The civil war in Syria is extremely convoluted and bloody. In 2011, the first shots of the war were fired into a group of peaceful Arab Spring demonstrators protesting against Bashar al-Assad’s authoritarian regime. The war has only gotten more complex as some of the rebels have broken away from the Free Syrian Army and formed their own sects. First the Kurds, and then, perhaps most importantly, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The Syrian government has committed atrocities against its own citizens. As the conflict reached its height, reports of civilian executions began to filter out of the country. Air raids targeting hospitals have become commonplace. The people of the United States have seen utter devastation and tremendous loss of life as a result of Assad’s war crimes. Thousands of Syrians are now abandoning their homes to flee this carnage and pursue security in other countries. The United States should accept these refugees for several reasons, perhaps the chief amongst them being moral responsibility. In addition to ethical reasons, we must keep our doors open because the arguments for shutting them are laced with xenophobia and embedded in a long history of anti-immigrant and refugee bias in the United States.

The prevailing argument against allowing refugees to seek safety in the US by fleeing their perilous homeland is that members of ISIS will gain entry by disguising themselves as refugees. This seed of unfounded suspicion was planted in fertile soil for the roots of paranoia when the tragedies in Paris took place in November 2015, while the refugee crisis debate was at the forefront. Most of the Paris attackers were European citizens born in France or Belgium, and none were positively identified as refugees (Who Were The Paris Attackers?). Posing as a refugee would be an inefficient way to get into the US. To truly understand this statement, one must have an understanding of the process Syrian refugees must undergo in order to gain entry to the US. The process is long and arduous, involving extensive screening and background checks by the federal government. The first step in the resettlement process is leaving home and finding a refugee camp run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, also known as the UNHCR, where they register as refugees and apply for resettlement. They are allowed to express interest in a particular country, but ultimately, the UNHCR decides where they will be resettled. Relocation is not a guarantee, and not all refugees who apply will be resettled. The refugees that are selected by the UNHCR are then thoroughly evaluated by Homeland Security, and if they pass, some may be recommended for programs in the US. Then, the meticulous vetting with the US begins. The process can take as long as two years, and refugees undergo rigorous background checks and the most extensive screenings of any US traveler. It includes in-person interviews, information from which is crossed checked with Homeland Security, the State Department, and the Department of Defense for any inconsistencies or problems. Only if they pass through all of this will a refugee reach the US (Gold and Blake). From this, one can conclude that posing as a refugee is not a probable way for member of ISIS to get into the US, because there is no guarantee of resettlement. This is especially true when one considers the remarkably small number of refugees the US permits into the country in comparison to other countries such as Germany and England. It would be more feasible for a member of ISIS to go to Mexico, and cross the border there. There are also 38 countries (mostly European) in which an individual does not even need a Visa to get into the US (Gold and Blake).

Statistics show that the vast majority of deaths due to terrorism in United States are not a result of radical Islamic terror attacks. Rather, the bulk of violence and terrorism in the country is homegrown. When a terror attack is committed by a Muslim in the United States, it receives a largely disproportionate amount of media coverage compared to attacks committed by Caucasians. For this reason, most Americans believe that radical Islamic terror attacks occur far more often than they actually do. The FBI reported that approximately 94% of all terror attacks between the years of 1980 and 2005 were committed by non-Muslims (Terrorism 2002/2005). It has also been reported that an estimated 90% of the victims of radical Islamic terror are Muslims themselves. This is not to say that proponents of allowing refugees into the United States are attempting to downplay the threat and possible consequences of terrorism. The US should absolutely take steps to prevent it, but the unfortunate reality is that it is already here, and the people participating in it are already living among United States citizens. Terror from domestic threats is becoming frighteningly commonplace. About two Americans die every year from radical Islamic terrorism, while over 11,000 die every year as a result of being shot by another American citizen (Terrorism 2002/2005). United States citizens are killing one another at rate far higher than foreigners are. This is a far more significant issue than radical Islamic terrorism. 

Shutting the door on Syrians also has the potential to be counterproductive to safeguarding national security. Experts from both the Democratic and Republican administrations have testified that permitting refugees in the US would strengthen our national security for several reasons. By accepting refugees, the US could assist in relieving some of the strain on resources belonging to other countries, many of which are allies to the United States: “Assistance would protect the stability of a region home to U.S. allies… The infrastructure—water, medical care, education—of these states is overwhelmed. A resettlement initiative can relieve the strain” (Refugees and National Security). Accepting refugees can thereby allow the United States to strengthen its relationship with allies in the Middle East and Europe. Many of those nations are powerful and maintaining a good relationship with them would be beneficial to the US. Failing to support these countries, particularly Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, which are taking in the largest number of refugees, could cause instability in the region due to depleted resources. Instability causes people to become desperate and dissatisfied with their situation, which are perfect conditions to breed terrorism. This would effectively continue perpetuating violence in the Middle East, creating more refugees and a larger crisis. Barring Syrian refugees also plays into the extremist narrative that the West is waging a war on Islam. A bipartisan group of national security leaders and former military leaders stated, 

Refugees are victims, not perpetrators, of terrorism. Categorically refusing to take them only feeds the narrative of ISIS that there is a war between Islam and the West, that Muslims are not welcome in the United States and Europe, and that the ISIS caliphate is their true home. (Refugees and National Security)

By rejecting refugees, the United States would effectively be providing terrorist groups with propaganda material by giving the impression that Muslims are not welcome in the US. This would potentially enable terrorist groups to recruit more foot soldiers. Accepting refugees regardless of their national origin or religion would expose the extremist narrative for what it is: false. In turn, terrorists would find it more difficult to stir up hatred.

The United States has a long and unfortunate history of anti-immigrant and refugee bias. The resistance to accepting refugees is not, then, a surprise. It is a symptom of a much more extensive suspicion to foreigners, which dates back to the 1750’s, before America was even a country. Benjamin Franklin was among the most vocally opposed to German immigration during that time. He believed that they were endangering New England’s whiteness with their “swarthy complexion” (Merelli). Other notable historic figures felt similarly about immigration—such as Alexander Hamilton: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities” (Merelli). The United States has passed legislation to prevent or decrease certain types of immigration, beginning with the Chinese. In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was created, which banned immigration from China and marked the first formal involvement of the federal government in the matter. During the 1920’s, immigration from Asia was still halted, and the US began limiting the admittance of Eastern Europeans as well, such as Italians and Greeks (Merelli). In the years following the Great Depression, bias shifted to Mexicans, who were seen as parasites upon precious and limited resources. Many were deported without regard to citizenship, others still were simply scared to the point of leaving the country. In 1942, after Pearl Harbor, thousands of Japanese Americans were forcibly placed in internment camps for reasons none other than white Americans feeling paranoid and the fact that Japanese Americans simply looked like the enemy. Nearly in the same breath, the United States turned away boats of Jewish refugees from Germany, many of whom were later murdered in concentration camps (Merelli). It is important for the United States to learn from its history—not run and hide from it, or pretend that it did not happen.

Often times, immigrants are used as scapegoats. Studies have shown that US citizen’s attitudes towards immigrants change under two conditions in particular: when the economy is faring badly, and when politicians stress immigration as an important issue, especially while campaigning (Merelli). Although the United States’ economy is in a far better state than it was in 2009, the country still has not fully recovered from the recession. Immigration was also a very popular topic of discussion and disagreement during the recent election. Both conditions that the study described are met, evidencing that the resistance to accepting Syrian refugees is part of a long-established pattern in the United States. Now-President Donald Trump used the notion of cracking down on illegal immigration and making the vetting process more rigorous as a steadfast pillar of his campaign. Some argue this was a large reason why he ultimately won the election. Although his supporters would likely disagree, many pundits argue that he used fear mongering as a tactic to stir up support for his rather extreme immigration policy of building a wall and deporting millions of people. Anti-Muslim hate crimes increased notably during the campaign and after his election (Refugees and National Security). Some speculate this was related to the rhetoric and fear mongering he used on the campaign trail. The US must examine its misjudgments over the course of history and learn from them. Otherwise, this dismissal of individuals in need will go down as another ugly mistake in a long line of occurrences that government officials decided were not the United States’ problem.

Despite what many opponents of accepting refugees say, refugees have the potential to positively impact the United States’ economy. In her book “The Gift of Freedom: War, Debt, and Other Refugee Passages,” Mimi Thi Nguyen describes the relationship between refugees and the countries taking them in. She refers to the freedom that refugees receive once they are able to cultivate a better life as a “gift” from the country they entered, and discusses how this affects the relationship between country and refugee: “…the gift incriminates an economy of exchange and obligation between giver and recipient” (Nguyen 6). When refugees are provided safety and a second chance at building a life, this creates a “debt” of sorts to their new homeland. As a result, refugees often give back to their country and contribute positively to their communities, the economy, the workforce, and society in general. Nguyen expands on this further, emphasizing the potential impact of this “economy”:

Against the commodity logic of race… can we think of debt as producing another economy of intense contact with all the multiple, heterogeneous, not-same strangers that goes into the making and remaking of the boundaries of an exclusionary collectivity of humanity? (Nguyen 189)

Refugees come to the United States under unique circumstances that make them likely to positively impact the country. A 2015 study showed that Syrian refugees already in the United States are prospering and even outperforming other groups in the country in areas such as productivity and entrepreneurship (Refugees and National Security). Refugees already in the United States have transitioned to life in their new country well and are productive members of society. 

Aside from the predominant argument of ISIS members gaining entry to the US, many US citizens believe that we simply do not have room for refugees, or that the United States should take care of its own poor and homeless, namely homeless veterans, before helping foreigners. Curiously, a large number of those individuals elected and continue to support the same Republican senators that have voted against bills to help poor and homeless veterans on more than one occasion. The United States has, arguably, the most powerful economy in the world. The US can afford to help our veterans and provide refuge to Syrians—the two are not mutually exclusive. The odds of being killed by a terrorist attack in America are an estimated 1 in 3.6 million (Gaynor). It is time for citizens to accept these statistics and stop making excuses about why the United States cannot afford to help refugees, or why it is not the United States’ responsibility to help those in need. It is the United States’ responsibility—a moral responsibility. The argument that refugees are terrorists is based on fear and fallacy, and innocent men, women, and children suffer because of it. Since 2001, over 800,000 refugees have entered the United States. Not a single one has been convicted of domestic terror (Arbeiter). As children die and families are torn apart in Syria, these statistics become painfully relevant.

Others still believe that we do not have room for refugees, yet does that not contradict the principles the nation was founded on? The Statue of Liberty, gifted to the US by France, has the following inscribed on it: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” By rejecting Syrian refugees, the United States is creating a divide, and playing into the hands of the extremists. The US and government officials must differentiate between innocent people fleeing for their lives and people who partake in senseless acts of violence. Lumping an entire race or religion into one category is asinine and offensive. The United States has the ability to save thousands of lives, many of which would be the lives of young children. To shut the door in their faces would be immoral and a betrayal to our values. The United States was founded by immigrants seeking freedom of and from religion, not unlike Syrians. By accepting Syrian refugees, we will display to the world that we value every human life, unlike the extremists. Rejecting refugees is morally corrupt. It is very easy for American citizens to support shutting the door. Perhaps they could do well to spend a moment trying to imagine what life in Syria is like. Civilians betrayed by their own government—not knowing whether or not they are going to get shot and killed the next time they step outside. What is right and moral is not always the easy option.
