In recent years, citizens and leaders of the United States have been faced with challenges regarding the refugee crisis. The refugee crisis is a severe and ongoing issue across the world that has sent millions fleeing from their home countries, a situation that has stirred up controversy in the United States over the past few years. Some argue that allowing refugees from violence-ridden countries such as Syria is a serious threat to our country’s security and doing so is more trouble than it is worth. Others claim that the United States has to stick to its values and remain a safe-haven for refugees and migrants, and that those who are trying to turn away refugees have no right to do so. However, only one side of this seemingly endless argument can get their way, and that side is the one trying to keep this country safe. The United States should be allowed to deny refugees access to our country and instead help to end violence in Syria. Therefore, the United States ought to decline refugees because of the security threat they present and because there are better solutions to this crisis.

The first of many reasons why refugees from Syria should not be allowed into our country is because they present a genuine safety concern. When coming from the Middle East, any refugee the United States allows could be part of a terrorist organization such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and that is something United States officials are taking into consideration. Merrill Matthews, co-author of the article “Should state governors be able to reject Syrian refugees?” said “For example, the State Department says that only 2 percent of Syrian refugees admitted to this country since 2011 are “military-age males.” So what? Anyone watching the news can see that young and middle-age adult males make up a good portion of those currently fleeing Syria. Even if the State Department restricted the 10,000 refugees to “widows and orphans,” widows have brothers and orphans have uncles, wouldn’t there be a need to let other family members in, if not now, then soon, in order to help provide for resettled women and children. And of course, some women have been suicide bombers.” This is something that needs to be considered. If the government’s concern is that “military-age males” will cause so much trouble, then why are refugees being brought into the country at all? The government can not just separate families, so they have to choose one of two options: allow any refugee into the country and risk another terrorist attack, or do not allow refugees in at all. However, in the article “Should state governors be able to reject Syrian refugees?” by Merrill Matthews and Don Kusler, Matthews states, “And they [the United States governors] know that the vast majority of the refugees would be honest and law-abiding, thrilled to get a chance at a new start in America. But even a vast majority isn’t 100 percent, and that presents a legitimate safety concern.” While yes, it is more likely than not that the refugees allowed into the country will be good citizens, there will always be the danger of one being a terrorist, and that is a risk several United States officials are not willing to take. Many people aren’t realizing the effect that just one terrorist can have on our country. Think about the events of September eleventh, all of which were caused by only 19 individuals. If United States government officials don’t start thinking about the possible long-term effects that could happen, our country may soon be on the verge of another September eleventh.

The obvious threat is that terrorists will enter the country alongside refugees, but what people are not really thinking about is the possibility of terrorists using the refugee situation as an opportunity to sneak into the United States illegally. This is not just speculation that officials are using as a reason to decline refugees, it is a solid fact. In the article “Kerry: U.S. to accept 85,000 refugees in 2016, 100,000 in 2017,” by Ken Dilanian, United States Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and United States Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) stated, “The Islamic State group and other extremist organizations ‘have made it abundantly clear that they will use the refugee crisis to try to enter the United States. Now the Obama administration wants to bring in an additional 10,000 Syrians without a concrete and foolproof plan to insure that terrorists won’t be able to enter the country,’” When taking this into consideration, why would anyone take such a chance? By accepting more Syrians, terrorists will have an easier time getting into our country than they would have before. It is like trying to find someone in Times Square on New Year’s Eve compared to finding someone in a sparsely populated park; with only a few refugees entering the country, it would still be a bit of a challenge and a terrorist might get by unnoticed. But, when you bring in the additional refugees, suddenly searching for terrorists sneaking into the country is like searching for a toothpick in a forest. Some may argue that our country’s security is better than people are making it seem, and they would be correct. The United States does have good security and even when taking in thousands of refugees, it would be ludicrously hard to sneak into the country. However, if we were not taking in refugees, the United States would not be juggling with making security tighter while also making it simple enough for people to pass through in a reasonable amount of time, so security would be more solid.

The United States definitely should not just ignore the refugee crisis. Instead of bringing refugees into the country, officials should help end the war in Syria so the refugees no longer have to relocate and can live normal lives. In the article “Republican Governors vow to block Syrian refugees,” by Steve People, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley asked, “If you really care about those people in Syria, why not take and put the resources in Syria instead of bringing hundreds of thousands of Syrians here?” A much more effective and long term solution to the refugee crisis would be helping to end the war in Syria, rebuild and help get the Syrians back on their feet. Does that not seem like the better solution? Why let Syria fall to it’s demise when the United States, as well as many other countries, have the ability to save it. In the article, “Kerry: U.S. to accept 85,000 refugees in 2016, 100,000 in 2017,” by Ken Dilanian, United States Secretary of State John Kerry said “the migrant crisis must ultimately be solved by ending Syria’s civil war and replacing president Bashar Assad.” On the other hand, it could be argued that our country needs to stick to its values and allow refugees into the country, no matter what. In the same article, Kerry also said that “Humanitarian aid has fallen short in the face of unspeakable suffering… This step is in keeping with America’s best tradition as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope.” This is true. The United States seems to have been letting the world down as of late, and the country could be doing so much more to help. However, it would be more beneficial for us and possibly the world if Syria was restored and the refugees did not have to enter countries such as France and the United States. But, the United States will be there for refugees if all else fails.

In conclusion, the refugee crisis is a bitter and long-lasting matter that has stirred up plenty of controversy. While the United States should stick to its values and help those displaced in the chaos, citizens need to realize that our country has to be vigilant. For that reason, the United States should be allowed to deny refugees access to our country and instead help to end violence in Syria. To do so, the United States ought to decline refugees because of the security threat they present, and the United States does not need to allow refugees, especially because there are better solutions. If governors and officials have the ability to turn away refugees and migrants, they have the ability to keep their state and ultimately their country safe, which is what citizens should want. And yes, the refugees do need help, but there are so many better ways to help them then allowing them into our country.