This document discusses three options for how the United States should handle an influx of Syrian refugees. The first option is to not allow any Syrians into the country due to concerns about potential terrorism. The second option is to keep borders open but implement strict screening of refugees. The third option presented is to continue allowing immigrants who can improve the country while strictly screening for potential threats. Finding the right balance of security and freedom is difficult but important.

1. 1
LaClair
National Security Essay:
Of the many debates surrounding our national security, one
of the most pressing matters is that of the Syrian refugee crisis.
This issue is something that is not only impacting the many
thousands of people that have been displaced from their home
country, but has also rippled outward and influenced the
surrounding countries that have opened their borders to them.
The question now is: how should the United States handle an
influx of these foreigners?
One option that is favored by a large portion of Americans
is to not allow Syrians into the country, primarily due to the
potential threat of terrorism. Acts of terror that have recently
occurred within US borders that have been tied to ISIS, Al
Qaeda, and other Islamic extremist groups have caused many
civilians to be extremely wary of Muslims. Since the
overwhelming majority of Syrian refugees are Islamic (and
possibly extremist), a possible option to combat the terror threat
would be to close borders to these people.
Another option, which seems to be the more balanced
solution, would be to keep our borders open to these individuals
who are seeking a new home, but to do so only after strict and
thorough screening. This would include background checks and
other forms of validating refugees to be non-threatening. A
cornerstone of the American dream has always been that people
from all places are welcome. There is no reason to close our
borders to an entire people unless absolutely necessary.
The federal, state, and local levels of government all have
a role to play in national security. State and local governments

2. is often viewed largely as providing quick reaction and
consequence mitigation to attacks (O’Hanlon), but in some
larger cities, like New York, counterterrorism units have been
created or incorporated into the existing police force. Much of
the responsibility of national security falls on the federal
government. The United States Congress is given the authority
by the Constitution to "declare war, raise and support armies,
provide for a navy, establish the rules for the operation of
American military forces, organize and arm the militias of the
states, and specify the conditions for converting the militias
into national service". (Talent) The President is also established
as the government's commander in chief, and the way the
Constitution is written in regards to the necessity of national
security shows that the founding fathers understood how
important the concept of national defense is.
Finding a balance between offering the freedom of
America to prospective immigrants and protecting current
Americans from malevolent foreigners has been difficult to
achieve. Conflict between different cultures seems inevitable at
times, especially when competition for resources is high. The
best course of action seems to be to continue to allow
immigrants who have the means and motives to better the
country to enter it, but to strictly enforce a screening process
that weeds out any potential threats.
Works Cited
O’Hanlon, Michael E. The Role of State and Local Governments
in Homeland Security. 14 July 2005.
https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-role-of-state-and-
local-governments-in-homeland-security/. 21 December 2016.
Talent, Jim. A Constitutional Basis for Defense. 1 June 2010.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/a-
constitutional-basis-for-defense. 21 December 2016.