Syrian immigration

Safe zone, aid

Regarding “Calls to ban Syrian refugees play right into terrorists’ hands” (Page B1, Wednesday), as an old oilfield hand, I have spent quite a bit of time in the Muslim countries — Nigeria, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, Iran, Azerbaijan, UAE, Indonesia, etc. I was required to have a bodyguard in some of these countries. I was told by “good Muslims” in some of these countries that more Americans should have died in 9/11. In contrast, I was teaching a class in Houston on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and had a group of Algerian students ask me if there would be a memorial service for the 9/11 victims they could attend.

There are good Muslims and Muslim terrorists. I can’t tell the difference until the shooting starts, and no one else including columnist Lisa Falkenberg can, either. For this reason, we should not bring the Syrian war refugees into the United States. Instead, we should create a safe area in Syria and give them humanitarian aid there. David Reynolds, Porter

Our character

Regarding “GOP aims to block Syrian refugee plan” (Page A1, Wednesday), of course we need to protect ourselves, but turning refugees away will put us at greater risk in the long run. We are a nation of refugees and have always helped those in need. That is one of the finest ways we express both our national character and the tenets of Christianity. We have a moral obligation to join the many nations that are helping people who are suffering.

Apart from the moral obligation, however, it is in our own best interests to help the Syrian refugees. By turning our backs on primarily Muslim refugees, we are giving the terrorists ammunition to use against us in their recruitment campaigns. There is undoubtedly some risk, but that risk is far less than the long-term damage that will be done by adding to the animosity and ill will that already exists toward us in Muslim countries.

We are at a fork in the road. If we choose to close our borders to refugees, our decision will be remembered by the rest of the world, and we will be despised for our callousness. If we take in those in need of help, the refugees that come here will tell their friends and family about the welcome they received and the way we changed their lives. That can change our image in the world, which will increase our safety in the long run. Barbara Navarro, Houston

Male threat

We are all concerned about the safety of the women and children fleeing horror and atrocities. But there are very legitimate concerns that ISIS will use this opportunity to infiltrate our country. After all why wouldn’t they? So why doesn’t the Obama administration simply exclude all males 10 to 45-years old? This wouldn’t prevent radical female terrorists, but it would go a long way toward reassuring the public and reducing the probability of a jihadist getting through the extensive vetting process. As Lisa Falkenberg says, “It only takes one.” Jack Cinque, Houston

Safety first

For most Americans, our country’s safety is far more important than being a port of entry for immigrants, especially those coming from a country like Syria where terrorists are being indoctrinated at an alarming rate. The Paris attacks were another example of what hap- pens with easy access to a Western city by Muslim extremists. Frank Hevrdejs, Houston

Technology

Lisa Falkenberg brings up valid points on immigration and why we should accept Syrian immigrants. The difference, however, is that all the immigrants of the previous waves came here to provide a better life for their families and contribute to the growth of our nation and ideals.

ISIS, our sworn enemy, has pledged to destroy our country and civilization by planting this wave with agents to fulfill their mission. Never before has technology allowed the individual such an ability to bring widespread destruction on a civilian population, and if one-tenth of 1 percent are agents on such a mission, ask yourself what could be the future cost in lives, civil liberties and economic growth, and is that a price we are willing to pay? Michael Arvanetakis, Cypress

Heartbreaking

Regarding “Calls to ban Syrian refugees play right into terrorists’ hands” (Page B1, Wednesday), Lisa Falkenberg makes a serious and complicated issue into a bumper sticker. Her main message is wishful thinking about how much safer we would be if we took in Syrian refugees. The difficulties of Syrian refugees are heartbreaking. The truth is that we would be less safe if we imported Syrian refugees, because as France well knows, they almost certainly will include violent people who are virtually impossible to distinguish. And that point should be considered, just as America’s duty to the world should be. In other words, this issue calls for balance. David Crump, Houston