On Thursday, Nov. 19, the House of Representatives, led by House Republican leader Paul Ryan, passed a bill to restrict the entrance of Syrian refugees by requiring the government to guarantee that each refugee entering the country isn’t a threat. This will significantly slow the immigration process, which will in turn decrease the amount of refugees let into the country.
This crisis has had a major impact on politics, especially in regards to the upcoming presidential candidates. The vast majority of politicians who have been arguing to decrease the number of refugees let in are conservative Republicans. As horrific as this bill is alone, many people have been suggesting even more radical solutions, such as only allowing Christians to enter the country, and the ever-so-wise Donald Trump has even suggested requiring all Muslim people to have some sort of identification to alert other citizens of their religion. These approaches are so incredibly discriminatory and prejudiced, it’s hard to even comprehend that people believe in them. This is literally paralleling the Holocaust, when Hitler was requiring Jews to wear the yellow Stars of David, and banning them from locations simply based on their religion. One would hope that we’ve learned from others’ mistakes, but apparently not when there are politicians proposing ideas such as these.
However, returning back to the recent bill, let me take a minute to explain why this is a detrimental decision through three fundamental lenses: humanitarianism, ISIS, and reality.
While I feel that it should be obvious for people to see this from a humanitarian point of view, the full consequences of this bill are clearly not being fully grasped. The central reason why this bill was created and why there has been so much controversy about this crisis as a whole, has come as a result of multiple terrorist attacks and threats that have been made. The thought behind this action is that terrorists could possibly infiltrate under the disguise of being an evacuee.
The argument is that by passing this bill, we are eliminating these possible threats and keeping Americans safe. To be blunt, I think this is a disgusting statement. These refugees that are fleeing from their homeland are in life or death situations. Syria is an incredibly dangerous war zone, and we’re going to send these families back to live there? As horrible as these threats and attacks have been, it’s important to remember that these situations are occurring every day in Syria, and it is quite honestly inhumane to say we’re not going to help them. It’s our jobs simply as inhabitants of this earth to help others who are being mistreated, and this bill isn’t accomplishing that.
The second facet of this situation is, of course, rooted in the Islamic terrorist group, ISIS. As it strengthens its hold in the Middle East, ISIS has been trying to establish its new caliphate, an Islamic state governed by a religious leader. Its goal in the most basic sense is for all Muslims to join and unite under their rule, and this is why the Syrian refugees are so crucial to the circumstances. To see all of these Muslims fleeing this caliphate only reflects negatively on ISIS because it depicts them in a light that opposes that which they are trying to portray. While the Paris attacks were horrible and devastating, logistically they were not nearly as damaging as they could, and were expected to, have been. So, for us to react to this mediocre event by announcing that we’re going to refuse these refugees, we’re sending the message that we’re giving ISIS what they want, and we’re reacting in fear. Terrorism in its very definition strives to invoke terror, and we’re letting these terrorists win.
Finally, people need to look at the realistic context of this position. Studies have shown that the majority of terrorists are unmarried, military-aged males. The amount of Syrian refugees that meet these qualifications makes up only two percent of all the evacuees, says national reporter Roque Planas of the Huffington Post. While initially the refugees tended to be brothers and fathers sent to the United States in an attempt to make a living to send for the rest of their family, this is not the case anymore. As the stakes have risen and Syria has become more and more violent and dangerous, the majority of people fleeing the country are families left with no other option but to leave.
While the threat of terrorists entering the country is obviously a threat, the chances of it actually occurring are slim to none. Without this bill being passed, refugees already have to go through screening security processes to help protect the country. The reality is, if terrorists want to harm our country, they’re going to harm our country. No matter what restrictions we make, it’s still going to happen; they’re going to find a way, because it is what they have devoted their lives to doing.
I implore you to look this situation from all perspectives, because it’s very easy to become sidetracked with one view and lose sight of the other aspects. The only thing this bill will accomplish is hurting these innocent families whose homes have been turned into war zones. Is “protecting America” really a justification for that?