You sound convinced like an Obama spokesperson, But under oath the FBI says different. There is no way to vet them. Not to mention it would cost Americans billions over the long term. Who is going to take care of those low skilled, non English speaking Muslims? You never mention the cost of these Obama programs. And why do they all have to be Muslims? Christians in Syria are far more at risk than Muslims. Why do they need to be military aged men? You still haven't given me a good enough answer yet. Why can't we help them fight over there? Why do they need to come here? I would rather help women and children.
The ones that can afford to get here are actually mostly middle class, or upper, and educated, or looking to become educated and not low skilled. Moreover this "Only military aged men are coming to the United States" bullshit you keep spouting like the truth is only just that: bullshit and I'm willing to bet you know it's bs. However, the more times you say a lie doesn't bring it closer to the truth.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees registers and tracks refugees. Before you begin with your "oh we can't trust the UN to do anything because of hasbara manual answer and/or GOP talking point about the UN is bad/Tinfoil hat answer about global one world New Order government," I'm going to point out that the UNHCR is the one that runs the refugee camps as well as the ICRC. Here we have the UNHCR data
http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php on the Syrian refugees: 4,181,329 as of Nov. 2, 2015. Here we also see that 50.3% of the refugees are female, so now we don't even have a "most of the refugees are military aged men," argument plausible anymore; the argument has been proven false. A more appropriate argument would be "Half of the refugees are male." However, out of 49.7% of the male refugees, only roughly 23% are between the ages of 18-59. Albeit, according to the United States definition of a military age, that would be males 18-35, so we can expect that number to be cut roughly by a 1/3 at most I'd wager. However 27.6% of the male refugee population is aged 0-17, 60+.
Now, what about all the ones that are coming in via the Sea to Europe, right? Only a little over half of the 534,000 "Sea refugees" are actually from Syria, the rest coming from Eritrea, Afghanistan and Sudan. Guess what? "Sea refugees" is already a problem in Greece, Italy, the Balkans, and Spain because of immigrants coming from Eritrea, Sudan, and North Africa in general - this is not a new problem.
Now, onto what Kerry said: If you actually took the time to listen to the entire speech, or knew the context, you'd know that when Secretary Kerry said that we'd in total bring in up to 185,000 refugees you'd know that these were not going to be all Syrian. You'd also know that President Obama said that in fiscal year 2016 we would accept at least 10,000 refugees from Syria. You'd also know that Geoffrey Mock, Syrian country specialist for Amnesty International USA said that with the 10,000 Syrian refugees "The priorities go to torture survivors, people with serious medical conditions, children and teens on their own, and women and children at risk." Moreover recently Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, senior fellow for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies has stated that there would be more efficient ways for ISIS cells to reach America than via the refugees.
So, you know, or you could just prove Padawanbater absolutely and undeniably correct when he said "You'll dismiss any sort of fact to confirm your own bias."
