We should not help anyone seeking refuge into this country until the Isis situation is taken care of

Happy holidays to you. Thanks for making your debate statement rather than dropping the topic all together. I look forward to a good two rounds.The heading for this debate is "We should not help anyone seeking refuge into this country until the Isis situation is taken care of" so with this cue, I"ll keep with refugees from Middle East and why these people fleeing war are not an ISIS threat. The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and in San Bernardino were no less than heinous but, the constant media replay and politicians are spouting off does nothing more than increase TV ratings and give office running politicians free face time and a soap box to stand on. We are glued to the TV being lead to believe that an ISIS attack is imminent, which is breeding fear and bigotry. Reason and compassion for the reality of the situation needs to be examined. The media has set a climate similar to McCarthyism of the 50s. Refugees from war torn countries are not our biggest threat. We need to be looking more toward what is happening in our own back yard. There have been far more non-terrorist mass shootings in the US than ISIS related attacks. Mass shootings in 2012 alone killed more people than the total by terrorism since 9/11 [1]. In fact, terror attacks have dropped in recent years [2] and deaths tolls in such incidences are significantly lower [3]. Also since 9/11, the people who do commit terrorist activities in the US have been predominantly home grown. Individuals who commit mass shooting often are white males with psychological conditions; they have anger issues, feeling of powerlessness and are socially isolated [4]. Yet, there is no more than a week long news flash when these incidences occur which fuels cries for gun law changes. But, the terrorist threat beat keeps droning in our media view when the real threat and frequency of incidences are spawned here at home not from abroad. Rebuttal: In response to your statement regarding the recent San Bernardino incident. Firstly, Syed Rizwan Farook was a, Illinois US born citizen, not an immigrant. He did not belong to a sleeper cell terrorist group [5]. Syed was living an American style life; he was a home grown ISIS sympathizer. His wife Tashfeen Malik entered the country on a K1 fiance' visa, which admittedly, who's background check was sloppily done [6]. But, this can be cause to wonder; if Farook was not indoctrinated would he have sought out a radical foreign bride instead of seeking an American Muslim spouse? This is a what came first, chicken or egg scenario to ponder. Rebuttal: FBIs ability to screen refugees. Since 9/11 vetting procedure has been substantially heightened. Those seeking refugee status are first referred through the United Nations or American Embassy, processed through State Resettlement Service Centers, go through multiple investigations and interviews, then are screened through several intelligence groups [7]. The vetting process can take up to 2 years. There are far more expeditious means for ISIS to threaten the US than going through the refugee program. It makes no sense that terror minded individuals would risk exposure with such in depth investigation occurring before they even step foot on US soil [8]. Already, there are 150,000 Syrians living in the US [8]; of these, not a single one has been responsible for any terrorist activity. The FBI did state due to the lack of information available from Syria 100% vetting was not possible. Nothing is ever 100%, and looking at the numbers of Syrian and other Middle Eastern immigrants currently living in the US, the threat doesn't bear a whole lot of fruit [10, 11].Half of the individuals who wish to escape Syria are children, the rest are equal numbers of men and women with only 2% of men being of combat age [9]. Rebuttal: The Roy Beck video. The video centers on immigration as a means of people escaping poverty, not war, or ISIS related incidence; not really topical. Though what he has to say does make sense to a degree, there are other factors not presented. No country or members of the World Bank historically has made significant investment in alleviating poverty at its source unless there's a return on investment. If a poor country does not have exploitable natural resources for industrial use or for export, along with a compliant government, no investment is made. So the poverty cycle continues. But, this is a topic for a separate debate. 1. https://www.rt.com...2. http://www.motherjones.com...3. http://fas.org...4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...5. http://www.cnn.com...6. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...7. http://www.economist.com...8. http://www.nytimes.com...9. http://www.politifact.com...10. http://immigrationpolicy.org...11. http://iraq.usembassy.gov...