The flame wars of this past week lend themselves to the assertion that nothing kills civility like the confluence of terrorism and immigration. The level of hysterical shrieking and moral posturing on all sides of the debate around how to treat refugees in the wake of mounting concerns about terrorism has reached peak mob rule. Weâ€™ve been treated to sweeping pronouncements that anyone seeking to stop – or even just pause – the resettlement of displaced Middle Easterners are xenophobic bigots. Arguably more absurd are the neo-fascist calls to shut down mosques and place Muslims in camps, reminiscent of Franklin Rooseveltâ€™s racial-roundup that imprisoned Japanese-Americans during World War II.
Instead of breathlessly playing into this parade of the horribles, everyone concerned about the refugee issue would do well to take a deep breath and keep an open mind as the facts unfold. If the world as viewed through social media is any indication, it seems as though we genuinely need to remember that well-meaning people can diverge, even on highly emotional and complicated issues, without being evil. If we can at least agree on that basic premise, it might be possible to consider two of the most difficult issues we face politically in a rational light.
Immigration was already a hot button issue within the 2016 presidential campaign before the attacks in Paris tied it much more closely with concerns around terrorism. Virtually all Republican candidates have said from their campaignâ€™s inceptions that we need a tighter border, expressing national security concerns about the matter, even amid disagreements about how immigrants here illegally ought to be treated. Mix this already complicated, emotional issue with legitimate fears surrounding terrorism, and youâ€™ve detonated political dynamite.
As the dust clears in Paris, officials have confirmed that one of the suicide bombers at the Stade de France entered Europe by way of Greece with a fake Syrian passport. The Washington Post reported that, â€śHe disembarked with 197 desperate migrants on the isle of Leros, where harried police processed the man whose Syrian passport named him as Ahmad Almohammad, a 25-year-old from Idlib.â€ť The manâ€™s true identity remains unknown – he may not be Syrian at all – but officials confirmed that his fingerprints matched those of â€śAlmohammad,â€ť who entered Europe on October 3rd.
This has led to a justifiable fear among Americans. As President Obama calls for the United States to take in 10,000 refugees, people want to know how their elected officials will prevent another â€śAhmad Almohammadâ€ť from forging his way into our country. And the concern goes beyond fake passports: What if ISIS terrorists are, as they claim, embedded in refugee camps? If they can enter Europe so easily, canâ€™t they get into America? These are legitimate concerns that have sparked action among many politicians.
More than half of all governors have said their states will not accept Syrian refugees for fear of endangering their citizens. Every Republican presidential candidate has said we should at least put a pause on if not outright ban Syrian migrants – particularly if theyâ€™re not Christians, according specifically to both Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush. Three days after the attack in Paris, Rand Paul introduced a bill reminiscent of one he had filed in 2013. According to a statement from Paulâ€™s Senate office:
â€śThis legislation that would suspend visa issuance for countries with a high risk of terrorism and impose a waiting period for background checks on visa issuance from other countries until the American people can be assured terrorists cannot enter the country through our immigration and visa system.â€ť In addition, the bill would make sure that immigrants already in the U.S. via countries that pose high terror risks are being monitored, and would make sure that the Department of Homeland Securityâ€™s entry-exit system is 100 percent complete, ensuring that people are not overstaying their visas. Paul also introduced an amendment that would block welfare benefits for any new refugees that enter the U.S.
While these are arguably common sense measures, especially seeing as the terrorists who executed 9/11 entered the U.S. through visas, itâ€™s equally important to make sure we as citizens arenâ€™t driving politicians to legislate through fear absent rational thinking. Most reasonable people would agree that instituting a more stringent screening process is wise. But does that mean we cannot admit any of these suffering Syrian refugees at all? Is President Obamaâ€™s modest proposal of 10,000 truly too much for the United States to handle?
Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst for the Cato Institute, wrote a compelling piece that delves into the processes around our refugee system, and convincingly contrasted the situation in Europe with what takes place here. As he explained, â€śThere are many differences between Europeâ€™s vetting of asylum seekers from Syria and how the United States screens refugees. The geographic distance between the United States and Syria allows our government to better vet those seeking to come here while large numbers of Syrians who want to go to Europe show up at their borders and are less carefully vetted. A lax security situation there does not imply a lax security situation here.â€ť
Nowrasteh also presented some sobering statistics, explaining that of the 859,629 refugees admitted into the U.S. since 2001, only three have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks, all on targets outside of the United States, and none of the plots were successful. (As Nowrasteh notes, the Boston Marathon bombers were from a family that sought asylum, a distinction with a major difference). â€śThat is one terrorism-planning conviction for a refugee for every 286,543 of them who have been admitted. To put that in perspective, about 1 in every 22,541 Americans committed murder in 2014,â€ť wrote Nowrasteh.
Of course, these statistics donâ€™t mean that Americans have no right to be alarmed by the prospect of terror on our shores. After all, ISIS has made it abundantly clear that they seek Western targets, the United States included. It seems however, amid our justifiable concern, that pointing fingers at refugees as it pertains to how terrorists actually enter the U.S. may be misguided. As Paul noted and many other politicians have long pointed out, the 9/11 hijackers entered the U.S. on business, tourism, and student visas and overstayed them as a result of insufficient policing in this arena.
This isÂ notÂ to say that ISIS operatives embedding themselves in refugee camps isnâ€™t a new type of threat. The federal government should in no way be lax in its vetting process, and there are legitimate concerns aroundÂ whether the agencies in question are properly following their own rulesÂ on this. But as Nowrasteh explained, â€śFew ISIS soldiers or other terrorists are going to spend at least three years in a refugee camp for a 0.042 percent chance of entering the United States when almost any other option to do so is easier, cheaper, quicker.â€ť Refugees are simply not pouring onto our shores and allowed to enter with a cursory look at a passport, as was the case with the Paris bomber in Greece.
Europe has a major problem on its hands, but their troubles donâ€™t quite mirror what weâ€™re facing in the U.S. The flame war over displaced Syrians has obscured the point that refugees themselves are rarely the problem. As of this writing, the man with the forged passport does remain a mystery, but all of the terrorists identified in the Paris attacks were either Belgian or French nationals. As we move forward with this debate, all sides ought to extend each other grace, consider the facts, and ideally, work toward a solution that will allow refugees who are truly in need to seek the American Dream.
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Corie Whalen Stephens is a libertarian-conservative activist and writer based in Houston, Texas.
Click through the gallery below to read more from Corie.
LibertyThe fight for liberty will always transcend presidential politics.
Photo by rypson/Getty Images
Tea PartyThe tea party is not Trump and not dead, it's just different now.
Photo by Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images
Gun ControlThe gun control debate reveals the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.
Photo by STILLFX/Getty Images
LibertyThis Presidential cycle is a reminder that anti-establishment doesn't mean pro-liberty.
Photo by Michael Flippo/Getty Images
RefugeesLet's get past the refugee rhetoric and look at the facts.
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Election 2016The latest Republican debate marked the end of the Bush dynasty.
Photo by Justin Sullivan / Getty Images
Presidential ElectionIs Marco Rubio ready for his moment? He very well could become the GOP nominee.
Photo by Justin Sullivan / Getty Images
Debate LessonsDid we actually learn anything from the recent long, chaotic Republican debate?
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Identity PoliticsStop expecting conservatives to give up their identities.
Photo by BananaStock/Getty Images
Local PoliticsCorie Whalen-Stephens explore why to win nationally, we need to first act locally.
Photo by LuminaStock / Getty Images
Foreign PolicyA generational gap in foreign policy opinions could spell bad news for Republicans.
Criminal Justice ReformCorie Whalen Stephens discusses how President Obama is finally catching up with libertarians on criminal justice reform.
Photo by Mark Makela/Getty Images
Election 2016Can a Republican Presidential candidate earn the Black vote?
Donald TrumpDefending Donald Trump is a contribution to the Democratic party.
Photo by Christopher Gregory/Getty Images
Rand Paul on MarriageSenator Rand Paul, who is known as the most libertarian Republican presidential candidate, believes the government should respect contracts between consenting adults, but stop defining marriage.
Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images
LibertariansRead Corie Whalen Stephens' first article on EveryJoe -- Libertarians Can Stop Worrying and Embrace Rand Paulâ€™s Strategy.
Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images