The House Refugee Vote: Is this the New Face of American Resolve?

I will always remember my first day at the Resettlement Support Center (RSC) in Nairobi, Kenya. I walked towards the front gate of our Westlands office only to be engulfed by hundreds of people awaiting their fate — a piece of paper and a decision that would define their future and their children’s’ future. I had spent time in Africa before, but not in Nairobi, and not with refugees. As the crowd calmed, the mostly urban refugees would learn if they were destined for the United States or would return home wondering what’s next. Their home countries are torn apart by instability and persecution and life in camps or as urban refugees is not just hard, it is unsustainable. Before that moment, I had fairly conservative views on accepting refugees into the U.S., and I cursed myself for making them human — I had just given them names and faces.

More than half of my adult life has been spent outside of the United States either as an Officer in the U.S. Army or civilian. I cherish the time I get to spend at home in Philadelphia, to converse with old friends and neighbors and regain the pulse of American culture that sometimes fades while abroad. However, I’ve grown increasingly concerned by that pulse. The American spirit has become — oddly un-American. Our attitudes are shifting, not because of our own paradigm, but because we are emotionally responding to an external actor, the Islamic State.

The Islamic State’s public relations apparatus is remarkably sophisticated. They are nimble and proactive, they know what criticisms they will face and address them effectively through Dabiq or online messaging. They identify a vulnerable population and begin the process of seduction, indoctrination and behavior change. There are three principle variables in any terrorist act — the perpetrators, the victims and the wider target audience. The Islamic State’s audience during the Paris attacks was not potential recruits — it was us. It was the American and European governments and their citizens. And, without us even knowing it, they just manipulated large swaths of our population into accepting increasingly extreme political and social ideals that undermine our core values. They are, in a sense, radicalizing us. They are breaking down our resolve and gradually causing behavior change. In this case, the behavior change happens to be our treatment of refugees.

The United States has admitted more than 700,000 refugees since 9/11. Prior to the recent refugee influx into Europe, the United States was resettling more refugees each year than every other country combined. That’s the status quo. That’s what America does. The Center for American Progress recently released an accurate infographic detailing the 21 steps refugees go through in the arduous, yet necessary resettlement process. The process takes anywhere from 18 to 24 months and it works. There are many technical parameters that have been used to either strengthen or weaken the claim that the process works and I don’t wish to dabble in that debate. What is clear, however, is that refugees aren’t the threat House members claim.

Recent history tells us that the United States is committed to resettling refugees, but that commitment is wilting. Last Thursday Congress passed a bill that would require the secretary of Homeland Security, director of the F.B.I. and director of national intelligence to personally confirm that each Syrian or Iraqi refugee poses no threat. The legislation is unrealistic and effectively cripples resettlement for Syrians and Iraqis. The legislation was not the outcome of a well-informed debate or logical analysis, it the result of our anger about the Paris attacks and fear that it will happen here. It’s ok to admit that. However, we should also admit that our fear has resulted in an uninformed response that empowers the Islamic State’s propaganda machine. Our anger is being misdirected at two words — “Syrian” and “refugee”; two words that have not yet been used to describe any one of the Paris attackers. The Islamic State wants us to reject refugees. They despise the idea that these “cowards” are fleeing their caliphate and finding homes in Western Europe and the U.S. And, we are predictably giving them what they want. I am not one to advocate jeopardizing our safety and security for the sake of political correctness, but the House’s response is uniquely bigoted, uninformed AND misses the mark from a national security perspective.

Earlier this year I served in Nairobi as a Security Advisor for RSC Africa. RSC Africa helps the U.S. process upwards of 15–18,000 refugees each year. Caseworkers interview refugees, record data and share their findings with relevant U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies via the State Department, ensuring that they have accurate information for the vetting process. They spend weeks in places you’ll never want to see — places like Dadaab or Kakuma. They do this so, despite what many presidential candidates like to proclaim, we aren’t letting in a bunch of terrorists.

I see the Syrian Refugee Crisis with eyes wide open — I understand the threat of terrorists posing as refugees and I also have reservations about the stress accepting large amounts of refugees will place on the system, but politicians aren’t passing legislation that will adjust the procedure based on a security threat or gathered intelligence; they are abandoning the principles of tolerance and acceptance from which that procedure was created. Summarily, they are advocating for rejecting people based on their religion or ethnicity — not who they are as individuals (as our well-established security procedure would reveal.) This legislation is distinctly un-American. This wasn’t a show of resolve in the face of fear; it was falling victim to it.

The tragedy in Paris pulls out the best and worse of human emotion. I began my Kenyan experience with preconceived notions about refugees’ impact on our nation’s security. I looked at one ethnic group specifically, Somalis, as especially at risk to radicalization and said to myself “Why chance it?” My experience, though, gave me confidence in the resettlement process and allowed to me see through conveniently dehumanizing labels like “refugee.” Instead, I saw individuals — I saw sons and daughters. Due to my time in Iraq and other difficult places abroad, I generally assume someone is trying to get one over on me. Despite my general pessimism, even I had trouble conducting a cultural orientation class for a group of Somali teenagers preparing for their resettlement to the United States and not feeling their hope, not having their smiles warm my heart. The names and faces I came to know were not intolerant or looking to disrupt our culture, in that moment they were just grateful and deserving of the American values they were witnessing — optimism, tolerance and acceptance — a few of the values Congress willfully forfeited last week.