I'm not afraid of terrorism, are you?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not literally saying that.  I'm saying maybe we can't/shouldn't help them because of circumstances related to why they need help.

I think you like the way the one sounds over the other...but is there a qualitative difference between the statements?   

And I'm not aware of any ill will Burma has with the US.  The US, as far as I know, isn't constantly blowing up their cities, and 'oopsing' their children with drone strikes.  But we've taken Iraqi refugees, and that's seemed to have gone fine.  

You're not aware of any ill will that se asia might have had, as we absorbed nearly one million refugees?  Vietnam ring a bell?  Korea?  Laos?  I could continue.....

This may all be moot.  Perhaps, they are perfectly capable of handling the vetting process.  In the end, I think that's all people really want.  A pretty high degree of certainty on who's coming in.  (I still prefer not involving the US, but that's for selfish reasons not safety reasons).

I wholeheartedly agree.  However, whether or not we can do that will be moot point if we're unable to detach our condemnation of terrorists with our fears of refugees.  I;m not really prepared to criticize you for being -openly- selfish. Do that, have your own interests at heart. But at least allow for the possibility that taking in refugees does actually serve your interests.

But the refugees in Europe aren't exactly doing the group proud.

I think that europe isn't exactly doing europe proud (and have still managed to embarrass us, in context, in the process).....but I'm not sure why you have -again- welded the idea of refugees, as a whole no less...with the acts of a few loons or terrorists who might have or may one day be hidden -among- them.