America's concern with the Syrian Refugee Crisis reignited following the November 2015 attack on Paris. A Syrian passport found next to a body led many to believe an Islamic State operative had infiltrated the refugee population to gain access to European nations. Local governments quickly dismissed these claims and stated the passport was likely a forgery. Regardless, more than half of U.S. Governors have placed state level bans on accepting refugees for relocation despite the fact that security experts confirm that any attempt by a terrorist to enter the United States as a refugee would be an inefficient tactic (Seeker Network). American citizens are even further divided by the actions of the Governors; divided in both support for the Governors actions and questioning the constitutionality of them.

The system currently utilized by the United States government is effective yet inefficient. Syrians seeking asylum in the United States expect to wait up to 2 years before acceptance by the U.S. for relocation. We as a nation must work to improve this drastic waiting period to ensure the timely relocation of Syrian refugees. Reducing the waiting period for refugees will require a significant policy adjustment. Increasing the quota of refugees accepted by the U.S., decreasing the level of scrutiny refugees undergo during the background check and hiring additional investigators to perform the current standard of intense background checks are three options I will discuss. Regardless of the approach, we must not allow the refugees to wait 2 years in Syria or overcrowded camps where they risk death and disease on a daily basis (Altman).

Unfortunately implementing policies is not as simple as drafting a proposal, having it approved and putting it into action. The subject of allowing Syrian refugees into the country at all divides the nation into three different opinions on the subject. The optimistic view proposes the borders be entirely open to all who wish to enter, inviting a legitimate terrorist risk to citizens. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have publicly threatened to infiltrate the borders of western nations and wreak havoc. The fear of these threats inspired the xenophobic "closed border" response with a goal of renewing the Chinese Exclusion Act redirected towards Arabs in order to exclude all external Islamic State threats. The United States government adopts a middle-ground policy accepting a handful of refugees only after intense scrutiny, ensuring the individual or families have no ties to anti-American organizations. This process commonly takes between eighteen to twenty-four months and often excludes single males of military age (sixteen to forty). Upon a family's acceptance for relocation into the U.S., the government places the family into an area with a low cost of living and a high level of job opportunities but beyond this consideration, there is almost no assimilation or monetary assistance. "We didn't expect it to be so expensive," Mahmoud said of the family's financial situation in Aurora, Illinois (Griswold).

"Who are these people?"

The al-Haj Alis emigrated from Syria in late 2012, fleeing to Jordan's refugee camps where they stayed for thirty months before relocating to Aurora, Illinois. However, only three of the al-Haj Ali's daughters relocated with the family. The U.S. will not accept the al-Haj Ali's three adult daughters for relocation due to their relative safety in Norway. Their son Waseem remains in a Jordanian refugee camp with his own family awaiting clearance to come to the U.S. Waseem chooses to risk the deplorable conditions of the refugee camp with the hope of one day making it to the U.S. and reuniting with his parents and youngest sisters. If Waseem and his family were to brave the dangerous trip to Europe successfully they would likely not be accepted by the U.S. for relocation because of the relative safety of European nations (Griswold).

The al-Haj Ali's story is common; Faez al Sharaa and his family share a similar tale of survival in their journey from Syria to the United States. "Faez and three others were detained and accused of being terrorists. Standing at gunpoint, his hands in the air, he recalls feeling furious with himself for risking the solo walk to work ... 'We felt death upon us, and we accepted it,'" Following the near death experience at the hands of Syrian soldiers Faez and his wife gathered their most prized possessions and arranged an escape to Jordan. Their arrival at the Zaatari was frightening, leading them to sneak out of camp and live with relatives in Jordan. While working illegally in Jordan the al Sharaas registered as refugees with the U.N. After rejection by three European nations, due to overcrowding, the al Sharaas learned they were heading for America. "'I didn't want to come to America,' he says ... he felt ill-equipped for the challenge, with few possessions, no money or language skills and a meager social safety net awaiting them ... the U.S. is known for providing skimpier benefits than the nations of Europe. 'In about two to three months, you're expected to be on your feet, to fend for yourselves,'" (Altman).

"What about Europe?"

Jordan, as a neighbor to Syria, was one of the first nations to respond to the Syrian crisis by opening its borders to fleeing refugees. However, the Jordanian government was not prepared for the massive influx of the one million people fleeing Al Assad's regime. Unprepared, Jordan hastily constructed a massive refugee camp in an attempt to contain the migrants before they caused a strain on the local economy. More than one million people occupying crowded unhygienic conditions do not create a safe environment; rape and violence plague Jordan's largest refugee camp "Zaatari" (Altman). The children living in the camps often suffer post-traumatic stress from the brutality they have witnessed during their trip from Syria. This stress shows as the children struggle to remain still and silent in the overcrowded schools that have been established in the Zaatari camp (World Food Programme).  

Turkey prepared for an influx of refugees prior to the mass exodus from Syria. Initially Turkey established several refugee camps along its border with Syria; as the violence escalated the camps quickly filled and Turkey Closed its borders. The refugee camps are composed of makeshift structures to provide shelter, some as simple as canvas tents while others are corrugated metal fabrications. The lack of electricity and availability of clean water adds to the problematic shelter that is already reminiscent of the American Great Depression. Food quality has slowly improved as international aid arrived in greater quantities. In the beginning, nutrition was limited to military "Meal-Ready-to-Eat," or "MRE," now fresh fruits and vegetables are available at a cost. An agency called CARE distributes food vouchers at a value of eighteen dollars a month or sixty cents a day per person, down from thirty dollars a month due to cut-backs. Unfortunately, families are not able to bolster their income while in a refugee status due to the inability to work in Turkey legally. Similar to illegal immigrants in America, Turkish employers treat refugees as disposable and cheap labor, often paying them less than half of what they would pay a Turk (PBS NewsHour).

In the era of worldwide skepticism of Middle-easterners, Germany arises as an example of a world power acting altruistically. In 2015, Germany expected to take in as many as eight-hundred-thousand Syrian Refugees (Altman). The German government justified the surge in population to current citizens as an economic boon, one that would hopefully arise from educated and motivated individuals injected into the workforce. Katie Sola, of Forbes, reports:

"Fratzscher and Junker expect refugees to benefit the economy and the people already living in Germany by increasing supply and demand. The new workers will stimulate corporate production, and also increase demand for all kind of services, thus benefiting local businesses. The people living in Germany will benefit from increased consumer demand and refugees' entrepreneurial activities. In the economists' pessimistic scenario, it will take 10 years for people living in Germany to benefit from increased per capita income. In the best case, it could take just four or five years for refugees to start improving the economy."

However, unprepared for the scale of the task, Germany is seeking a new approach to housing the refugees. One new approach has stirred controversy due to the Mayors of two towns started evicting current tenants from apartments owned by the local government in order to house refugees. It is important to note, both tenants have lived in the homes for more than a decade, are paying full rent and are not taking part in a social housing program (Huggler).

"So What is America Doing?"

Between the beginning of the Syrian Civil War and now, the U.S. government has accepted only about two thousand refugees from the region (Collins 15). Meaning of the almost four million people fleeing the country the U.S. government has taken in only five millionths of one percent of the people in need while small nations like Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey have taken in a collective ninety five percent of the four million refugees (Vlog Brothers). The dismally low percentage is a result of the more than six screenings Syrian refugees go through before acceptance for relocation by the U.S. "Although all refugees are screened by the National Counterterrorism Center, the F.B.I., the Defense Department, the State Department and United States Customs and Border Protection, among other intelligence agencies, Syrians must complete what is known as the Enhanced Syrian Review." (Griswold). Any connection to the Assad regime, the rebellion or the Islamic State results in immediate termination of consideration for relocation to the U.S.

Congressman Doug Collins explains America's policy in Congressional Digest "This country and the world will be judged by future generations on our response as a Nation  ...  to the Islamic State and those they have raped, tortured, driven from their homes, and murdered.  ...  will also be judged on our commitment to the safety of the millions  ...  already living within our borders.  ...  H.R. 4038,  ...  is about keeping out those who pose a threat to our national security." A noble proposition, however it is possible for the United States to both protect its own citizens and provide safe asylum to refugees in a more efficient manner. Democratic Michigan Representative John Conyers argues in favor of streamlining the vetting process refugees go through claiming "This measure sets unreasonable clearance standards that the Department

of Homeland Security simply cannot meet. Refugees seeking to come to our shores are already subject to the highest level of vetting, more than any other traveler or immigrant to the United States." It is clear that Americans wish to both help those in need around the world while also keeping our homeland safe, the controversy arises when discussing how the United States can accomplish this task (Conyers).

"How do we help?"

The United States Congress is as divided as the American people in opinion on what course of action to proceed with. Conservatives advocate closing the border entirely in an attempt to limit terrorist access to the country at worst and increasing the degree of examination asylum seekers experience at best. Contrast this to the Democratic position of decreasing the level of scrutiny in addition to increasing the quantity of refugees America will accept in the near future (Collins). Of course, none of these options is ideal for the safety of American citizens or refugees. In fact, the idea of closing our borders to asylum seekers altogether is against international law and increasing the degree of scrutiny refugees experience will likely do nothing more than waste taxpayer money with no noticeable gain; no Syrian asylum seeker relocated to the U.S. has been responsible for an act of terrorism, planned or completed (Vlog Brothers). The opposing view of raising the quantity of asylum seekers accepted for relocation would be an unwise choice as well due to the strain it would place on the workforce conducting the background checks. The additional strain would lengthen the waiting period further beyond the current two years one can expect to wait as more and more refugees are considered for relocation. Similarly, reducing the intensity of the background check that Syrian refugees endure would raise the possibility of an Islamic State operative gaining entrance to the United States. Additionally any legislation proposed to ease the process would not pass Congress, nor would it be popular among the American people. The option I believe would be most effective and prosperous for the United States is to hire more personnel to conduct background checks for individuals attempting to enter the U.S. for relocation. Currently the unemployment rate is approximately five percent, however this statistic only accounts for those on unemployment not those who have simply given up seeking a job (Long). Money redirected from inflated agencies such as the Department of Defense would more than cover the cost of the increased workforce. Enlarging the workforce would not only provide a needed boost to American unemployment but would also allow the United States to accept a greater quantity of individuals seeking asylum while decreasing the current two year waiting period.

One may rebuke the proposition of cutting funding to the Department of Defense as foolish, yet it is the single largest expense in the American budget and arguably, the one department that could withstand a budget cut of millions of dollars and still functions adequately. Budget cuts in any program are certainly a setback not easily taken yet in order to prosper as a nation and assume the responsibility of a world power we must be willing to do what is necessary to ensure the safety of those less fortunate. 

