In 2011 the Syrian Civil War started, syrians were outraged with their government and starting protesting in ways that hurt the innocent. Many wanted to flee to their nearby countries, making it safer to live, while escaping in the process many have died, survived, or were forced to fight in the war when caught. Very few countries have accepted syrian refugees and other have refused to take in refugees, thinking that terrorists could be hiding amongst the syrian refugees, making it a big threat to their safety. Countries ought to welcome syrian refugees as opposed to shutting them out because we have sufficient resources to supply. Some have helped but there are still numerous more in need, although some countries have different opinions on …show more content…
Everybody has a different perspective on this situation but everyone ought to help in any way they can. The Washington Post points out “Some eastern european politicians call for supporting the migrants and for voluntarily increased acceptance of refugees from war-torn areas. Other politicians oppose the settlement of non-European refugees in their countries, and want to accept only "easily assimilable" migrants” (Rovny). Explaining that eastern european politicians will only accept specific groups of syrian refugees that will blend in with the citizens, it’s very unfair because it’s discriminating. Something else the Washington Post has mentioned is “In some Eastern European countries, it's the left-wing that adopts socially liberal positions that lead toward greater openness to immigration” (Rovny). Some in eastern countries are very open to immigration as stated by The Washington Post. Although, taking in syrian immigrants can be very dangerous in many cases. Reasons being is that one of the terrorists can be hiding amongst the refugees and cause harm, This will put many people at risk. We should take care of ourselves first rather than take in other people. We also need money, many americans take advantage of this source in