Before I begin, I want to direct you to a video that should basically sum up every American's opinion on the horrifying Paris attacks: John Oliver reciting a very NSFW soliloquy to ISIS. I have no doubt that this is what a majority of the civilized world was thinking as they saw the news coverage from the safety of their homes. Their anger is absolutely justified, and make no mistake; ISIS is an imminent threat and must be stopped. That is undisputed.

Now that I've cleared that up, let me get to the point.

There has been much debate about whether or not we should continue to take 10,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year since the attacks. Critics oppose the decision, saying that it could potentially lead to the U.S harboring terrorists, or worse, increasing the risk of another terrorist attack on America soil. One GOP House leader called the operation a “federally sanctioned welcome party” to potential terrorists. Governors from more than half of the contiguous states in the country are refusing to take Syrian refugees. Tennessee state House GOP Caucus Chairman Glen Casada has even gone so far as to suggest, "we... gather [Syrian refugees] up and politely take them back to the ICE [federal immigration] center and say, 'They're not coming to Tennessee, they're yours.'"

Last Wednesday, Roanoke, VA mayor David Bowers brought up the establishment of World War Two-style internment camps in an attempt to justify his refusal of refugees in his city, because the "threat of harm to America" is just as high as it was back then. What's more, GOP Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz has suggested that if there are any Syrian-Muslims who are really being persecuted, then they should be sent to "majority-Muslim countries." He has also expressed his support for a "religious test" to differentiate Christian refugees from Muslim ones; that way, we can admit the Christians and bar the Muslims, because according to Cruz, "There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror.”

The fact is, Americans are scared. If a city like Paris can be subjected to this kind of savage violence, then what's stopping ISIS from coming across our borders and threatening our national security? And now would be the perfect time to strike, with all these refugees - mostly Muslim - fleeing their homeland for safety. In the name of national security, it's better to be safe than sorry, right?

Well, no. I'm sorry, but I disagree.

I absolutely agree that we should definitely be cautious. I absolutely agree that America should help defend any and all who are threatened by terrorists. I absolutely agree that if there is a chance of danger here, then we should find a solution. But there are many, many problems with the "logic" that our country's elected leaders are using in order to turn away refugees from our country.

First off, Senator Cruz's plan to accept Christian refugees but deny Muslims is preposterous and in direct violation of the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Allowing Christians over Muslims (which is, in fact, a very un-Christian thing to do) suggests that Christianity has special precedent over any other religion in this country, when in fact, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." That quote can be attributed to a Founding Father himself, Thomas Jefferson.

Secondly, while it's all wonderfully patriotic of these governors to stand up and declare that they will not accept any Syrian refugees into their state, they can't actually do that, thanks to the Refugee Act of 1980 (which can be read in its entirety here). In the 1941 Supreme Court case Hines v. Davidowitz, Justice Hugo Black wrote, " When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute."

Thirdly, there is an unfair stigma placed around the Muslim community that anyone who practices the faith hates America, and that their holy book, the Quran, promotes violence. That is certainly not true. Leaders in the American-Muslim community have condemned the actions of ISIS, saying that "this is an extremist group that has declared war on all of us." In fact, a report released in 2011 (which can be read in full here), claims that "In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years." While most of that data comes from news reports, which makes accurately pinpointing an exact number difficult, Erin Miller, from the Global Terrorism Database, says that "It's not out of the realm of possibility, given the extreme concentration of attacks in majority-Muslim countries."

As for the Quran promoting violence, that is also not so. In chapter five, verse 32, it states, "If anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or to spread mischief in the land, it would be as if he killed all humankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all of humankind." It also states in Chapter 49, verse ten, "The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers." In Chapter 25, verse 63: "And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, 'Peace!'"

But then there's the problem of the Syrian passport found near the body of one of the failed Stade du France suicide bombers. That is surely a sign that there are terrorists among the refugees, right? It would be, if the Agence France-Presse didn't report that the stolen or fake. According to the AFP, the passport bore the name of Ahmad al-Mohammad, a soldier in the Syrian Army who was born in 1990 and died months ago. "French investigators," the report states, "say all indications point towards the fact he was a soldier loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity to A.F.P., said the passport was either taken or fabricated based on a real identity."

Another reason why it is unlikely that a terrorist would try coming to America under the disguise of a refugee is that it's just a plain hassle. The process of entering the country as a refugee often takes at least eighteen months, sometimes longer, and even then, only one percent of those refugees are permanently taken in elsewhere. Not to mention that refugees up for application go through thoroughly extensive background checks, conducted by several U.S government agencies, and more often than not, these applicants are rejected.

In fact, if a 2013 study (which, of course, can be read here) is to be believed, there are potential national security risks in not taking in refugees. The study, conducted by Michael Findley, Dalton Milton, and Megan Spencer, suggests that location of resettlement is a key element of determining the susceptibility of refugees to extremism. It finds that refugees placed in countries that had historic rivalries with their countries of origin were more at risk of becoming radicalized than refugees settled elsewhere.

This is a lot to take in, and I wholeheartedly understand if you don't look at every link that I have provided, although I strongly suggest you do. So, if you want to save time, I will offer you a simple reason why America should harbor these huddled masses yearning to breathe free: France will still be accepting 30,000 refugees over the next two years. If the very country that was attacked by these terrorists can still manage to open their doors to people trying to escape the very conflict that was briefly unleashed in Paris, then America, arguably the greatest influence in the modern world, should do the same.

The issue I have here is not merely the fact that we are willing to turn away these people; it saddens and angers me that we are letting xenophobia and Islamophobia guide us into making these decisions. America was built by immigrants. America wouldn't even have been founded if immigrants from Europe sailed halfway across the world in order to seek religious tolerance. It is shameful and frankly embarrassing that we are letting hate and intolerance blind us from allowing Syrians the same fresh start we made for ourselves nearly four hundred years ago.

We owe it to those seeking refuge, to those who died trying, and to those we have failed before. We, as lovers of freedom and denouncers of intolerance, cannot stand idly by and watch those who are less fortunate die. It is up to us to let these people in and finally feel safe. We cannot let fear and hatred lead us in making the same mistakes we have made before.