I only sort of agree that it's a Middle East problem. Logically, I think the expectation for action increases with proximity and increases with ability. The key point I agree with is that it's a humanitarian crisis. These are people, and we can help them so we should to the extent that we can. The security thing was always a bogus issue, and the Paris shootings highlighted that. Oklahoma City, Planned Parenthood this weekend and Anders Breivik in Norway were all attacks perpetrated by someone who looked like their victims. There's no such thing as perfect security. The question becomes "does being Muslim or Syrian predispose someone to be more likely to commit violence?" I find that question revolting, and I find the security question to be propaganda.
That's a beautiful way of putting it. Making responsibility a function of proximity and ability puts the burden on what we would otherwise intuitively think carries it: Middle Eastern countries and the West. To be fair, I think the question being asked is more of: "Will our open borders (I know, not completelyopen, but still) allow the IS to infiltrate the West?" That's more of an understandable question but I would still think the answer is the same regardless: we should still help these people out. The fact that terrorism happens regardless of your status as a refugee or domestic citizen further proves the point that this fear is unfounded. Hell, even if it is somewhat founded, relative to the amount of lives that could be saved, it's miniscule. Logically, I think the expectation for action increases with proximity and increases with ability
The question becomes "does being Muslim or Syrian predispose someone to be more likely to commit violence?"