I don't believe you're correct. To my knowledge in Michigan the request is to hold until there is a review of the vetting process to make sure it is as comprehensive as possible to avoid potential threats.
For the record, I myself believe in offering assistance to those truly seeking refuge from terror and deprivation. I certainly would never want to be in that type of need. But my memory of what happens when a nation seeks to export their troubles tells me we need to approach the situation intelligently as well as compassionately. Does no one remember the Cuban crisis of the 1980s?
I remember...
Part of what's lost in the hand-wringing is that effectively
any deviation from "full speed ahead" in the intake of Syrian refugees is equated with "fear mongering", "pandering", "hatred", etc., etc. that doesn't bother to differentiate between those that have reflexively called for a permanent end to accepting refugees (with whom I don't agree), and many others (including our own Governor) who have stated that while we wish to continue to assist such persons that events in Paris make it prudent to pause these efforts while we try to make use of any possible information that might come from Europe, post-attacks, that might point to the need to update our vetting processes.
A certain highly political magazine, that I cannot name here for obvious reasons, that you would associate with those who are reacting most strongly against the call to pause or halt the resettlement programs, shocked many of their readers by posting an article by one of their writers that told people to stop categorically trying to call out anyone that even suggested that a reexamination of the Syrian refugee program was warranted. They pointed out the likely fact that an average person would call such reactions to the facts on the ground in the EU a prudent thing to do, and to continue to categorically rail against such efforts would likely appear to the average person as detached with the current world around us.
Another difference that Graeme Wood pointed out in his Atlantic article on ISIS was that one key difference between ISIS and bin Laden & Co. is that while bin Ladel was always coy with the outside about what his organization was up to, ISIS it quite upfront about their plans. They are more than happy to tell you what they're doing. While further screening will
probably keep them from exiting the EU for the US, ISIS is very open that they are sneaking in "fighters" into the EU under the cover of being Syrian refugees. They may be inflating the numbers as they brag about it, but there's little doubt that they're doing it to some degree, but once again we have many people in the West that are refusing to take ISIS at their word. As one person I read pointed out, it's like watching ISIS and those in the West playing the parts in a surreal version of Monty Python's "Argument Clinic" sketch...
ISIS: We're sneaking people into the EU disguised as "refugees", right under your noses!
West: No you're not!
ISIS:
Yes, we are.
