• About
  • Editorial Board
  • Advertise
  • Join Us
  • Archives
The Wellesley News -
  • News and Features
    • Students Remember the Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsberg
      Students Remember the Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsberg
    • First-Year Students Reflect on Their Expectations for College, One Semester In
      First-Year Students Reflect on Their Expectations for College, One Semester In
    • “We Want to Fundamentally Change the Culture,” International Student Union says
      “We Want to Fundamentally Change the Culture,” International Student Union says
    • News
      • News in Brief
      • Nation & World
      • President’s Corner
      • Senate Report
    • Features
      • Alumnae Spotlight
      • Eye on Science
      • Faculty Focus
      • LGBTQIA+ Column
  • Opinions
    • Wellesley, why can’t you meet our dietary needs?
      Wellesley, why can’t you meet our dietary needs?
    • The block system is a joke
      The block system is a joke
    • Spineless nonpartisanship: how the Girl Scouts convinced me they no longer care about girls
      Spineless nonpartisanship: how the Girl Scouts convinced me they no longer care about girls
    • Staff Editorial
    • Letters to the Editor
    • The Elephant in the Room
  • Arts
    • Harry Styles de-typifies masculinity in Vogue’s December Issue, but is this enough? (spoiler: it’s not)
      Harry Styles de-typifies masculinity in Vogue’s December Issue, but is this enough? (spoiler: it’s not)
    • Music Performance Courses Adapt to an Altered Semester
      Music Performance Courses Adapt to an Altered Semester
    • Ben Wheatley’s adaptation of “Rebecca” fails to deliver compared to its classic counterpart
      Ben Wheatley’s adaptation of “Rebecca” fails to deliver compared to its classic counterpart
    • Arts In The News
    • Reviews
    • Music Peek
  • Health and Wellness
    • No image
      Athletic impacts of Covid-19
    • No image
      A new kind of PE
    • No image
      Maintaining wellness as the cold sets in
    • Athlete of the Week
    • Boston Sports Update
    • The Vegan Digest
    • The SHE Corner
  • Miscellanea
    • No image
      Remote students experience existential crises; change class years in email signatures
    • President’s Column: The Butterfly Effect
      President’s Column: The Butterfly Effect
    • Your next on-campus romance isn’t going to work out
      Your next on-campus romance isn’t going to work out
    • The Artichoke
    • The Dose
    • The Olive Branch
    • Multimedia
      • Galleries
      • Infographics
      • Videos
By Sabrina Liang Opinions, The Elephant in the RoomDecember 2, 2015

Where’s the ‘right’ on refugees?

Photo courtesy of Lobelog

In the wake of the Paris attacks, the United States saw a polarized discussion over refugee resettlement: one side was adamantly against it while the other side was thoroughly for it. Governors of 31 states have verbally refused to accept refugees (30 Republican, 1 Democrat). President Obama has criticized such lawmakers for being afraid of “widows and orphans” and denounced such “un-American” proposals.

As a second-generation American who holds Republican and conservative ideas, the most hostile remarks of the far-right vex me. However that is far from my biggest concern; I am most concerned about the GOP approach to defeating ISIL, which goes hand in hand with citizen safety and refugee resettlement.

There are many things the GOP needs to put into perspective when discussing American safety. First, the U.S. has an advantageous geographic position: the Atlantic Ocean is a natural barrier, a first “vetting” of sorts, to the en masse arrival of refugees. We do not have the immediate, overnight crises Europe has — that is, refugees literally stepping into Europe everyday and many more gathering at ports of entry. With this, the U.S. is currently only dealing with refugee resettlement, not both resettlement and asylum (asylees apply for protection while physically in the country of application; refugees do not). This makes our situation different from that of Europe and the “first-asylum” countries of Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, who are taking the brunt of the crisis because of their close proximity.

Besides geography, there are also the logistics of time and cost. Waiting for application approval is lengthy and costly: these refugees cannot legally work and the typical waiting period is at least a year, during which the United Nations first conducts its checks before referring refugees to the United States for more checks.  If ISIL wanted to attack us on American soil, they would do so through a faster method, which is the visa waiver program. For example, if an ISIL fighter held an E.U. passport, they could automatically fly into any American airport and start operating. There is no waiting, no checking, no tracing.  As many members of the intelligence community agree, lawmakers must re-assess and evaluate appropriate ways to tighten such waiver programs that can be easily exploited. Also, to prevent ISIL fighters from obtaining U.S. legal-permanent residence status as a refugee, we must employ not only stringent vetting procedures, but also timely resettlement checkups, constant intelligence updates in cooperation with the EU and Gulf nations and most importantly, prompt government responses.

However, all this does not mean that we should de facto adopt Europe’s open-door policy. Even with our strong history of admitting refugees and the many national benefits reaped, we should not react and thus operate heavily on historical context alone in such a situation. We must take our nation’s current set of economic and social circumstances into account, as the United States that accepted Vietnamese refugees in the late seventies and the United States that accepted Bosnian refugees in the mid-nineties are both very different from the United States accepting Syrian and Iraqi refugees today. It would be irresponsible of the U.S. to welcome a number of refugees we cannot adequately resettle and support into American cities, even if this number is less than what we have previously taken in other refugee crises. It would also be a mistake for us to not push for resettlement — with U.S. financial and logistical support — in other secure Gulf nations closer for the refugees to reach. This option involves less dangerous passage and costly waiting periods for refugees than relocation to Europe or even the United States.

     Lastly, while it is currently necessary for refugees to flee ISIL-threatened areas, when ISIL is eventually defeated, the opportunity for refugees to return to their motherland must be feasible. We would not be truly conquering ISIL if we only safely relocate as many threatened refugees as we can; we truly conquer ISIL when individuals no longer have to flee and those who have been forced to can successfully resettle in their homeland. This will have to occur through international diplomatic, military, financial and humanitarian efforts in both the conflict and post-conflict stages.

Undoubtedly, U.S. lawmakers have the foremost obligation to protect the interests and security of their constituents. How they approach this will inevitably spawn fierce debates. In the case of the GOP, a more restrictionist approach is favored, which has both its pros and cons. However, the GOP must note that refugee flow is not going to stop overnight — or anytime soon. The U.S. needs to prepare quickly for —  in both its cooperative and leadership positions — what is now an impending halt to Europe’s open-door refugee policies. If there is no adequate international response in place when this happens, then what we will see is accelerated refugee flow and more chaos. And for an opponent as mobile, inventive, and communications-savvy as ISIL, these two factors will further drive their ideological infiltration, actual territorial control, and future attack plans. So be it through refugee resettlement, air strikes, missions by special operations forces, or other means, this much is clear: the correct and humane handling of the refugee crises is a duty we must not neglect, but must take with all due seriousness and caution.

Share on

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Google +
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
Previous articleBeing open about sharing grades improves academic performance
Next articleCurrent U.S. policies fail to deliver mental illness treatments

You may also like

A piece of pizza missing topings.

Wellesley, why can’t you meet our dietary needs?

The block system is a joke

Spineless nonpartisanship: how the Girl Scouts convinced me they no longer care about girls

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Email Newsletter

Sign up to receive our weekly digest in your inbox

* indicates required

Top Articles

  • Harry Styles de-typifies masculinity in Vogue’s December Iss...
  • Students Remember the Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsberg

Recent Tweets

Tweets by @Wellesley_News

The independent student newspaper of Wellesley College since 1901.

Sign up to receive our weekly digest in your inbox

* indicates required

  • About
  • Editorial Board
  • Advertise
  • Join Us
  • Archives
COPYRIGHT © 2021 THE WELLESLEY NEWS
Back to top