Is there a “right” answer to the Syrian refugee crisis? Both sides have great points, and all the presidential candidates are generally in agreement with their parties on the issue.
Republicans are understandably having a hard time trusting anyone from any part of the Middle East. To put it in layman’s terms, we’ve been hurt before. But it’s a little worse than going through a breakup and then going back to the guy. This is a matter of life and death, people.
Sure, there are white terrorists and white crazy people who shouldn’t be allowed in the country either, but America has had a (recent) history of attacks from the Middle East. So, the rest of the world can’t blame us for playing the cautionary card here.
The Democrats don’t seem to think the possible terrorists are enough of a reason to block the refugees from our country. They don’t think we have time to waste when it comes to letting them in. If we’re put off letting them in until we can be 1,000 percent sure they aren’t terrorists, they could literally be dead before they get here. So again, it’s a matter of life and death.
It’s all a matter of choosing someone else’s family over your own. Is it better to take the risk of your own family getting hurt so that your neighbors to the east can stay safe? Or are you better off protecting your own family and leaving the others in peril?
Is the latter selfish or protective? Is the former ignorant or humanitarian?
This issue also reflects other future issues our country may have to deal with, so it’s important that the right candidate gets placed into office. It’s an easy issue to sweep under the rug because, in some ways, it’s already been dealt with.
Obama already did let 10,000 people into the country. Let’s not forget how easy it will be for that to change with someone new in office. I urge you, voting Americans, to think long and hard about this decision. Make it one of your leading deciding factors come November.
CNN pulled various sources after the Paris attacks in November that quote the candidates on their stances regarding the refugees. It seems necessary to simplify them even further, as the November election is creeping closer and closer. Here are the candidates that remain after Super Tuesday, and here are their stances on this issue:
- Trump – wants to deport all refugees, and possibly shut down mosques out of the fear of terrorists entering the United States.
- Cruz – wants to move the refugees to Muslim countries.
- Rubio – would accept the refugees if he could find a way to quadruple-check that none of them are terrorists.
- Carson – wants to block refugee funding and wait until it is possible to sort out the terrorists (and be 110 percent sure) before letting Syrians into the country.
- Clinton – wants to accept upward of 65,000 refugees. (Obama allowed 10,000.)
- Sanders – isn’t clear on how many he is willing to accept, but he feels that the US has a moral duty to accept them. Basically, he’s with our current president on this.
Let us also remember that this is more than just an American issue. This is a worldwide issue. There is a chance that the attackers in Paris came in through Syria.
We don’t need a repeat of that in our country, or in any other country. Sending these refugees to other parts of the world doesn’t solve the issue. It just takes the ball out of our court.
Senator Cruz’s plan to move the refugees to Muslim countries makes the most sense in this respect. It’s sort of like meeting them midway. We are taking them away from the troubles in their own country, and we’re also not bringing terrorists into new and unclaimed territories.
The terrorists could find other ways to get into those Muslim countries on their own, without sneaking in with the refugees. This way, we aren’t enabling them.
Think hard about this, America. This issue cannot be ignored.