Just yesterday, Indiana Governor Mike Pence (pictured above) relocated a Syrian family of three to Connecticut, where Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy welcomed the family at their arrival in New Haven.
Obama has publicly denounced the propositions of many governors to close the door on refugees or treat Christian refugees differently from Muslim ones. He said that this decision is what ISIS, or ISIL, wants as, "ISIL seeks to exploit the idea that there is a war between Islam and the West. And when you start seeing individuals in positions of responsibility suggesting that Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are in a war-torn land, that feeds the ISIL narrative. It's counterproductive."
Other political figures have also spoken about the recent anti-refuge sentiment. Senator Elizabeth Warren reminded us that "We are not a nation that delivers children back into the hands of ISIS murderers because some politician doesn't like their religion and we are not a nation that backs down out of fear."
While the question of how to deal with national security and the refugees is the main question, another issue is who has the power to make such a decision? Is it the Governor? Or the President?
In terms of law, the White House has the power to decide refugee admittance without the governors per a 2012 SCOTUS case on immigration. However, the policy question is still open as to whether the risks are too high.
I think that it's important not to play into ISIS's narrative as President Obama said. While I feel that rigorous checks are necessary to prioritize national security and to prevent terrorists from entering the country, it's important to remember that these people are fleeing the same thing that we fear. Refugee vetting has been extremely successful in the past. Since 9/11, 785,000 refugees have been admitted, and only 3 have been arrested for terrorist-related charges. Nicholas Kristof also brings up an interesting point that if ISIS really wanted to get someone in, they could have someone apply for a student visa to study at a university. What's next? Are we going to stop accepting foreign university student? It's critical that the people who lead us are not fearmongering. At a time like this, it's important to come together not only as a nation but also as a world against one common enemy.
What do you think? Should we continue to let Syrian refugees in or should we halt this program? Is this Obama's call or is it up to the state's?
Sources:
http://www.newsweek.com/obama-republicans-blocking-syrian-refugees-scared-widows-and-three-year-old-395836
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/can-governors-block-syrian-refugees-probably-not?cid=sm_fb_msnbc_native
http://time.com/4119412/indiana-diverts-syrian-refugees/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/politics/chris-christie-paris-attacks-refugee-orphans/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/19/opinion/betraying-ourselves.html?em_pos=large&emc=edit_nk_20151119&nl=nickkristof&nlid=71834795&ref=img&te=1&_r=0
4 comments:
I agree with Ally that giving into the divisions that ISiS is creating is risky for the country and world as a whole. The second that it starts becoming a game of choosing who is a better person to admit based on their religious beliefs, are we in anyway preventing stereotypes, racism, and discrimination? While I understand the fear of admitting refugees who may be terrorists, it is important to keep in mind that what occurred in Paris is far from the worst that many of these refugees have seen. Additionally, the entrance of Syrian immigrants is not the only way for ISIS to infiltrate and is in fact far less likely now that there is such heightened debate about whether or not to allow their entrance. I would also like to remind these politicians that state borders are not enforced, all that labels them is a sign on the highway that says "Such and Such State Welcomes You"; therefore, if a refugee is admitted into say Connecticut or any other state there is little to prevent their movement within the country. The fear of these immigrants is understandable in the fact that everyone wishes for their families to remain safe and no one wants to see another attack, but is this really preventing anything or is it just promoting discrimination? These refugees are not entering by scores, the United States has only allowed a couple hundred over the past few years. Personally, I cannot see how turning a blind eye to refugees from war torn countries is acceptable. If politicians are going to insist that we expand our military power and enter new countries with more force, they cannot then say that they don't want to help the people the are supposedly planning to help with war and artillery.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/21/us/where-syrian-refugees-are-in-the-united-states.html?_r=0
I feel that it is important that these refugees who have proven their desperate need to flee their country be placed in another country that can protect them and provide them with a safe and secure life. That being said, since May of 2011, when the war broke out in Syria, the U.S. has only taken in about 2,200 refugees. As of right now Obama has committed to taking 10,000 in this upcoming year. That means the U.S. will be admitting five and a half time more Syrian refugees in just one year than it admitted in the precious four and a half years combined. For me that doesn't seem very realistic (especially given that it typically takes 12 to 18 months for the entire vetting process to be conducted). Even with more resources being directed towards this goal so as to speed of up the pace I still am hesitant about how well this will turn out. Furthermore, while the entire application process is very detailed (including an interview, a medical evaluation, an inter-agency security screening, as well as an additional layer called the Syria Enhanced Review process), there still are many gaps in the information that the departments are able to find. Therefore if a refugee had "never made a ripple in the pound in Syria" then there really is no way for the FBI (or any other of the agencies) to find out the information they need, namely in regards to trying to evaluate an applicant's criminal history. Overall, I feel that as long as the vetting process is able to be continually strengthened and monitored I see no problem with allowing refugees to continue to come (although I feel that the number the U.S. committed needs to be reduced).
As for who's call it is, one senior administrator noted that, "this is a federal program carried out under the authority of federal law and refugees arriving in the U.S. are protected by the Constitution and federal law." Going along with that idea then it would appear that it is ultimately up to Obama (or the highest level). Even with this in mind, states still do have the ability to make the process of taking in refugees more difficult, by cutting state and local funding.
I agree with Ally with the fact that ISIS is trying to get the whole world to think that there is war between Islam and the West. ISIS remains the biggest terror threat to most if not all of the nations in the world. The organization's goal to inflict terror along with the mentality that Islam should be the only religion to roam the world. Yet ISIS is also affecting the innocent civilians that are trapped in the war zone in there. I believe we should allow some Syrian refugees into the country, but only on the basis of each person is vetted and has a background check. This process would take some time, but it will make sure that the people America is letting in won't be a threat to society. In addition, there should be a capacity limit in where the American government sets a limit of how much people are allowed in the country. If America lets too many people into the country, America's economy would be damaged since the refugees are homeless, have little money and the GDP of the country would also go down. I believe that this decision is a joint decision between Obama and the states. The reason this has to be a joint decision is because if Obama decides to pass a law to let refugees into the country, they will be moving to states where it might not have agreed with Obama. In conclusion, I believe that America should let some Syrian refugees in, but only at a certain extent.
I agree with Gwen and Ally that it would more harmful than beneficial to play into the hands of ISIS by segregating Muslims and Islamic people, and in doing so indicate a war in the West. During the Cold War Asian Americans were segregated into neighborhoods as a result of a widespread fear throughout the nation because of the war going on at the time. Many people have looked back at this time in history and have been disappointed at the treatment of the Asian Americans. It is important for Americans to not repeat this history of discriminating against an entire race or religion because it would grant ISIS's wish of war and additionally go against America's motto of being "the land of the free." After 9/11 there is understandably an apprehension to allow immigration, however to most people coming from Syria America is a sanctuary. The reason many of them want to come to America is because they are running away from ISIS and violence. For the US to turn away these people in need would be disgraceful. United States citizens must start to distinguish between a refugee and a terrorist: not all muslims are terrorists; not all refugees are terrorists. Fortunately, there have been movements on social media promoting these ideas with slogans such as "Terror knows no religion." These will help eliminate the anti-muslim sentiment that has been spreading throughout the nation. All this being said, it is important to tighten security, as was done after 9/11. However, to completely close our boarders from muslims and Syrian refugees would be inappropriate.
Post a Comment