Syrian Refugees Part 4 - How to Enter the United States

This is the fourth in my series of blog posts dealing with the Refugee Crisis.  Please make sure you have at least read my first post to understand what I am hoping to accomplish with this post.  We have broken the issue down and looked at a purely Christian response to refugees.  Next we looked at the government’s role in dealing with refugees.  We tried to keep the role of Christians separate from the role of government.  Obviously, these two issues are not independent of each other.  However, I wanted to keep the different spheres of debate separate.  It is up to you to choose how you combine the Christian response with the government’s role.  

In this post, we are going to look at the different ways somebody could enter the United States.  The most frustrating part of this refugee debate for me has been seeing the misunderstanding of different terms related to entering America.  I want to talk about the differences between being a refugee, seeking asylum, immigrating, obtaining a work visa, and the visa waiver program.  

We will start by looking at the definition of a refugee.  According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, a refugee is defined as, “Someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.”

When a refugee applies to be part of the Refugee Resettlement Program in the United States, they go through an extensive vetting process prior to entering the country.  A refugee will generally apply with the United Nations while living in a refugee camp.  The United Nations will then screen them to determine if they fit the definition for being a refugee.  They then refer the refugee to the United States for resettlement.  At this point, US Citizenship and Immigration services of the Department of Homeland Security conduct interviews and provide additional screening to determine whether the refugee will be accepted for resettlement.  For reference, as of 11/16/15, only 30% of Syrian applicants were passed on from the United Nations to the department of Homeland Security.  Of those, only 29% were accepted for resettlement.  In other words, only 8.8% of applicants make it through the screening process.  This process takes an average of two years during which time the refugees are living outside of both the U.S. and their home country in refugee camps.  When the United States government discusses taking in refugees, this is what is being discussed.  

There is an important distinction to be made between a refugee and an asylum seeker.  While technically, refugees are seeking asylum, they are doing so through the refugee program.  It is also possible for a refugee to show up in a country such as the United States and request to be given refugee status.  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees defines an asylum seeker as being, “When people flee their own country and seek sanctuary in another country, they apply for asylum – the right to be recognized as a refugee and receive legal protection and material assistance. An asylum seeker must demonstrate that his or her fear of persecution in his or her home country is well-founded.”  Wikipedia elaborates on how an asylum seeker demonstrates well founded fear of persecution.  “First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution.  Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, and social group. Third, an applicant must establish that the government is either involved in the persecution, or unable to control the conduct of private actors.”  The key difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee is that the screening process for an asylum seeker takes place while the asylum seeker is already in the country.  When we read about refugees in Greece and Europe, they would generally be considered Asylum Seekers by this terminology.  They are taking boats across the Mediterranean and asking for asylum once they arrive.  This is obviously less secure than somebody entering the United States through the refugee Resettlement Program.  As such, Europe’s acceptance of refugees is vastly different than what is being discussed in America.

The other ways to legally enter the United States involve applying for a Visa.  There are three types of Visas which are granted in the United States.  Immigrant Visas are needed if a person wants to establish permanent residence in the United States.  Nonimmigrant Visas are needed if a person plans to come to the United States for any reason other than permanent residency.  These two visas involve applying and then being interviewed at an embassy.  The final type of Visa is the Visa Waiver Program.  The Visa Waiver Program “enables most citizens or nationals of participating countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without first obtaining a visa.”

These definitions are critical when we discuss the United States’ response to the Syrian refugee crisis.  I discussed these methods for entering the U.S. in order of difficulty from most difficult to least difficult.  While someone could always find a way to work around any screening process, the fact is that the Refugee Resettlement Program is the most difficult way to enter the country.  It is also the longest at an average of two years to be approved.  To me, this emphasizes that the risk of accepting refugees is minimal.  This would be the least likely method a terrorist would use to infiltrate the United States.  A terrorist could come from a nation who is part of the Visa Waiver Program, essentially undergo zero screening and be allowed in the country for three months.  With just a little more effort, terrorists could apply for work or student visas.  Although this is not the case as much in the U.S., a terrorist could just enter Europe and ask for asylum and then be allowed to live there.  However, a terrorist trying to enter the U.S. with official refugee status would risk being caught in either the U.N. or the U.S. screening process and would also have to wait at least two years to even get into the country.  If we are worried about security, we should spend our time trying to come up with ways to make things such as the Visa Waiver Program more secure.  In fact, our government did just that with the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015.  When America talks about accepting more refugees, they are not referring to taking in asylum seekers like Europe is doing.  The situation being discussed here in the U.S. is much safer.  

Sources:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/the-us-refugee-resettlement-program-an-overview

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html

http://www.unrefugees.org/what-is-a-refugee/

https://www.usa.gov/enter-us

https://www.whitehouse.gov/campaign/resources-on-syrian-refugees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States#Relevant_law_and_procedures

Syrian Refugees - Part 3

This is part 3 of a series.  Please make sure to read the previous two posts:

Part 1

Part 2

In my last post, we looked at what the Christian response should be to refugees.  However, our country’s policies are only as Christian as its citizens.  Our refugee policies may not be based on the Biblical mandate we as Christians have towards refugees.  In this post I want to look at the role of government and what our government’s responsibility is towards refugees as a separate topic from our Christian responsibility towards refugees.  I believe that much of the debate on this topic comes from one side arguing that as Christians we should help refugees while the other side argues from a different perspective.  

What is the purpose of government?  This is a very controversial issue.  At their simplest, governments protect people from conflict and provide law and order.  This seems to be the most straightforward purpose for government.  Governments also tend to have responsibility over the economy, public services, and social programs.  The extent to which a government is responsible for these things is controversial and ultimately outside the scope of this article, although where an individual lands on these topics will influence their opinion on the details of a refugee policy.  I am more interested in the most fundamental purpose for a government.  Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” The preamble to the Constitution states that the purpose of the United States’ government is “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  

So it appears that the purpose the founding fathers had in mind for our government was to secure the fundamental human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and to unite the people, carry out justice, ensure domestic peace, provide defense, promote welfare, and secure liberty.  

The next question becomes who is the government responsible for?  Only its own citizens or all people?  Romans 13:4 states that the government is a servant for our good.   In the Old Testament, we see that kings were held responsible for whether Israel followed the law.  The law included treatment of foreigners.  So, in the Old Testament, government was responsible for the protection of foreigners living in Israel.  In fact, as we saw in my last post, the law made very little distinction between Israelites and foreigners living in Israel.  Our government has taken a similar stance.  Since the founding of this country, we have accepted immigrants who were fleeing persecution in their home countries.  Although they were not originally citizens, America took them in to protect their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  More recently, in the 1960’s, the Supreme Court established the concept of strict scrutiny which means that the government cannot treat someone differently based on their place of birth unless such treatment would preserve life or the state’s existence.  In other words it is allowed if a person is a potential threat to people.  This combined with laws detailing what to do with asylum seekers and refugees shows that historically, our government has taken responsibility for protecting the rights of those who are facing government persecution.  The way it appears we have historically operated is that a government is responsible for protecting the rights of their citizens.  The American government is not responsible for the rights of British citizens, the British government is.  However, sometimes a government refuses to protect the rights of its citizens, or even violates those rights.  In that case, it becomes the responsibility of the rest of the world to protect the basic human rights of those citizens.  

There are so many factors which go into the role of our government.  Which factors a person emphasizes will determine what he thinks our government should do about refugees.  If someone believes our government is only responsible for its citizens instead of all people, then they will be inclined to avoid helping refugees.  Some people see refugees as security threats and emphasize the government's role in ensuring domestic tranquility and the common defense.  In this case, they would say a government's primary role is to protect its citizens and it is not the role of government to help the needy.  So refugees are a security risk and should not be helped.    However, if someone sees our government as being responsible for protecting the fundamental human rights of all people, then the responsibility of the government to establish Justice, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity would involve being a place of refuge for those who are facing persecution.  

To conclude, the role of government is complex and there are many different facets to it.  Your position on refugees will probably be driven by both which facet you emphasize and whether the government is responsible for the fundamental rights of non-citizens being persecuted by their own countries.  Historically, our government has accepted that responsibility.  Keep in mind that there is not an absolute answer to the question of the role of government.  If this is at the root of your disagreement about the refugee situation, then you should not single out refugees but rather shift the discourse to the role of government.  There are also some assumptions which can affect someone’s opinion on the government’s responsibility towards refugees, namely, if refugees are a security risk or not.  I am going to write about this in a future post.  In my next post though, I am planning on discussing the various ways someone can enter America.  The refugee program is just one of many.  We will look at the differences between them and let that inform the next post about security risks.