The deadly terrorist attacks by ISIS in Paris last Friday have unleashed predictable responses from Republicans and isolationists who are exploiting fear and prejudice to hijack U.S. foreign policy. Yes, the shootings and suicide bombings were horrific: more than 120 people were killed and several hundred more were injured. But the blowback from GOP politicians is not surprising given the country's long history of hostility toward foreigners. Since colonial times Americans have always distrusted anyone seeking to settle in this country. As Huffington Post noted in a piece this week, in 1939 there was opposition to German refugees. In the 1940s it was Jewish refugees. Americans opposed accepting refugees escaping from communist countries, and later from Vietnam. In the late 1970s Cuban Boat people were vilified, followed in the 1990s by Haitians. Last year it was children, fleeing the humanitarian crisis in Central America. So the loud cries against the U.S. taking in refugees from Syria are only the latest in a series of deplorable anti-immigrant sentiment by a country composed of immigrants.
At last count, mostly Republican governors in 27 states said Syrian refugees would not be welcome and it's questionable whether they even have authority to bar them. A 1915 U.S. Supreme Court case ruled that aliens admitted by the federal government can live in any state – but that's not really the point. These politicians want to stoke anger among their constituents to score points against President Barack Obama and Democrats, and more importantly, the panic over public safety that typically follows these terrorist incidents. Paris is one of the most visited cities in the world, if terrorists can strike there, the thinking goes, they can strike anywhere. That's probably correct. Keeping every Syrian refugee out of the U.S., however, won't solve that problem. In fact, we've been victims of domestic terrorism on an unimaginable scale by young men raised right here in the U.S., whether they are motivated by racial hatred or mental illness.
California Governor Jerry Brown is one of the few voices of reason in this debate. On Monday the Sacramento Bee reported that Brown advocates preserving "America's traditional role as a place of asylum" but stressed the need for thorough vetting. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) made similar remarks, saying in a television interview that "California will not be one of those states" that turns away refugees.
Lost in the overheated discussion are nuances of identity and motivations forcing people to leave Syria. Some have helped the U.S. military and can't return to their homes. Some do not want to live under an ISIS government. Some are Christians or follow religions that are anathema to ISIS.
And it's not just the politicians. Turn on cable news and the talking heads are equally nasty and offensive toward refugees. The Washington Post's Erik Wemple pointed out that on CNN Sunday, anchors John Vause and Isha Sesay spent six minutes blaming French Muslims for either not doing enough to prevent the attacks or for not doing enough after the attacks. They were berating Yasser Louati, a representative for the Collective Against Islamophobia in France. "Sir, the Muslim community has nothing to do with these guys. Nothing," Louati responded. "We cannot justify ourselves for the actions of someone who just claims to be Muslim." As Wemple noted, cable anchors "rarely call for the white or Christian community to answer for its inability to snuff out killings by their own, [but] that's the standard that exists for Muslims..." No wonder Muslim communities feel caught in the middle.
Just before the start of the federal 2016 fiscal year October 1, Obama announced that U.S. immigration would hold 10,000 additional spaces for Syrian refugees. That's a miniscule amount compared to the tens of thousands who have crossed into European countries, and some, like Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, have called for increasing that number. The Organization for Refuge, Asylum, and Migration, or ORAM, called for the government to safeguard 500 of those slots for LGBTs. This week, ORAM Executive Director Neil Grungras is in Turkey, where he's working to secure safety for a cohort of Syrian lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender refugees, some of the most vulnerable refugees facing life and death circumstances.
In a statement Tuesday, Grungras staunchly defended his agency's mission.
"We cannot turn our back on the most loyal and vulnerable of refugees," he said in a statement. "Not only do these refugees deserve our protection, but we also need them on our side, safely on U.S. soil.
"Knee-jerk, political reactions to this complicated situation do nothing but bring about harm to the long-term best interest of the United States of America," he added. "These vulnerable populations of Syrian refugees in Turkey despise the Islamic State. They've watched their loved ones beheaded, their daughters raped, and those they care about hurled from buildings by this terrorist organization."
Grungras also pointed out that the U.S. has the most stringent refugee screening process in the world today. The 10,000 additional Syrian refugees targeted for resettlement will be vetted by "multiple U.S. intelligence agencies," he explained.
"If need be, the U.S. has the capability to institute even further interview and investigation-based screening procedures," he said. "But to allow politics to drive this decision would be both morally repugnant and harmful to our country's long-term security interests."
Grungras is right. And most of those raising a ruckus know it. The majority of Muslims aren't extremists and those who are fleeing Syria are just as terrified of ISIS as we are.
Let's hope that calmer and more rationale heads prevail and that LGBTs will be given safe haven from the persecutions of ISIS and the Republicans.