Last weekend's tragic terrorist attacks in Paris have naturally garnered a great deal of attention and scrutiny from news outlets. More significantly, the connection between the heinous violence and emigration from Syria has created a particularly raucous debate on social media.
First off, a Constitutional issue: Upon reading that various governors do not want to allow Syrian refugees into their states, my first thought was "Okay, so?" Certainly they're aware that the federal government dictates the immigration policy for the entire country, right? Thankfully, New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo is aware of this and pointed out the same, whilst voicing his support for a continued tradition of immigration into this country.
His reference to the Statue of Liberty may seem cliche, but it's relevant. With the exception of Native Americans, everyone's ethnic lineage in the U.S. can be traced back to other countries, many within only a few generations. It's disappointing, then, to see such knee-jerk xenophobic reactions to the mere idea that we as a nation offer refuge to people from a country torn by civil war. The Paris attacks understandably strike a nerve with those living in U.S. cities, who fear similar violations on our soil. But the notion that the terrorism in France is inexorably connected to those seeking refuge from Syria has been rebuffed by the revelation that many of those responsible were actually radicalized Belgian and French nationals. Here in the U.S., more deaths have resulted from "homegrown" right-wing extremist attacks than from Jihadist terrorism.
That said, everyone should note that those in favor of accepting Syrian refugees are not necessarily suggesting that we simply let anyone waltz into the country without any investigatory screening. Gov. Cuomo himself expressed that immigration should only continue so long as authorities are able to thoroughly vet potential refugees. In fact, there already exist several layers of vetting for those seeking asylum, beginning first with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and then various U.S. federal agencies and departments. Nonetheless, it's disgustingly intolerant to suggest that religion or ethnicity serve as a screening criteria. While some acts of terrorism have been carried out in the name of Islam or by adherents to the same, dangerous radicals represent a tiny proportion of the world's Islamic population. Instead, counterterrorism experts use forensic interviewing techniques to gather background information, comparing refugees' answers to one another and to existing documentation. In addition, priority is given to vulnerable populations such as single mothers, orphaned children, and special-needs individuals.
As Gov. Cuomo sought to remind us, this country was founded by immigrants, and has accepted waves and waves of people fleeing various hardships in their home countries - the Irish potato famine of the mid-1800s, poor economic conditions in Japan in the late 1800s, persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe in the early-to-mid-1900s, and the Islamic fundamentalist revolution in Iran in the 1970s, to name just a few. Having not been alive during any of these prior eras, I have only secondhand accounts of the political and cultural climate of those times. I'm sure that those whose families had been in this country for more than a generation feared that new immigrants might encroach on their jobs or other economic opportunities, and that certain groups were inherently fearful of others. Human beings are naturally wary of the unfamiliar, which unfortunately includes people from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
This tenor is magnified now that we live in an age of constant information. Perpetual access to news media has the potential to make us more informed, but it also leads to the spread of misinformation and unfounded fear. For example, certain headlines, politicians' and pundits' quotes, and popular Facebook posts make it sound as though the United States offered to accept Syrian refugees in direct response to the Paris attacks. In fact, the aforementioned policy geared towards refugees has been in place for several years, and (as also mentioned above) prioritizes asylum for those who are most in need of help. Up-to-the-minute reporting has also created a climate in which news outlets rush to report stories as they break. Most regrettably, this often leads to sensationalist headlines which spread incorrect information before they can be corrected. In this particular instance, some reports initially declared that one of the Paris attackers was a Syrian refugee; later it was clarified that the individual was carrying a forged passport.
Finally, the news media tend to make anything a politician says into a short quote or sound bite that can be taken out of context and interpreted in a variety of ways by the lay public. The ongoing Presidential primary season has provided an unnecessary platform for overly simplified grandstanding by candidates who see an opportunity to look "tough on terror". Immigration is a serious and complex area of policy. The answers are not as simple as "build a wall to keep out the Mexicans" or "don't let in any Muslims"; nor does support of refugees equate with reckless and unfettered immigration. It's unfortunate that people are able to skim a few headlines or short blurbs and buy into such overly simplified rhetoric.
If I could ask anything of my fellow Americans right now, it would be that we react with compassion first. Xenophobia and isolationism will only breed more hatred and fear. Relatedly, I'd urge everyone to remain skeptical about what you hear on the news and read on Facebook. The loudest voices are not always right, nor as self-assured as they may seem. Investigate further and give both sides of an issue their due. Even if you're positively against a certain policy or issue stance, we'll be a better society if people are educated about their views, instead of merely parroting overly simplified quotes from talking heads.
No comments:
Post a Comment