Foreign Policy Blogs

Refugees Are The Wrong Target for U.S. Politicians

Safin Hamed/AFP/Getty Images

Safin Hamed/AFP/Getty Images

 

In the wake of the Paris attacks, American politicians of all stripes are rushing to burnish their security credentials. In their proposals they are undermining the one measure that might exhibit America’s basic motives in Syria, while adding nothing to U.S. security. House bill 4038, imposing extra screenings on Syrian refugees, and calls by governors, including at least one Democrat, to deny them entry, ignore what refugees are.

Of course we must be vigilant against terrorism. Many measures aimed at border security, some very uncomfortable, may well prove necessary. But the politicians are aiming at exactly the wrong target. They need to recall certain facts.

First, a widely overlooked point: “refugee” has a very specific meaning in law and administrative practice, distinct from other types of migrant. The UN formally defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution, which is the necessary condition even to consider anyone for U..S refugee status. The Paris attackers were not refugees; they already lived in Europe. Several travelled to and from the Middle East, but only one attacker seems even to have moved along current refugee routes.

Second, fear that terrorists could infiltrate the refugee system is understandable for anyone unfamiliar with the U.S. process. But our existing system has multiple layers of monitoring and support, in effective, long-established practices. As noted by Ambassador Ryan Crocker in the Wall Street Journal, multiple agencies, including Homeland Security and the FBI, vet all refugee candidates under consideration. A U.S. diplomat, with experience processing Middle Eastern refugees, corroborates to me that every case undergoes a multi-phased examination before gaining refugee status.

Third, even before embarking for the U.S., refugees are connected to a resettlement organization, from one of several, long-established networks. These organizations, including my friends at the International Institute of Connecticut, work closely with incoming families and individuals. Agency staff implements the rigorous State Department-funded refugee resettlement program. Volunteers mentor each family, visiting regularly to aid in their settlement. It is a service rather than security monitoring, but the relationship keeps citizens of the local community in touch with resettling refugees.

Fourth, America does not have the communities of disaffected Middle Eastern immigrants that a terrorist needs, to build networks to plan, equip, stage, and launch attacks. Europe’s large populations of alienated Muslims are not present here, and our resettlement agencies do not dump new arrivals in any shadow-lands.

The terrorism risk posed by refugees, even specifically from Syria and Iraq, is effectively zero. Yes, rapid expansion could strain a network geared to earlier levels of activity; this would explain in part the small number of Syrian refugees—10,000—that the administration proposed to accept this fall. Large increases should be carefully planned and rigorously monitored. But to worry about radicals posing as Syrian refugees is to ignore the meaning of “refugee.”

Beyond the question of domestic security, Syria itself gives us very few pieces on which to build a palatable U.S. policy. The only real forces are ISIS and the Assad regime —which started a civil war in response to the Arab Spring. Two approaches are raised in our public discourse. The first is to establish a safe haven in Syria for Assad’s non-ISIS opponents. This keeps our hands unsullied, but requires collaboration with countries of many different stripes, and will have little direct effect on either ISIS or Assad. The second is to join pro-Assad Russia in an anti-ISIS coalition; aside from the difficulties highlighted by Turkey’s shoot-down of a Russian plane, the moral compromise here is clear.

If we must choose among such options, we will need somehow to assert a basic moral context around what will be a pragmatic choice. Islamist terrorists voice an anti-Liberal, anti-Western narrative calling us amoral and imperialistic. Choosing an evil that we calculate to be the lesser, without somehow exhibiting our overarching moral values, will help our enemies, “proving” their narrative for them.

Taking in refugees is a long standing sign of America’s best nature. The system is one of the functions in the U.S. government that has been managed, quietly and collaboratively between Congress and State, for years. Through long practice it meets the standard of responsible handling in all respects, including security.

Everyone is entitled to their concerns—fear is a response to danger. Some will still worry about refugees, even if they understand that our process already eliminates the risks. Exactly to the extent that we still carry this fear, taking in Syrians who cannot abide either ISIS or Assad becomes an act of courage, undertaken out of conviction in our values.

 
  • BBQTV

    Many in the muslim communities that have settled in the US have chosen to segregate, and not assimilate & the US government seems to encourage this attitude with it’s policies.
    Many of the former politicians who address this issue in the press state that the US created the migrant issue from the region, which is not true. The US took no sides in the Syrian conflict, and the conflicts in Iraq & Afganistan have raged for many centuries. The US did remove the iron fist holding the many factions together in both the other countires: One in retaliation of harboring terrorists & the other for general purposes that have not been adiquately addressed. The locals warring with each other over centuies old issues is not sufficient to create a “refugee crisis” for the rest of the world.
    Migration under existing laws to the mutual benefit of the country & the immigrant is a different story. The migrant leaves the issues that drove them to leave behind & does not bring them to their new adopted country, or they can remain at origion with the issues.

  • herself311

    Islam is violent per the Koran. I don’t want these people. The middle east has lots of money, let them go to Saudi Arabia etc. They can practise their islam there. NO, they aren’t refugees. We saw them in Germany, they are all well dressed with more gadgets than I have.

  • herself311

    Lying is permitted in Islam so screening them won’t work. Taqiyya.

  • herself311

    Take them into your house and your neighborhood. Not mine. We have millions of HOMELESS VETERANS THAT SHOULD COME FIRST. HELP THEM, WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THEM? THEY SERVED THIS COUNTRY AND OBAMA HAS SLAPPED THEM IN THE FACE. HE DOESN’T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT OUR NEEDY AMERICANS. I CARE ABOUT THEM AND SO SHOULD YOU.

  • Stormrider54

    This is about ISIS not the refugees. If you are really so concerned would you support arming the refugees, which seem to be mostly men, and allowing them to go and take back their country with our support?

Author

George Paik
George Paik

George F. Paik is a former political affairs officer in the U.S. Foreign Service, as well as a twenty year veteran of U.S. capital markets. He recently finished a term as chair of the World Affairs Forum (a sister to FPA in the World Affairs Councils of America network) in Stamford, CT. His work as a diplomat straddled the fall of the USSR, and focused on political analysis, human rights, trade affairs, and environmental policy. His postings were in Brazil and Trinidad, and in the Department of State. Financial experience includes stints with Mellon Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and People’s United Bank. He currently holds the position of Managing Director at Lord Capital, LLC, a firm focused on international trade finance.

Paik graduated from Harvard University with a BA in Social Studies; he also holds an MBA in Finance from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He counts ten years playing Rugby, with club mates from countries around the globe, as part of his international experience.

americasdiplomats_socialmediaasset