Providence: Syrian Refugees, the Republican Party, and the American President
This article was originally posted at Providence.
If we needed conclusive proof of the degraded condition of America’s political leadership, we have it in the debate over the Syrian refugee crisis.
For the Republican Party and its conservative allies, this is their hour of shame. Last week 27 Republican governors declared that they would not accept any more Syrian refugees into their states. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, by a vote of 289-137, passed a bill calling for the most stringent vetting process ever established for people fleeing a war-torn nation. Party leaders are repudiating President Obama’s call to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year. Their rationale is that terrorists will slip in among the new arrivals and carry out a Paris-style attack in the United States.
The Republican Party’s response is a toxic mix of fear, exclusion, ignorance, and irrationality. Although conservatives have good reasons to doubt President Obama’s grasp of America’s national security threats, none of them justify a posture of cynicism and denial toward this human tragedy.
FBI Director James Comey lit the bonfire with his congressional testimony last month, when he warned that background checks on Syrian refugees can be problematic because of the lack of good intelligence in the theater of war. “If someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home,” he said, “but there will be nothing showing up because we have no record of them.”
Despite repeated claims to the contrary, none of the Syrian refugees have been linked to the November 15 Paris attacks. Nevertheless,Republican presidential candidates have seized upon Mr. Comey’s testimony to discourage or bar Syrian refugees from entering the country.
Donald Trump warns of a “Trojan Horse” strategy that would allow terrorists to hide among their number. “This could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time,” he says. Ben Carson compares the threat of militants posing as refugees to a “rabid dog” prowling the neighborhood. “You’re probably going to put your children out of the way,” he said. “It doesn’t mean that you hate all dogs by any stretch of the imagination, but you’re putting your intellect into motion.”
The intellect is the one human faculty in this debate that is not in motion. Rather, the capacity for reason and moral reflection—the qualities of leadership desperately required at this hour—seems caught in a vice grip of irrationality.
Mr. Comey’s testimony about possible “gaps” in intelligence is accurate—but, taken out of context, badly misleading. Those who are using it to ban all Syrian refugees ignore the singular fact that the United States already has in place the toughest vetting process for refugees in the democratic West—much more discriminating than Europe with its open borders.
Refugees are first screened by the UN High Commission on Refugees, and only a fraction of those are selected for possible entry into the United States. They are then vetted by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the State Department, and Defense Department, and the Department of Homeland Security (involving an extensive, in-person interview). The entire process takes 18 to 24 months.
Barely 1,800 refugees have been allowed into the United States since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, a conflict that has displaced over 11 million people. Most are elderly men, women, and children. Many of them—including Muslims, Yazidis, Christians, and Jews—have been targeted for extinction either by the Syrian regime or the Islamic State. Two percent of the Syrian refugees now in the United States are single men of combat age.
No immigration system is risk-free. To demand such a system would mean shutting down all immigration into the United States—and betraying our deepest political and religious ideals in the process.
Republican leaders and their conservative allies seem prepared to abandon one of the most consequential ideas in history: the belief in American exceptionalism. Since the founding of the republic, Americans have insisted that their national interests must be tempered by their moral and religious interests—by their Judeo-Christian tradition that refuses to separate justice from mercy. They point to this historic commitment to explain the United States as a powerful global advocate for human dignity, democracy, and human rights.
President Obama—and the liberalism in which he lives and moves and has his being—rejects American exceptionalism. This accounts for his refusal to act on behalf of the Syrian people when acting decisively could have averted much of the killing and carnage. This explains why the president has watched, with stoic indifference, the transformation of Syria into a living hell for its people. He has allowed Bashar al-Assad to continue his genocidal campaign. He has declined to establish safe havens for Syrian refugees. For the first three years of the civil war, Mr. Obama, for all his recent moralizing, allowed exactly 30 Syrians per year to enter the United States.
It is hard to think of a president less qualified to lecture the nation about its moral obligations than this one. It is even harder to recall a commander in chief more naïve—even delusional—about the threat of Islamic radicalism.
Yet none of this excuses the hysterical and morally debased response of the Republican Party and its conservative allies. The victims of the Syrian civil war—and there are so many children among them—face a future of despair and destitution. The conflict has created a vortex of human suffering not seen since the end of the Second World War. Indeed, the last time the United States ignored a refugee crisis of this scale was during the administration of another liberal Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt, a master at separating his personal political interests from larger moral concerns. The victims, of course, were the Jews of Europe, trying to escape the fires of the Holocaust.
Yes, it is an hour of shame, an hour when the conscience of a nation has succumbed to a spirit of cowardice and fear. “Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me,” wrote Emma Lazarus. “I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” As the tempest rages on, America’s lamp is dimming.
Joseph Loconte is an associate professor of history at the King’s College in New York City and the author of A Hobbit, a Wardrobe, and a Great War: How J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis Rediscovered Faith, Friendship, and Heroism in the Cataclysm of 1914-1918.
This article is so slanted that it was hard to read. No mention was made of the other side of the argument. There are thoughtful reasons why limiting Syrian refugees to the U.S. makes sense in this day and age. It would be nice to read a response by Mr. Laconte to all those objections. I read somewhere, for instance, that only 14% of the refugees are women and the number of children is even less. The rest are men the ages of 18-40. I don’t know if those numbers are true, but clearly there’s so much more than can be said about this issue that goes beyond the knee-jerk, emotional response that we read here.
Eight different times, Loconte names Republicans as being opposed to trusting this adminstration’s capability to properly vet unvettable Syrians. Slanted much?
In reading this, one would wrongly assume that past administration officials, and present Democratic governors, senators and representatives have not voiced opposition based on the same reasoning.
America is not a theocracy and she is not spiritual Israel. Do not conflate an individual Christ follower’s responsibility to follow the Holy Spirit’s leading with the responsibilties of government.
If Laconte believes God is leading him to take any number of refugees into his home, I urge him to do so.
If Laconte believes he knows what God is leading any other believer to do in this situation, I think he misunderstands who the Holy Spirit is.
Simple question… As Christians are we going to respond out of love or out of fear? We are told to “fear not”. We are told to “love your neighbor.”
Well, not everything can be reduced to a “simple question.” Fear or emotion are not the only choices. Instead, I can choose to respond with logic based on scriptural principles as I understand them. Would you send your teenage son to live in Compton, California and tell him to love them and fear not?
Another question would be, “Would YOU go to Compton, California to save a son in trouble there despite the risk to yourself?” What about for a wife, a daughter, or a loved one? What about a neighbor?
So here’s the thing: Regardless of whatever fears you may have about ISIS and the likelihood of a terrorist threat here on American soil, the concerns over the refugee program are the STUPIDEST form of paranoia.
The idea is that ISIS is going to conduct a terror attack on the US by having their people (1) register with the UNHCR, (2) wait to find out what country they’re being assigned to (3) in hopes that they get assigned to the US despite the fact that (4) only a fraction of 1% of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees will be assigned to the US for review, (5) while presenting enough documentation to successfully pass the background check while (6) not accidentally providing any documentation that reveals the fact that they’re actually working for ISIS and then (7) wait for 18-24 months in a refugee camp (8) while maintaining their secret status as an undercover ISIS sleeper agent before finally, (9) if they make it through all those hoops, getting sent to the US and settled (10) in a location they don’t have control over in order to (11) finally put into action the grand terrorist attack plan that they came up with several years earlier, (12) as long as all of their co-collaborators made it through the same process successfully and (13) ended up in the same country (14) and got there around the same time (15) and still want to go through with it.
Yeah, that sounds like a terrifying master plan.
Nobody wants input from Christians anymore, but now they are telling Christian how they should be thinking about this issue. What do these people know about what God wants? They gave up the quest for God’s truth years ago.
I resent it when the word Christian and humanitarian are used to guilt people into thinking that if you are a Christian you should be okay with this refugee situation. If American is all of a sudden interested in being humanitarian then we would not have 1, not 1 homeless person of our own in the streets. This is not a matter of humanitarianism, it is a political decoy. It’s for looks or show. We have to show the world we are doing our part. Well I believe we have done our part, at least this current admin has. Starting with the billions given to Iran. We help everybody, but how much do we help our own? Not enough! This isn’t a matter of how could we not. Do not be fooled by this government.. Using Christians as the scapegoat for turning away the innocent. If when in fact our government could truly careless. Remember when it happens here what is the likelihood it would affect one of them? They are protected! What’s a few of our lives and our children and families lives to them. They and theirs are safe! That’s what cracks me up about gun rights. When the president and his family refuse secret service protection by way of weapons, then try and take ours away. All it takes is common sense!
Stop guilting me for wanting to be careful. I trust nothing that this President or State Department tells me. Do you have an extra bedroom available in your house? Start there.
There is credible evidence and documented reports that Christians are being persecuted by Muslims at the UN centers for refugees. Christians are choosing to stay out of the UN centers due to the dangers that befall them there. Even as refugees Muslims are persecuting Christians. Therefore, Christians are excluded from being able to access help. A CNN reporter showed how easily refugees can obtain fraudulent documents by purchasing documents on the Syrian border himself. There is NO vetting system that can ensure people who plan to do harm to innocent American women and children will not get into this country. Our elected officials have taken an oath to protect American citizens. That is their number one job. It is easy to let emotion overrule thought in the name of compassion or social justice, but that seems to be what is happening. I say thank God for thoughtful, rational GOP governors and elected officials who understand the responsibility they have to America. Our government was established to serve and protect American citizens. We are a generous nation and have helped millions of people in need, but there are many other means, superior means, to help these people. We do not have to put our own innocent women and children at risk. As a follower of Christ, I am not asked to check my ability for reason at the door. Please don’t try to guilt me and other Christians. That was our President’s tactic.
Your opinion is based on historical interpretation of the past. It was true then but is it true now? Culture has changed, the world has progressed. I believe the intentions of this diaspora is quite different from the diaspora of the Jews. It appears on the surface that the Syrian refugees are fleeing tyranny and oppression and they are. There is a back story to this that I find suspect and conspiratorial. The first instance is these refugees are fleeing only to predominately Christian countries. The second instance is that it is not just a Syrian refugee diaspora but a Muslim diaspora. This is evident in the diaspora of Muslims from Asia, particularly from Laos and Cambodia migrating to Australia. In this case Indonesia is a economically secure Muslim country, why are they migrating there? I have no proof but I ponder the possibility that the Syrian insurrection could be a calculated plan to facilitate diaspora for a Muslim domination to the West and Muslim domination of Australia. The receiving countries of these migrants are predominately caucasian and Christian. I think it is a mistake to judge the current situation in lieu of the past because the intentions are not the same and should be looked at with a new light..
The real problem it would seem is that we have been backing terrorists. This was no organic movement in Syria, this was a concerted effort on the part of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and US, France and the UK to try to oust Assad (Regime Change) using foreign ‘moderates’ (al-Nusra, FSA, al Qaeda, etc.) to fight against the legitimately elected government of the most secular Muslim country in the middle east. We have played both sides of the battle line too many times, and destruction and hatred has been left in its wake. Our government thought it could keep ISIS in check, let them push out Assad. What foolishness and arrogance. I am Christian and a former services member, I love Jesus and I love what my country used to stand for some distant time ago. We have no idea who is coming, let the women with young children in by all means, but the men must be tested. Islam is not compatible with our stated form of government, most of these people have no intention of assimilation and becoming American. I almost never agree with Justice Ginsberg, but her statement that, “the Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact”, speaks volumes for our illogical and self destructive behavior.