It’s been way too long since I’ve posted on this blog, but with the
election right around the corner, I had to write something. As an employee of
an immigrant services and refugee resettlement agency, the amount of false
information I’ve heard about immigrants, and refugees in particular, through
this election season has been absolutely painful. In the interest of not
writing the longest blog post known to humankind and boring you with too many
details and citations, I will briefly discuss the history of U.S. refugee
resettlement and the current vetting process to provide some information and grounding.
Before we begin, I think it’s important to define some terms for
clarity. In this post we’ll be looking at refugee resettlement in United States
rather than immigration overall. A refugee is a person who has fled their home
country and cannot return due “to a well-founded fear of being
persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group, or political opinion” (UNHCR). This is different from
an immigrant, who chooses to move to a new country for any number of reasons,
but has the freedom to return home. As with so many things in life, definitions
and their applications are far more nuanced than this; however, these
understandings will help frame this post. This distinction between refugees and
immigrants is critical in discussing refugee admissions, border control, and
other immigration reform, given that many people tend to conflate the admissions
processes of each.
Refugee resettlement was first addressed in the United
States in 1948. Following World War II, 250,000 displaced Europeans had been
admitted into the U.S., and the legislation permitted for the entrance of
400,000 more. For the next few decades, resettlement was provided by the
government as needed, allowing for the entrance of various refugees from around
the world, including Yugoslavia, China, and Cuba, but there was no uniform
response to these incidents. With the protracted conflict in Vietnam, the U.S.
passed The Refugee Act of 1980, which standardized resettlement services across
the country and began the refugee resettlement program as we know it today.
Under this system, resettlement is a public-private partnership, in which the
government provides limited funding and resettlement services are provided by
independent non-profit agencies. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has resettled more
than 3 million refugees.
There has been a lot in the news over the past year or so about
refugees, from the image of the drowned toddler on a Turkish beach to the
governors of some U.S. states attempting to block refugees. I’ve heard
arguments that we should be doing more to help Syrian refugees, quickly
followed by demands that we ban all refugees, or at least those who are Muslim.
I’ve heard people call them terrorists and that there is no way to vet them. Many
of these arguments are rooted in a lack of understanding of the resettlement
process and how refugees are admitted to the United States.
At the end of 2015, there were 65.3 million displaced people around the
world, and 21.3 million of those are refugees (UNHCR Global Trends 2015). Of
these refugees, only about 1 percent are resettled each year, and the U.S.
accepts about half of those who are resettled. Before these refugees even set
foot on a plane, they undergo a long and detailed vetting process. The U.S.
Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) has a
great infographic that helps explain how refugees are resettled. Overall,
the screening process generally takes 18 to 24 months from the time a person is
referred to the United States for resettlement to the time they arrive in the
United States. This rigorous process includes a series of interviews, biometric
and health screenings, and recurrent checks against FBI, DOD, and DHS
databases. These checks are continually done until the time the refugee steps
on the plane – if any new information arises that links them to any
questionable activity, they are not allowed to proceed with resettlement. In
short, refugees are the most thoroughly vetted individuals to enter the United
States.
Some have argued that refugees, especially those from the Middle East,
should not be admitted into the country because they are terrorists who will
commit violence after they arrive in the U.S. However, beyond the fact that refugees
are so thoroughly vetted, the data shows that there is no basis for this claim.
Since 2001, the U.S. has resettled 784,000 refugees, and in that time only 3
have been arrested for planning terrorist attacks, two which were outside of the
country and one that wasn’t credible (Migration
Policy Institute). This means that in 14 years, only 0.00038% of refugees
in the U.S. have been suspected of terrorist activities.
Many people have ignored this overwhelming data and pointed to the
recent high-profile terrorism cases as proof of their arguments. These cases,
however, have been perpetrated by U.S. citizens or others who came to the U.S.
legally, not refugees through the U.S. resettlement program.(See
PolitiFact, “What is the citizenship status of terrorist suspects in the United
States?”) This distinction is crucial, as many state governors have tried
to stop refugee resettlement in their respective states by blurring these
definitions. This reaction is rooted in fear and xenophobia rather than the
facts about the refugee resettlement process and the likelihood of terrorism
committed by those admitted to the U.S. through this process. While these
details may seem technical, misunderstanding these technicalities can lead to
innocent people being denied help they desperately need.
There is certainly far more that I could say about this, but for now,
it’s most important to me to provide a primer of sorts to the topic. If you’re
interested in learning more, I’ve included links throughout this post and below
that provide additional information.
Resources and Links
No comments:
Post a Comment