

With homes destroyed and a nation torn in two, the Syrian people have experienced hardships rarely paralleled by most peoples in the world today. When given the choice between a regime known to slaughter its people and religious extremists who torture and massacre dissents of their radical cause, where does one turn? Many if not most look west, to Europe and past that, to the melting pot of culture that is the United States, a nation built on immigrants fleeing from religious persecution and oppression. Contrary to the aid and support many victims of crimes against humanity receive in times of hardship and suffering, these refugees have been faced with hostility and prejudice as a result of sweeping assumptions of imminent danger. I feel that the United States should maintain an intensive screening process that ensures the safety of our country and our people while providing increased humanitarian aid and refuge to those refugees who have been seriously affected and displaced by this conflict.

We need to first begin by looking at what a refugee is and who may qualify as one before we can even look whether or not the Syrian people have the ability to qualify as refugees. In the article, "Refugees: Risks and Challenges Worldwide", Sharon Russell provides the basis for what the legal definition of a refugee would be:

The core definition of a "refugee" is contained in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which define a refugee as an individual who: "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable or  --  unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country." (Russell)

Later in the same piece, Russell refers to the Organization for African Unity Convention which established that a refugee may be anyone who "owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination, or events seriously disturbing the public order...is compelled to leave...to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality." This statement has thus been interpreted that in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East, a people who has been expelled from a nation in order to escape political turmoil or a civil war can be considered a refugee as well. Russell goes on to point out that, while this is was a regionally based political declaration, not a treaty, it carries enough weight on a global scale that this has now become included in the terminology for defining a refugee (Russell).

The recent Paris and Brussels bombings have drastically changed the way that we perceive the threats of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, frequently abbreviated to ISIS, and other terror cells today. The unchecked flow of immigrants traveling throughout Europe and the quasi-open borders of the European Union allowed for an opportune passage of the disguised terrorists into Western Europe. This understandably raised concerns in many Americans' minds, yet instead of looking for answers to fix the issues, many looked for a scapegoat to blame. Eliza Griswold of The New York Times quoted many of the current Republican candidates for president as they targeted Syrian refugees, blaming them for the attacks:

Dr. Ben Carson conflated Syrian refugees with "rabid dogs." Jeb Bush called for deprioritizing Muslim refugees from the Middle East in favor of Christians. Senator Ted Cruz echoed this sentiment, proclaiming that Muslims should be sent to "Muslim-majority" countries while "Christians who are being targeted for genocide, for persecution, Christians who are being beheaded or crucified, we should be providing safe haven to them." Donald Trump upped the ante by calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. (Griswold)

 Yet these sentiments were shared across party lines as the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act passed the House of Representatives on November 19th. This bill would ensure that "in addition to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) screening, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) shall take all actions necessary to ensure that each covered alien receives a background investigation before U.S. refugee admission" (McCaul). Now, while this may seem beneficial to both the refugee, as they are cleared of any possible connections with terror groups and given refugee status, as well as the United States, ensuring that the refugees we do accept have no links to terror or extremist religious groups, the drawbacks are numbered.

Should this act be passed, the results would be a major bureaucratic backup conflicting within the different wings of United States security agencies. With the current screening process, the potential refugee is already screened by the National Counterterrorism Center/Intelligence Community, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the State Department (Pope, Infographic). If the act gets passed, it would not remove the Federal Bureau of Investigation from the initial screening process, but instead, send the refugee back to an agency that they have already been cleared by, creating a redundant step. 

 Beyond the bureaucratic mishap that would occur, this could seriously affect those who need to leave the area quickly due to safety and health concerns. The current application and screening process takes anywhere from eighteen to twenty-four months on average with just over fifty percent of the applicants passing the screening process, but should the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act pass, this process could be significantly prolonged, exposing potential refugees to further dangers and limiting the care that they receive (Altman). 

Yet are we going to be safe without the extra measures within our screening processes? With terror cells like the Jahbat al-Nusrah front as well as the D'aish (ISIS) at their peaks, it is hard to be certain that we are safe from terrorist attacks. According to a report from the RAND Corporation to the Department of Homeland Security, "risks associated with refugees from Syria may be higher today for several reasons" (Jones). These are reasonable and very understandable concerns considering the recent bombings in Brussels and Paris, but there are multiple factors that must be taken into account prior to jumping to conclusions. First of all, the process of crossing borders into the United States is radically different from that of crossing borders throughout Europe. With a more open borders policy in place currently in the European Union, ease of travel is greatly facilitated, allowing for faux-refugees to enter into those countries virtually undetected. On the other hand, with the United States being bordered by a large ocean on either side and having a passport required to cross all land borders into and out of the country, such an entrance as experienced in Europe is virtually impossible. Past the entering illegally aspect, we have measures and safeguards in place in our current refugee screening processes that ensure that "refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States." Any potential refugees seeking relocation into the Untied States is subject to screening from the top security agencies in the United States, along with special forms of security set in place to ensure that refugees from Syria, due to the "particular conditions", go through additional precautionary steps in the screening process (Pope, How).

Yet, even considering the legal struggles that a refugee experiences while trying to enter the United States, many big questions remain with regards as to how to ensure the refugee is properly cared for, often starting before the refugee can even leave the region. Addressing many of the potential medical issues that someone coming from the region may face, which include traumatic stress disorder, illnesses and physical impairments and damage, is a necessity (Pottie). Many of the refugees have been unable to access healthcare because of the massive influx of patients in the hospitals and medical clinics caused by bombings and other injuries associated with civilians caught in the crossfire. On top of the influx of patients, the indiscriminate bombings of areas by both sides has resulted in the destruction of massive amounts of medical infrastructure in some of the areas requiring some of the most attention. Frequently, when these medical structures go down, the rates of infectious diseases will rise, and if left untreated, can spread rapidly throughout the regions hosting these displaced refugees. "Yet while the political borders of a conflict can be delineated, health care repercussions are uncontained by geopolitical borders. The spillover of refugees and communicable diseases into Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq demonstrates the rippling consequences of the protracted Syrian conflict." Should we ignore these needs, both in their home countries and in camps, the violence of the war is not the only issue that we should be concerned about spreading (Sharara).

As these refugees continually flow out of the country in search of safe haven, they discover that not many countries are willing to take them in at the moment, and the ones that are willing to take them in are having trouble supporting them at the moment. In a Ted Talks discussion concerning the current state of refugees in the Middle East, Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and former Prime Minister of Portugal, states that the current state that the refugees are living in are sub-human, and that the burden of the refugees should be spread equally in order to allow better care for the refugees: 

We just had research with the World Bank, and 87 percent of the Syrians in Jordan and 93 percent of the Syrians in Lebanon live below the national poverty lines. Only half of the children go to school, which means that people are living very badly. Not only are they refugees, out of a home, not only have they suffered what they have suffered, but they are living in very, very dramatic conditions. (Guterres)

Guterres goes on to propose that each European nation take in a fair number of the refugees, about one per every two thousand nationals, This would allow the European Union to evenly distribute the large numbers of them throughout Europe as well as remove the strain from those currently hosting a majority of the refugees. "The refugee influx has resulted in a 10% population increase in Jordan and a 25% increase in Lebanon (according to UNHCR data). Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt also face increasing strain on their infrastructures" (Balsari).

 With the massive influx of Syrian refugees into neighboring countries, with Lebanon reaching a point where there is one refugee for every three citizens, a massive humanitarian effort must be made to ensure that both the Syrian refugees and the current host nations, primarily Jordan and Lebanon, receive the proper support from the international community. This support can be either through the providing of medical and general living supplies for the refugees which the Lebanese and Jordanian government can not afford to supply to the incredible  number of refugees currently residing in the countries and through the redistribution of refugees throughout the global community, including the United States. This need for support has become even direr as the strain of the massive number of refugees on the economy has reached the point to where these escaped Syrians are no longer protected as refugees, but instead are granted temporary visas and have their refugee statuses stripped from them. What this means is that the medical care that they would be receiving for free at clinics and hospitals are now being charged, albeit minimally, but these refugees may now not be able to even afford this care as many have lost all of their belongings and are unable to afford even the lowest charges (Balsari). Should the United States provide refuge to an increased number of Syrians, this would reduce the strain on the economies of these two nations taking the brunt of the refugee flood out of Syria. With more refugees being allowed int the United States, this would also allow for these refugees to be given access to better health care facilities not provided to them in their current host nations. 

 The sentiments to provide help to these refugees have unfortunately not been uniform, and many people have been staunchly opposed to any refugees entering the United States as well as the usage of public funds and tax payer dollars in order to provide support to non-citizens. After the Paris bombings in 2015, many people called for a halt to the refugee program, and a majority of the governors expressed concerns associated with refugees, thirty-one of which outright stated they would refuse to accept any into their states (Fantz). Other notable politicians have raised concerns about the financial burden that this might place on the United States in addition to the potential safety issues that come into play when dealing with processing immigrants (Refugee). I agree that these are serious concerns that need to continually be improved upon. Our nation's safety and the safety of the people inside the United States should be the number one priority when taking into consideration the possibility of accepting large groups of people into the country, especially out of a region so war-stricken as Syria. I also understand the concerns that many people hold in regards to funding these refugee help programs. Many people are afraid that the increased number of people reliant on the government for care and housing can result in either a reduction of funds going to another needed area or an increase in the tax burden that people already face (Refugee). Each of these are also concerns that can be easily addressed and alleviated through cooperation in government and humanitarian efforts.

The Syrian Civil War has affected millions of people and displaced almost an entire nation of people, creating possibly the largest refugee crisis in our history. Without aid, many of these displaced peoples will soon live in and continue to live in the depths of poverty and malnutrition and eventually perish, but we can change that. If we stand together as a nation in support of these refugees, the impact that we can have would be profound. We should stand united, willing to put forth a shred of human decency and accept a battered and torn people into our nation. I firmly believe that the intensive, multi-stage process by which our refugees have been screened is well beyond sufficient in order to ensure our safety and the safety of our nation. Instead of bickering over providing aid and asylum to the refugees we clear of terror connections, let us instead look to ensuring that the refugees will have a home to someday return to.

