Home » Featured »Politics/Policy »Religion » Currently Reading:

Sunday Poll: Should The Number of Syrian Refugees Coming to St. Louis Be Changed?

November 22, 2015 Featured, Politics/Policy, Religion 14 Comments
Please vote below
Please vote below

In September we learned St. Louis would welcome refugees from the Syrian civil war.  Last week governors in numerous states changed their minds about accepting these refugees.

Which brings us to today’s poll question:

The poll is open until 8pm, the answers are presented in random order.

— Steve Patterson


Currently there are "14 comments" on this Article:

    • So you’re suggesting discard them all rather than test?

      • Mark-AL says:

        Should MO conduct the “test” in St Louis? Columbia? Or maybe south of Cape Girardeau, near the Arkansas border–far from ST Louis? Do you want to be part of the control group? Would you want your child, mother, sister or good friend to be included in that control group as well?

        How can we be sure that in our screening process we are weeding out the dead wood?

        I remember doing my first project in Israel eight years ago. I did a site inspection once a month, and we worked directly for the Israeli government. After arriving in the Tel Aviv airport, EVERY MONTH, I was extensively interviewed not by one agent, but sometimes by as many as two others, all in separate interview rooms. Sometimes their screening process took two+ hours! And we were working directly FOR the Israel government! I wonder if the US is willing to invest that level of caution to weed out the dead wood among the thousands of Syrians who will enter this country. The TSA can’t even detect the hundreds of weapons and other banned items carried onto planes today, given today’s challenges. Or maybe they can, and the current program just isn’t working. Yikes!

        One mishap: hundreds of US (Missouri/ST Louis) citizens’ lives can be lost! In a matter of minutes! Do you want to be their next casualty?

        Obama’s comment, that the best action against ISIS and others is for US citizens to lose “the FEAR,” is naive and, I think, it is indicative of his inability to deal with a crisis of this magnitude. Is he saying, “If you’re strong, you’ll be safe”? I hope he isn’t that simplistic–essentially a rewrite of “The only thing to fear is fear itself”? That catchy phrase seemed to work then, when the world was simpler, when even our enemies possessed a level of humanity. Today’s enemy doesn’t!

          • Mark-AL says:

            Oh, then I feel so much better about the possibility. Thanks for clearing that up! Let’s open the gates! Let the fun begin.

        • JZ71 says:

          We usually agree. On this, we don’t, we’re worlds apart. One, most terrorists seem to be of the home-grown variety – we need to “control” the internet far more than we need to “control” the borders (if we don’t want to see people radicalized). Two, in any group – ethnic, religious, political, whatever – just 1%-2% are truly batshit crazy and ruin it for everyone else in that group. Three, terrorists WILL figure out how to get into any country. If they can’t get in thru legal means, they’ll sneak in. Four, people change – see what Sixty Minutes did on security clearances WITHIN the government*. Five, we’re all decended from immigrants, and most of our immigrating ancestors didn’t leave because things were hunky-dorry in the homeland, they left because shit was hitting the fan. And six, if we get paralyzed by fear, the terrorists will have won – none of us is getting out of this life alive, so you’re better off living every day to its fullest than spending too much time worrying about how you’re gonna die!


  1. Mark-AL says:

    Currently, Europe is facing a deluge of refugees from Northern Africa and the Middle East displaced from violence in those areas. Continental Europe is now struggling with the strain on its resources and space from hundreds of thousands of displaced citizens. So they’re struggling with logistical problems…and recently, those logistical concerns have parlayed into increased security issues. I’ve been directly exposed to the events in Brussels. Residents there are afraid to leave their homes. Brussels is less than a 4 hr train ride from my doorstep in Frankfurt, less than 3 hours by car. My three sons travel daily by train to a school located less than 1/2 hour from the Belgium border. I have experienced, first hand, the effects of terrorism on people’s lives. I have three more weeks until I complete my consulting project on the new bridge in Mobile, and then I’ll return to Frankfurt, where together as a family we’ll decide if we want to relocate to Switzerland or elsewhere. It’s that bad. And with Germany’s “wide-open-door” policy, it’s bound to only get worse.
    Emma Lazarus’ “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses….” probably doesn’t apply to 21st Century USA, IMO. When your kids leave the door each day and there’s legitimate concern that they might never return, you might want to rethink Lazarus’ bold words. My wife works in an ER physician 10 hours a day, five days a week. When patients arrive, there’s no screening process. The “injured” could easily be looking for an opportunity to terrorize. She doesn’t carry a gun.
    I’ve always been willing to help people who have EARNED my assistance. I detest welfare. And probably 99.99% of Syrians have earned the right to receive assistance and are deserving of our generosity. But at what potential cost? I’m not referring to logistical problems. I’m concerned about maintaining security. And until someone credible, other than B. Obama, can guarantee that hundreds of ISIS characters won’t be entering the US alongside those who are legitimate, I can’t support a program that will allow the Syrians to enter, carte blanche.
    I wouldn’t want to admit to myself that I encouraged my kids to live every day as if it were their last, especially if tomorrow something would happen to them. It’s a noble thought. And that’s all I can say for it.

    • JZ71 says:

      Unfortunately, if that 0.01% (or 0,0001%) is going to force you to significantly alter your life, then the terrorists have already won . . . statistically, you’re more likely to get hit by lightning than you are to be hurt or injured in a terrorist attack . . . especially if you move back to the farm!

      • Mark-AL says:

        At risk is not just myself or even my wife. As a father, one feels a different level of responsibility. Statistics give me the tools and conceptual foundation/reasoning to extract information from an ocean of data. Being a parent forces me into a position in which I need to make the best decisions based first on my intuition. A burning house viewed on TV doesn’t appear to be as hot as when you’re standing next to it. Sitting in your bathrobe, drinking a cup of coffee and watching the news featuring the most recent ISIS attack cushions the impact and force of terrorism. Seeing the effects of an attack da

        • JZ71 says:

          True, when it hits close to home, wherever that may be, it changes one’s perspective. But fearing one tiny statistic (irrationally?), while willingly living with far greater risks (because one simply can’t change them), is not rational, either. Here, in America, I’m at much greater risk of being killed or injured a) on the highway, by a drunk, illegal Mexican immigrant, a tweaked-out truck driver or, more likely, some drunk hoosier, b) on a city street, by a thug (black or white) with a gun, c) a family member or a neighbor with a gun and a grudge or a mental condition, d) as a pedestrian, by a distracted driver, e) lightning, or f) slowly, by my own poor choices, than I wlll ever be at risk from some terrorist attack. Until we crack down on guns and DUI by “legal” natives, “legal” residents and illegal immigrants, I’m not going to lose any sleep over the slim, slim “possibility” that a few radicalized idiots might (might!) slip through any screening process we put in place for “legal” refugees!

          • Mark-AL says:

            I can’t find fault with anything you’ve written. But once the US has opened the door to possibly allow the enemy to enter, the current “here in America” buffer has gone away. I’m fairly certain that any rational St Louisan will feel the heat differently if an ISIS terrorist attack breaks out in south St. Louis or even in Des Moines, IA, vs in Paris or in Brussels. That big ocean is a game-changer!

  2. Mark-AL says:

    How well do you think our government vetted Ms. Syed Farook? Wonder if the folks in San Bernardino would agree with the liberals of this post? “The federal screening process is thorough”–www.bullshitmakebelieve.org

    • Justin says:

      Ms. Farook came in on a visa. The screening process by which refugees would come in would be much different (the topic of this post) and much more thorough. Perhaps the process by which people are screened for visas should be made more secure as the visa process is the more likely target for terrorists. So because this woman got through on a visa we shouldn’t let refugees come in through a more secure process?

      • Mark-AL says:

        I’m with Trump on this one. Declare a moratorium on all Muslins/Syrians entering the US UNTIL THE US GETS THEIR ACT TOGETHER. Then, once we can guarantee America’s safety (first), let’s open the doors and give the deserving Muslins/Syrians all the help we’re capable of giving.


Comment on this Article: