Refugee Policy

Despite the fact that more Americans than ever want to help, the U.S. government has drastically cut down the acceptance rates of refugees. If Americans were able to sponsor refugees, the response would have very likely put the government's limited reaction to shame.
Last year, the Canadians showed that rapid refugee processing is possible, resettling more than 25,000 refugees in a three month period. Clearly, it can be done.
When they aren't being erroneously denounced as terrorists, Syrian refugees have a similarly unjustified reputation as fundamentalists who oppose liberty.
Rather than justifying a refugee ban, this latest attack should act as a reminder why the United States should take the lead on welcoming those fleeing ISIS terrorism. Accepting refugees is clearly important from a humanitarian standpoint, but it is also good for America's national security.
One lawmaker claimed the president is "vindictive" and might send Syrian refugees to states as punishment.
In fiscal year 2016, the United States aims to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees. Canada, on the other hand, is on track to resettling 25,000 Syrian refugees--from November 2015 to March 2016. The stark discrepancy is amplified by the fact that the United States has a population ten times greater than Canada's.
"The threat to our communities by foreign terrorists is real."
National security experts across the political spectrum say Syrian refugees not only pose less risk than anyone else who comes to the United States, but rejecting them plays right into the terrorists' strategy of stoking global conflict.
What's happened with the Somali refugees is likely what would happen with the Syrians and other refugees, especially those relocated to smaller, former industrial cities with population drain -- places in need of revitalization.
I want to whack certain people with a Bible verse. When ostentatiously "Christian" politicians malign Muslims or play into racist fears of Syrian or Latino refugees, I want to bash them with the biblical teachings they are ignoring.
In 1939, it was the Jews whose lives were threatened. Today, it is the Syrians. I can think of no cause more important, and more satisfying, than saving the lives of those threatened by racial, religious, sexual or political persecution.
We could argue that the humanitarian benefits to the refugees themselves should be enough. We should accept refugees because failure to do so would be abandoning our moral obligations. But since some dismiss the humanitarian argument, here are four non-humanitarian reasons to take in refugees.
Fear is toxic to a democracy. Fear divides. Fear overreacts. Fear discriminates. It's a lesson we've learned throughout our history, from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during World War II to the post-9/11 Patriot Act.
While there is ongoing debate about the extent to which refugee policies, domestic threats, and military strategy intersect, the issues are already intersecting within the U.S. political debate.
As the U.S. plans to resettle 10,000 Syrians next year, many are eyeing the news with concern. Yet economic evidence clearly suggests that, despite upfront costs, the long-run impact of resettlement will be neutral -- and could actually trigger modest economic stimulus.