They Are Us
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I have no idea what the solution is, but I think it's clear banning refugees isn't it. I understand the fear, and I'm as scared as anyone about the potential for new attacks. Still, we need to unite everyone against ISIS, not drive new recruits towards them.
Christians and Yezidis are killed or slaved outright. Maybe they are asked to convert. No need to ask them if they will keep their beard or wear a hijab.
Go do some research about how Christian and Yezidi populations are being destroyed and which communities the slaves are from.
The fact that Syrian Muslim refuges have the ability to avoid execution by joining ISIS is no excuse for discriminating against those who do not. Giving Syrian Christians favorable status is tantamount to stating that ISIS murdering Christians (who do not accept their authority) is genocidal while ISIS murdering Muslims who do not join them is some less severe crime. It also implicitly supports joining ISIS as an acceptable mode of survival for Muslims.
So I say give priority to victims of genocide. Other refugees are not in such dire circumstances.
Republicans: "Why are we accepting these refugees from ISIS controlled regions when the security risk of Islamic terrorism is so clear?"
Democrats: "Compassion above bigotry. These people people are just trying to escape the civil war and continuous fighting a bombings."
Sane people: "So then why the fuck are we bombing Syria?"
One more issue where only by giving more (to strangers because you're guilted or intimidated into it) can the government fix the problem that it created. Keep them out of our country, and get the hell out of theirs.
What makes things worse is that it does not seem to serve the interest of any Western nation to accept the refugees this crisis has produced. If any one nation receives a large number of the displaced, it faces the possibility of a rapid demographic change which may alter the ideological composition of the population, or create pockets of unrest. France, with its large, mostly unassimilated Muslim population that has been blamed for destructive riots, is considered a cautionary tale on the dangers of "too much tolerance." What can one do? It doesn't seem Syria will be hospitable for a long time. Things don't look bright for these very unfortunate people.
For example, after WWII, German people were probably the largest demographic class of refugees [1], yet German people were probably also the cause of the greatest amount of deaths by torturing, killing, and enslaving (although they might come second to the Russians by some measurements; being only second worst does not invalidate my current point). If you argue that it wasn't the refugees themselves doing the bad things, then you must also take that argument to the modern-day refugees that you use to compare to those WWII refugees.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_German...
This is categorically different to your grandparent statement implying by negation that "refugees[...]have elements that were beheading, torturing, killing and enslaving".
Group T (terrorists) might intersect with group R (refugees) (suggested by "elements of [R] belong to groups [T]), but there is no evidence of this and even if there were it would likely point to a quantity that is well below the margin of error in sampling. This is an entirely different logical statement to "elements of [R] do the evil things of group [T]".
You must be clear when you make scaremongering statements that suggest refugees engage in terrorist activities, because your first statement was clearly wrong yet emotive and therefore easily spread. This doubles down with your second statement, particularly when you have zero evidence to support your restated claim.