Should the U.S. accept more than 10,000 Syrian Refugees? [View all]

[californiabernin]

The war in Syria continues to get more grim and dreadful. Something we can do is let in more refugees. It seems to me that as the "land of the free and home of the brave," we should be doing more for Syrian refugees. If you have a "magic number" of refugees you think we should accept, go ahead and post it. If you don't think there is a "magic number," then how should we decide how many to let in?

Edited to add this..

<snip>

The U.S. is the top resettlement country. It has taken 70,000 refugees annually (from all over the world, not just Syria) for the past several years and has upped the number to 85,000 in 2016 in response to the growing number of refugees, including the 10,000 Syrians the U.S. has approved for resettlement in fiscal year 2016.

Total Syrian refugees in U.S. as of Jan. 26, 2016: 2,715

Although some conservative politicians expressed outrage at that number, Jastram says 10,000 is far too few.

“As a positive political measure, accepting 10,000 Syrians is not sufficient,” says Jastram. “I think it’s completely within the realm of possibility for the U.S. to take at least 100,000 Syrians. It would be a strong statement to our allies in Europe and our friends in the Middle East — the countries who are bearing that burden — by showing them that we’re willing to step up.”

Canada, with one-tenth the population of the U.S., has committed to accepting 25,000 Syrian refugees in six months; nearly 14,000 have arrived there since November.



http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/01/26/syrian-refugee-crisis/

27 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Don't allow any Syrian refugees in
	6 (22%)
	Accept only the 10,000 Syrian refugees Obama has proposed
	4 (15%)
	Accept 65,000 Syrian refugees as Clinton has proposed
	0 (0%)
	Accept more than 65,000 Syrian refugees
	17 (63%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll