We have seen the biggest refugee migration since world war II in our lifetime.  This is a big big ordeal.  Millions of Syrians have fleed their homeland in seek for a safer home due to Islamic protest and political turmoil.  Most of these people's homes have been blown up, destroyed, taken over by ISIS or other militias, or severely threatened.  Prompting one of the biggest migration of people in history.

This has been seen as a humanitarian response by the democrats.  They have decided to take in an extra 100,000 refugees compared to the usual 25,000 a year we have brought in to the US.  Meanwhile some of the other countries in the middle-east want nothing to do with it.  Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia have shamefully taken in no Syrian refugees whatsoever despite them being in a political turmoil.  At the same time, Republicans are in steady opposition to this radical move by the democrats.  I think its important to see both sides of this argument, and not just see this in a biased standpoint.

I get both sides.  Both sides have good points and they are valid opinions.  It's good to question what is going on around us and really be concerned about it.  As a libertarian - I understand and pick and choose from both sides of the argument.  First... I would say that Syrians do not need to be subsidized or funded towards anything.  We are not talking poor people here.  These are trained workers, most of them with valid educations.  I also do not believe that we would be any more prone to violence taking in Syrians versus not taking in Syrians. Let me explain.

Basically lets imagine an American citizen.  Born and raised who also happens to be schizophrenic.  This person passed a test and is able to get a gun prior to being diagnosed with schizophrenia or maybe the gun policy wasn't very good when purchased.  Regardless, lets just say this nameless person has a gun.  This person one day out of sheer insanity decided to shoot up his local grocery store.  Something triggered him... something.  Who knows what.  What a shame that would be to witness or see something like this.  In a world of 350 million people living in the USA, a situation like this is bound to happen.

Now lets talk about a Syrian refugee hellbent on proving a point under Allah.  This Syrian refugee wishes to kill as many people as possible in the USA and was given rights to go to the USA and then decided to kill 50 people the day they showed up.  That would suck too.  All of this sucks.

Now why did I talk about a Syrian refugee and an American citizen?  Well, the commonality of these two people is that they killed people.  Roughly for different reasons but there is a big point to make here.  One of them was a citizen.  Another was a Syrian refugee.  Now the question to me becomes: If we let Syrian refugees come to the USA, what is their apparent ratio perpensity to kill someone as opposed to an American citizen being willing to kill someone?

Now we're talking facts here.  That is the answer to our question as to whether or not a Syrian is more prone to violence than an American.  Do our research here. How violent is a Syrian really?  And at large, a Syrian refugee?  What are the chances?

At the same time, don't fund these people through government funding.  I would promote businesses and private entities perform humanitarian aid as many businesses currently do through thousands of charities.  Additionally - These Syrian refugees are thoroughly screened before coming into the country, which personally I don't like.  But maybe something like that is necessary to keep people comfortable.

I recommend watching this video regarding the Syrian refugee crisis and to do some research on your own as to where you should be standing and where you currently stand.