Sure, but this pretense that goes "oh noes we gotta stop immigration so we don't let in a terrorist" ignores the other, much easier and much quicker avenues such a terrorist already has, such as the hijackers of Flight 11 (first one to hit the WTC) who simply flew in from Canada and changed planes -- that's all it took. I'm pointing out that flaw in the basis of that argument, because it implies (and its fearmongering depends on) the premise that a terrorist can only enter via immigration -- in fact it would be more a last resort, making it a less likely, not more likely, method of entry.
The bottom line being, the idea of refugees as security threat is quite a logical stretch.
With the numbers involved (10 to 50 thousand in two years) and the patience of the leaders of IS, melting into the refugee mob has merits down the road. Those that melted into the mob can always solidify after settling in their new battleground.
Just as with other simple precautions meant to protect our way of life and Constitutional protections--such as voter ID--seem to rile the liberals among us, the added precaution of expanding the vetting process and requiring that senior officials vouch for each accepted refugee seems to evoke their anger.
If Obama's Rapid Transit System is installed, it will take two years to vet 10,000 'refuges'. What's another year gonna hurt?
Better yet, why doesn't Obama grow some goddamned balls and tell Putin that we are going to establish a nice refugee camp IN SYRIA, where these people supposedly WANT TO LIVE-- and there better not be one goddamned errant bomb or rocket attack that hits it?