...apparently non citizens have more rights nowadays than citizens do...

[aujeff11 6,243]

Folks, I think the real issue is Daesh loyalists posing as refugees on fake passports...which it appears is what happened in Paris. Similar situation with the folks just arrested in Honduras. Bounced from Syria thru Turkey and Brazil on their way up central America thru Honduras; with plans to go thru Guatemala, Mexico and into the US.

I love it that when a muslim slaughters 130 people (or tens of thousands in Syria, Iraq, etc.); liberals here say not all muslims are bad...we can't ban them from the US...but when one US citizen kills someone with a gun, all guns must be stripped from every citizen....hhmmm...apparently non citizens have more rights nowadays than citizens do...

The hypocrisy is a two week street. It's the republicans that are claiming all guns shouldn't be taken away just because of a few bad apples. Yet, the same republicans are calling for the refusal of all Syrians just because they heard that ONE Paris attacker was a refugee. And I said this yesterday, thanks for catching on.

[AUbritt 611]

He didn't say that. He said that if someone isn't in certain databases, they won't be able to flag them for terrorist ties:

FBI Director James Comey hit on the issue at a congressional hearing last month, when he told lawmakers, "If someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them."

This particularly comes into play when trying to evaluate an applicant's criminal history.

"In terms of criminal history, we do the best we can with the resources that we have," one senior administration official said.

Another official emphasized that the vetting process is a holistic one, and they try to take a broader view of an applicant with the available information they're about to aggregate and verify.

Now think about that for a second and realize that this still doesn't change anything. Those same people would be able to apply for student or work visas, and wouldn't show up in any databases. Those same people could come in a half dozen other ways with much less scrutiny, and not show up in any databases.

So if you shut down the refugees program, you shut down the avenue that is still the most stringent and most detailed and extensive check system we have....and don't prevent any bad people from coming in. But you do prevent 99.9% of the people who are desperately needing a place to go.

The logic doesn't hold up.

I'm at a loss, at this point. I don't understand if people are not reading the arguments, or if they're just being stubborn, or if something else is going on. It is CLEARLY in the US national interest to bring in Syrian refugees. Yet people who avowedly want the government to act in the interests of the US still want to put a halt to the refugee program.

I'm even more surprised that there seem to be no voices of reason in the Republican party leadership. I really wish someone could find any Republican leader who is speaking out in favor of the refugee program. Instead, it seems like they're letting their agenda be set by Donald Trump.

Someone in the Republican party needs to wake up, or there won't be a Republican party in the not too distant future.

[AURaptor 1,125]

The left have abandoned reason and logic for madness.

[japantiger 4,051]

You do realize the absurdity and contradiction of the argument don't you?

First off, the Syrian's have no rights to anything here. We owe them nothing; they are entitled to nothing as they are foreign nationals....also, those being "relocated" are already out of Syria; they are being relocated from Turkey, Egypt, or Lebanon or some other country where they already have safety...a country mind you that is closer to their original home and culture...so what is the point of moving them; again; here? I'll go ahead and answer, there is none. So the attempt here is to establish a right where no right or obligation exists...and in fact move them a second time when they are already in a safe place.

As for guns; the proposal is to deny citizens a right that they possess...a right guaranteed in the constitution and with 200 years of precedent in the courts.

These absurd moral equivalence arguments being made and just plane tortured logic is tiring. No one has tried to make the equally absurd Jews fleeing the Nazi's argument in a little while, let's go at that one again...jeez....

[DKW 86 7,433]

I am getting that many believe that the US will vet these folks. My own personal question here is that all this depends on the US Govt actually doing its due diligence. it has failed so many times, INS, VA, etc that i can fully understand why many do not want to listen anymore.

In reading a lot about this, the humanitarian angle must eventually win. There is literally nothing in Syria to go back to. We must trust that the US Govt will do its job.

We cannot let them live in limbo, in non productive jobs, etc. forever and not expect it to come back and haunt us.

Christ would definitely say take them in.

[TitanTiger 20,503]

You do realize the absurdity and contradiction of the argument don't you?

No, but I'm sure you're about to make an absurd explanation to try and tell me.

First off, the Syrian's have no rights to anything here. We owe them nothing; they are entitled to nothing as they are foreign nationals

Given that no one is arguing such a point, I fail to see what this has to do with anyting.

....also, those being "relocated" are already out of Syria; they are being relocated from Turkey, Egypt, or Lebanon or some other country where they already have safety...a country mind you that is closer to their original home and culture...so what is the point of moving them; again; here? I'll go ahead and answer, there is none.

They are in refugee camps. Living on the ground or in tents and temporary shelters. In many places there is at best makeshift sanitation, plumbing or other basics. This is not a sustainable way to live long term. And the countries that have housed them in these camps have assimilated some into their regular population, but they do not have the capacity to absorb them all.

Man, I don't have a problem with questions and raising some concerns, but do some damn research about what is actually happening before making your arguments.

Cato Institute is not some slipshod, lib-loving bunch given to emotional arguments. Take a cue from them.

So the attempt here is to establish a right where no right or obligation exists...and in fact move them a second time when they are already in a safe place.

Same problem as your first point. It's a strawman. Stop flogging it.

[AURaptor 1,125]

I am getting that many believe that the US will vet these folks. My own personal question here is that all this depends on the US Govt actually doing its due diligence. it has failed so many times, INS, VA, etc that i can fully understand why many do not want to listen anymore.

In reading a lot about this, the humanitarian angle must eventually win. There is literally nothing in Syria to go back to. We must trust that the US Govt will do its job.

We cannot let them live in limbo, in non productive jobs, etc. forever and not expect it to come back and haunt us.

Christ would definitely say take them in.

The problem w/ trusting our govt, THIS administration to do its job is that it's been proven not only do they lie, they can NOT do the job. Obama and company are lying NOW, as soon as there's an issue. It's their default position, to come out and make grand claims and fantastic promises, NONE of which they have any intention to keep. It's PURE P.R. and spin, and they KNOW it.

A sober, pragmatic and thoughtful look at the problem is what is needed. Not shaming us into flinging open our doors, and then just hope it'll all work out. That's not prudent thinking. The rules are changing faster than anyone can measure. The statistics and trend of the past don't apply like they use to. Hillary blurts out words like " bio-metrics " as if she knows what in the hell she's talking about. The reality is that there aren't many finger print data, drivers license, birth certificate data bases which to pull from these days in Syria.

This is a woman who told us Benghazi was about a video. How the hell can ANYONE trust her , with anything she says ? ESPECIALLY when it comes to national security ?

The beauty of this argument for the Left is that they may not have to deal w/ any consequences of their actions in a week, a month, or even several years. Our memories are short. ( Hardly anyone is talking about the Russian airliner which was blown up, just a couple of weeks ago ) So when the inevitable happens, be it from among the 1000's of Syrian refugees, or merely crossing a porous border, ( again, thanks D.C. ) few folks will be willing to admit - Damn, they were right after all. Some excuse will be made, some OTHER explanation ( Bush / Cheney ) will be interjectd into the discussion, and nothing will get done.

[japantiger 4,051]

You do realize the absurdity and contradiction of the argument don't you?

No, but I'm sure you're about to make an absurd explanation to try and tell me.

First off, the Syrian's have no rights to anything here. We owe them nothing; they are entitled to nothing as they are foreign nationals

Given that no one is arguing such a point, I fail to see what this has to do with anyting.

....also, those being "relocated" are already out of Syria; they are being relocated from Turkey, Egypt, or Lebanon or some other country where they already have safety...a country mind you that is closer to their original home and culture...so what is the point of moving them; again; here? I'll go ahead and answer, there is none.

They are in refugee camps. Living on the ground or in tents and temporary shelters. In many places there is at best makeshift sanitation, plumbing or other basics. This is not a sustainable way to live long term. And the countries that have housed them in these camps have assimilated some into their regular population, but they do not have the capacity to absorb them all.

Man, I don't have a problem with questions and raising some concerns, but do some damn research about what is actually happening before making your arguments.

Cato Institute is not some slipshod, lib-loving bunch given to emotional arguments. Take a cue from them.

So the attempt here is to establish a right where no right or obligation exists...and in fact move them a second time when they are already in a safe place.

Same problem as your first point. It's a strawman. Stop flogging it.

I would urge you to get a map and look at Turkey. It's 10% bigger than TX with a smaller population than DE. I'd say they have plenty of space and room. They are out of harms way; they are not guaranteed a 3 br 3 ba house in the USA. I don't understand the liberal fixation with bestowing US citizenship rights to every mut in the world. How is pointing out an obvious fact a strawman Jeffy? How about you and 10k of your liberal brothers open up your homes...put your home where your convictions are...you could start a great #hashtag campaign I am sure and stir the internet...let's see, #bedroomsforISIS or how about #freejamesbrown (no wait, that ones been done before)....when you personally step up to the plate, call me back.

I don't understand this fixation with taking in the worlds problems and why I am supposed to feel obligated in the least. Soothe your bourgeois guilt at your own expense, not me and my families.

[TitanTiger 20,503]

I would urge you to get a map and look at Turkey. It's 10% bigger than TX with a smaller population than DE. I'd say they have plenty of space and room.

It's not just a matter of space. They are 61st in the world in GDP per capita at around $19,000. Contrast that with one of the more mediocre Western economies - Spain. Spain is 33rd at around $34,000 per capita. Germany is 20th at around $41,000 per capita. They can't absorb all these refugees from an economic standpoint.

And, fact check: Turkey's population is over 77 million. They have about a quarter the population of the US in an area about the size of Texas.

They are out of harms way; they are not guaranteed a 3 br 3 ba house in the USA. I don't understand the liberal fixation with bestowing US citizenship rights to every mut in the world.

Another failure on your part to do factual research. We aren't bestowing citizenship on them.

How is pointing out an obvious fact a strawman Jeffy?

Not "Jeffy" but it's a strawman because you're arguing a point that no one is making. I could just as easily argue that they do not deserve free tuition to Auburn University. Is that an obvious fact? Yeah. Does it have anything to do with the issue at hand? No - because no one is proposing to give them free admittance to Auburn.

I don't understand this fixation with taking in the worlds problems and why I am supposed to feel obligated in the least. Soothe your bourgeois guilt at your own expense, not me and my families.

Maybe you don't. That's your problem. But as someone else said, "We don't take refugees in because they are Christians. We take refugees in because WE are Christians."

[aujeff11 6,243]

You do realize the absurdity and contradiction of the argument don't you?

No, but I'm sure you're about to make an absurd explanation to try and tell me.

First off, the Syrian's have no rights to anything here. We owe them nothing; they are entitled to nothing as they are foreign nationals

Given that no one is arguing such a point, I fail to see what this has to do with anyting.

....also, those being "relocated" are already out of Syria; they are being relocated from Turkey, Egypt, or Lebanon or some other country where they already have safety...a country mind you that is closer to their original home and culture...so what is the point of moving them; again; here? I'll go ahead and answer, there is none.

They are in refugee camps. Living on the ground or in tents and temporary shelters. In many places there is at best makeshift sanitation, plumbing or other basics. This is not a sustainable way to live long term. And the countries that have housed them in these camps have assimilated some into their regular population, but they do not have the capacity to absorb them all.

Man, I don't have a problem with questions and raising some concerns, but do some damn research about what is actually happening before making your arguments.

Cato Institute is not some slipshod, lib-loving bunch given to emotional arguments. Take a cue from them.

So the attempt here is to establish a right where no right or obligation exists...and in fact move them a second time when they are already in a safe place.

Same problem as your first point. It's a strawman. Stop flogging it.

I would urge you to get a map and look at Turkey. It's 10% bigger than TX with a smaller population than DE. I'd say they have plenty of space and room. They are out of harms way; they are not guaranteed a 3 br 3 ba house in the USA. I don't understand the liberal fixation with bestowing US citizenship rights to every mut in the world. How is pointing out an obvious fact a strawman Jeffy? How about you and 10k of your liberal brothers open up your homes...put your home where your convictions are...you could start a great #hashtag campaign I am sure and stir the internet...let's see, #bedroomsforISIS or how about #freejamesbrown (no wait, that ones been done before)....when you personally step up to the plate, call me back.

I don't understand this fixation with taking in the worlds problems and why I am supposed to feel obligated in the least. Soothe your bourgeois guilt at your own expense, not me and my families.

I live in your head 24/7. Ahahahaha

[AU-24 3,108]

As I posted in another thread. Please watch.

https://www.facebook.com/john.pickering.127/videos/10153055728726682/

[TitanTiger 20,503]

I'll go with one of the most respected think tanks on the planet over Gumball Dude. Thx.

[AU-24 3,108]

I'll go with one of the most respected think tanks on the planet over Gumball Dude. Thx.

You get it Titan, but it doesn't fit your political agenda, so you won't admit yo get it.

[TitanTiger 20,503]

I'll go with one of the most respected think tanks on the planet over Gumball Dude. Thx.

You get it Titan, but it doesn't fit your political agenda, so you won't admit yo get it.

What is my political agenda, pray tell?

I thought about both sides of this. I've read the various arguments for not allowing them in. I read the arguments in favor of letting them in. I researched and cut through the rhetoric on the process for bringing them in. I consulted the Scriptures and Christian tradition on the moral considerations of allowing or not allowing them in. Then I went back through the arguments again as new angles were brought up. And in all of that I looked at who was saying what and how much credibility they have built up over time in other things they have argued for or against. And I came to a conclusion.

It's called independent thinking. Give it a try sometime.

[channonc 466]

I have to say, the Cato piece is actually one of the most comprehensive pieces on this issue I have seen in a few days. As you said Titan, they are hardly a liberal group. I will be directing others to this one as well. Thanks.

[AUbritt 611]

I have to say, the Cato piece is actually one of the most comprehensive pieces on this issue I have seen in a few days. As you said Titan, they are hardly a liberal group. I will be directing others to this one as well. Thanks.

Agreed. Thanks for posting it, Titan.

[homersapien 11,396]

Nice effort Titan, but people who are driven by hysterical fear aren't inclined to consider reasoned analysis.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You can find tons of opinions on this topic for whatever view you want. The Cato folks have lots of stats but filled with a lot of inexperience on the problem where the rubber hits the road. I'll go with the FBI myself but to each his/her own.

[cooltigger21 0]

My objection is based on the fact that the federal government has been so inept and bungled so many things over the years. I don't have any faith that all of a sudden they'll get it right.

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

Belgium is a prime example of what happens when large numbers of immigrants move to a country and don't assimilate to the society, without the education, knowledge of the society and native language , they do not do well and easily fall victim to the rhetoric of some of the radicals. Question for someone in the know has Saudi taken any refugees? Yet, I understand they are offering to donate millions to build mosques across Europe?

[aujeff11 6,243]

Belgium is a prime example of what happens when large numbers of immigrants move to a country and don't assimilate to the society, without the education, knowledge of the society and native language , they do not do well and easily fall victim to the rhetoric of some of the radicals. Question for someone in the know has Saudi taken any refugees? Yet, I understand they are offering to donate millions to build mosques across Europe?

Belgium's segregated societies have always been fascinating to me but I don't see how that polarization applies to this thread.