The governors of the United States are justified in rejecting Syrian refugees

Henceforth I will now refer to DebatingPolitics97 as pro in this debate in the fact that my opponent, pro will now support the claim that "The governors of the United States are justified in rejecting Syrian refugees," which I shall now refer to as the conclusion. Pro, you have my gratitude in entering this debate as a conservative Republican, as presented in your comment since there is a negative image with this party in this issue and I would like to understand how a Republican might view this situation, but of course I cannot make the claim that this negative image applies to all Republicans. This can also be said for the other main party, the Democrats, but in this debate, I would like to avoid the blame game on the demonizing of a party for their actions as presented in the media. What I might bring up are the actions of a party as seen in history and the present time and the consequences when it is relevant. As a person from a family of refugees in recent history, I hold this topic dear to me and might use examples from my experiences as well as evidence to support my claims. I hope for this debate to provide a new perspective to the both of us and anybody involved. Firstly, I would like to identify what a refugee means from the Oxford Dictionaries, which shall be my source in this debate to define any terms. A refugee is defined as, "A person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. " This is much different than an immigrant, which is defined as, "A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country. " The two status on a person cannot be interchangeable and the main focus shall be on the status of a refugee. From the definitions, it can be said that a refugee entering a new country, that their life is at stake, while an immigrant's life might not be necessary at stake, but instead, is looking for a better life. In this debate, I would like to strictly focus on refugees from Syria since the conclusion calls for it although there is no doubt refugees from other middle eastern nations are affected as well. I would also like to define the verb, reject and the noun, terrorism. Reject1.1 - Dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste.1.2 - Refuse to agree to (a request).1.2 - Fail to show due affection or concern for (someone). Terrorism1 - The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Now, I understand that these governors have concerns with the risk of terrorism in their state, but I am here to debate that this is still not justifiable in denying a safe haven to refugees who are actual victims to terrorism. To date, the death toll in Syria is 250,000+, of which 30,000 are children. [1] Are these not innocent civilians of war from terrorism? Keep in mind that the United States is also accountable for the death toll of these innocents from air strikes. The causalities for western civilians and soldiers just doesn't compare, but unfortunately, this is the price of war, not counting the economic cost, time, and trauma. Should the United States not be held responsible and pay the price for playing a part in the rise of these extremists? These were some of the things I pondered when I decided to be con to this conclusion. National security is always a concern when there are enemies that are out to topple a nation and it can be said that some citizens have complacently put their trust into this security until the recent unfortunate events that took place in Paris. This war is also unconventional as well with the attack on innocent lives, but that is precisely the goals of terrorism, to strike fear into the hearts of people, and it seems to work. I believe these governors have a moral obligation to shelter the incoming wave of refugees. These refugees are fleeing for their lives and are requesting protection, yet they are being rejected. As a person with families who were once refugees, we want nothing more than to pursue life, liberty, and freedom. If possible, some of these refugees are willing to go back home once the terrorism has cease. We are all humans so it is natural to just want to live, yet these refugees are discriminated against as portrayed from just a handful of few who claim to be Islam that wants the death of the western lifestyle. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslim. In terms of further discrimination against the Islam religion, was it not the intention of the framers of the Constitution to create a nation where everybody is free to practice their religion as presented in the First Amendment? Most Americans are considered Christian and is it not in their values to help others when they are in need? With the fear and distrust in the Muslim people and the refugees, there are some governors who would further discriminate against these communities in their state although these people should have the protection of the Constitution. How can the very same people, who preach freedom and want to spread it in the middle east, not want to grant the very same freedom in the state that they reside in? I feel this hatred is what caused the divide in the American life and it further creates the hate that was never there, which can lead to terrorist acts as "us" against "them". [1] . http://www.iamsyria.org...