Why Governors’ Rejection of Syrian Refugees is Justified

By Guy Stein
Opinions Contributor

In January of 2005, I was lucky enough to do something, something that many people around the world wish to accomplish, in immigrating to the US. Only seven at the time, I could not understand the rigorous checks my parents went through to gain residency.

When I got older and Dad explained the process, it became apparent to me that immigration is something that this country takes seriously in the post 9/11 era.

In September, President Obama announced that the US would soon admit 10,000 Syrian refugees in an effort to join the global attempt to find a safe haven for the estimated nine million Syrians that have left the turmoil in their war stricken country.

The plan hit a roadblock in the aftermath of the string of terrorist attacks in Paris on Nov. 15, when it was discovered that one of the terrorists involved had gotten into Paris by posing as a Syrian refugee or had had a fake Syrian passport on his person.

In response to this revelation, 31 State Governors said that they will not welcome Syrian refugees into their states, including our own Mass. governor Charlie Baker.

As hard as it is for me to say this as an immigrant myself, rejecting these refugees, at the current moment in time, is the right thing for the U.S. to do.

The first problem that comes with admitting these refugees is the questionable vetting. The Obama Administration has promised strict and rigorous vetting procedures, even more rigorous than those that my family went through when applying for residency. The problem with the Administration’s claim is that some officials, most prominently FBI Director James Comey, expressed concerns over “gaps” in the vetting process.

Along with Comey, several experts have said that U.S. intelligence in Syria is not reliable and that it lacks any ground presence. To me, the Director of the FBI expressing concerns about vetting is enough to raise some questions over whether or not the government can truly make sure that the refugees are actually Syrian refugees who need safe haven.

The vetting process usually requires some background research into the person and their life in their previous country: however, how can the government obtain any information from Syria considering that the Assad Regime is not exactly cooperating? And even if it was, Assad has bigger fish to fry at the moment than passing along citizens’ records to the US.

The amount of fake Syrian passports in circulation and the ease with which one can be obtained also makes me think bringing in the refugees is a bad idea. Various reporters have exposed the effortless process of obtaining a Syrian passport – a Mail Online Reporter obtained a working Syrian passport, identity card, and driver’s license for himself in only four days, costing him roughly $2,000.

If an ISIS terrorist or even a migrant who is not Syrian but wants to immigrate to the U.S. can easily obtain a means into the our country through faking refugee status, then we cannot open our doors and let them in.

I doubt that the government can tell the difference between the legal and fake Syrian passports. The administration says that only two percent of the 10,000 refugees they admit to the U.S. will be single males of combat age. This means that 200 males of that age will be let in.

Out of these 200, it is plausible to think that some could be ISIS operatives. To me, the potential and realistic threat of ISIS operatives making their way into the U.S. via taking in refugees is enough to justify barring those refugees from entering.

Unless the Obama Administration is to adjust the parameters or improve the vetting process to where no men of combat age were let in or intelligence is actually gathered on Syrian citizens, the State governors opposing the effort are justified.

As an immigrant myself, I find it both hard and maybe even hypocritical to hold this stance. I think back to how I arrived in this country as a child, and how that experience shaped me. Moving to the U.S. was a life-changing event, even though I already came from a good background. I can not even begin to imagine the good it would do to the many Syrian children coming in from a war torn country.

Despite all of this, I believe that we should not let the Syrian refugees into the United States. The truth of the matter is that under the current policy, we would open our doors to those who wish us harm, and that is a risk I am unwilling to take. If we accept immigrants in our society, we should do so knowing that, just as my family was, they are immigrating here to better life, not to destroy it.

The views represented in this post are solely of contributor and do not necessarily reflect the view of the editorial board.