4 UNBIGOTED REASONS TO BE WARY OF SYRIAN REFUGEES: Ian Tuttle at NRO explains why today’s Syrian refugees are not analogous to 1939’s Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, contrary to the assertions of liberal/progressive pundits:

The first, and most obvious, difference: There was no international conspiracy of German Jews in the 1930s attempting to carry out daily attacks on civilians on several continents. No self-identifying Jews in the early 20th century were randomly massacring European citizens in magazine offices and concert halls . . . .

On a related note, the sympathies of Syrian Muslims are more diverse than those of Nazi-era German Jews. A recent Arab Opinion Index poll of 900 Syrian refugees found that one in eight hold a “to some extent”-positive view of the Islamic State (another 4 percent said that they did not know or refused to answer). A non-trivial minority of refugees who support a murderous, metastatic caliphate is a reason for serious concern. No 13 percent of Jews looked favorably upon the Nazi party.

Third, European Jews in the early 20th century were more amenable to assimilation than are Syrian Muslims in the early 21st.  . . .

Finally: Jewish refugees — for example, those in the SS St. Louis — were coming from Germany (or Nazi-controlled Austria or Czechoslovakia), but most Syrian refugees seeking entry into the United States have already found refuge elsewhere. . . .

Asylum is not a blanket solution to every refugee situation that arises around the globe.  It makes sense in certain contexts, but not in others. One size does not fit all, and employing such reasoned judgment is not tantamount to bigotry. Playing the xenophobia card is (as usual) a distraction from the actual facts and issue.