Sorry for responding to something in one of the post galleries/mines but
Over 750,000 refugees have been resettled in the United States in the past 14 years; not one has been charged as a domestic terrorist; the United States has one of the most strict and extensive vetting process in the world for refugees entering the United States. The refugees fleeing Syria are escaping ISIL, and forcing them to stay in Syria only emboldens them. To close our borders to these people because of a terrorist attack committed in France by French nationals is immoral, prejudiced, and wrong.
He didn't mention the fact that the French nationals involved in the Paris attacks ultimately had roots in Muslim countries (or, in the case of one of them, partial roots; with his mother being Portuguese),
Even if you ignore the fact that it would be ridiculous and racist for our refugee and immigration policies to discriminate against an entire religion of one billion people just because of the actions of a handful of people, it's frankly absurd for you to imply that we should treat our own citizens any differently on account of their religious beliefs. Fortunately, our founding fathers envisioned that there might one day be people as absurdly bigoted as you, so they wrote the First Amendment to prohibit religious discrimination 
I wouldn't single Muslims out if I were in charge of a European country. I would want to restrict immigration from everywhere, even other countries in Europe.
Sure, not all Muslims are bad people, and they don't all bear collective responsibility for what a select few of them do. However, countries have the right to decide who can and can't live in them, even based on cultural reasons. The West is historically Christian, and Muslim immigrants' high birth rates in comparison to the low birth rates of Western natives mean that a future Muslim West is a realistic possibility (Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad/etc. is already the most popular baby name in the UK, for example). That wouldn't be the case not just if the West hadn't allowed so much immigration over the past few decades, but also if the left didn't contribute to the lowering of the West's birth rates by pushing secularism (people who are less religious are generally less likely to have children), abortion, and birth control. There are actually things on which I agree more with Muslims than with modern Western society (such as homosexuality and the role of women); but as a Christian, I want the West to go back to being Christian (at this point, most of the West is just nominally Christian) instead of becoming Muslim. I don't think Muslim countries would like it very much if the situation were reversed and they were getting flooded with European immigrants, do you?
There's one more thing I'd like to say. If the Paris attacks were committed by self-proclaimed Christians, I have a feeling that you leftists would have no problem with making generalizations about us and collectively blaming us for them. I can also see leftists trying to justify this double standard by claiming that history has only consisted of us oppressing Muslims, and never the other way around (ignoring things like the
Barbary slave trade and the multiple invasions of Europe through the centuries by Muslim entities such as the Umayyad Caliphate and Ottoman Empire).
Leftists get enraged when people say things like ''not all men are rapists'', ''not all white people are racists'', etc. Yet, they start using the exact same kind of logic when it comes to Muslims and terrorism. Apparently, you guys don't object to generalizations in and of themselves...you just object to generalizations depending on who the target of them is.
ISIS wants Europe to close its doors to refugees - they hate the idea of Muslims living in Christian lands, and they want these Muslims to hate the West so they can potentially be recruited as footsoldiers and terrorists.
Muslims living in Christian lands aren't too keen on the idea themselves, if their behavior in said lands is any indication. Just look at
this, for example.
yeah and if the United States hadn't been so liberal in allowing immigration we wouldn't have had to deal with so many Japanese saboteurs during World War Two
oh waitIf you take terrorism out of the equation, mass immigration has still had a negative effect on Europe. Crime rates are much higher as a result of it.
Sweden, for example, has seen its rape rate skyrocket in the past few decades. I might be moving the goalposts a bit here, admittedly, but the fact remains that mass immigration isn't as great for Europe as leftists think it is. We often hear that mass immigration to Europe is a good thing because it will help Europe deal with the problems resulting from the aging of its native populations (such as potential labor shortages). This argument is flawed due to the unskilled nature of many (if not most) of the immigrants who come to Europe.
In Sweden, for example, a majority of welfare payments go to immigrants. Mass immigration actually makes it harder for countries such as Sweden to maintain their welfare states.
I don't think it'd be too smart of an idea to flood hundreds of thousands of disaffected refugees into the homeland of radical Wahhabism that produced Bin Laden most of the 9/11 hijackersThe point is that there are plenty of countries outside of Europe that could be taking in migrants (not all of whom are from Syria, by the way - there are plenty of migrants in Europe right now who are actually economic migrants, and not people fleeing war). Europe isn't the only place in the world that they have to go. It also isn't fair for Germany, a country that has had no major involvement in the Syrian Civil War, to have to take in hundreds of thousands of migrants while Saudi Arabia, a country that has had such involvement, doesn't take in any. Sure, Saudi Arabia is the homeland of radical Wahhabism...but, as we've already seen, people can become radicalized regardless of where they live. Living in a Western country has not stopped some Muslims from becoming radicalized. At the end of the day, it makes more sense for them to live in a Muslim country that is similar to their own than a Western country. Saudi Arabia isn't even the only Muslim country that could be taking them in. You also have Qatar (another country with significant involvement in the Syrian Civil War), Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Turkey (which already has taken a lot in), Indonesia, etc. If they absolutely must be brought to the West, though, it would make more sense for them to be brought here than to places like Germany, Austria, and Hungary. The U.S. bears more responsibility for the events of the Syrian Civil War than they do, and it differs from those countries in that it has historically had a lot of immigration from around the world. Those countries are nation states (i.e. they are the homelands of specific ethnic groups). Meanwhile, ''American'' is just a nationality, not an ethnicity.
