RZehr wrote:As far as Syrian refugees, I don't know why it is imperative that they come to America from Greece or Turkey. Of course they are welcome to. But I would probably consider them to be economic immigrants at that point since they are safe where they are, and I would suppose there are closer countries that they could go to work in Europe. And I don't think that if their home country becomes peaceful that they would ever move back to that country.
In a crisis like this, countries negotiate to figure out how to share the burden, often through the United Nations. Most American regimes, whether Republican or Democrat, have taken in these refugees. For most of our history, the number of refugees we take is proportional to the number that other countries take.
In the immediate crisis, refugees go where they can to get to safety, then the international community figures out how to resettle many of them to share the burden. If you
look at the numbers, the United States has not let a lot of Syrian refugees in. Turkey has 3,381,005. Lebanon has 2.2 million. Jordan has 1,265,000. Germany has about 600,000.
The United States has 16,218. That's fewer Syrian refugees than Bulgaria has accepted. Canada has 60,000. There are 23 countries ahead of us on this list. So the question isn't really "why should the United States be responsible for all the Syrian refugees", the question is "shouldn't the United States be responsible for at least some of the Syrian refugees"?
RZehr wrote:Does it matter whether someone is coming for money or for safety? I think there is in regard to breaking the law. If you allow breaking the law for economic reasons, you will see those economic reasons grow to the point where the law is meaningless.
The United States screens refugees according to these criteria,
according to the State Department:
Who are the “most vulnerable” refugees that the United States admits?
There is no standard profile. Vulnerability is assessed on a case by case basis, and is generally understood as individuals who are not able to safely and voluntarily return home, are not thriving in their country of first asylum, and are not expected to be able to locally integrate in that country in the future.
Extremely vulnerable individuals may include female-headed households, victims of torture or violence, religious minorities, LGBT refugees, or people who need medical care that they cannot receive in their country of origin or the country of first asylum.
But "not able to safely and voluntarily return home" doesn't mean they couldn't safely live in Turkey or Greece or Lebanon. We have different criteria for that - "not thriving in their country of first asylum, and are not expected to locally integrate in that country in the future".
Also, many refugees are admitted because they already have family here and we try to keep families together. That means that if one or two people are admitted because they are in serious need, we let in their families as well.