To the Editor:
I’m responding to the recent letter from Joe Dawson denouncing Greenwich Sentinel columnist John Blankley’s support of admitting, in Mr. Dawson’s words, “more largely unvetted Syrian refugees into the country.” I’ve reread Mr. Blankley’s column twice and find no support for admitting “largely unvetted” refugees and I know of no government plan to do so. In short, the premise of Mr. Dawson’s letter is absolutely false.
Some facts: Since the Syrian war began in 2011, we’ve admitted approximately 2,000 Syrian refugees, all cleared by the vetting process, which now generally takes around two years. A description of the process is at the web site “Bearing Drift, Virginia’s Conservative Voice” web site: http://bearingdrift.com/2015/11/18/myths-vs-facts-in-the-syrian-refugee-issue.
The screening—not in the U.S.—is by the United Nations, the State Department, the Department of Defense, the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center, and others. Fewer than 10 percent of applicants are admitted and applicants with no evidence of identity can’t be vetted and thus are not admitted.
The Obama administration wants to admit up to 10,000 Syrian refugees next year. In contrast to Mr. Dawson’s claim of “general infuriated shock most Americans candidly express” at the prospect, Americans are roughly evenly divided. A Pew poll, September 29, found that 51 percent of Americans favor accepting more refugees and 45 percent oppose. A more recent ABC News/Washington Post poll of 1,004 adults found that 54 percent oppose and 43 percent favor.
Numerous governors and other politicians oppose admitting more Syrian refugees. On the other hand, Refugee Council USA, a coalition including the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Church World Service, Episcopal Migration Ministries, National Association of Evangelicals, and Hebrew Immigration Aid Society, wants us to admit at least 65,000 Syrian refugees next year. Does Mr. Dawson accuse the religious leaders of Refugee Council of doing all they can “to get Jihadis shooting at us in our streets,” as he accused Mr. Blankley?
Of course ISIS poses a very serious threat. But it has ways to send Jihadis here that are far more effective than risking a dangerous journey through the vetting process. For example, there are more than 100,000 students in the U.S. from Saudi Arabia, source of the doctrines that motivate ISIS, home of 2,200 Jihadis, and source of private money funding ISIS. Thousands of Jihadis are European citizens and can easily enter here as tourists. At least four of the Paris killers were Europeans and the killers in California were born here and in Pakistan. Does Mr. Dawson propose evicting all Middle Eastern students and barring all foreign tourists? If his answer is “no,” how does he justify risks which are far greater than those posed by admitting 10,000 carefully vetted Syrian refugees?
I don’t doubt that if we abandon our traditions of openness to immigrants and visitors we can perhaps gain a small margin of improved security. But in the process we’ll scuttle the basic principles that have made us a great and powerful nation. To quote Mr. Dawson, “That is madness.”
Pete Beck
Greenwich
