Is taking on tens of thousands of Syrian refugees going to make a humanitarian difference?

Forgive me for simply cutting and pasting, but I answered a similar question in another discussion thread on RP and my answer there works here just as well...

This is all very interesting but what does it have to do with today's situation? Yes, there are refugees displaced by the civil war in Syria, but are they the real issue here? We see heart-rending images of them - a little boy purportedly drowned and lying face down on a beach. (Purportedly? Sorry, I have grown cynical. Remember the Palestinian boy purportedly shot by IDF members while he and his father were "caught in a firefight"?) Then I see video and hear testimony of encounters with columns of virile young men (no women or children in their midst) streaming across borders of Europe. And what do they do when they arrive? They make demands. They insist that Europeans abandon their cultural traditions so as to not give offense to these newcomers. Oktoberfest? Stop it! Christian icons in Christian churches providing shelter? Dismantle them! And let's not ignore the personal assaults on Europeans. Women battered and raped as they are proclaimed whores. Violent attacks in Paris. Are these refugees or invaders? Also, why is most of this "news" suppressed by the "news media"? Is it any wonder that there are many thoughtful and compassionate people in the United States questioning the "wisdom" of importing the invaders here?

Capt Jeff S. When I saw the graphic you posted to LTC Ford, something clicked for me. It's just an idea and I haven't looked into it. As you probably know about Wahhabism the Saud family promoted it, exported it and supported it. Given this knowledge one would think they would welcome the refugees back into the fold but no, they are blocking them. Could it be this is a strategic move to further export Wahhabism and spread their agenda? These are all the Gulf countries. ...and their solidarity is interesting.

Here's my point of view on all this.

I personally do not support the move to have these refugees come to America without a full and complete background. Here's the problem though, how the heck do you complete a check on someone that (a) has lived in region where records haven't really been kept up and (b) even attempt to do so in a timely manner?

And then there is the follow up question, well if America will not take them, then who will? Not everyone there is a member of ISIS. Will the ISIS try to use this to sneak more sleeper cells into this country? You bet they will. But America needs to be careful. Let's take a look at how America responded in WWII following the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Thousands of Asian immigrants were detained and placed into camps. I'm sure there were a few that could have, if given the chance, tried to attack us from within but the vast majority were just trying to make a better life for themselves. So what about those people? What about those that are not part of the ISIS but rather just trying to better their lives? What do we as a collective world population do with them?

During the Balkan deal, Denmark took in many from that area. They came, they accepted the life here, they didn't want to change the country, they acted as guest in a home. This bunch leaves trails of trash, if they don't get what they want, they tear things up. They don't want to be registered as refugees, try sanding their finger prints off with sand paper. Most Danes I talk with are tired of this and don't want them here. Bad guests.

Combination of no and maybe Capt Jeff S.. It would be much better for all concerned if the Syrian refugees were able to return to their own country. If the nearby states with significant wealth such as Saudi Arabia and the gulf states are not willing to take in their predominantly Sunni Muslim neighbors that should give us pause.
The saudi's and gulf state citizens have been dealing with terrorists and refugees since the 1960's at least first Palestinian and now Iraq and Syria. They're concerned about wahabi terrorists because they understand them much better than we do.
Bringing tens of thousands of Syrian refugees 1/3 of the way around the world to an unfamiliar nation where tier culture and languages are in the minority makes little sense.
The 1,854 Syrians who came here between 2012 and today seeking asylum should have the most to fear from unvetted syrians. Some of the asylum speakers probably have a bounty on their head from ISIS or the Assad administration.

Accepting refugees is about political capital, not about humanitarian assistance. if it were about assistance, we could help 12 times as many people for the same expenditure where they live.

There's a difference between refugees and immigrants, both legally and philosophically. I did enjoy the video.

My biggest opinion of immigration is this: if you earn a graduate degree in the United States you should immediately get a work-visa for the US along with a path to citizenship. I have a lot of classmates trying hard to stay here. These are incredibly intelligent, hardworking people. Sending them back their nations of origin to compete with us in the global economy is absurd. '

I have an issue with the wording of the options.

Of course there will be a humanitarian benefit to allowing immigrants to come to America [Refugee Status is a special class of immigrant with rules governing who qualifies, or not]. However, the impact will be relatively small when you examine the magnitude of the current situation to include the fact that many not impacted by the situation in Syria are using this as an opportunity to move to the US or Europe.

I would prefer to see the immigrants properly vetted before they are allowed in, or at least honestly vetted to the degree possible. Simply put, the normal process will be difficult, if not impossible of many. However, that does not mean it will hold true for all. Nor does it mean we should simply waiver everyone because of the challenge. Yes, the vetting process can be streamlined. However, we should be honest and up front about it, not simply say "trust us" with all the credibility of Alfred E. Newman.

I have seen many discussions and attempts to equate the current situation with emotional references to Jewish immigration before 1941 and even the Pilgrim's arrival in the new world. A more honest comparison would be to loom at our actions with regard to the South Vietnamese immigrants after the fall of Saigon. We essentially threw out the rules and took them in. There is one crucial difference between these tow events, those fleeing form the end of the Vietnam War were not coming to America with evil intent.

As a Nation our challenge in this situation is one of balancing human compassion with the responsibility of protecting the nation and her citizens form harm. Do we accept all knowing that some small percentage of them will be bad actors (agents provocateur) on behalf of ISIS, or do we screen them, allowing them in based upon a reasonable assessment of risk, even if this means delaying and/or denying entry (e.g. a priority matrix and risk assessment. allowing women with children in first. Husbands next, single men last by age. By country of origin, Syria first, etc...?). There is no easy answer. And a proper answer will require a timeline that is currently out of sync with the stated objectives of the Administration.

once again ... just @#!$!$ destroy ISIS, and the problem solved. If they still come over in mass after ISIS is gone ... that pretty much proof they are invader!

I feel helping 1 person is making a humanitarian difference, if only to that 1 person and their friends and family. We help them and I am not sure whats best spending billions on fixing there Country or Spending Billions on background checks holding areas temp housing food and healthcare. I would have to say it like that. Whatever helps those who need it the most while keeping the USA and her interest safe.