Also, I can pretty much guarantee that even if someone slipped through the cracks and committed an act of terrorism, the number of people killed as a result would almost certainly be less than the number of refugees who will die from us closing our doors to them - and yes, American lives and Syrian lives are of the same value.
The thing is, the American government exists to serve the interests of the former, not the latter. If even one American life is imperilled by refugee resettlement, it should be off the table.
Is this why you think that guns should be severely restricted? And basically everything, since basically everything imperils life a little bit?
Why should it matter if one other country is being terrible or six other countries are being terrible? Why should that determine whether or not we choose to do the right thing?
The argument is over whether or not allowing Syrian refugees into the United States is the "right thing". My contention is that those who believe welcoming Syrian refugees is the "right thing" would have a somewhat easier time making their argument if six of the wealthiest Muslim nations were doing their part in this regard, and I stand by that assertion. We shouldn't let others determine whether or not we choose to do the right thing, but when trying to determine what is the right thing to do, I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at how others have responded to what you're saying is "the right thing". Given that I disagree with you about what the right thing to do is, are you saying I'm also wrong to look at how other countries are responding to what you claim to be the right thing?
I don't want to presume, but I somehow doubt that you honestly think that the way to determine the right thing to do is to look around and see what other people are doing.
