The US should not be taking in the Refugees from the Syria due to the high risk of terror activity

Since this only the second round, I’ll go with only two arguments for now. 1. Refugees are not a security threat. One of the primary concerns with allowing the refugees into the country is the fear that various terror groups like ISIS and Al Nusra will infiltrate the refugee lines and enter America, hence spawning another attack like the recent ones in Paris and Mali. Leading to the passing of bills designed to limit the flow of refugees into the country [1] To address pro’s point: “here is a high likely hood that many of those refugee's may be sleeper agents of a terrorist group or movement. if said sleeper agents were to gain access to the area's that they have designated as targets such as college campus's, inner city area's and essential buildings for everyday life. ” Yet to this day, no ISIS related attacks can be directly linked to the Syrian refugees, the suspected were not even apart of the refugees, neither were they of Syrian descent. In fact, all of the suspects as of now were European-born citizens, mostly from Belgium. This is what prompted a “terror alert” within Brussels shortly after the shooting [2]. As of now, there is no evidence directly linking the Syrian refugees with *any* of the recent attacks in Paris, Beirut or Mali. Hence it makes little sense to blame them for the attacks. Secondly, if terror groups like ISIS or Al Nusra wanted to infiltrate the west, taking the Refugee’s route would be ineffective, unlikely and too risky to maneuver. It would be far easier for them to simply take a fake passport, hop on a plane, and be in any country of their choosing in a matter of hours. The United States has some of the most strict counter-terrorist policies in the world, taking an average of 18 months for the average refugee to enter the country. If ISIL wanted to infiltrate the US through the refugee route, it would be long, ineffective and met with an abysmally low success rate. Sources: . http://www.cnn.com... . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . https://www.whitehouse.gov... 2. Isolation would encourage further radicalization Terrorism is defined as “The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. ” Note that the purpose of terror in this situation is to intimidate the opponent. The attacks carried out are not just made for the purpose of senseless violence, but to gain a psychological reaction within the opponent. Sparking mass hysteria, and leading the opponent to committing rash and fool-hardy decision in the midst of an emotional reaction. [1] The attacks made in Paris, Mali and Beirut were done for this specific purpose. The timing of the event played out just as the Syrian Refugee Crisis was gaining large scale, international coverage, and when countries within the EU were still divided on what action would need to take place. By having attacks at this time specifically, the following months would see an increase in anti-refugee sentiment. This can already be seen in the US, with the Republican party advocating a stop to the flow of refugees. With Ben Carson advocating for all programs towards the refugees to be discontinued, at one point, likening the refugees to dogs [4]. To prevent the refugees from entering the US, or any other country, would leave these people with nowhere else to go. Syria is far too unstable for them to return to, camps in Jordan, Turkey and neighbouring countries are filling up quickly. ISIS is using this opportunity to radicalize these groups, and doing so would require as division and isolation as possible. Sources:1. 2. 3. . http://www.activistpost.com...4. . http://www.politico.com...