Acceptance of Middle Eastern Refugees into the United States

Thank you again for your arguments."For one the US has strong opposition to the Syrian Refuggess [sic] as there is massive polarization in the US on the Topic as the country is split with 51% of Americans opposing such a move."First of all, we should note that the source you cite is not at all recent, and it is quite possible that sentiments have changed since then. For example, a more recent poll from May shows that "The vast majority of people in the U.S. (71%) would let refugees into the country." [1] We also must realize that the margin of error in this poll is 2.9%, as mentioned at the bottom of your source, making it a statistical tie. The reality is, 51% is such a small majority that it would be quite easy to get the percentage wrong, and different sources say otherwise."..in Germany...refugees have committed over 200,000 crimes in 2015."First of all, this debate is restricted to Middle Eastern refugees only. Your article states that "Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis are the largest group of immigrants, but are less frequently delinquent in relation to other groups of migrants. Proportionately more offenders were found among immigrants from the Balkans (Kosovo, Albania, Serbia), Eritrea and Nigeria." None of the latter are Middle Eastern countries, so your statistics really don't even apply here. In addition, your source says that the majority of these crimes are petty crimes such as "riding on public transport without paying the fare", "forging paperwork to get money", and "cases of theft, mostly shoplifting." These crimes add up to 165,914 of the 200,000 mentioned. I should also note that your source doesn't note the number of refugees in Germany at the time nor the crime rate among German natives, which prevents us from comparing the two to see the extent of refugee crime as juxtaposed with the native German population."The US does have a good vetting system, but the Americans are currently concerned about these kinds of issues which is why the UN needs to help co-ordinate and lead a world wide effort to solve this issue."Throughout your argument you seem to postulate that a United Nations plan and an independent United States program are mutually exclusive. They are not. While a UN plan is necessary for a long-term solution, the crisis is getting so dire in Europe that fast, independent action is needed--action that the United States is uniquely suited to take. Countries such as Germany have helped a good bit, but they are suffering because of it (most notably seen in the New Year's Eve sexual assaults). A large body such as the United Nations, while able to handle crises such as these very efficiently, invariably take too much time to act in situations such as these. First all nations would have to agree to a common plan, and after all minutia has been negotiated on the UN level, each country would have to individually ratify it--a significant feat in itself considering the makeup of our current Congress. On the other hand, if the U.S. were to take action immediately, independent of the United Nations, we would only have to go through the second step, thus making the process much more streamlined in the short term than if the United Nations were to organize a plan. "...and only the UN can effiecently [sic] help them as the US cannot help much by taking only a miniscule portion of the refugees."This is a textbook perfect solution fallacy. [2] The United States of course cannot single-handedly solve the problem; that as you correctly pointed out is the role of the United Nations. But that is not the point. The point is to help in whatever way possible as soon as possible, and unfortunately the UN cannot accomplish that. Thus the United States must at first work independently of the UN in the short term and then partner with the UN for a long-term solution. I would also like to point out that your "counterplan" would almost certainly result in the acceptance of Middle Eastern refugees into the United States--it's still acceptance whether it's UN-directed or not."Under this situation we can see that it would be better that the UN directs the plan as it would help aid more people."To conclude, this assertion would be correct if the two plans were mutually exclusive. They're not. Our European allies are hurting and we can't afford to deliberate any longer. We need solutions now, and fast, independent action by countries taken individually is the only solution. After that, the UN can work to create a long-term solution, as you propose. But the United Nations counterplan is not a feasible solution in itself considering the urgency and the immediacy of the current crisis.I'm sorry this debate had to be cut short a round. I've had a lot of fun debating you and good luck for your final arguments. Best wishes to you.Sources1. http://www.amnestyusa.org...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...