Yes, because the prospect of almost definite death is better than the same chance of attack as any other american.

Sure it only takes one person to carry out a terrorist attack, but remember, the only 66 people who were terrorists were arrested. The vetting system is working. Not only that, but France was attacked and they are still letting Syrians in.

Our vetting process is rigorous enough, as they need to go through screening by multiple agencies and the director of the FBI needs to sign off on each one. And less then 1 percent of refugees were arrested as terrorists. It's worth the risk.

Even though there was a terrorist attack, France is still taking in refugees. They've actually experienced an attack and we should act more afraid and hide behind our boarders?

We should let in Syrian refugees. Of the almost 3,000 refugees we've taken in only 66 people have been arrested for terrorist activity and not all of those were even refugees. Not to mention the year and a half of verification done by the FBI for every refugee, including continuing to run one's information through terrorist databases even after they get in. And now the Supreme Court made it even harder to get in, making it so that the director of the FBI needs to sign off on every new refugee. Although it is not possible to completely get rid of the risk, it is very hard for a terrorist to get in and it is worth the small risk.