Currently, the US is the country contributing the most to the Syrian humanitarian response plan according to data from the financial tracking service. This country as also began taking in more refugees with what even the FBI will admit a very weak vetting process at best. The topic of Islamic extremism gaining entry into the US is a separate debate, but for this debate we are essentially taking about giving the most amount of help to the most amount of people. What if I told you that the cost to resettle refugees in middle eastern country's is far more cost effective not to mention providing a smoother transition for the refugees them selves to a country with similar culture, religion, climate, food, language and so on. The estimated 5 year cost to resettle in the Middle East is $5,285 per individual and $21,140 per household, while on the other hand the estimated 5 year cost to resettle here in the US is $64,370 per individual and $257,481 per household! This astonishing data comes from the center for immigration studies. So, if we are talking about doing the most amount of good for the most amount of people, if we really want to help these refugees, the most logical solution would to not expand the US refugee program in the continental US, but to encourage other middle eastern country's to take in more refugees because that would be helping the most amount of people possible. The US is already the country contributing the most in aid so I ask is it necessary that the US spends more to help refugees here in the states, or that the US redirects its aid somewhere else. That is the humanitarian thing to do, the most amount of help to the most amount of people.