CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.
Should the United States close our borders to Syrian Refugees?
According to the following article from Rolling Stone magazine, we should continue to take in refugees in order to defeat ISIS on the grounds that future terrorists might change their stance depending on the treatment they receive. Do you agree or disagree, and why?
Yes because they would be coming to our country , still with hate in their hearts and there is no good reason that they won't still fight back, even though they is welcomed in our country. They need to close the borders before we all possibly die.
There is little reason to think that refugees who have been forced to flee for their very lives would be filled with hate towards any nation which accepted them as they fled for their lives. And even if there were reason, there is certainly none to think that they would flee for their lives only to kill themselves attacking the country.
NO because if they close them people will not fill welcome. Everyone does not have hate in their hearts some people are actually kind. Closing the borders does not make us safe we still gonna die
ISIS terrorists could blend in with the Syrian crowd so I believe we should close our borders for the time being. At least until all this talk about the attacks on Paris die down.
we should close the borders because we would have refugees fleeing the terrorists in their homeland. We must welcome them with open arms so that we may look at the US as a friend more so an enemy
Yes, because we aren't going through the process to check every person. We should actually have a district that is fenced in and airdrop food and supplies so they aren't any threat to us (they won't be where they were and be safe, plus have free food and supplies). Jihadists can easily slip in with the refugees, and acquire their weapons from the mainland instead of bringing it with them. Closing the borders keeps an already unsafe America from getting any more hazardous.
Evidence? They found fake passports into France from Syria on the terrorists involved in the attacks on Paris. What does this mean? They're slipping in, and if they can get into France, they can just as easily get into the United States. With us being in an extremely diverse state, it's hard to see corruption within the system. If gangs can traffic millions of dollars worth of drugs through ports and airports, what do you think ISIS can do?
While it is true that their is a risk of letting terrorists into the country, a prime example of how letting in refugees can work is Germany. They have been excepting the refugees for some time now and there have yet to be any attacks from them. They even set up camps for them to provide shelter.
My fence idea is a temporary stage for refugees. It's basically a camp where they all hangout until we can in-process and account for the people within. Will be a first come first serve type of deal. This lets them escape terror, and then gain settlement within the US.
I DIDN'T MEAN TO POST THE FENCE IDEA BUT I WILL CLARIFY JUST BECAUSE
We should open our borders to Christians because they have been tortured and killed by ISIS in their attempt of religious cleansing of Arab nations. We know for sure Christians are not part of terrorist groups. Obama has said very little to help stop the atrocities against Christians in that part of the world. He could now do something to help them.
There are plenty of majority Muslim nations who can take the Islamic refugees. We are a majority Christian nation and it only makes sense we would take Christians as well as Atheists and those we know for sure are not ISIS terrorists trying to get in this nation.
Our government can do what it wants with refugees. It can totally say no to refugees so why on Earth could it not make stipulations for which refugees. They are not us citizens so they do not have the rights of citizens and we can pick and choose who we take.
The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This mandate holds with respect to any form of establishment of religion, whether it is directed at citizens or not.
Thanks for that bit of trivial information that has nothng to do with the topic.
When hypocrites such as yourself start carring for the freedom of Communties to choose a school prayer if they want (with no child forced to pray and that establishes NO religion) then I might actualy care waht you say.
In the mean time, that clause has nothing to do with refugees.
I'm also for Atheists coming into this nation because they would also not be terrorists. It's all about common sense, but sadly Liberals have none.
When hypocrites such as yourself start carring for the freedom of Communties to choose a school prayer if they want (with no child forced to pray and that establishes NO religion) then I might actualy care waht you say.
Christians and Jews got rid of school prayer. Christians are the ones who don't want to hear prayer.
You are just trying to deny God's right to send you to Hell. He is all loving and all you have to do is believe in Him to avoid eternal torture in Hell.
Let me be clear. I would also accept Atheist refugees. This is not just about Christians, it's about the sanity of making sure no ISIS gets in this nation.
Islamic terroists would not lie and call theselves Christians or atheists because it goes against their religion.
If you are really as worried about terrorists sneaking through the amazingly strict vetting process, don't you think they would be fine lying for the sake of their "greater good"? What makes you think they wouldn't make some small "sacrifice" like that?
Do you ever watch the news? There are very few records or databases to know anything about these refigees from syria. Why on earth do you keep spewing Left wing rhetoric?
Watching the news will tell you very little. I have researched the actual process of vetting, which is why I know that when the 10 different U.S. agencies and the U.N. agencies don't have enough information to vet them, they aren't accepted.
So why on Earth do you keep spewing Right wing rhetoric?
FromWithin? I can't tell if this is supposed to be a Devil's Advocate question or not, considering the fact that you are overly familiar with the poster in question.
Locking out Muslims and not Christians would be taking us back nearly 100 years to the times of the immigrant quota act, the Red Scare, and strong Nativism within our country. Keeping people out is not what our founding fathers had in mind when the created our country and Constitution. We are the land of the free, and a Nation of Immigrants. The "Great American Melting Pot."
This is not immigration. It is refugees and we can do what we want. You can play the bleeding heart idiots and then scream when terrorists kill your familiy member. Let muslims go to muslim nations and Christians come to us. IT'S COMMON SENSE!
Muslims have also been tortured and killed by ISIS in their attempt of religious cleansing. We know that Muslims being tortured and killed by ISIS are not a part of ISIS or their affiliates, or they would not be being tortured and killed. Muslim refugees are fleeing for the same reasons as Christian refugees. Intrareligious persecution is definitely a thing; that would be what drove early European settlers to what would become the U.S. in the first place. We also can not know that someone claiming to be a Christian refugee is actually Christian and not an ISIS terrorist.
The United States is majority Christian but this does not mean that it is exclusively Christian. You are ignoring that we are nation of plurality which has already accommodated religious plurality.
Why must people on the Left ALWAYS twist other's words. Where did i say tht Muslim refugees should not be helped. I said they should be located in majority Muslim nations where they could not murder Americans if they were terrorists.
Do you have any idea how terrorists laugh at the weakness of bleeding heart Liberals? You play right into their hands!
It is this same bleeding heart lunacy why our welfare roles are bloated and the poverty rate keeps getting worse. To strictly hold to your no profiling, no discrimination dogma, you would sacrifice thousands of lives and do far more harm than good.
These refugees deserve to be helped and every nation should help them in the best possible way to keep their own citizens safe!
Why must people on the Left ALWAYS twist other's words. Where did i say tht Muslim refugees should not be helped. I said they should be located in majority Muslim nations where they could not murder Americans if they were terrorists.
Where did he say that you believe that Muslims don't need help? You twisted his words.
Do you have any idea how terrorists laugh at the weakness of bleeding heart Liberals? You play right into their hands!
Hmmm. Sounds like someone might be starting to abandon their position because they have no real argument.
It is this same bleeding heart lunacy why our welfare roles are bloated and the poverty rate keeps getting worse. To strictly hold to your no profiling, no discrimination dogma, you would sacrifice thousands of lives and do far more harm than good.
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd, there it is.
These refugees deserve to be helped and every nation should help them in the best possible way to keep their own citizens safe!
I wish you could have expanded on this instead of attacking welfare.
I never claimed you said that Muslim refugees should not be helped. I directly responded to your argument that the US should accept only Christian refugees. For reasons already elaborated upon which you have neglected to address, there is no reason to conclude that permitting Muslim refugees creates a unique risk to only allowing Christian refugees. I will not reiterate, but instead refer you to my analysis above.
My views on this issue are entirely independent of my views on welfare, poverty, profiling, discrimination, etc. Stop trying to divert attention away from the point just because you are losing it. And stop accusing me of being a liberal; it has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people that I am not a liberal. You do not even know why I adopt the view I do on this issue, but I assure you it is not for the reasons you have assumed.
LOL, you are the exact reason I ban people who waste my time. There has not been one subject that I have spoken to where you support my Conservative argument. Hence, you are in my book the opposite of a Conservtive which i call a Liberal. I could care less what you want to call yourself. So far you call yourself nothing but a devil's advocate. It amazes me why Liberals are so ashamed of admitting who they are. Must be your ideoogy is pathetic to be so ashamed of it.
I am a Conservative and am proud of admitting it. There is nothing they stand for that I am ashamed of.
LOL, you are the exact reason I ban people who waste my time. There has not been one subject that I have spoken to where you support my Conservative argument.
So you admit that you ban people because they disagree with you.
Hence, you are in my book the opposite of a Conservtive which i call a Liberal.
Not only does disagreeing with your opinions not make them the opposite of a Conservative, but Liberals are also not the opposites of Conservatives, and using the term "Liberal" that way makes no sense linguistically speaking.
So far you call yourself nothing but a devil's advocate. It amazes me why Liberals are so ashamed of admitting who they are. Must be your ideoogy is pathetic to be so ashamed of it.
Except, as has been explained to you, it isn't his ideology. You've already admitted you have no idea what "Liberalism" is, as you think it simply means disagreeing with you. Therefore, how can you feel justified claiming to know what people who disagree with you think?
You have tacitly conceded the preceding arguments against your claims by your repeated failure to address them.
I am not in the least bit ashamed of my actual ideological stance. If I were a liberal I would not be ashamed of that either. It just happens that I am not a liberal, just as I am not a conservative. You are clinging to a very limiting, false dichotomy which is ultimately irrelevant to the actual substance of debate. Incidentally, I disagree with your rationale far more frequently than I disagree with your conclusions; unsurprisingly, you cannot seem to grasp the difference between the two.
You accuse the left of playing right into their hands when you are actively caling for the realization of IS's stated goals. Again, what you are calling for is what they want, as they have said, in their own words.
It's insanity. The right did exactly what Al-Qaeda wanted after 9/11, completely ignoring their stated goals, and you guys refuse to learn from your past mistake.
LOL, you actually believe one word out of a terrorist's mouth! Obama hqs been a Muslim sympathiser and take a look at the results. Terrorism has grown leaps and bounds. He won't even call them Islamic extremists because he is so afraid of offending them.
Do you actually think they could care less what we say or do?
They are bent on destroying Western civilization and people like you think you can coddle them into changing.
LOL, you actually believe one word out of a terrorist's mouth!
Tell me, why would they have any reason to lie about their intentions within their internal publications?
Obama hqs been a Muslim sympathiser and take a look at the results. Terrorism has grown leaps and bounds. He won't even call them Islamic extremists because he is so afraid of offending them.
Do you have some statistics that back up your claim that Islamic terrorism has grown, or that it is caused by Obama sympathizing with Islam?
Do you actually think they could care less what we say or do?
Of course they do, and you think so too. They hate us, they hate what we say, and they hate what we do. They clearly care. The fact that "They are bent on destroying Western civilization" proves that.
and people like you think you can coddle them into changing.
WOW!
And where is your evidence that I want to "coddle them"? Is that simply based on the fact that I don't support giving them exactly what they want, as we did with Al-Qaeda (with disastrous results for our country)?
The US is national melting pot. Letting in refugees can help portray the US as a friend and not an enemy. Saying that we should only let Christians in is an example of why we get attackd in the first place. They should feel welcome. Germany has been accepting refugees for months now and they haven't had any terrorist activity yet.
Based on the religion of Christianity alone, it is a sin for the terrorism. Now, looking at the history of terrorists, when has there ever been a Christian terrorists? Sure, a terrorist could say that they are Christian and come in to commit Jihad, but, that would be against their Allah.
I do not think we should close our borders but we do need to keep a close eye on them just in case the terrorist disguise their selves as refugees. That would bringing chaos to our country and that isn't very smart.
I don't know, the automatic association of Islam with camels seemed iffy, especially considering the countries with the three largest Muslim populations don't have camels.
The association seems inaccurate, but not particularly prejudicial in my estimation. Perhaps that is just my occasional inability to differentiate between ignorance and prejudice though. Antiquated makes a certain sort of sense. Alternatively, anti-Islamic may be a bit more to point? Not especially important, all told, but I was curious to know if I was missing something.
You are conflating two populations: refugees and terrorists posing as refugees. One can trust the former while acknowledging that the latter may exist. Or, at least, anyone with basic critical thinking skills can make such a differentiation.
So, you can distinguish between these two when all these immigrants come in? Law enforcement can use you like a sniff dog and point these people out. Problem solved.
I disagree because if we actually close our borders then what would happen if we need more refugees. To be honest , we should just be friends with them if you what I mean. 😏
I would say no because if we open up our borders to the refugees then how do we know they wont come in and try to attack us then what are we going to do then. They you,d come in and where giving them all this help with living in the U.S. and they form secret groups and plan attacks on us
The majority of refugees actually are refugees who are fleeing because they are afraid for their lives. Maybe a small number will be violent extremists taking advantage of the refugee situation, but then they are hardly to be considered actual refugees. This is what review and tracking procedures exist for. Domestic surveillance and intervention is considerably less complex than the alternative anyways.
I think we should not close the borders because if they close them how will people get in. Some people might need help.What would happen if the United States suddenly stopped building walls and instead flung open its borders, not unlike the European Union has done among the member countries of the common market? Conservatives malign the notion and liberals, even radical ones, haven't exactly embraced the "open borders" concept.
You are saying that you do not think we should close our borders, but then you copy and paste something that does not make sense or go with what you said.
I agree that we should open our doors to the refugees because look at it this way if we close our doors and turn our back on the people who look up to us that look up to the fact that we're the Big Brother country we help everyone so if we turn away from people who need us then we really aren't a good Big Brother. Plus in an article we read it said that closing the doors would send the terrorist the wrong message and it's true if we close our doors they can just contact the terrorist already here or fly in and attack or anything because we don't know exactly what these terrorist are capable of.
I disagree that we should close the borders because we have to be open to more refugees fleeing the terrorists in their homeland. We must welcome them with open arms so that we may portray the US as a friend and not an enemy. While it is true that we have taken out numerous dictators and tyrants, we have left no instilled government, leaving them vulnerable to rebel groups and more tyrants. Bombing innocent civilians and terrorizing weddings and family events doesn’t help us look like a companion. This fuels their anger even more and that creates the next generation of terrorists. By accepting refugees, we show that we are here to help.
We should't close our borders for refugees because thats giving the wrong message. We don't want them to think that we are their enemies and we should help those who want to escape Syrian. We want to welcome them and make them feel wanted.
Look what happened in France. Should we take that risk here in the United States just to make others that aren't from our country feel welcome and safe?
Are we so above other countries that we are willing to risk our lives? Last I checked, we had abled body men and women who volunteer to risk their lives for our country so that we could live free from terrorism
We shouldn't close our doors just because of something that happened in France. Closing our doors would be sending the wrong to the people who look to us for help. Think of this if you were in a country and you were trying to get away and you always heard how the US would help people then wouldn't you want the doors open to let you in? I'm sure everyone would want the doors to be open. So next time think about that when you hear people talk about if the US should keep the doors open or closed.
There is simply no reason to. Now, I do believe that a proper background check and various psychological/criminal evaluations should be done (not that they are terrorists, simply because terror organisations would benefit from having someone pose as a refugee). But I think that the US should allow refugees to come in, these are people that have suffered and are looking for a place to stay, the US should be a provider.
shouldn't we, as citizens of the blessed and free United States of America, be open and show our so-called humanitarian ways? we claim freedom of religion and with that being the case, acceptance and tolerance must increase with the opening up to Syrian refugees.
No I do not agree because if we close our borders then they will more likely oppose us and maybe join with ISIS. So if we leave them open and accept them in, then that can increase our friendship with them so they will start to join our side
I disagree. We shouldn't close our borders to Syrian Refugees. It makes the U.S look like we fear them. That could cause an attack on us. We are here to help them, and we need to show that's what we are doing, and also the supplies will cause a big disagreement. We should keep the borders open.
We should not close the orders to all Syrian refugees. They were not the ones who attacked Paris and they are simply trying to escape the terror of their own country. However, I do believe they should go through background checks to ensure the safety of our own country, and only allow families to come in, no young, single men. The fact a Syrian passport was found on the body of one of the Paris attackers does not mean a thing. There are killers in every country, including our own. That doesn't mean we should keep out the peaceful people of Syria so that they can get killed.
I think the United States should not close the border because the attacks in Western cities should make the U.S. nicer to them. There are innocent people in Syria that need aid and protection. It would be a good thing to open our borders for more refugees because we want to show them that we are their friends and that we are here to help them. Also they can help the United States out because they can learn skills for jobs here. Killing people is not the answer to stop terrorism. A successful way to end terrorism is to support innocent Syrian people, which means letting them come to the United States.
No I do not think that the United States should close their borders. I mean they would have to keep a close eye on them. For the side that says "yes" I assume most of the reasoning is "A lot of them could be terrorists". And I believe this to be true. But think of the children and families that aren't terrorists. It could be a very big risk, but helping the people who need help, is worth the risk. Also they could get angry and start to go against us and join ISIS.