Those claiming that the Tsarnaev brothers and Abdulazeez (the Chattanooga shooter) were "refugees" are 1) technically incorrect and 2) providing irrelevant cases even if they weren't incorrect, which they are.
1) Technically Incorrect - Neither the Tsarnaevs nor Abdulazeez entered the US through refugee resettlement. Those claiming they did are using a vague, blanket sense of "somebody fleeing conflict" or something like that, rather than the real legal category. Let's be clear: refugee is a clear and distinct legal category, not a general catch-all. In the case of the Tsarnaevs, their parents entered the US on a tourist visa, then applied for asylum. In the case of Abdulazeez, his parents entered the US through regular immigration lottery: they were not resettled as refugees after the first Gulf War. Why do these legal categories matter? Because they affect the level of vetting received by the applicant. Neither the Tsarnaevs nor Abdulazeez were introduced to the US under the careful refugee resettlement protocols of the time, much less under the extremely stringent resettlement protocols applied to Syrian refugees today. But, ultimately, being technically false is sufficient. None of them were "refugees" under any legal definition. That's enough to be the end of the story, but...
2) Irrelevant - The younger Tsanaev entered the US with his parents in 2002. He was six years old. Tamerlan Tsarnaev arrived in the US through a derivative asylum process in 2004 (he was 18). Mohammed Abdulazeez entered the US in 1996. He was also six years old. Let's set aside Tamerlan Tsarnaev for the moment and focus on the other two, both six years old at the time of their arrival.
The claim of those opposing refugee resettlement from Syria is that actual, current DAESH members will infiltrate the refugee population and get into the US that way. Surely, neither Dzhokar Tsarnaev nor Mohammed Abdulazeez were sleeper cell terrorists when they entered the country at age SIX, right? They were radicalized long after that. While the case is harder for Tamerlan on age alone, it's well documented that he was not radicalized until later. He was not a terrorist infiltrator when he arrived. So, even if they had refugee status (which they did not), they aren't cases of terrorist infiltration through a refugee resettlement anyway, since they weren't terrorists when they were resettled.
OH, I know what's coming: they were potential terrorists (as six year olds), as will be all the three year olds, five year olds, eight year olds, and fifty year olds we might resettle. Fair enough. But in that case, we should not let anyone resettle here ever under any circumstances, if we're basing it on some future potential to be radicalized, even for small children.
Opponents of Syrian refugee resettlement can't have it ALL ways: anyone can be a refugee so long as we ignore actual legal status and designation as a refugee, and anyone can be a potential terrorist, even small children. If those are the arguments against refugee resettlement, then the case is irrational and panicky, which, of course, it is.
= new reply since forum marked as read