Immigration reform took center stage precedent this past summer, among the other more heated campaign platforms advertised by candidates. The United States' policies specifically regarding Mexican immigrants and border control became strong talking points for most Republican candidates on the campaign trail and on the debate stage. It can be inferred each candidate tried to outdo the other in terms of stricter borders, attempting to appear more conservative from the rest. The idea of heightened defenses on our borders is separate from the Republican identity and pertains more to the degree of conservatism embodied by a candidate.

It all started back in June. Donald Trump exemplified a hard stanced conservative position towards the people crossing over from Mexico and flowing past United States borders. He caused the most controversy by generalizing Mexican immigrants as "...criminals, rapists, drug dealers...", going so far to call them "...[a] tremendous infectious disease..." Trump's unfiltered speeches still appeal to a fair sized portion of Americans, according to sample poll populations, but even his logic covering American border policy comes without support.

During the first Republican Presidential debate in August, when pressured by moderator Chris Wallace, Trump could not provide any evidence behind his claims of "the Mexican government [intentionally] sending criminals" over to the United States. The Washington Post even fact checked Trump's statements with accurate research data to find that race is not indicative of criminal activity and that incredibly low percentages of immigrants are either currently incarcerated or felons, obviously wanting to maintain a low profile if crossing into the United States illegally.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush took a softer, empathic approach to the matter by admitting: "Yes, they broke the law, but it's not a felony. It's an act of love, it's an act of commitment to your family." Bush suffered for this remark as his image emerged as the least conservative candidate when talking about immigration reform. Shock-value commentary escalated as Trump, or whoever is in charge of his Twitter account, even went as far to attack Bush's weakness by attributing the governor's devotion to such altruistic notions to his wife being Mexican.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker called for the abolishment of sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants. Walker, when still in the Republican race, sought to revoke amnesty rights for gaining citizenship after the fact of crossing the border, while still upholding ways for immigrants to legally gain American citizenship. Bush even named immigration to be "a [possible] driver for high sustained economic growth" during the first Republican debate. Walker's state of Wisconsin must be careful when linking immigration up to economics as "nearly half or more of the hired help on U.S. dairy farms is immigrant labor — with a large percentage of those workers being undocumented." Other rural farm based communities, such as Alabama, have almost come undone by the harsh enforcement of immigration laws disbanding entire workforces.

Republican candidates Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio possess identical ideas on a range of issues for the most part, with major variances on some. Oddly enough, they are both 44 year-old Cuban-Americans with political origins stemming or still affiliated with the Tea Party Movement. Even more strange, Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Cruz's mother being a U.S. citizen validated his own citizenship. No stranger to outrageous filibuster rants, Cruz is the embodiment of the Tea Party's conservative principles, particularly on border control. Yet, during the second Republican Presidential debate, Cruz contradicted everything he stood for by mentioning his "Cuban immigrant [father] who fled oppression and came to America seeking freedom" and his"grandfather, [who] came to this country in the 1960's...escaping Cuba." How can Cruz use his family's history immigrating to the U.S. as an anecdote when he is campaigning against the very thing that brought his heritage to America?

During the same debate, Ohio Gov. John Kasich interrupted the nonsense to state that a mass deportation of 11 million people- humans, actual human beings- is ridiculous. Such as effort on that scale is impossible. We would be doing more harm than good as Kasich emphasized the families torn apart in the process. Not to mention more Mexicans are leaving the United States than there are coming in.

For the moment, Mexico has seemingly exited the immigration discussion. An estimated 12 million Syrian refugees were uprooted from their homes to escape the calamities of a civil war. The refugees displaced by ongoing conflicts in their native country are seeking asylum in welcoming countries. President Barack Obama aimed to allow 10,000 of these refugees into the United States, still considerably lower than relief organizations had wanted out the U.S. He was met with swift opposition.

Although falling under a policy of immigration, refugees are different from regular immigrants. An immigrant is a person moving or resettling to another country. An illegal immigrant is considered such as they cross over the border without permission, thus entangling themselves in a criminal act. A refugee, on the other hand, is typically someone fleeing from their country, usually because of government collapse, conflict, or war. And America does have a history of reaching out a helping hand to refugees in need of saving.

The more recent terrorist attacks in Paris has only fueled political rhetoric gauging the caution the country should be taking before ever considering the refugees through our borders. Over 120 people were killed in simultaneous bombings and shootings in the French city. The world cries for all who perished.

After the attack, French President Francois Hollande stayed true to his word by stating France will continue in accepting 30,000 displaced Syrian refugees. 30 United States governors have rejected Obama's want to let the Syrians in despite the fact executive orders like letting in refugees is a decision made by the government and not state representatives. Congress voted down President Obama's refugee resettlement plan two weeks, which could possibly halt the deal altogether.

Security is the issue. The terrorists from Paris seemed to have ties with ISIS. The discussion about the refugees shies away from who we let into our borders, but rather what we let in. The extremist jihadi ideology rousing terrorist groups, who just so happen to be made up of Muslims. Politicians fear terrorists, in this case ISIS, will use the refugee crisis as an opportunity to slip through the cracks of American security and successfully infiltrate the United States.

The Patriot Act was enacted after the September 11th attacks on the New York's Twin Towers. Tight, privacy invading surveillance sorts through the data of America's own people with no results to show for it, coincidentally no attacks have happened since. The misconception stands that, given the go ahead, Syrian refugees can waltz right into the United States. That is far from the actual case. Comedian John Oliver can even explain how the rigorous vetting process takes 18-24 months, made up of paperwork, classes, and tests, before a single refugee is relocated. Responses to the refugee crisis are not immediate and American intelligence gathering should be sufficient enough to deny any potential threats posed.

Possibilities of hypothetical terrorist attacks flourish in fear inducing speeches. Americans live in fear of being attacked. Not just by terrorists or our solidified enemies, but even by our own people in more common cases. Threats can never be taken lightly, shown by ISIS' supposed plan to attack multiple cities worldwide following the Paris attacks. The cycle of paranoia has come full circle. McCarthy-ism has come back in full effect as we are taught to question the nature of people in legitimate danger of becoming victims in their own country, fleeing their homes and everything they know to seek shelter in parts unknown.

It takes one event to spark suspicion of an entire social class of people. In 1916, German agents caused an explosion at the Black Tom munitions depot located in New Jersey, during World War I. The war was brought to America for a brief moment and decades later, the fear of Germans bombing the Holland Tunnel in New York became a possible reality born out of a fear of repetition. Throughout such threats, Ellis Island continued to run as a processing site for immigrants coming into the United States until its closing in 1954

"History repeats itself", a timeless cliche bound to be repeated itself. History leaves a bitter taste when it does repeat itself without any intervention. In 1939, the MS St. Louis ocean liner left Europe with a little over 900 Jewish refugees from Germany. They left Europe to seek asylum in other countries: Cuba, Canada, America. All denied.them They returned — half of the passengers dead-- to Europe — defeated. They dispersed into several European countries, later altercated in the events of World War II, re-entering oppression. We did not help then.

Roanoke, Virginia, Mayor David Bowers defended the refusal of Syrian refugees by citing President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision to intern Japanese-Americans during World War II on suspicion of being nationalist spies. Well over 100,000 American citizens of Japanese descent were corralled into military barracks modified into acting prison camps. For four years, Japanese-Americans were imprisoned by their own government. Homes and businesses were lost, sold, seized. Upon leaving, the interns returned to living in a country that did not trust them. Actor George Takei, having lived in the Rohwer and Tule Lake War Relocation Centers, called what is happening with the Syrians as the "same hysteria from World War II." Even more frightening, Trump confusingly supports and denies the idea of a database tracking the movements of Muslims in America.

The Paris attacks not only made the United States more scared of another attack on American soil, but it heightened a sense of Islamophobia. The Syrian refugees are coming from a different world that we could not possibly understand, a world of hate and oppression by radical regimes. Looking through a lense to view the smaller picture, we associate Islam's presence to be a cause.

A clip from a panel with Brigitte Gabriel, whose views border on anti-Islamic, has circulated around social media where she disproportionately believes "15 to 25 percent of Muslims to be radicals." Pew Research Center shows that ISIS is shown unfavorably in predominantly Muslim countries. Out of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, terrorist organizations barely measure up to a million in force. So what defines a radical? At the very core of it, can the most pacifist Muslim be considered a "radical" for having the idea of a religion worth fighting for?

Two weeks ago, it was reported Ted Cruz, along with fellow Republican candidates Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal- who dropped out of the presidential race recently- and Fox News correspondent Mike Huckabee, attended a rally put on by his father's friend, pastor Kevin Swanson. There, Swanson called for the execution of gays. Taking his turn to speak onstage with Swanson, Cruz, making no comment on the pastor's hate speech, joked: "You're not going to ask about fantasy football, are you?" That sounds incredibly radical. The right to practice religion, even the discriminatory parts, is so defensively valued in the United States. Anti-christian undertones in not the case in the argument. Many do not overgeneralize the majority of Christians for the minority's radical interpretations, the people perverting a belief system to mask their hatred.

America seems afraid of the ideology behind Islam. Quran verses are taken out of context. Attackers are made to represent an entire race, nation or even religious ideology. They say the principles behind their structured belief system inspires violence. They incite crusades against those different from them. Sounds like something prominent in almost any culture or religion's history, warning death over a failed assimilation into a new society.

The ideology of hate — the origins of terrorist principles — seems to overpower words of comfort and love reaching out to these refugees suffering, lost in the world. Acceptance meets skepticism: Why should we let them in? What-if's spun into facts: What will happen if we let them in? Intolerance belittles selflessness: We're not letting them in.

What does it say about our country if we are not willing to help others? What becomes of the bloody, beaten and the damned? Are they the rest of the world's problem, even if they refuse aid as well? Nationalism places the good of the country before the good of anyone else, even the citizens. Identity robbing ideals aided in creating World War I. The people think of themselves in regard to the country. The leaders of the country think in regards to themselves. Uncharacteristically referencing Reagan, in regards to the rest of the world, America should still be "the shining city upon a hill", a kingdom the likes of Kennedy's Camelot envisionment. Our morals should strive to be in line with the guise of the ones we appear to have. And they should stand true, extending outwards to the crushed individuals ejected out of their homeland.

A young country of 239 years should not be this cold-hearted already.