The 26 US states that have refused to accept Syrian refugees in the wake of the Paris attacks are playing political football – immigrants and immigration reform has already been a hot topic thrown back and forth between 2016 presidential hopefuls to demonstrate hardline positions on crime, terrorism and economic issues.
But the reversal of Michigan, where we are immigration attorneys, from trying to speed up the resettlement process to refusing refugees altogether is shocking and sends a very bleak message to the state’s residents – including the second-largest Arab American community in the country, which was looking forward to hosting them.
Republican governor Rick Snyder, a self-proclaimed “pro-immigration governor”, said Sunday that the state would not be accepting any Syrian refugees until the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fully reviewed its procedures. “Our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents,” he added.
Snyder’s new line is a stark change from his previous efforts and statements in strong support of resettling refugees in underpopulated Detroit. His economic argument was that skilled immigrants could revitalize the city and give it a much-needed boost in social resources. He has actively been in talks with the federal government since 2014 about ways to steer more immigrants to Michigan in general.
According to the Detroit News, the greater-Detroit area is home to the fourth-largest population of Syrian immigrants in the US. So far about 30 Syrian families have been resettled in the area, and city and state officials previously committed to rolling out the welcome mat for more displaced Syrians. In October, Detroit mayor Mike Duggan met with White House officials to discuss expansion of housing rehab funds for new immigrants.
City officials have yet to comment on Snyder’s change of heart, but the impression is that the decision to close Michigan’s doors was a politically motivated one considering it is in line with his Republican party’s stance against immigration reform. Whatever the internal logic, the ramifications will reverberate, especially in diverse Michigan communities, where immigrants from all over sympathize with the plight of Syrians fleeing war.
The concern that terrorists, disguised as refugees, could enter the United States in order to commit attacks has been discussed at length by the 2016 presidential candidates and often takes a xenophobic tone, especially in Republican debates and speeches. Regardless, it is a legitimate Homeland Security concern, and DHS secretary Jeh Johnson has admitted that there are limitations to vetting protocol. (One of the Paris attackers reportedly held refugee status.)
But it is precisely because of the high risks involved that the security procedures in place for admitting refugees to America – which first includes vetting by the UN Refugee Agency, medical examinations, multiple interviews and rigorous background checks that take on average 18-24 months – are so strict and thorough.
That time table leaves a vulnerable population, fleeing the same type of terror and violence and befell Paris on Friday, in limbo for years. Only 1,854 Syrian refugees were admitted to the US from 2012 to 2015, and president Obama announced plans in September to allow 10,000 more into the country. He held firm on that commitment this week.
“Slamming the door in their face would be a betrayal of our values,” said president Obama, adding that the US is fully capable of vetting refugees.
In light of the president’s comments and criticism from human rights and immigrant advocacy groups, Michigan governor Snyder clarified late Monday night that he did not generally oppose the resettlement of new Syrian refugees to Michigan, but that efforts to facilitate the process were to be suspended until further assurances from DHS were made.
In a letter to secretary of state John Kerry and Jeh Johnson, he asked that an even more stringent focus be made on security. This nuanced response should have been the governor’s initial statement instead of an outright refusal to allow refugees into Michigan. It could have avoided the uproar from other state governors that followed Michigan’s knee-jerk reaction to the Paris attacks.
It also could’ve made clear that Snyder doesn’t actually have the power to affect refugee policies or keep refugees out of Michigan, since immigration is a federal issue. The most he can do from the state level is limit funding to organizations that help resettle refugees and in general make them feel very unwelcome. But his misleading rhetoric, followed by similar statements by 25 other governors, politicized the plight of Syrian refugees, potentially polarizing communities and feeding a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment and violence.
Michigan officials, along with many other states, are buying into the fear rhetoric that has dictated the Republican stance on immigration. This is exactly the kind of divisive result that Isis aimed to accomplish in Paris. If states begin to close the door to refugees, the losses will be heavily felt in US cities nationwide, especially in those that could economically and socially benefit from an immigrant jumpstart.
- This piece was amended on 17 November 2015 to clarify that Republican party, not Governor Snyder, are against immigration reform.