Debating whether to accept Syrian migrants

Intelligence Squared debated Should The U.S. Let In 100,000 Syrian Refugees? (mp3):

Since the Syrian Civil War began in 2011, more than 4 million Syrians have fled the country, creating the greatest refugee crisis since World War II. The United States has taken in just over 2,000 Syrian refugees since the war’s start, and the Obama administration has pledged to take another 10,000 in 2016. What are our moral obligations, and what are the cultural, economic, and security issues that must be taken into account? Should the U.S. let in 100,000 Syrian refugees?

To my surprise, the affirmative won the debate.

The negative used good arguments, but not good enuf. There was no mention of the billion more people who want to come here. Or that the pro argument was coming from a British man in the business of exporting refugees. Or that Moslems are doing long-term damage to the USA.

The pro argument was mostly emotional, saying that Steve Jobs was a Syrian, and that the Statue of Liberty promises that we will take everyone. The response was logical, saying that the refugees cannot be vetted, that they will go on welfare and cost too much, that it would be more effective to help them in Syria, and that we do not make policy based on a poem on the wall of the gift shop adjoining a statue.

An emotional argument against taking the refugees might get a critic saying that it was like Hitler. Not many people can stand being compared to Hitler.

Just as few people are willing to publicly say that Bruce Jenner suffers from a mental illness, few are willing to say that the Syrian migrants do not belong in the USA.