In the emotional and often heated debate regarding U.S. aid to Syrian refugees, it would be easy to forget America’s leadership in welcoming and helping resettle refugees from around the world during our 240-year history. While no official immigration policies existed in our country until 100 years after our founding, without question many of the immigrants coming to America were fleeing religious and political persecution and would qualify as refugees today.
It wasn’t until after WWII, with the admission of over 250,000 displaced Europeans, that the first refugee legislation was enacted by Congress, the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. Later legislation helped admit people fleeing Communist regimes from Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia, Korea, China and Cuba. Many private ethnic and religious organizations in the U.S. participated in this effort, which became the genesis of the public/private role of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program today.
In the last 10 years, the U.S. has admitted over 600,000 refugees from scores of countries with the largest number coming from the Near East and South Asia. Over 3 million refugees have been admitted since 1975. This is in addition to the over 1 million legal immigrants admitted to the U.S. each year. The Obama Administration plans to admit 85,000 refugees in FY16, of which 10,000 would be coming from war-torn Syria. Therein lies the rub.
Controversy has erupted over whether it is safe to admit so many refugees from a part of the world where ISIS has bragged they would use refugees to infiltrate and harm our country.
Some resistance to admitting Syrian refugees was an over-reaction to the recent Paris terrorist event, but cooler heads seem to be asking a legitimate question: How do we properly vet refugees to assure ourselves we are not admitting people who could do us harm? Amid cries of bigotry and racism, President Barack Obama, while traveling overseas, publicly accused Republicans of being “afraid of widows and orphans” (although resistance is largely bipartisan) and went on to say that refusal to admit Syrian refugees will aid ISIS recruitment efforts.
First, ignoring ISIS warnings is irresponsible. Second, Obama’s accusations make no sense since we’re not worried about widows and orphans. Furthermore, congressional proposals do not envision stopping Syrian refugees altogether but rather pausing until the federal government can re-assess current procedures to assure the public enough information is available and measures are in place to properly identify high-risk individuals.
Compassion is commendable but common sense should tell us it is not racism, bigotry or “whipping up hysteria” to merely ask whether our homeland can be made safer through increased vigilance in admitting foreigners to our country.
Given the widespread geographic diversity of the Islamic extremist movement, I think the arguments surrounding Syria are largely misplaced because a terrorist could come from anywhere — indeed some terrorists involved in the Paris massacre were French citizens. So why are we just targeting Syrians? Whatever vetting procedures are used should be applied to virtually all incoming refugees without regard to country of origin. Exceptions can be made for “widows and orphans” as well as elderly and infirm and other classes that do not pose a threat. What is so objectionable about modifying our system in place to ensure greater emphasis on security?
What particularly rankles many Americans, given our long history of humanitarian efforts, is the lack of concern from our Arab allies in shouldering some responsibility for these refugees. The U.S. has a comprehensive program that matches refugees to appropriate settlement areas as well as temporary assistance with housing, food, clothing, orientation, and access to social, medical and employment services for the refugees’ first 30-90 days. Refugees are expected to find work and can apply for Permanent Resident Alien status after one year. After five years, they can apply for U.S. citizenship.
While our European allies have accepted large numbers of refugees, no such program of this magnitude and generosity exists in any of the wealthy Arab Gulf states. In fact, none have any formal refugee program and have accepted no Syrian refugees to date. They have given some money to aid U.N. efforts (the U.S. currently has provided the most funding) but steadfastly refuse to allow refugees, citing concerns about upsetting the stability of their countries.
This shameful behavior by our Arab allies should not deter us from continuing our refugee programs once we have satisfied our national security concerns. At a time during the year when we should be giving thanks, it would be more appropriate if Obama recognized our country’s past and present humanitarian contributions and directed his criticism where it belongs — to other Arab countries that are not sharing responsibility for a humanitarian crisis in which they have played a part.
• Win Gruening retired as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in 2012. He was born and raised in Juneau and is active in community and statewide organizations.
