Thoughtful post but way too long for me to respond to point by point. So I'll try and hit the highlights for the most part.
As to Tech students. I honestly give Tech students no more regard than students of any other school with regard to this debate. Students in good standing with no criminal history will likely have their visa process expedited once vetting is resolved but until then, they will have to wait for the process to unfold.
The majority of prior attacks here in the U.S. may not have come from the group of 7 nations. While understanding what has occurred is important, looking back in that manner is not necessarily the best way to prevent FUTURE attacks. That is best done by evaluating the current situation internationally and evaluating trends. And that responibilty lies solely within the purview of the executive branch; whether you agree with the current administration and current policies or not. And let me point out once again the prior administration enacted a ban on the same seven countries. Did you oppose that?
If you think no citizens of those 7 countries hate America, and are thus no threat to cause violence here, you are indeed naive in my opinion. Your advocacy of "taking in refugees" to foster love instead of "barring them" creating hate....well that simply smacks of appeasement quite honestly and I think that is also a very naive sentiment.
The FBI simply does not have the manpower to closely monitor even a small number of the refugees we have already granted asylum to. To believe otherwise is simple ignorance. Not to mention the Constitutional protections these refugees have once they are here which prevent many forms of surveillance without a search warrant, and thus probable cause to believe they have or are committing criminal acts. Once here it is extremely difficult to "closely monitor them." Your definition of close monitoring may be vastly different than mine however.
As to your point on legal immigration and worth / value a potential immigrant brings. As I stated previously I support legal immigration. My prior post was in reference, primarily, to immigrants passing through Ellis Island. I was referring to things I have read but none I can source directly at the moment. In the earily 1900's though certain things were grounds to bar immigration. Disease was one, a likelihood to be unable to support oneself was another. So if a potential immigrant had currency with them that was usually not a concern. If not they could still prove they would be self sufficient if educated, skilled in a trade, etc. The laws governing all that were likely driven by some nationalist sentiments of the time. This point is probably worthy of a separate post or another thread altogether but feel free to correct me where I'm wrong. (My index finger is starting to cramp typing on my phone)
As to the humanitarian argument, providing safe shelter for these people residing in war torn countries. In what way are they America's responsibility? Answer that please. I don't give a rat's hindquarters if you think I'm "inhumane" for not wishing to grant them unquestioned asylum. As to the leaders of any country that takes exception to this ban or any other restriction we have on immigration...Eff them. Their sorry asses can grant asylum to every "refugee" in the world their damn selves...problem solved.
Thank you for the well thought out post (and I can't believe you did that on your phone...). Have a break at work, so I'll also try to address the points, but it's a similarly long post so I'll see if I can condense everything. I'll also leave out the talk on the immigration points since they don't really apply and should be its own thread. As for the Obama administration, I don't feel it's related to this specific topic, so I don't really want to touch on it.
This article is a pretty good read for describing why they're different though. Obama had a specific purpose spawned by a reaction to a specific threat, the current ban is wider spread and is not in response to a specific threat. I'm not defending either, but they're not really comparable.
I spoke with a few of my friends who have worked internships in these refugee areas to get their opinions and I'll see if I can share them to the best of my memory. I'll start by saying that they had nothing but positive things to say about the people they met. They were mostly all very educated, especially the Iraqis. Syrian engineers were fairly common, a couple doctors. There were a handful of professors as well. Families with 2 or 3 kids. Loving people. A lot of them risked everything to come to the US (some were informants for the US) and most were welcomed with open arms. All of them were outrageously grateful to enter the United States because they had nothing left to go home to. They live primarily in pocketed communities with other refugees while they try to get back on their feet. They were really no different than anyone else you know and lived very similar lives to ours before the war. And don't be mistaken, the vetting process was very difficult even before the current administration. They are monitored to a degree and their activities are evaluated for warning signs. There is a lot of paperwork involved. The barrier for entry into the country was very high when one friend worked there two years ago. You don't have unquestioned asylum, we have been very good about only granting admittance to those who don't pose a threat.
To continue on the last point, I'll talk a bit about why I think it's paranoia to feel like we are in danger. I'll try to explain it using some numbers since it'll show my argument on risk analysis. According to
this article your chances of being killed by a refugee on American soil is about 1 in 3.64 billion. They stretch back as far as 1975, so it's understanding to dismiss it since there are ever changing world politics. So, let's focus on the start of the Arab Spring (2010), or what preceded the current Syrian Civil War (and other major conflicts), and do our own calculations so we can adjust for today's current political climate. Someone above did point out that there was one incident of a Somalian in 2016 who did injure 11 Americans late last year (subsequently killed on site). It was reported that he came into the United States in 2014. So, here's where you have to look at risk analysis. You have about
28,000 Muslim refugees who entered the country in 2014. We have one terrorist incidence perpetuated from one person out of a group of 28,000. That's 0.0035% of Muslim refugees brought in 2014 posing a threat to American people. You have 27,999 people who have (so far) lived perfectly peaceful lives and have moved here legally and have helped contribute to our nation. People who curse that man for threatening their status in this country. If we're looking at the entirety of Muslim refugees, we are around 280,000 since 2002 and 140,000 since 2011 (or the Arab Spring). Again, accounting for the entirety of terrorist attacks in the last 16 years from non-Americans, you're looking at about 99.997% of refugees being totally harmless and generating a lot of good for our country, its culture, and its economy (especially in the tech sector). If you get into the millions of immigrants in the US from predominantly Muslim countries, your percentage is shrinking even further. When you get into how they are generally localized to certain areas and stay within communities, you are seeing an exponential shrink to numbers around that 1 in a billion risk from before since you likely won't ever see them. If you think any of my sources or math is incorrect, please let me know. But even changing the number of terrorists in that 28,000 to ten over the next decade (although unlikely) still gives you 99.964% of people living peacefully. The point is that your fear of either you or anyone you know getting attacked is completely unfounded and it's impossible to argue against it statistically.
Now it gets into more of a philosophical argument. What's the value of a human life? Is the life of a countryman more valuable than that of a foreigner? I'd argue that. If it comes down to the life of an American or the life of a Syrian of equal "value," then you choose the American. What about one American to 5 Syrians? Sure, you could argue that, but it's a lot more difficult to justify. What about one life to 1000? Or 28,000? 280,000 or over a million? This is what I am getting at. Is it worth the risk to bring in refugees if they pose a minuscule amount of threat to our people? Absolutely.
The benefits are far, far greater than the potential negatives. You are helping out a group of people that number the population of Orlando. If the biggest act of terrorism by a refugee on American soil we have seen in the last 16 years was a man injuring 11 people with his car, then it's ludicrous to say that providing a new home for the other 279,999 was a mistake. You have to look at the balance.
Lastly, I'll address the argument of why WE need to take them. You're right in that if they aren't admitted to the US, they'll likely go elsewhere and our chance of increased terrorist attacks goes down by about a thousandth of a percent. However, we are the lone world superpower. Whether we like it or not, we have a responsibility to set an example for the rest of the world. We have the resources and capabilities to accommodate refugees, so we should take them in. This then bleeds into world politics.
John McCain himself had to contact Australia to assure them that we are still on good terms. You can go ahead and say "eff em," but that is a very short-sighted and naive way of looking at it. You have to maintain these relationships with other countries and part of that is sharing a burden of taking in refugees. It's how politics work. When we need a trade agreement or some sort of negotiation with Australia again, what's stopping them from saying "How do we know you won't just back out of this like you did the last deal? You're an unreliable ally." These are century long alliances that are being tested because of what boils down to fear mongering and paranoia as a result of Islamophobia. We're better than that.
