For over two decades the Middle East has been a hotbed of war and Islamic extremism. As extremist activity and ideologies throughout the region continue to escalate and grow, hundreds of thousands of citizens from affected countries have claimed refugee status and seek shelter in European countries as well as in the United States of America. American reactions to requests for asylum have ranged from open-armed beckons to make the journey to the US to flat-out rejection on the grounds of terrorism and the risk that it carries. I am interested in this issue because it directly affects my family and my nation, yet it does call in to question my values: do we, as a nation, help those in need despite the risks providing asylum carries, or do we shut our doors in the name of safety? I do not have any direct personal experience with acts of terror or in helping refugees, but I am qualified to write about this issue because its outcome will have an effect on me and my community. While the threat of terror cells infiltrating refugee populations is real, thousands of families are in dire need of asylum and other basic human rights; therefore, additional vetting and supervisory processes would carry ample advantages with few negative effects. 

The rise of the Islamic State throughout the Middle East took the region by storm, but their stranglehold may already be on the decline. Using brutality and sheer intimidation, members of ISIS have managed to take control of large swathes of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon due in part to the extreme instability and warfare present throughout the region. When researching their rise to power I came across an analysis written by John Waterbury, an academic who possesses a PhD in Political Science. With these qualifications, his analysis is likely unbiased, especially with his reputation on the line if he is found to write articles pertaining to specific values and possibly stretching the truth. In 2010, ISIS established its first headquarters in Baquba, Iraq as an affiliate of al-Qaeda but has since grown apart from all other terrorist organizations. While organizations such as al-Qaeda operate under ideals of jihad, ISIS operates under its own ideas and concepts, leading to war with rival terrorist cells. In Syria, seven separate extremist groups have actually joined together to form the Syrian Revolutionary Front to fight off and remove ISIS from the region. While the Islamic State still controls the majority of the region, the efforts of the SRF are weakening ISIS's stranglehold on the region (Waterbury).

Because of the threat extremism poses, a well-founded air of wariness has grown around refugees from the region, yet as a country we can't allow fear to cloud our judgement. As World Vision -- a humanitarian charity aiming to provide assistance to refugees -- points out, of the 6.6 million displaced Syrians, over half are children. Since World Vision is a charity aimed at helping refugees, their article is certainly biased towards the refugees, and with the Christian values they very clearly display on their website, their religious values and duties are at stake. These children are at risk and may not reach adulthood due to poor conditions within refugee camps combined with the risk of ISIS recruitment for suicide bombings or acts of terrorism against them (World Vision). In order to maintain peace of mind and to help the American public to accept refugees as families seeking safety and a sure future and not as risks posed to their own families, additional vetting for potential refugees can go a long way. House Resolution 4038, known as the American SAFE Act of 2015, proposes just that: an additional step in the vetting process designed to help prevent terrorists from gaining access to the US homeland through the disguise of a refugee seeking asylum. Through 4038, "covered aliens," or anybody who has been present in, is a national of, or has no nationality yet has resided in Iraq or Syria since March 1, 2011, must be certified by the FBI to the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence that the individual has passed a background investigation proving that the individual poses no threat to national security (Congress). Resolution 4038 has passed the House and currently waits for approval through the Senate (Congress). I retrieved information on Resolution 4038 from Congress' website, where it states the content of the bill and its current position within the legislative system, and only that, so the source is unbiased with no values at stake.

Opponents of Resolution 4038 claim that it wouldn't add any additional security, but would instead would "betray American values" and would only work to make an already extensive system more cumbersome with the goal of slowing down the acceptance rate of refugees (Collins). Supporters, on the other hand, state that at the end of the day 4038 aims to protect American citizens, and that ISIS isn't slowing down and there needs to be more proactive action taken against it rather than just words (Collins). Supporters of 4038 also argue that the White House claimed that ISIS was contained a mere 24 hours before the devastating attacks in Paris on November 13th, 2015, using this example to show that ISIS certainly shouldn't be underestimated and should be treated with caution (Collins). Opponents typically disregard calls for caution, asserting that the process of attaining asylum in the US is extensive enough as it is; they may cite that of 23,000 applicants, only 7,000 were interviewed and of those 7,000 only 2,000 refugees were granted asylum (Collins). Pro & Con is an organization that compiles arguments on both sides of a debate then publishes them in articles designed to accurately represent both sides of a debate with as little bias as possible. Their reputation is at stake if they begin slanting articles in one direction or another, so they are very credible.

After setting up its headquarters in 2010, ISIS quickly spread throughout 2014 to include most of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, displacing thousands upon thousands of Syrian, Iraqi, and Afghan nationals. In 2015 resistance from other terrorist organizations sprung up, escalating conflict and displacing even more people throughout the Middle East. Refugees currently struggle to fulfill their basic human needs, including clean water, food, and shelter. Providing asylum within the US for these families in their time of need certainly carries positive moral and social aspects, yet caution in the form of extended policies must be used to ensure the US stays safe for current and future citizens, as well as asylum-seekers, current or future.

The question of how to deal with Syrian Refugees is certainly arguable as there are multiple stances and arguments on either side to address. Every article I came across agreed on one thing and one thing only: that Syrian refugees are in need of assistance. After that, the main disagreement was over whether or not the refugees were safe to bring in to this country, and whether or not there should be increased restrictions and additional screening processes to allow refugees to enter. The various perspectives I encountered did, in fact, affect my own. I now believe that the refugees should be allowed to enter, but under stricter entrance conditions. Finally, I believe that my research question doesn't need revision since it allows for both sides on the crisis to be argued without becoming too narrow or broad.

