The truth about Syrian refugees?

Does anyone really know the whole truth about our current national shouting match over Syrian refugees? Does anyone really care to know the truth? “Oooh, look! Another chance to beat up on those darned _______ on the other side of the aisle!”

Frankly, I don’t claim to know the whole truth, either, but I at least would like to know more of it than I do. And what I’ve been finding makes me wonder if both sides have lost their minds. How can the liberals be so naive? And how can the conservatives be so hard-nosed? Can’t we find some middle ground that will allow us to take in Syrian refugees without unnecessary risk? And what if we’re actually overlooking even worse problems in the midst of all this screaming?

Do Syrian refugees pose a threat to America? Well, before we start screaming at Republicans, it’s only fair to point out that Administration officials see a threat there, too:

America’s top spy said Wednesday that U.S. intelligence officials have a “huge concern” about Islamic State’s ability to infiltrate waves of Syrian war refugees flowing into Europe and potentially the United States as pressure mounts on Western nations to take in a growing number of people fleeing the conflict in the heart of the Middle East.

“As they descend on Europe, one of the obvious issues that we worry about, and in turn as we bring refugees into this country, is exactly what’s their background?” Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said. “We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees.”

“That is a huge concern of ours,” Mr. Clapper said during a rare and unusually informal public appearance at an annual U.S. intelligence community conference that kicked off Wednesday morning in Washington.

While he added that U.S. authorities, who have so far allowed in fewer than 2,000 of Syria’s some 4 million refugees, have a “pretty aggressive” system for screening the backgrounds of those seeking entry into the United States, Mr. Clapper said he’s not so confident about the capabilities of some European nations.

Okay, that confirms that Republicans are not entirely wrong if the Director of National Intelligence is concerned, too. But that last paragraph does lead in a different direction than what we’ve been hearing. I’ll get to that in a minute.

But meanwhile we have a large number of governors supposedly refusing to take in Syrian refugees, and a bill in Congress to block taking any of the 10,000 President Obama has committed to. At least that’s what I’m hearing on Facebook. But is that really the truth? No, not really. There’s a difference between saying “No, we’re not taking any” and “let’s slow down and make sure our screening efforts are sufficient.” As it stands, that bill just passed, with 47 Democrats agreeing. Harry Reid in the Senate promises to kill that bill, but Dianne Feinstein has already introduced a bill in the Senate that goes even farther:

When you compare the House GOP’s bill to what Senate Dems are pushing, it’s the Democratic bill that’s more substantive. Dianne Feinstein wants to add an exception to the current policy of waiving the visa requirement for visitors from France; the exception would require a visa for anyone who’s visited Iraq or Syria in the last five years. That wouldn’t affect refugees, but frankly it’s the visa waiver program that’s probably the bigger terrorist threat to the U.S. With Merkel waving Middle Easterners into the EU by the thousands, it’s almost certainly easier for a terrorist to establish himself quickly in the EU and then fly on to the U.S. then to sign up and wait two years, subject to a lengthy background check, as a phony refugee. 

Did you catch that? Both the DNI and Dianne Feinstein are concerned that our European allies aren’t doing enough to screen refugees, which in essence slips potential terrorists past the our country’s first layer of protection against them–the visa process. I’m not sure why she’s limiting her added measures to just France, though.

This wouldn’t be the first time the Republicans (and Democrats) and the people that hate them are largely focused on something entirely beside the point. According to Hot Air, the Republican bill only adds “an FBI background check to the refugee process and require that each refugee be certified by department heads.” Why is that drawing so much ire, when the Democrats are the ones wanting to get tougher? Are we smearing the wrong people here? Why are so few noticing Feinstein’s bill? Or are we all simply salivating at the sound of Pavlov’s bell?

At a time when we should be coming together and seeking common solutions it seems far too many of our leaders would prefer to use this as yet another chance to stab at one another:

It’s unfortunate that the main political fallout in the United States from the tragic attacks in Paris has been an ugly and divisive culture war eruption. The president bears no small share of responsibility for this. The most impassioned part of his post-Paris remarks were his attacks on Americans who were worried about the security implications of the refugee program. Instead of addressing and responding to these concerns, he denounced them as bigoted on their face. And instead of offering even token concessions on security and screening to Republican governors and legislators pushing refugee bills, he immediately promised to veto them, ruling out any changes to the program.

The president is right that there is an ugly side to the anti-refugee politics of the last week. Donald Trump is veering into fascist territory, suggesting that the identities of Muslim Americans should be put in a database. But the president’s moral lectures have amplified, not ameliorated, this problem. By writing off all concerns as illegitimate, and by contemptuously talking down to large swathes of his constituents, the president has turned what should be a period of mourning, unity, and productive discussion about anti-terror strategy into a political brawl over an issue with little long-run significance.

And on social media people are finding yet another chance to bash Republicans in general and Christians specifically. While there’s an element of truth to the accusations, I think these attackers are misguided and over-zealous to place blame. Is America a hateful country? And is that really because the Christian part of the population keeps getting in Obama’s way? This is the first I’ve heard people blame Christians for this, so that must mean we’ve been much better about taking refugees before. But have we?

According to the World Bank, there were 2.5 million Afghan refugees in 2014; according to the office of refugee resettlement, in fiscal year 2014 we took 758 of them. There were 616,000 from South Sudan; we took 52 of them. There were 410,00 from the Central African Republic; we took 25 of them.

How can the president face himself every day betraying our values by taking so few refugees from these strife-torn countries? The problem with the argument that our values compel us to take refugees is that it isn’t subject to any limit.

We admit about 70,000 refugees a year. Is that the American level? Or would 700,000 be more American? And what’s the balance between prudential considerations — cost, assimilation, security — and American-ness? The pieties about immigration are a way to short-circuit discernment and argument.

The 10,000 from Syria is only 0.1% of the whole. Would that make Obama only slightly less selfish than those who oppose bringing in any? Considering he at least shares some blame for the situation in the first place, is that far too few? But perhaps there are reasons to be conservative in how many we take in. While we’d like to think American resources and opportunity are limitless, we simply don’t have the ability to take in open-ended amounts of refugees quickly. If we bring them here and then don’t give them the proper support to get on their feet we end up making things worse for everyone:

Finally, assimilation is an obvious concern. The experience of the Somali refugee community in Minneapolis — established by refugee resettlement and expanded with chain migration — hasn’t been a happy one. Unemployment is high, and the community has provided dozens of recruits to radical Islamist groups.

There are reasons to believe we’re already overextended on resources to support refugees. In spite of the immediate track record on Middle-eastern refugees, we are still a country that accepts a great many of them:

The Migration Policy Institute notes that the U.S. hosts “about 20 percent of the world’s international migrants, even as it represents less than 5 percent of the global population.” According to immigration expert Jessica Vaughan, since 2009 we have accepted 70 percent of all resettled United Nations-designated refugees worldwide.

I’m not going to debate here over whether or not we can ever truly say “we’ve done our part”, but there is perhaps an even more valid question. Is resettling refugees here even the best solution? There may be some reason to question that:

It is easier said than done to settle people from halfway around the world in the United States, and the resources devoted to it can be better spent in the Middle Eastern countries that between them are hosting millions of Syrian refugees. The Center for Immigration Studies, which supports restrictions on immigration, estimates that the cost of settling one Syrian refugee here would support 12 Syrian refugees in the other Middle Eastern states.

One could even ask just where the other Middle Eastern states are in all this, but I suspect I don’t have all the facts there, either. I do know that at least some neighboring countries are doing what they can, but they’re overwhelmed, too. Ten million refugees is a problem of massive scale. It does make me wonder if we should be focusing first on doing more for them now before worrying over whether we’re going to bring them here sometime in the next couple of years. And would the most humanitarian thing to do be stamping out the cause of all of this and wiping out ISIS so that the displaced can return to their homes–something I’m sure they would prefer to uprooting their families to another country where they are ill-equipped to function?

But in the mean time, I do wish Americans would do less talking, finger-pointing, and accusing and more actual helping. Is it fair to call Christians heartless in this? I don’t know. I can’t speak for all Christian churches, but my own has committed $5 million directly to assist Middle-eastern refugees and has sent out official statements from church leaders encouraging members to give more. And I doubt we’re the only Christian organization helping out. Most of the time I don’t care that no one seems to notice or give credit. We don’t do it for recognition. We do it to help. But to then turn around and have thoughtless, uninformed people blasting us on social media for being hard-hearted against refugees I can’t help but get a little annoyed and wonder just what they have actually done besides stand around attacking people who are trying to be part of the solution. They criticize those loud-spoken advocates for religious tests to admit only Christian refugees, but as much as they scream and point fingers I have to suspect they’d only prefer to reverse that so that only Christians are kept out.

For the record, though I don’t speak for all Christians, I’ll speak as one: If there are security concerns in bringing in refugees, let’s fix them and get on with it. Their situation is desperate now. Let’s make sure we have the network and structures to support them and get them on their feet as soon as possible so they not only don’t become a burden but also feel invested in their new country. Let’s take a good hard look at what we can do, and if we can take more than 10,000, let’s do it. Yes, some bad people have done terrible things in the name of Islam, but I’m pretty sure we can find a way to minimize the number of those people who slip in. In the mean time, we have been told to “do good to those who despitefully use you and persecute you”. I suspect that includes Muslim refugees.

And for all of you on social media who like to despitefully use Christians as their punching bags, I’m sorry you feel the way you do. I’m sorry that somewhere along the road some supposed Christian gave you reason to dislike the entire lot of us. I’m sorry that some loud-mouth politicians like to blame their Christianity for the un-Christian things they advocate. And how many times can I say that I have no intention of ever voting for Donald Trump? The guy no more represents my political views than a Picasso painting represents Photo-realism.

Hopefully a little perspective will do us all some good. Hopefully we’ll all take time to do something–something productive, be it donating cash to refugee assistance groups or writing our congressmen to get off their butts and work out a way to make us all feel safe while rendering as much aid as we can, to volunteering to work with migrants placed in our communities to help them feel at home. There’s something we all can do. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if for once it wasn’t to just sit back and criticize each other?