Defending Stipulations for the United States Accepting Syrian Refugees

Policy Paper Project

Student Name

Dr. Skorick

GOVT-2305-2XXXX

Spring 2017

Word Count (excluding citations):

 Defending Stipulations for the United States Accepting Syrian Refugees

The United States has been historically known as the land of unparalleled freedom and

opportunity, an enticing attribute to any people suffering persecution and oppression. It is for

this reason that during times of chaos and war in other countries, citizens of other nations flock

to the United States for refuge. This is currently the case for Syrian refugees. Internationally,

there are 4.9 million Syrian refuges and 6.6 million Syrian displacements (Coen, 2017). Based

on the United States previous involvement in Syria, catalytic effects of the Iraqi War, and global

power, the United States should be open to accepting Syrian refugees without compromising the

security and integrity of United States citizens.

The United States relationship with Syria has been a tense foreign policy issue since

2004 (Landis, 2010). Since then, the United States has had no intelligence, no ambassadors, no

representation, and no military assistance in Syria (Ibid.), a nagging setback for a global

powerhouse like the United States. The United States suggested a slew of mutual power-sharing

compromises to Syria. However, the United States loyalty to Israel continued to be a critical

factor in Syrias refusal to accept these compromises (Ibid.). The Syrian government felt that

these compromises would only benefit the United States and Israel, the country with whom

Syria was fighting over the area of Golan (Ibid.); Israel never let their superior power go

unnoticed. Both Israel and Iran threatened to return Syria to the Stone Age if Syria involved

itself in a future war, which kept Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad at bay and left his both

economically and influentially inferior country as a sitting duck to violent attacks (Ibid.). It is

speculated that improving relations with Syria and working with President al-Assad during the

Iraqi War would have better managed the war and ended it sooner (Ibid.). Sadly, the war instead

carried on.

1
 Before analyzing the United States specific responsibility in the refugee crisis, it is

imperative to understand the global responsibility to provide assistance. In 2005 the United

Nations General Assembly adopted the Responsibility to Protect, which prevents genocide, war

crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity (Coen, 2017). However specific these

atrocities are, they leave a gray area in regard to the issues of refugee response and mass

displacement (Ibid.). Clearly millions of people are fleeing their respective countries because the

above atrocities are occurring. However, whose responsibility is it to take in these refugees?

How should they be split among other countries, and which ones? How many can each country

take? The United Nations has not decided on a fair allocation of refugees, despite the obvious

inequity of absorption (Ibid.).

Countries that are geographically closest to Syria and Iraq have absorbed more than half

of the millions of refugees (Ibid.). These countries are geographically much smaller and

economically much weaker than countries like the United States and cannot support the rapid

growth rate. Currently, developing countries take in 86% of the worlds refugees (Ibid.) despite

the fact that most of these countries barely possess the means to support themselves without an

influx of refugees. Wealthy countries have the funds to construct laws or borders to defer these

refugees to poorer countries (Ibid.) when they could be using that money to help them and

alleviate the cost to poorer countries. Instead of leaving smaller and developing countries to

suffer from detrimental blows such as overpopulation and food scarcity, the wealthier and bigger

nations must step in and assume this responsibility. The United States is one of these nations.

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) recommended the United States accept a

minimum of 65,000 refugees before 2017 (Ibid.). The IRC suggested this number for two main

reasons. First, the United States involvement in the Iraqi War directly involved the United

2
States with the problems of Iraq and as well as Syria (Ibid.). Albeit for social justice, the United

States still contributed to the violence felt in these two nations due to the Iraqi War. Secondly,

the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) argues that the United States invasion [of Iraq]

inadvertently reinvigorated al-Qaeda and facilitated the rise of al-Zarqawi the leader of the

group that would become ISIS (Coen, 2017). Additionally, some scholars then argue that the

United States kick-start of ISIS movements led to Syrian displacement and thus makes the

United States directly responsible for helping those displaced (Ibid.). If a top-tier, highly

respectable governmental security agency insists that the United States was a direct catalyst for

increased ISIS movements and Syrian displacement, one can logically assume that the United

States holds some responsibility for Syrian refugees and should be doing more to help them.

But what should the United States be doing? How can the country help refugees without

compromising national security? This was a heated topic for the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton sided with the IRC and promised to accept 65,000 Syrian

refugees, a stark increase from the only 1,500 Syrian refugees the United States had already

accepted (Berman, 2015). Although Democrats proved more willing to offer a set number of

refugees to accept, Republicans erred on the side of caution. While Marco Rubio offered a

hesitant open mind to accepting Syrian refugees, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz insisted that allowing

such a large influx of people would be detrimental to national security (Ibid.). With such a

serious humanitarian and security issue dominating politics, voters waited in anticipation for

President Trumps decision regarding Syrian refugees. He decided to indefinitely suspend

Syrian immigration to the United States, and a national poll found that 70% of voters oppose his

decision (Malloy and Smith, 2017). In addition to this, President Trump has a 52% disapproval

3
rating (Ibid.), so a correlation between his decisions in Syria and voter dissatisfaction could be

argued.

If Americans want to assist more Syrian refugees and the CIA has highlighted the United

States responsibility for helping them, a plan must be established for accepting Syrian refugees.

Two leading concerns for Americans are national security and financial stability. Between 2012

and 2014, the United States gave $2.9 billion to Syrian humanitarian efforts and $1.4 billion to

refugees and host communities (Ostrand, 2015). Although these numbers seem rather high when

compared to the donations of other countries (such as $448 million from Germany and $169

million from Sweden), this disproportion can be easily remedied (Ibid.). If the United Nations

finally establishes an allocation of Syrian humanitarian efforts for each industrialized country,

this will ease the financial burden on the United States.

In regards to security, Americans have a right to be cautious. A fear of terrorist groups

and Islamic extremists has pervaded the American psyche since the 9/11 World Trade Center

attacks. For 26% of Americans, this fear has since developed into a fear of Islam and those who

follow it, citing that Islam encourages violence (Malloy and Smith, 2017). Additionally, 17% of

Americans believe that a great threat of terrorists hiding among Syrian refugees exists, a

viewpoint that then opposes the acceptance of Syrian refugees (Ibid.). However, an imperative

fact to note here is that the other 83% of Americans do not share this viewpoint. As previously

mentioned, 70% of Americans oppose President Trumps ban on Syrian refugees (Ibid.).

Therefore, the logical avenue for handling the Syrian refugee crisis would be to accept refugees

without compromising national security.

What many Americans may not realize is that refugees already undergo an extensive 18-

step vetting process and that Syrian refugees have an increased 20-step process (Park and

4
Buchanan, 2017). These steps include the following: permission from the United Nations, three

background checks, three fingerprint scans, two interviews, approval from Homeland Security,

an infectious disease screening, a cultural orientation class, and a multi-agency security check

before the last security check at an airport (Ibid.). Syrian refugees must undergo this exact

process as well, but with the addition of two steps: two case reviews by Homeland Security and

the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (Ibid.). The rigorous vetting process for

refugees is designed so that the United States can assume its global responsibility and offer more

than financial assistance to refugees while maintaining high-level national security. Perhaps if

more Americans were informed about this protocol, the thought of welcoming refugees from

predominately Muslim areas would not be as frightening.

The United States holds the power of an industrialized nation and the privilege of a land

of freedom. As such, it is the United States responsibility to help those suffering the

consequences of war-torn countries and grant them safety. In the case of Syria, the United

States role in the Iraqi War makes it directly culpable for helping Syrian refugees (Coen, 2017),

and this foreign policy issue has permeated politics since the campaign for the 2016 Presidential

Election (Berman, 2015). With an intense vetting process already in place for refugees with

additional steps for Syrian refugees Americans should not allow fear to overshadow the

sanctity of human life. Americans should extend freedom to the innocent lives who, through

bloodshed and persecution, are being told that they are not deserving of freedoms. They should

combat that violence with open arms and remind those who need refuge that their humanity is

worthy of preservation. They should uphold the American spirit and honor the words etched on

the Statue of Liberty, words that anchor a nation built for refugees:

Give me your tired, your poor,

5
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

6
 References

Berman, R. (2015, September 22). The presidential candidates debate granting asylum to Syrian

refugees: How many should the U.S. accept? The Atlantic. Retrieved from May 28, 2017

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-syrian-refugee-crisis-and-the-

2016-campaign/406513/.

Coen, A. (2017). Capable and culpable? The United States, RtoP, and refugee responsibility-

sharing. Ethics & International Affairs, 31(1), 71-92.

Landis, J. (2010). The U.S.-Syria relationship: A few questions. Middle East Policy, 17(3), Fall,

64-73.

Malloy, T., & Smith, R. P. (2017). American voters oppose Trump immigration ban, Quinnipiac

University national poll finds; Big gender gap as voters disapprove of Trump (pp. 1-14,

Rep.). Hamden: Quinnipiac University.

Ostrand, N. (2015). The Syrian refugee crisis: A comparison of response by Germany, Sweden,

the United Kingdom, and the United States. Journal on Migration and Human

Security, 3(3), 255-279.

Park, H., & Buchanan, L. (2017, January 29). Refugees entering the U.S. already face a rigorous

vetting process. The New York Times. Retrieved May 28, 2017 from

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html.