After the tragic and horrifying attacks on the city of Paris on November 13th, many states, including Texas and Massachusetts, are refusing to allow the immigration of Syrian refugees, despite President Obama’s claim to allow them in.
President Barack Obama estimated that the U.S. would take in roughly 10,000 Syrian refugees within a year. Obama viewed this acceptance as a fundamental part of the United States’ values and characteristics. “As president, my first priority is the safety of the American people, and that's why even as we accept more refugees, including Syrians, we do so only after subjecting them to rigorous screening and security checks,” Obama said at a press conference in Turkey. He went on to say that, “Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values.”
Since this statement, over 31 states declared that they would not accept this expected influx of refugees. Unlike most issues, this was a bipartisan decision from both Republican and Democratic states. Michigan governor, Rick Snyder, stated that while they openly accept immigration, their citizens’ safety is priority, “Michigan is a welcoming state and we are proud of our rich history of immigration, but our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents.” Snyder said.
Other governors emphasized the same arguments as Snyder, saying that the general feeling of safety takes precedence over accepting refugees. Many also are quoted saying that there is no foolproof background check for refugees fleeing Syria. Yet, some governors have the opposite message.
Governor Malloy states that we already have these background checks. “We are continuing to work with and await guidance from the appropriate federal agencies on screening measures that will be taken. With that said, if refugees – many who are children fleeing a horrific, war-torn country – seek and are granted asylum after a rigorous security process, we should and will welcome them in Connecticut.” Malloy said.
It is true, that the United States has a very thorough screening process for refugees. “We have one of the most rigorous vetting processes for refugees in place, so the threat of dangerous individuals with specific agendas entering as Syrian refugees is minimal,” NHS senior, Rilind Abazi, said.
In an interview with CNN, law professor, Stephen I. Vladeck, at American University commented on the legality of declining to accept refugees, “Legally, states have no authority...but it can refuse to cooperate, which makes thing much more difficult.” Despite this, The House passed a bill suspending the acceptance of Syrian refugees until several agencies verify that they each one is not a security risk.
Some view the Syrian refugees in a very different light. Journalist, Steve Chapman, gave his view on what the purpose of the refugees is, “People who trek hundreds of miles on foot or cram into rubber rafts for ocean voyages typically have more pressing objectives than militancy.” continuing to say, “They do it to escape violence and extremism, not to spread it.” Chapman said.
While many of the refugees are indeed fleeing the terror in Syria, there is still the possibility that disguised terrorists could use the United States’ acceptance of refugees as a medium to enter. Some believe that we have a moral duty to accept them. “If we are to maintain the promise of the American dream and be the leader we ought to be in the international arena, then we have to accept Syrian Refugees,” Abazi said.
Either way, this is an issue that will not fade any time soon, and in the upcoming months the United States will face a great moral dilemma.
Image Courtesy of en.wikipedia.org