do you guys do anything with Alsaka?

They are not enough jobs for the people here and we are talking about bringing in more people lol.

Personally I think the Syrians need to stay in Syria but the U.S./U.N. needs to set up safe zones and provide the people with protection, food, water, etc.

I am for taking the refugees in. But I believe any country or region that is forced to have refugees come to america should also our have our military on the ground there to solve the reason or refugees. That would go for syria, iraq, and the middle east right now, and mexico and central america. Lets solves these problems at the source as we help those displaced.

Not to support the is and not to begin wars in the middle east and africa is the best thing the usa could do

Well do you know that their are more than 60 million refugees in the world right now?

The problem is that we don't look to individual cases and situations but will divide them in groups like war refugees and economy refugees and as an ex volunteer for the red cross refugee groups in Belgium I am against it.

An 12 old girl living in a refugee camp in Turkey from Syria who barely survive because the authorities hardly care will get the right to stay in Europe/Belgium because she is considered a war refugee (even when no bombs are falling close to that camp) while an 12 year old girl with no family living in Bangladash has to work 7 days a week 12 hours a day and still not get enough money to survive because she is young and so also has to prostitute herself will be considered a economy refugee and best scenario for her will be staying in Europe till her 18 and then send back.

The only thing I want (and some people called me an asshole for it I know) is that new refugees sign a 5 year contract in their native language where they have to accept some facts like Freedom of opinion religion, that same sex marriage is acceppted etc..... If in those 5 years they get caught with an act/crime against those rules for example a buddhist monk who says that muslims/christians should be killed or someone who beats someone else up because his etnic origin or because that person is homosexual or force your teen daughter to marry an 50 year old guy they should get deported and have no more right to stay here.

Today I read that an imam from my neighbourhood joined IS, he should not be allowed to become a citizen of this country.

How exactly can that be done cheaply and without huge costs? Isn't one of the major reasons not to take in refugees cost? How is having troops in multiple countries fighting many different enemies, disrupting the middle-east more than it is already disrupted, creating more ideological boundaries, positioning alliances in much the same way that the World Wars started and the Cold War developed, and wasting tons of manpower, dollars, and resources going to resolve this issue? It is obvious after the decades of intervention in the Middle-East that the "war on terrorism" has been as effective as the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty", in other words, it has exacerbated the problem through blowback. 

It is simple in my opinion. Accept anybody who comes here through private dollars. That is no cost to the taxpayer, and almost half of the resources that bring refugees here are raised through private charity as it is. Leave the middle east to self-destruct or become tamed by Russian taxpayers. Focus on cost reforms here by cutting huge money-draining domestic resources. Don't take out any more massive amounts of debt which will bite Americans in the future. Defense spending should be spent on defense, and not the destructive preventative warfare.  The progressive ideology of transplanting democracy to the rest of the world is a failure in this case. Wilsonian internationalism does not work. 

The economy isn't a zero-sum game. Often immigration creates more opportunities, especially for people interested in higher-level positions. 

Your solution costs a larger drain on the economy than just letting people come here and make something of themselves (like all of our ancestors have done.) The protection, food, water, etc will be funded by taxpayer dollars and/or inflation. Both of these harm the livelihood of American taxpayers much more than the small possibility that somebody who doesn't speak English and doesn't have any first-world skills: technical or labor, will steal jobs from Americans. These people who come here will have to create new jobs to survive that take advantage of their culture and their skills.

They usually watch Russia from there.

How about stopping to bomb half the world for ridiculous reasons?

Seriously though, we need to come up with a solution for the syrian crisi. Not just the US, but also europe and russia. If you ask me, it isn't THAT important for now if Assad stays president or not. Just get rid of ISIS first, try to bring some stability into the region and argue about the details afterwards. Until nothing happens in this regard, refugees will keep coming and there's no perfect way of handling all of the people. But at the very least, every single refugee should be treated as a human being.

That said, as a country consisting of 99 % immigrants in the first place, it would be nice if the US started to take in refugees AT ALL. =P

Ther'e's a difference between a refugee and a skilled migrant. In Australia. 60% of refugees could not get a job after 5 years in the country and just live off of the tax payer's money.