The House passed a bill Thursday that will immediately arrest the admission process for Syrian refugees into the United States by a vote of 289-137. Following last week's attacks in Paris, in which 129 innocents were murdered at the hands of Daesh extremists, many American politicians have been vocal about security concerns stemming from the 10,000 Syrian refugees expected to emigrate to the country.
The bill requires the Homeland Security secretary, the FBI Director and the national intelligence director to personally sign off on each and every refugee admitted to the country. However, the bill still has to be voted on by the Senate, and Democratic leaders have already stated that they will move to block it.
The vote, in which 47 Democrats joined 242 Republicans, comes in defiance of White House veto threats, the same threats that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan called "baffling." While the bill will not permanently halt the flow of refugees, it will do so until a stricter vetting process is instituted, which would also mean the strictest-ever regulations for refugees fleeing a war-torn country. Proponents of the bill point to one of the Paris terrorists' supposed entrance into Europe through Greece with a group of Syrian refugees. The supporters argue that more extremists could easily infiltrate the ranks of the refugees, just as they have in Europe. However, the White House feels that the current measures are sufficient in vetting applicants despite FBI Director James Comey himself acknowledging the difficulty of collecting information that largely does not exist. Unless one of the applicants has previously been reflected in FBI databases for deviant behavior, there is no data to be found.
The White House asserted the fact that of the Syrian 2,174 refugees that have been admitted in recent years, "not a single one has been arrested or deported on terrorism-related grounds." The White House has also pledged itself to the idea that these regulations will only create obstacles for the already severely disadvantaged refugees without providing any real, additional security for the American people.
Personally, I wish that we could fulfill the 10,000 refugee pledge in the next year, but it seems less and less likely that our government is willing to accept the presence of the hypothetical threat posed by potential extremist infiltration. I won't deny that we have very little information on the Syrian refugees, but how could we? Syria is largely destroyed. The records, if they once existed, are no longer available. However, I don't think that means we should commit to the dramatic measures this bill has instituted and the fearful rhetoric that is being disseminated by many of our political leaders. France has more reason than any other nation to reject Syrian refugees, yet they have only further committed themselves to resettling 30,000 refugees over the next two years. While we should obviously be wary of who is entering our country, instituting a stricter vetting process that might include, as several GOP leaders have suggested, a religious screening process that would only let beleaguered Christian Syrians enter the country, seems like capitulation to the desires of Daesh. The United States appearing unsympathetic to the plight of Muslims fleeing from the terror of their rule would only further strengthen their rhetoric that the West hates all Muslims. Such a lack of empathy for families who have lost everything they once knew does not demonstrate American values. We should remain vigilant regarding who is allowed to resettle in our country, but we should not be apathetic towards those who are only seeking to rebuild their lives.
Do you support the bill?
What could be added to the vetting process to further vet applicants for resettlement?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/world/paris-attacks-us-france-refugees/
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/ted-cruzs-religious-test-for-syrian-refugees
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/19/house-passes-bill-bar-syrian-refugees-us-without-more-vetting/76041668/
http://time.com/4119155/syrian-refugees-congress-safe-act/
6 comments:
I personally agree with the bill that the House passed on the Syrian refugees being admitted into this country. I believe at this point in time, our national security is vital and as a country, we cannot take any risks. I do feel that there is a possibility that terrorists may try posing as refugees to get into this country. Especially after what happened in Paris, I think that it is necessary to take extra precaution. One of the terrorists that committed the terrible atrocities in Paris allegedly posed as a Syrian refugee with a fake passport and came through Greece to Paris. Furthermore, 5 people were found in Honduras with fake Greek passports and were planning to come to America illegally. These past events make me skeptical of the motivation of some people that want to come to this country.
I also find it puzzling that Obama was not very supportive of Syrian victims during the past few years when Assad was using chemical warfare against his people; now at a time of threats to national security, he decides that he wants to import 10,000 within the next year. Instead of bringing refugees to America, for the time being, we should create a safe zone near Syria to protect the refugees. This will require military force, but at this point I think that these measures are necessary. Mr. Obama has tried to avoid George Bush’s mistakes of intervening and creating war in the middle east, but what he has not realized is that doing nothing in the middle east has consequences too. We have allowed the situation to escalate this far and it is about time that we defend ourselves and defend our allies.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/11/18/report-us-bound-syrians-arrested-honduras-fake-passports/76016812/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/europe/paris-attacks-passports/index.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-syrian-refugee-lesson-for-liberals-1447719595?alg=y
The attacks in Paris should not deter the efforts by the United States to settle refugees. It sounds cliche, but the United States is built off of the diversity and culture that these various cultures bring in. And to think that the United States would change that takes away the very essence of what it means to be an American. If it is a matter of national security, than Americans do not need to worry. As rubytuesdays had stated, not one arrest or indecent had followed after a refugee had passed the already rigorous admission tests. If the push for legislation against refugees is based on a different set of guidelines, then there is a big problem. Guidelines, such as prejudice against the refugees.
One of the suggestions to change the admission process was allowing only non-Muslims into the country. This idea is simply ridiculous. For one, as stated, this would only fuel the already prevalent hate for Americans in the middle east. More importantly, Isis does not reflect the vast majority of Muslim's beliefs, representing a very small percent of the billions of Muslims worldwide. To blatantly prevent Muslim refugees rather than other religions is just a terrible idea. I personally believe that the screening process as of now is sufficient. The recent bill was only passed because the public is fueled by fears, which will settle down in the next few weeks. I don;t think anything else could be added to the already strict vetting process.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/before-house-vote-republican-lawmakers-assail-refugee-system-1447955993
I am going to have with Brendondo "Your Pal" Vinciguerra on this one. I completely respect the opinion that measures should be taken to curb possible terrorism within the United States. It is a viable concern for many Americans, no one wants terrorism, here or abroad. Yet, I personally believe that all refugees should be welcome, with due processes of course, to the United States of America. Let's show the world that we are truly a part of the greatest nation on planet Earth. We have always been (more or less) a haven for the displaced and those who seek opportunity for themselves and their progeny. In terms of the House voting against the completely free acceptance of refugees, I think it was probably more of a statement than anything. President Obama will almost certainly veto their action. Additionally, The White House has itself stated that, “would unacceptably hamper our efforts to assist some of the most vulnerable people in the world, many of whom are victims of terrorism, and would undermine our partners in the Middle East and Europe in addressing the Syrian refugee crisis.” There will always be bad guys to deal with, at home and abroad. As the American people we should make an effort to help these war torn people, regardless of religion or background.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/19/house-votes-to-curb-syrian-refugees.html
I agree with athenanz in that our national security has to come first at times like these, and I support this bill. Obviously, we would all like to aid the struggling Syrian refugees, but that does not mean we should allow them full access to our country. After just seeing what happened in Paris and receiving direct threats from ISIS, we cannot provide our home lane as a safe zone. Although most Syrian refugees seeking protection in the United States are legitimate, it would only take one or two terrorists posing as refugees to kill hundreds of Americans. Letting in 10,000 refugees in the next year would only increase the likelihood of someone slipping through the system. That is why I agree with this bill, because it can allow only in people that we know are actually refugees. I also agree with athenanz with her idea of creating a safe zone near Syria with military protection. This would be a better way to protect these refugees than to take the risk and endanger American lives.
After reading this article, I definitely agree with the precise evaluation of each and every refugee. However, it definitely slows the process down a significant amount, which isn't a good thing, but then again it's always better to air on the side of caution. Especially since there is a rumor going around that one of the terrorists that committed an attack in Paris allegedly posed as a Syrian refugee with a fake passport and came from Greece into Paris.
I believe that adding to the vetting process might not be necessary. First off, refugees that want to come to the U.S. submit an application that usually takes 10-12 months to even get approved or denied. Second of all, adding more requirements and mandates won't end up solving anything, and will just result in more lives lost due to Americans that suffer from xenophobia Adding on to what @yourpal had to say about the process, I find it ridiculous as well that there was a proposed admission process allowing only non-Muslims into the country. The fact that our country wants to prevent Muslim refugees rather than other religions is just absurd, especially since the majority of the Muslim people do not believe in what ISIS believes in.
I agree with King Pash and Your Pal on this one. This is the largest refugee crisis since World War II, and we need to do something about it. Europe has a large social structure and a more xenophobic population than the U.S., yet still accepts many thousands more refugees. The United States, given our extensive infrastructure and history of providing haven, should accept even more, especially since many small European border states cannot handle the refugees.
This bill simply plays on fear. While we all despise terrorists for what they did in Paris, they should not be taken as representative of Islam. These refugees are fleeing because they want to protect their families from the very same violent terrorism that attacked France on Friday. Some supporters of the bill say that terrorists can enter undetected along with the refugees and continue terrorizing. However, the suspects so far for the French attack have all been EU citizens, not refugees. Besides, the United States has the world's most extensive homeland security system that is well-equipped to detect any refugees that mean us harm.
The U.S. should once again accept the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to break free.
Post a Comment