We don't want no refugees here!
While fences, walls and barbed wire are being raised all across Europe in response to the refugee crisis, the US is also undergoing an internal division of their own on the issue.
First, president Obama announced that the US would provide asylum for 10 thousand Syrian refugees. But then the House voted on a bill that is meant to tighten the measures for accepting refugees even beyond their current ridiculous level. The law will now require of the FBI chief, the chiefs of national security and secretary of domestic intelligence to approve every single Syrian refugee before they've come anywhere near a US-bound plane. In result, this would immensely complicate and prolong their entry process into the US, possibly beyond 2 or 3 years.
The president's administration has already announced that Obama would veto the bill if it passes through Congress. The GOP-dominated House has been pretty overwhelmingly in favor of it, though: 289 voted Yea against 137 Nay. That sort of majority would suffice to override the veto. Now the bill is being reviewed in the Senate, where, again, it'll need a 2/3 majority to bypass Obama's veto. For now, its fate remains unclear, although the Senate is also GOP-nominated, and a number of Democratic senators are also in favor of the bill. Harry Reid may've said there's "no way" the bill could pass, which indicates that he'll try to tighten the ranks of the besieged Democrats, and make them fall in line and ultimately block the bill.
But that's a battle whose outcome remains uncertain. 47 Democrats in the House have already supported the Republican bill, despite Obama's pleas not to do that. This shows how isolated the POTUS is within his own party on this issue.
Now, this bill may suggest that so far the US had been allowing any and all sorts of refugees without proper vetting. That's patently false: in reality, potential refugees pass through a ridiculously rigorous process of background checks, interviews, and a wall of red tape, before they even get a remote chance of getting asylum. What's more, interviews with Syrian refugees are being conducted in Amman, Cairo, Istanbul and other major points around the world that are already focal points of the pressure of the refugee influx.
The reason for this bill was mostly the terrorist attacks in Paris, of course. 26 US governors have vowed to block any refugees from entering their states, only one of them being a Democrat, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire. 15 governors have stated they'd accept refugees, only one of them being Republican (the Utah governor).
Although they cannot legally stop the refugees from entering their states (that's explicitly a federal prerogative), the governors do have the power to subsequently complicate the integration process, once the refugees have arrived, and make their lives miserable. The Department of State is supposed to work with the refugee integration coordinator for each state. And here's the catch. That institution could be instructed by the governor of said state to refuse to grant asylum to refugees, possibly on grounds of lacking adequate capacity to process them. On the other hand, these refusals could be overridden by the federal government. Besides, the state authorities are risking breaking the anti-discrimination laws if they refuse to accept refugees from a particular state, solely based on their nationality (in this case, Syria). Still, the governors could severely hinder the refugees' integration by refusing or blocking federal funding for refugee education. That this would create a whole new array of potential problems, including disenfranchisement and possible radicalization of those refugees, is a matter that few of these governors seem willing to review, being blinded by their urge for short-term political gain, and the desire to pander to the hysterical paranoia that is reigning across most Western societies at the moment.
According to data from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, as of last December the number of registered refugees in the US was 267,222. We could add another 187,826 people who've also sought asylum in the US. There've been 1,999 Syrian refugees since 2013 who've been resettled in the US. Thus, the plans for extra 10,000 Syrians who could come to the US by 2016, is indeed a significant increase, related to what the US has been receiving thus far. But compared to the million refugees that Europe is expecting in the next few months, that's an infinitesimal number. It's also worth noting that even despite the trauma that France has experienced for the last few days, they have no intention to backpedal on their intention to take a large number of refugees. Which comes to show us something about morality.
The total number of refugees that the US was intent on accepting was 85,000 by 2016, and 100,000 by 2017. If this bill for extra tightening of the procedure for Syrian refugees is officially adopted, these targets would hardly be reached.
Until now, Europe used to believe the US were genuinely prepared to lend a hand in this matter, and their efforts would be adequate. But a few days ago, the EU commissary on migration Dimitris Avramopoulos said in DC that the US needed to be "more generous". Given the direction that Congress is going with this bill, chances are that the US would rather choose the exact opposite of being more generous.
Many have accused the US of hypocrisy, in that they've largely contributed to the current refugee situation in Syria and Iraq (as acknowledged by Tony Blair himself), and now they're withdrawing from responsibility, and leaving others to clear up their mess. I think I can see where this argument is coming from.
Meanwhile, a recent Bloomberg poll indicates that more than half of the American people do not want any Syrian refugees in their country, and 11% actually support the preposterous idea (parroted by Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz the other day) for only allowing Christian refugees ("There is a way to prove you're Christian, you know"). Much in the same vein, the WP has published a 1938 stats by the Fortune magazine, which showed that a majority of the US people were opposed to allowing Jewish refugees into their country. That, of course, would've included guys like Einstein, Born, Oppenheimer, and all those geniuses who've hugely contributed to America's technological and scientific supremacy in that epoch. But you know, like I said, it's far more important to succumb to the transient call of one's amygdala, rather than attempting to use one's frontal cortex for its intended purpose.
Ultimately, a nation that refuses to take responsibility for the consequences of its actions, and play its part in a major humanitarian situation like this, has no right to pontificate to anyone about anything remotely related to morality.
First, president Obama announced that the US would provide asylum for 10 thousand Syrian refugees. But then the House voted on a bill that is meant to tighten the measures for accepting refugees even beyond their current ridiculous level. The law will now require of the FBI chief, the chiefs of national security and secretary of domestic intelligence to approve every single Syrian refugee before they've come anywhere near a US-bound plane. In result, this would immensely complicate and prolong their entry process into the US, possibly beyond 2 or 3 years.
The president's administration has already announced that Obama would veto the bill if it passes through Congress. The GOP-dominated House has been pretty overwhelmingly in favor of it, though: 289 voted Yea against 137 Nay. That sort of majority would suffice to override the veto. Now the bill is being reviewed in the Senate, where, again, it'll need a 2/3 majority to bypass Obama's veto. For now, its fate remains unclear, although the Senate is also GOP-nominated, and a number of Democratic senators are also in favor of the bill. Harry Reid may've said there's "no way" the bill could pass, which indicates that he'll try to tighten the ranks of the besieged Democrats, and make them fall in line and ultimately block the bill.
But that's a battle whose outcome remains uncertain. 47 Democrats in the House have already supported the Republican bill, despite Obama's pleas not to do that. This shows how isolated the POTUS is within his own party on this issue.
Now, this bill may suggest that so far the US had been allowing any and all sorts of refugees without proper vetting. That's patently false: in reality, potential refugees pass through a ridiculously rigorous process of background checks, interviews, and a wall of red tape, before they even get a remote chance of getting asylum. What's more, interviews with Syrian refugees are being conducted in Amman, Cairo, Istanbul and other major points around the world that are already focal points of the pressure of the refugee influx.
The reason for this bill was mostly the terrorist attacks in Paris, of course. 26 US governors have vowed to block any refugees from entering their states, only one of them being a Democrat, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire. 15 governors have stated they'd accept refugees, only one of them being Republican (the Utah governor).
Although they cannot legally stop the refugees from entering their states (that's explicitly a federal prerogative), the governors do have the power to subsequently complicate the integration process, once the refugees have arrived, and make their lives miserable. The Department of State is supposed to work with the refugee integration coordinator for each state. And here's the catch. That institution could be instructed by the governor of said state to refuse to grant asylum to refugees, possibly on grounds of lacking adequate capacity to process them. On the other hand, these refusals could be overridden by the federal government. Besides, the state authorities are risking breaking the anti-discrimination laws if they refuse to accept refugees from a particular state, solely based on their nationality (in this case, Syria). Still, the governors could severely hinder the refugees' integration by refusing or blocking federal funding for refugee education. That this would create a whole new array of potential problems, including disenfranchisement and possible radicalization of those refugees, is a matter that few of these governors seem willing to review, being blinded by their urge for short-term political gain, and the desire to pander to the hysterical paranoia that is reigning across most Western societies at the moment.
According to data from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, as of last December the number of registered refugees in the US was 267,222. We could add another 187,826 people who've also sought asylum in the US. There've been 1,999 Syrian refugees since 2013 who've been resettled in the US. Thus, the plans for extra 10,000 Syrians who could come to the US by 2016, is indeed a significant increase, related to what the US has been receiving thus far. But compared to the million refugees that Europe is expecting in the next few months, that's an infinitesimal number. It's also worth noting that even despite the trauma that France has experienced for the last few days, they have no intention to backpedal on their intention to take a large number of refugees. Which comes to show us something about morality.
The total number of refugees that the US was intent on accepting was 85,000 by 2016, and 100,000 by 2017. If this bill for extra tightening of the procedure for Syrian refugees is officially adopted, these targets would hardly be reached.
Until now, Europe used to believe the US were genuinely prepared to lend a hand in this matter, and their efforts would be adequate. But a few days ago, the EU commissary on migration Dimitris Avramopoulos said in DC that the US needed to be "more generous". Given the direction that Congress is going with this bill, chances are that the US would rather choose the exact opposite of being more generous.
Many have accused the US of hypocrisy, in that they've largely contributed to the current refugee situation in Syria and Iraq (as acknowledged by Tony Blair himself), and now they're withdrawing from responsibility, and leaving others to clear up their mess. I think I can see where this argument is coming from.
Meanwhile, a recent Bloomberg poll indicates that more than half of the American people do not want any Syrian refugees in their country, and 11% actually support the preposterous idea (parroted by Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz the other day) for only allowing Christian refugees ("There is a way to prove you're Christian, you know"). Much in the same vein, the WP has published a 1938 stats by the Fortune magazine, which showed that a majority of the US people were opposed to allowing Jewish refugees into their country. That, of course, would've included guys like Einstein, Born, Oppenheimer, and all those geniuses who've hugely contributed to America's technological and scientific supremacy in that epoch. But you know, like I said, it's far more important to succumb to the transient call of one's amygdala, rather than attempting to use one's frontal cortex for its intended purpose.
Ultimately, a nation that refuses to take responsibility for the consequences of its actions, and play its part in a major humanitarian situation like this, has no right to pontificate to anyone about anything remotely related to morality.