Saturday, October 24, 2015
Why hasn't America taken in more Syrian refugees?
Since the start of the civil war in Syria, 12 million Syrians have been displaced from their homes. Of those 12 million, 4 million have sought asylum in other countries. Almost 2 million are in Turkey, 1 million in Lebanon, 650,000 in Jordan, and an increasing number of tens of thousands in Germany. How many has America taken in?: about 1500. Many point to America's fear of terrorism as one reason why this number is so low. The chairmen of the House Homeland Security Committee, Michael McCaul, stated, "I can't support a policy that would allow a jihadist pipeline into the United States" when introducing a bill that would reduce the number of Syrian refugees the government plans on admitting. Since 9/11 the vetting process of refugees and immigrants has grown drastically costing the US millions. The vetting process includes "multiple investigations of their biographies; biometric checks of their fingerprints and photographs; in-depth interviews by highly trained Department of Homeland Security officers; medical screenings as well as investigations by the National Counterterrorism Center and by intelligence agencies." Since 9/11, 750,000 refugees have been admitted into the US and only two have been arrested on terrorism charges. Should the US allow more Syrian refugees into the country? Is the fear of terrorism from Syrian refugees a justified and realistic reason to deny asylum seekers entry into the US?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Ever since 9/11 the United States government has been incredibly careful about who they let into the United States. I think this action is well validated. After all of the money that the United States has poured into the protection of the company, I agree with all of the precautions we are taking to make sure our citizens are safe. McCaul does not think that he can allow a "jihadist pipeline" into the United States, which means that he will not be letting many Syrians into the country in the future.
I also agree that the US Border Security and Immigration laws in general have been very tight after 9/11. Europe is handling the refugee issues more and has welcomed most of them, and so the US is perhaps quiet for the fact that it already has a lot of undocumented people in the country and the debate of documenting them and dealing with other immigrants issue is already too intense to welcome another large group.
I totally agree with how the United States is handling the situation given the events of 9/11. In some regard they can be criticized for not assisting enough in the process, however that being said it is very important to ensure the safety of American citizens and if that means closing the borders, then that's what needs to be done.
While avoiding being prejudice, at the same time America is facing the dilemma of keeping our country safe. Of course people would love to live here, America being the greatest country in the world in terms of opportunity. However, it is a privilege to live here that only a small percentage of the world can experience. Too many people with limited resources could be a bad thing for our country. In addition, 9/11 caused a giant scare in the way we perceive foreigners coming into this country. I would allow people from other parts of the world to come in, but it unfortunately needs to be a lot tougher to do so, like it currently is.
While I understand that the US is so reserved when it comes to accepting foreigners into the country, I find it upsetting that we aid so few refugees. The announcement that the US will take in up to 85,000 refugees in the next fiscal year was a large step in the country accepting more responsibility. If we do not accept more refugees into the country, then I believe we at least need to provide help to those countries that are assuming a larger role, whether that is in kind or monetary help.
Of the approximately 350,000 refugees who have not taken up residency at near by countries including Turkey and Jordan has taken in tens of thousands of these refugees. It appears that the geographically closer countries have taken proportionally more refugees most likely due to the cost of moving to a new country. It would be interesting to see how many refugees out of the 200,000 or so that did not seek asylum in adjacent or nearby countries were accepted and given refuge.
Post a Comment