info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Syrian Refugee Program Has the Hallmarks of the Obama Style
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Joe Cooper
Nov 28, 2015, 10:37:09 AM11/28/15
to
President Obama’s directive that the U.S. admit 10,000 Syrian refugees as
a humanitarian measure has many hallmarks of his governing style: it
lacks a proper legal basis; it will harm rather than help its purported
beneficiaries; it will undermine important American interests; and it is
designed to signal virtue rather than accomplish anything.
As to the legal basis of the directive, U.S. immigration law is specific.
To enter the U.S. as a refugee, one must have a “well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.” The program is not a
free-floating humanitarian enterprise.
This limitation makes sense. The broad dictionary definition of “refugee”
is “a person who flees for refuge or safety,” and, according to the State
Department’s Report to Congress on Proposed Refugee Admissions for FY
2016 , there are almost 20 million of these, as of late 2014 (including 5
million Palestinians, who are granted hereditary refugee status
regardless of fear of persecution). The UN High Commissioner for Refugees
estimates 60 million people are included in the various sub-categories of
displaced persons, refugees (narrowly defined), Palestinian refugees,
asylum seekers, and economic migrants.
Whatever one thinks of overall U.S. immigration policy, throwing open the
doors to the dispossessed to this extent and in preference to all others
desirous of coming here is not going to happen, and should not.
The State Department Report makes no effort to establish that the
displaced Syrians qualify wholesale as “refugees” in the sense required
by immigration law. Individuals could certainly qualify, but in Syria an
estimated 10 million people, half the population, have been displaced.
The UN makes the initial selection of candidates, and the criterion
contained in U.S. immigration law is not on the UN list.
Ignoring the legal U.S. standard for admitting refugees also undermines
the moral foundations of the program.
A major rationale for the refugee program is to provide a sanctuary for
those endangered because of their activities in support of the classic
values of liberty and democracy. The U.S. may not (always) “go abroad in
search of monsters to destroy,” in the words of John Quincy Adams, but,
“Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be
unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.” The
possibility of entry into the U.S. is a line of retreat for those willing
to take risks for these causes. Very few displaced persons in the Middle
East meet this standard.
As second rationale for the refugee program is guilt over the 1930s, when
Jews, who faced extermination in Europe, were not admitted into the U.S.
The need to help people faced with genocide is indeed a strong claim,
but, again, it is hard to see this value operating in the current
proposal. The refugees to be aided are primarily Sunni, who are the
majority in Syria, and not at all comparable to Jews in the 1930s.
As Prof. Michael McConnell observes, applying this “persecution test”
would lead us to favor “Christians who are being singled out for
religious persecution…. So also Yazidis, Mandaeans, and a few other
smaller groups.” At present, only two percent of the Syrian refugees
admitted to the U.S. are Christian.
McConnell also says that there are “credible reports” that Christians in
the refugee camps are terrorized and driven out, which is why they are
not in the pool from which the UN draws the candidates for admission to
the U.S.. So it should be noted that, under the immigration statute, no
person who participated in “the persecution of any person on the basis of
race, religion, nationality…social group or political opinion” is
eligible for refugee status.
The refugee program also embodies the belief that we must help those who
help us. After the retreat from Vietnam, we admitted 130,000 refugees
under special legislation. The refugee program is now being used to aid
those in Iraq and Afghanistan who supported the U.S. and are likely to
suffer for it.
The principle of not abandoning allies is a happy combination of national
honor and political calculation. Especially given our recent history of
going abroad in search of monsters and then disappearing when we lose
interest, the incentives for anyone to put much faith in U.S. promises is
small. If we want help in the future, we must be able to promise
individuals that they will be protected.
Ignoring the moral and political considerations that underlie the refugee
program and reorienting it toward humanitarian goals is stupid. As a
humanitarian effort, it can be only a drop-in-the-bucket, given the
estimates of the total number of displaced persons in the world and in
the Middle East. Also, because the refugee program has annual caps, set
according to a complex dance between the President and Congress (the
FY2016 quota is 85,000), converting it to a bastard humanitarian
enterprise will clog the pipeline at the expense of those who actually
qualify under the law.
The administration directive is immoral in another way. By misdirecting
resources, it will kill more people than its saves.
The situation in the nations closest to Syria -- Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon
-- is appalling, as almost 10 million displaced Syrians are maintained in
camps, where they will remain indefinitely. According to the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees, since the beginning of 2015, 436,000 refugees
from the Mid-East -- half of them Syrian -- have registered in Serbia,
and, “Since June 2015, the UN Refugee Agency delivered humanitarian aid
at the value of US$3.1 million to Serbia. With increasing winterization
efforts this amount should increase to US$8.7 million . . . until the
end of the year.”
Resettling a refugee in the U.S. costs about $13,000 annually, which
means that 10,000 will cost $130 million. Imagine how much the greater
humanitarian benefit of spending this sum closer to Syria.
In essence, the presidential directive is a cosmetic gesture, the
equivalent of a hashtag (remember “#bring back our girls”?), to signal
Progressive virtue and to substitute for effective assistance to the
afflicted or action to promote stability in the region and end the
displacement.
For all these reasons, the proposal is a bad one even without any concern
for terrorist infiltration.
The terrorist threat creates an added problem, because, obviously, those
hostile to the U.S. should consider using the program to plant agents in
the U.S.; only total incompetents would miss the opportunity.
However, as an article by the Cato Institute notes, the terrorist
concerns can be overblown. The refugee process is so slow and cumbersome
that it would be a highly inefficient method of infiltration. Using
illegal channels or taking advantage of the conventional immigration
programs would be easier. Also, while the migrant flood into Europe has
been composed heavily of young men, the UN claims that its selection
process gives priority to women and children, “the most vulnerable”
refugees.
On the other hand, a poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy
Studies found that 30 percent of displaced Syrians oppose efforts to
degrade ISIL, a number consistent with the views of other Middle East
populations. So almost a third of the refugees let it will be ISIS
sympathizers, assuming that no one would be foolish enough to disqualify
him/herself by admitting this during the vetting process. This would
create a substantial logistical base for terrorists to draw on in the
U.S., so serious second thoughts are appropriate even if the immediate
threat of hard-core ISIS cadre is slight.
Nonetheless, the program is going forward, and will, if anything, be
expanded. What will not be done is anything effective to change the
conditions that are creating the need, and the failure will lead to still
greater need, which will in turn provide even greater impetus for more
moral posturing and hash-tag measures.
Source: http://bit.ly/1RcV3zb
--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS"
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really
believe." (Ann Coulter)
a humanitarian measure has many hallmarks of his governing style: it
lacks a proper legal basis; it will harm rather than help its purported
beneficiaries; it will undermine important American interests; and it is
designed to signal virtue rather than accomplish anything.
As to the legal basis of the directive, U.S. immigration law is specific.
To enter the U.S. as a refugee, one must have a “well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.” The program is not a
free-floating humanitarian enterprise.
This limitation makes sense. The broad dictionary definition of “refugee”
is “a person who flees for refuge or safety,” and, according to the State
Department’s Report to Congress on Proposed Refugee Admissions for FY
2016 , there are almost 20 million of these, as of late 2014 (including 5
million Palestinians, who are granted hereditary refugee status
regardless of fear of persecution). The UN High Commissioner for Refugees
estimates 60 million people are included in the various sub-categories of
displaced persons, refugees (narrowly defined), Palestinian refugees,
asylum seekers, and economic migrants.
Whatever one thinks of overall U.S. immigration policy, throwing open the
doors to the dispossessed to this extent and in preference to all others
desirous of coming here is not going to happen, and should not.
The State Department Report makes no effort to establish that the
displaced Syrians qualify wholesale as “refugees” in the sense required
by immigration law. Individuals could certainly qualify, but in Syria an
estimated 10 million people, half the population, have been displaced.
The UN makes the initial selection of candidates, and the criterion
contained in U.S. immigration law is not on the UN list.
Ignoring the legal U.S. standard for admitting refugees also undermines
the moral foundations of the program.
A major rationale for the refugee program is to provide a sanctuary for
those endangered because of their activities in support of the classic
values of liberty and democracy. The U.S. may not (always) “go abroad in
search of monsters to destroy,” in the words of John Quincy Adams, but,
“Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be
unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.” The
possibility of entry into the U.S. is a line of retreat for those willing
to take risks for these causes. Very few displaced persons in the Middle
East meet this standard.
As second rationale for the refugee program is guilt over the 1930s, when
Jews, who faced extermination in Europe, were not admitted into the U.S.
The need to help people faced with genocide is indeed a strong claim,
but, again, it is hard to see this value operating in the current
proposal. The refugees to be aided are primarily Sunni, who are the
majority in Syria, and not at all comparable to Jews in the 1930s.
As Prof. Michael McConnell observes, applying this “persecution test”
would lead us to favor “Christians who are being singled out for
religious persecution…. So also Yazidis, Mandaeans, and a few other
smaller groups.” At present, only two percent of the Syrian refugees
admitted to the U.S. are Christian.
McConnell also says that there are “credible reports” that Christians in
the refugee camps are terrorized and driven out, which is why they are
not in the pool from which the UN draws the candidates for admission to
the U.S.. So it should be noted that, under the immigration statute, no
person who participated in “the persecution of any person on the basis of
race, religion, nationality…social group or political opinion” is
eligible for refugee status.
The refugee program also embodies the belief that we must help those who
help us. After the retreat from Vietnam, we admitted 130,000 refugees
under special legislation. The refugee program is now being used to aid
those in Iraq and Afghanistan who supported the U.S. and are likely to
suffer for it.
The principle of not abandoning allies is a happy combination of national
honor and political calculation. Especially given our recent history of
going abroad in search of monsters and then disappearing when we lose
interest, the incentives for anyone to put much faith in U.S. promises is
small. If we want help in the future, we must be able to promise
individuals that they will be protected.
Ignoring the moral and political considerations that underlie the refugee
program and reorienting it toward humanitarian goals is stupid. As a
humanitarian effort, it can be only a drop-in-the-bucket, given the
estimates of the total number of displaced persons in the world and in
the Middle East. Also, because the refugee program has annual caps, set
according to a complex dance between the President and Congress (the
FY2016 quota is 85,000), converting it to a bastard humanitarian
enterprise will clog the pipeline at the expense of those who actually
qualify under the law.
The administration directive is immoral in another way. By misdirecting
resources, it will kill more people than its saves.
The situation in the nations closest to Syria -- Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon
-- is appalling, as almost 10 million displaced Syrians are maintained in
camps, where they will remain indefinitely. According to the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees, since the beginning of 2015, 436,000 refugees
from the Mid-East -- half of them Syrian -- have registered in Serbia,
and, “Since June 2015, the UN Refugee Agency delivered humanitarian aid
at the value of US$3.1 million to Serbia. With increasing winterization
efforts this amount should increase to US$8.7 million . . . until the
end of the year.”
Resettling a refugee in the U.S. costs about $13,000 annually, which
means that 10,000 will cost $130 million. Imagine how much the greater
humanitarian benefit of spending this sum closer to Syria.
In essence, the presidential directive is a cosmetic gesture, the
equivalent of a hashtag (remember “#bring back our girls”?), to signal
Progressive virtue and to substitute for effective assistance to the
afflicted or action to promote stability in the region and end the
displacement.
For all these reasons, the proposal is a bad one even without any concern
for terrorist infiltration.
The terrorist threat creates an added problem, because, obviously, those
hostile to the U.S. should consider using the program to plant agents in
the U.S.; only total incompetents would miss the opportunity.
However, as an article by the Cato Institute notes, the terrorist
concerns can be overblown. The refugee process is so slow and cumbersome
that it would be a highly inefficient method of infiltration. Using
illegal channels or taking advantage of the conventional immigration
programs would be easier. Also, while the migrant flood into Europe has
been composed heavily of young men, the UN claims that its selection
process gives priority to women and children, “the most vulnerable”
refugees.
On the other hand, a poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy
Studies found that 30 percent of displaced Syrians oppose efforts to
degrade ISIL, a number consistent with the views of other Middle East
populations. So almost a third of the refugees let it will be ISIS
sympathizers, assuming that no one would be foolish enough to disqualify
him/herself by admitting this during the vetting process. This would
create a substantial logistical base for terrorists to draw on in the
U.S., so serious second thoughts are appropriate even if the immediate
threat of hard-core ISIS cadre is slight.
Nonetheless, the program is going forward, and will, if anything, be
expanded. What will not be done is anything effective to change the
conditions that are creating the need, and the failure will lead to still
greater need, which will in turn provide even greater impetus for more
moral posturing and hash-tag measures.
Source: http://bit.ly/1RcV3zb
--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS"
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really
believe." (Ann Coulter)
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 28, 2015, 3:01:26 PM11/28/15
to
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 15:34:43 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>President Obama’s directive that the U.S. admit 10,000 Syrian refugees as
>a humanitarian measure has many hallmarks of his governing style:
Key Word: Humanitarian
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>President Obama’s directive that the U.S. admit 10,000 Syrian refugees as
>a humanitarian measure has many hallmarks of his governing style:
Key objection of your morons: Propaganda
>==========================================================
"These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s
founding fathers.
Ronald Regan introducing the Mujahideen leaders, 1985).
plainolamerican
Nov 29, 2015, 2:49:55 PM11/29/15
to
> smaller groups." At present, only two percent of the Syrian refugees
> admitted to the U.S. are Christian.
>
> McConnell also says that there are "credible reports" that Christians in
> the refugee camps are terrorized and driven out, which is why they are
> not in the pool from which the UN draws the candidates for admission to
> the U.S.. So it should be noted that, under the immigration statute, no
> person who participated in "the persecution of any person on the basis of
> race, religion, nationality...social group or political opinion" is
> admitted to the U.S. are Christian.
>
> McConnell also says that there are "credible reports" that Christians in
> the refugee camps are terrorized and driven out, which is why they are
> not in the pool from which the UN draws the candidates for admission to
> the U.S.. So it should be noted that, under the immigration statute, no
> person who participated in "the persecution of any person on the basis of
---
Jewish Organizations Demand U.S. Accept More "Refugees"
November 19, 2015 Realist Report 15 comments
Bookmark and Share
The organized Jewish community has been at the forefront to fundamentally transform America and the wider Western world demographically for well over a century, displacing and replacing their native, traditional ethnic populations with non-White Third World peoples. It's all part of a Jewish evolutionary strategy expertly outlined and documented by Dr. Kevin MacDonald.
In a nutshell, the Jews are at war with White Western Christian civilization, and work tirelessly to undermine, pervert, and ultimately destroy our civilization, traditions, genetic makeup and identity as a distinct people.
In the wake of the purported ISIS terrorist attack in Paris, Jewish groups are once again demanding the U.S. accept even more "refugees" and hostile, alien Third World peoples who offer America, our economy, and our people no benefits whatsoever. Over in Europe, Jewish charities and non-profit organizations are facilitating and financially benefiting from the invasion of Europe by millions of hostile Muslims.
Jewish hypocrisy on immigration
#WithJewsWeLose
Of course, the Jewish state of Israel will absolutely not be accepting any "refugees" or "asylum seekers." Open borders and unlimited mass immigration for the West; closed and policed borders for the Jewish state of Israel in order to perpetuate its ethnic nature. The hypocrisy is astounding - and unacceptable.
These issues have been covered at length here, here, and here in case anyone is still confused about the factual reality of my arguments above.
The Times of Israel reports:
Screenshot (42)
Eleven Jewish groups are among 81 that sent a letter to Congress members urging them not to roll back plans to accept Syrian refugees into the United States.
"To turn our back on refugees would be to betray our nation's core values," said the letter sent Tuesday, as Congress began considering measures that would put a stop to the Obama administration's plans to bring in 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year. "It would send a demoralizing and dangerous message to the world that the United States makes judgments about people based on the country they come from and their religion."
Among the Jewish groups signing are the Union for Reform Judaism, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the National Council for Jewish Women, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee.
Calls, especially from Republicans, to stop the refugee plan have proliferated since the massive terrorist attack in Paris last Friday. There is evidence that one of the attackers may have slipped in with the refugees flooding Europe, though Germany's top security expert said a passport carried by one of the attackers may have been a ploy to stoke fears.
A majority of state governors, most of them Republicans, have said their states will not take in the refugees, although states have little say in where refugees are settled.
Defenders of President Obama's plan say the 10,000 refugees is a tiny fraction of the millions of refugees created by Syria's five-year civil war, as well as the nearly 300,000 refugees that Europe is absorbing. Additionally, they say, while Europe, flooded with boatloads of asylum seekers, is taking in refugees on an ad hoc basis, refugees applying for US asylum must undergo months of vetting.
"We call on members of Congress to oppose any effort to limit the acceptance of Syrian refugees, just as we urge public officials and figures across the US to reject divisive and inflammatory statements that do not reflect our history as a nation founded by descendants of those who fled persecution in search of freedom," said a statement by the Reform movement's Religious Action Center.
Look at the boldness of these demands. These Jews and their allies are demanding Congress "oppose any effort to limit the acceptance of Syrian refugees" in the United States. They are demanding unlimited immigration and resettlement of hostile, alien, unskilled, backwards Arabs from some of the most dangerous parts of the world. This is insane!
The Obama administration is now warning it will veto a Republican sponsored bill designed to increase security screenings and background checks of Middle Eastern "refugees" (read: invaders). Screening and investigating military aged men from Iraq and Syria, many of whom are directly connected to Islamic groups in their native lands, is "racist" and "untenable" according to the Obama administration.
It should be crystal clear to all White men in America and around the world: these Jews are at war with us and are trying to exterminate our race. They are actively flooding our nations with non-White terrorists, criminals, drug dealers, and degenerates, and telling us we can't say or do anything about it because of "racism," "slavery," and the "Holocaust."
Will you continue to ignore these ugly realities, or man up and get involved? What is going on is unacceptable and we can easily put a stop to it.
---
Christian groups break with GOP over Syrian refugees
Evangelical Christians, as well as Christians more broadly, are a core group in the Republican electoral base and are among the most passionate advocates for aiding refugees.
By NAHAL TOOSI 11/17/15 06:24 PM EST Updated 11/18/15 08:43 PM EST
Republican presidential candidate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee speaks at executive committee luncheon during the California GOP fall convention on Friday, Sept. 18, 2015 in Anaheim, Calif. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson)
Mike Huckabee along with other politicians, have worked to gain evangelical support, but may be threatening that by taking a stance against Syrian refugees. | AP Photo
49.7K
SHARES
49657 Shares
Google +
Comment
MOST READ
VIDEOS
The nation's cartoonists on the week in politics
Reports: Suspect in Planned Parenthood shooting talked about 'no more baby parts'
14 photos on Sasha Obama's 14th birthday
Rangel's retirement sparks generational, ethnic shift in New York
Cruz campaign puts family out front
The 2016 ballot wars begin
Insiders: Trump's grip on Iowa is tenuous
Obama on gun violence: 'Enough is enough'
November 2015
Could U.S.-Russia Tensions Go Nuclear?
POLITICO MAGAZINE
Lead image by Anna Nemtsova
Lament of an ISIL Mom
By ANNA NEMTSOVA
151113_riedel.jpg
Kennedy's Almost-Quagmire Was Far From Cuba
By BRUCE RIEDEL
20151116_Stern_ISISAppealGrows_AP.jpg
Why ISIL Will Fail on Its Own
By ELI BERMAN and JACOB N. SHAPIRO
151125_latimer_CrazyUncleMainAP.jpg
How to BE the Crazy Uncle This Thanksgiving
By MATT LATIMER
Faith-based groups, who play a key role in resettling refugees to the United States, say they are dismayed by the wave of anti-refugee fervor set off by the Paris terrorist attacks and are urging supporters to contact elected officials on behalf of victims of the Syrian civil war.
Evangelical Christians, as well as Christians more broadly, are a core group in the Republican electoral base and are among the most passionate advocates for aiding refugees.
A push by Republican presidential candidates to ban Syrian refugees "does not reflect what we've been hearing from our constituencies, which are evangelical churches across the country," said Jenny Yang, vice president for advocacy at World Relief, an evangelical organization that helps resettle refugees. "Most of the people have been saying we want to continue to work with refugees, that what happened in Paris ... doesn't reflect who refugees are."
Reports that a Syrian migrant may have played a role in last week's attacks in Paris, which killed around 130 people, have set off a GOP-led backlash over the Obama administration's plans to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees next year. More than half of U.S. governors have said they do not want Syrian refugees resettled in their states, while House Speaker Paul Ryan says he wants a vote this week on GOP-drafted legislation to halt the administration's plans.
World Relief is one of nine not-for-profit organizations, several of them faith-based, that help resettle up to 70,000 refugees from around the world in the United States each year. Others include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and the Church World Service. Many other faith-based groups, including evangelical Christian organizations, also perform aid work overseas specifically aimed at refugees fleeing conflicts.
151117_Paul_Ryan_AP_1160.jpg
House likely to vote Thursday on Syrian refugee bill
By JAKE SHERMAN
For Republican presidential contenders such as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who have been working hard at shoring up evangelical support in a crowded field, harsh words against refugees carries a risk of looking politically opportunistic instead of compassionate. Some advocates were particularly shocked when Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie, New Jersey's governor, said that the U.S. should bar Syrian orphaned toddlers if necessary.
"That was offensive. That was mean-spirited," said one advocate with a Christian group that resettles refugees. He added: "it's disappointing because there have been Republican senators and presidents who have strongly supported this program over the years. There's a proud tradition in the Republican Party of welcoming those who are fleeing persecution, and this takes the party in a negative direction. It's easy to pick on vulnerable refugees who have no voice. But there are immigrant groups who have voting power that understand what is going on. They understand that it's an anti-immigrant message."
Even though many on the Christian right have reservations about immigration overall, and may in particular be unhappy about people who illegally enter the United States, there's long been a recognition that refugees fall under a different category. The 11 million Syrians who have either fled the Arab country or are displaced within it are dodging terrorist groups such as the Islamic State or the barrel bombs of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Many are elderly, widowed or in need of medical care.
Some Republican candidates have suggested that only Syrians who are Christian be allowed on U.S. soil, something President Barack Obama has blasted as shameful. Yang said many evangelical Christians would also oppose such a religious test, especially because many are eager to share their faith with new arrivals.
The United States so far has admitted roughly 2,100 Syrians since the conflict in the country began in March 2011. To be allowed in, refugees have to undergo the most stringent security checks of any traveler heading to the United States, according to the State Department. Officials from the Obama administration on Tuesday began reaching out to the media and lawmakers in a bid to explain the screening process, which takes an average of 18-24 months.
Meanwhile, faith-based groups have also stepped up their advocacy efforts for refugees. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement expressing distress over calls by elected officials to halt the resettlement program.
151117_syrian_refugees_AP_1160.jpg
White House pushes back against GOP on refugees
By NAHAL TOOSI
"These refugees are fleeing terror themselves -- violence like we have witnessed in Paris," said the statement by Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, chairman of the conference's committee on migration. "Instead of using this tragedy to scapegoat all refugees, I call upon our public officials to work together to end the Syrian conflict peacefully so the close to 4 million Syrian refugees can return to their country and rebuild their homes. Until that goal is achieved, we must work with the world community to provide safe haven to vulnerable and deserving refugees who are simply attempting to survive."
Since the Paris attacks, World Relief has used a website to urge people to contact their governors to express their support for resettling Syrians. The Anti-Defamation League also has spoken out in favor of helping the Syrian refugees, noting that U.S. wariness to accept Jewish refugees during World War II is an example that must not be repeated.
Jonathan Greenblatt, the chief executive officer of the ADL and a former Obama aide, stressed that much remains unknown about the Paris attacks, including the exact nature of the allegation that a Syrian migrant was one of the eight or nine attackers. Even if a terrorist posed as a migrant to reach France, it's less likely that the U.S., with oceans to protect it and a stricter screening process, faces the same level of dangers, other advocates said.
"Republicans and Democrats have to tread very carefully here," Greenblatt said. "Faith-based voters are very attentive to these issues. They're very sensitive to helping those in need."
Joanne Kelsey, assistant director for advocacy with Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said she hoped that the sound and fury over refugees would soon be replaced with reason as Republican lawmakers and officials get more details about how the refugee program works.
"This is a very reactionary time," she said.
0 new messages