Should the U.S. be letting in Syrian Refugees?
Debate Rounds (5)
Round 2- Opening Argument
Round 3 & 4- Opposing arguments
Round 5- conclusion
Please have sources, ready information, and a formed argument before proceeding to accept this debate. I understand that this is a heavy topic for some people, but I believe that this needs needs to be said.
I accept the debate, and will argue about why we shouldn't let Syrian Refugee's in.
1. Only around 2 percent of Syrian refugees are single males of fighting age
-If the United States is letting in 10,000 Syrian refugees, only about 20 of them are even able to be terrorists let alone even think about bombing the U.S.
-Most of the people coming in are children, adults, and people over the age of 60.
2. Refugees from Syria are in a war zone. They have most likely gone through much worse than we can even comprehend, and it is extremely selfish of us not to let the Syrian refugees into the United States.
-"It speaks to who we are as Americans, and the importance of sheltering those who are escaping from other countries," Toner said, according to USA Today. "The vast majority of these refugees are victims of the very same crimes we saw in Paris, and have been living with a level of violence and suffering that is incomprehensible to us."
-They are being bombed and terrorized daily, and to not let them into the United States is an abomination. We are repeating history.
-In 1944, a Jewish ship from Nazi Germany came to deliver hundreds of refugees, but we refused the ship, sent it back to Germany, and most of them (if not all of them) were killed in the Holocaust.
-Think about how we looked then. If we did that again with the Syrian refugees, we would be full of immense regret for years to pass.
3.The U.S. isn't helping the Syrians too much, we're spending too much time trying to keep them out.
- As journalist for the Washington Post Alex Nor'easter says, "When refugees trying to save themselves are stopped by governments using their own resources, those governments bear part of the blame for the often tragic and heart-rending results. If you try to flee from a murderer and a third person breaks your legs so you can"t run away, that third person bears some of the responsibility for your fate."
-We as Americans aren't doing anything that might be remotely good for the Syrians let alone help them in any way. pushing them away from safety is just keeping them from safety.
4. Helping the Syrians will help the U.S. as well as keep them safe from harm.
-It's not like the Syrians are money sucking monsters coming to seek handouts from the United States government. They only want safety from the war zone that they're living in. They seek refuge, hence calling them refugees. When we don't let them in, not only does it make us look bad, it makes it extremely hard for the Syrians to find a safe place to live.
I. High Danger
The first thing I like to point out is the danger involved of letting these individuals in. Many can argue that there isn't that "much" of a risk, but I beg to differ. A good analogy seen the other day does a great job on explaining this, imagine there are ten grapes. These grapes are considered the best in the world, and you can have as much as you want; but two are poisoned. How many do you eat? The most common answer is none because why risk your life for some grapes? The same can be said about the Syrian Refugees.
The opposing side can make an argument that many are not a risk, but I ask the following question "How do you know a terrorist from an average citizen"? It's hard to find this answer, and even though the numbers could state that it is low does not mean it is necessarily true. With an increase in Syrian Refugees led to more crime, like in one country that accepted them; Lebanon (1). It stated thar crime has increased with letting more refugees into their country. Same thing that can happen in the United States, where letting in these members proposes a high risk on what will need to be changed (2). Once more, why risk it when it has these negative impacts?
II. Every Country for Themselves
Besides the risk of letting them in the country, why should we be involved with their affairs? What have they done to help the U.S. out in any way? They haven't, and we shouldn't get involved within their affairs. And even if we do, the Syrian's seem to never be grateful for our help. Stated under the article "Ungrateful Syrian Refugees in Uruguay say They Want to Move Somewhere Else" (3), it basically states how a majority of Syrian refugees are ungrateful for our support. This kind of draws the line of trying to help out, and worry about ourselves. If they are ungrateful, and seem to be fine without the help; why should we. Also, stated under source (4), there is a Youtube video in which shows the "Behind the Scenes" with Syrian refugees which the media does not notify us about.
I. Negative Impacts of Overpopulation
Besides an increase in crime, Syrian refugees also pose another issue of overpopulation. Currently in the United States, there is the discussion about Mexican illegal immigrants coming to the country; and that is already putting a high population within the United States (5). Adding more people would just place a burden of more overpopulation within the United States. The negative impacts include: Economy, Environment, and a change in traditional values (6). Not good, and allowing Syrian refugees will promote a even further increase in this population.
II. Economic Impacts
To even further focus on the issues, lets look at the economic impacts of allowing Syrian Refugees in. Stated by the article "Impacts of Refugees in Societies" (7), it states: "First, when refugees arrive, the people who live in the host state that lack access to resources, education or power can be further marginalized. Second, the demand for food and other commodities will increase, which will lead to price rises in the host state’s market. The rise of prices will somewhat affect the local citizens. In the case of Jordan, one of the reasons for the price hike that we see today occurred because of the increasing number of Syrian refugees entering the country each day. According to varying studies assessing the economic indicators on a host country by arrivals of refugees are: per-capita GDP, inflation, wages, employment, government expenditure, or living costs". A lot of negatives than positives.
maddyvonree forfeited this round.
For being fair because my opponent ran out of time to Rebuttal, I will Rebuttal net round.
1. In round 2, my opponent stated ," A good analogy seen the other day does a great job on explaining this, imagine there are ten grapes. These grapes are considered the best in the world, and you can have as much as you want; but two are poisoned. How many do you eat? The most common answer is none because why risk your life for some grapes? The same can be said about the Syrian Refugees."
First, I'd like to point out that representing a ten to two (or five to one) refugees to terrorists is not only extremely inaccurate, but highly unlikely. According to the Last Week Tonight Show, the host John Oliver did some math behind this analogy. Mike Hukabee said,"Let me ask you this; If you bought a five-pound bag of peanuts, and you knew that in the five-pound bag of peanuts there were about ten peanuts that were deadly poisonous, would you feed them to your kids? The answer is no" (A).
I agree that the answer is no, however a five-pound bag of peanuts has around a thousand peanuts in it. This suggests that one in every one hundred refugees is a terrorist. According to MPI, or migration policy institute, "The reality is this: The United States has resettled 784,000 refugees since September 11, 2001. In those 14 years, exactly three resettled refugees have been arrested for planning terrorist activities and it is worth noting two were not planning an attack in the United States and the plans of the third were barely credible" (B).
This concludes that only 1 out of about 200,000 people would be a terrorist let alone perform a terrorist attack on the United States, which leads me to my next argument.
2. In the second round, you also stated, " 'How do you know a terrorist from an average citizen'? It's hard to find this answer, and even though the numbers could state that it is low does not mean it is necessarily true."
There is actually a vetting process, background check, and screening that Syrian refugees have to go through to enter the United States. I won't walk you through the entire process, however it is a rigorous procedure that includes the UNHCR and 9 different government agencies. Any person coming into the United States has an intense vetting process, but the Syrian refugees have a much more intense vetting that other people. This includes the FBI Terrorist Screening Center, Department of Defense of Homeland Security, the DHS performs multiple interviews,fingerprints are collected, etc. After all of this is over, only about 50% pass and are allowed into the United States. All together, the vetting procedure takes from eighteen to twenty-four months to complete (C).
3. "Besides an increase in crime, Syrian refugees also pose another issue of overpopulation."
The overall birth rate of the United States is inherently low. Your argument states that if the Syrians come into America there will be a drastic increase in population, however studies have shown that birth rates among Muslims drop and adjust just as they do in America as education rises and there are changes in the standards of living. The birth rates were low before the war, and a lot of Syrian refugees are properly educated and would actually do well in this economy (D).
" The fear that refugees led to higher crime rates also turns out to be wrong. Refugees who become immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the native population. When allowed to work, they tend to start businesses and integrate themselves into the workforce as fast as possible, paying more into the social systems than they extract from them" (D). That argues crime rates and economic risks. The crime rates wouldn't go up, but would go down, and they would boost the economic system rather than deteriorate it.
^ (all sources used in this video are listed in the description below the video)
For this round, I shall rebuttal with my opponent on why Syrian Refugees should not be allowed within the United States.
1. In the previous round I brought up an analogy describing the situation. The analogy was the use of grapes, and a few being poisoned; so how many would you eat? My opponents response was the following (italicized): \
First, I'd like to point out that representing a ten to two (or five to one) refugees to terrorists is not only extremely inaccurate, but highly unlikely.
I beg to differ because stated under multiple sources (1 & 2), it was stated of a possible risk being taken. Why risk it, when there is easily a possible threat? And the best part is that my opponent agrees with my analogy in a way with the following quote: "I agree that the answer is no". If my opponent agrees with saying "no" to the risk of a poisonous grape, same with a syrian refugee; why propose this? We need to worry about ourselves more than a group of unknown individuals.
2. Then my opponent says the following:
There is actually a vetting process, background check, and screening that Syrian refugees have to go through to enter the United States. I won't walk you through the entire process, however it is a rigorous procedure that includes the UNHCR and 9 different government agencies. Any person coming into the United States has an intense vetting process, but the Syrian refugees have a much more intense vetting that other people. This includes the FBI Terrorist Screening Center, Department of Defense of Homeland Security, the DHS performs multiple interviews,fingerprints are collected, etc. After all of this is over, only about 50% pass and are allowed into the United States. All together, the vetting procedure takes from eighteen to twenty-four months to complete.
Yeah thats great that they have a process, but how reliable is it? What is a terrorist? A terrorist, in reality, can be anyone within society, but we don't know that. In fact, finding a terrorist is more complicated than just simply not letting them in for two reasons. The first, is how do we know a terrorist out of a group of people? Stated by the National Commision of Terrorism (3), they state: "These more loosely affiliated, transnational terrorist networks are difficult to predict, track, and penetrate. They rely on a variety of sources for funding and logistical support, including self-financing criminal activities such as kidnapping, narcotics, and petty crimes. Their networks of support include both front organizations and legitimate business and nongovernment organizations. They use the Internet as an effective communications channel". This is saying that letting the information of one individual out of the 750,000, my opponent presented to me, takes a lot of work and not even worth it.
As well as the funding for it, which is a lot more to be placed with a emphasis on. It requires a lot of money, and really just not worth it compared to just not letting any Syrian Refugees in the country (4).
3. Then my opponent proposes that there will not be an overpopulation. There will be because if around 750,000 come into the country, there will be an increase in stuff that will need to be provided. Also for crime, they will cause an increase in crime like provided previously. To provide even further, Germany themselves admitted that accepting refugees even led to a 65% increase in crime (5).
To conclude this round, my opponent makes the claim with his source D, but after watching the video does not provide any of the claims he stated. Only in the description of the video had he used those sources. He is using a tactic in order to promote the "winning" of the source point by abusing all these other sources that were not used during his claim. Just wanted to bring this up in order for voters to be notified on what is happening.
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Because of personal matters, I must forfeit this round. However I do have one last argument. Why is this on the statue of liberty if we don't live by it? Is that not contradictory in itself? My point being that we as people all have the natural right to live freely. Us not letting Syrian refugees in is killing more people than terrorists ever have/will in America. We have put out the lamp beside the golden door out. Humans are a selfish race. "Why risk it?." We risk it to save the lives of millions of people. I know it's cliche, but we need to step up and make a difference in the lives of these people. They need us, and all we' re thinking about is how it impacts us. How does it impact them? Maybe think about that for a change.
Because of my opponent forfeiting the round, I must urge voters to vote Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by StatsAndFacts 6 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||1|
Reasons for voting decision: I vote Pro!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.