In the immediate aftermath of the Paris attacks, many assumed, almost automatically, that Syrian refugees and/or ISIS recruits posing as Syrian refugees were behind the attacks. From a security perspective, critics are correct in their assessment that there is a theoretical possibility that ISIS and other terrorist groups might use the refugee resettlement process as a conduit for terror attacks in the host countries.

As far as the Paris attacks are concerned, there has been some premature speculation about Syrian passports being found at the site of attacks, implying ill-intention on the part of refugees and that ISIS effectively uses the refugee crisis to its advantage. So far, no evidence has been found to support these speculations; authorities recovered one Syrian passport, which was later found to be fake. Moreover, all of the identified terrorists thus far are “citizens of European Union countries,” further undermining the idea that refugees offer recruiting opportunities for ISIS.

The European policy challenge

Throughout  the past month, the refugee crisis has dominated discussions across the EU. European leaders have been under immense pressure to respond to the horrific suffering of refugees fleeing war and seeking asylum in the EU. One of the most controversial initiatives has been a provisional EU relocation system, aimed at the distribution of 120,000 asylum-seekers from Greece and Italy. This ‘refugee quota plan’ has been strongly criticised by several EU member states, in particular by Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia, ever since the Juncker Commission first proposed it last May. Still, the EU member states’ Ministries of Justice and Home Affairs found the necessary majority to give the initiative the green light on September 22nd. Why has the EU relocation system been so controversial? Its new distribution of responsibility model constitutes a temporary derogation of the current sacrosanct rule of the EU Dublin system, which designates the first state of entry as the responsible authority for assessing an asylum-seeker’s application.

The new relocation model will mean the application of new distribution criteria, to include: the population, the GDP, the average number of past asylum applications and unemployment rates of the destination country. Personal and family links as well as the ‘integration potential’ of the applicants will also be considered in the new model. On a purely practical level, it is difficult to understand why countries like Slovakia and the Czech Republic could not receive approximately 800 and 1,600 asylum-seekers, respectively. The numbers are far from disproportionate in light of their populations. The personal scope will also be limited. Beneficiaries of the new programme will only include nationals from countries in which the proportion of positive decisions has been 75% or more, according to Eurostat data.

The possible options to counter the challenges

First, the quiet diplomatic drudge work of exploring possibilities with all parties – those who are fighting on the ground and the governments who are supporting them – has to plough on. If there is to be a political settlement in the end, it will be prepared by patient effort.

Second, the EU has to prepare actively for more refugees. Some argue that preparing for refugees only encourages them – but there are enough reasons for people to flee that the effect would be marginal at most. The response will be better, cheaper and less disruptive if it is properly prepared and not made up on the hoof. There, however, the EU’s internal divisions remain an obstacle.

A third option is to establish safe zones in Syria itself. It is surprising that this is not already on the policy agenda. It carries distinct risks, especially because as war in Bosnia-Herzegovina showed, it is much easier to declare a zone is safe than it is actually to make it safe. But if force were to be used, it would be well to use it to protect people rather than fire air and missile attacks that will only create martyrs to inspire more militants. The option of establishing safe zones is at least worth exploring.

The US policy challenge

Most importantly, the recent shift against refugee resettlement is fundamentally counterproductive to U.S. interests. Although politically convenient on the eve of critical elections, manipulation of the refugee resettlement issue is likely to undermine U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Specifically, it unnecessarily stigmatizes refugees and, more broadly, immigrant communities. Refugees who are already dealing with serious trauma, distress, and adaptation to a new environment also face societal, political, and economic marginalization and disenfranchisement.

Why an anti-refugee sentiment is not justified

Strategically, anti-refugee policies are likely to aggravate social and political polarization on this front. In the short term, anti-refugee policies and polarization result in two interrelated outcomes. Ideologically, it reinforces the narrative by ISIS and likeminded radical groups in how the West is perpetually “hostile” to Islam and Muslims, rejecting them in the direst of conditions. It helps ISIS and similar groups invoke religious and civilizational conflict. Politically, the halting of Syrian refugees and the concomitant anti-Western propaganda offers a fertile recruiting tool for radical groups. In the words of U.S. Representative Luis Gutiérrez, “ISIS could not have written a better script.” ISIS, by contrast, views refugees and the idea of seeking refuge in countries beyond its borders as actions that undercut its ideology and legitimacy.

The Syrian refugee resettlement issue carries implications beyond its moral and normative dimensions. Both the short- and long-term strategic significance of the issue requires immediate action; failure to do so will result in losing an edge in effectively addressing ISIS terror in Syria and beyond and failing to introduce a measure of stability to a region of the world that contains vital U.S. interests.

Rejecting refugees in the face of pernicious violence, partly motivated by religious fervor, is simply at odds with universal human rights; this is particularly the case for the United States, a country that takes pride in the fact that it is built by immigrants who fled from religious persecution. Serious problems exist with screening individuals, but rather than shut down the refugee system because of the potential risk, these requirements should be followed to keep Americans safe:

-Making intelligence-based risk assessments.

-Consulting with Congress on how to alleviate those risks.

-Dealing with the chaos in Syria that is causing this problem.

-Following the law without executive overreach.

-Focusing refugee efforts on individuals on whom we have intelligence and information or can acquire it relatively easily.

These steps do not stem from irrational fears, but are legitimate concerns with vetting individuals from areas like Syria.

Indeed, there are individuals whom the U.S. knows little or nothing about, and whom the U.S. should not be looking to accept without a reasonable vetting system. There are other refugee applicants, however, where the U.S. already has some information and/or can gather more information. In other words, some refugee applicants are more ideal candidates than others because we have better information with which to vet them.

These individuals should be the focus of our refugee efforts. This effort also speaks to the importance of providing U.S. officials with adequate intelligence tools and resources.

More than half the nation’s governors say they oppose letting Syrian refugees into their states, although the final say on this contentious immigration issue will fall to the federal government.

The points to be considered by the US government

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said Monday, “Defeating ISIS involves projecting American ideals to the world. Governors who reject those fleeing war and persecution abandon our ideals and instead project our fears to the world.”

In a letter to President Barack Obama, Abbott said “American humanitarian compassion could be exploited to expose Americans to similar deadly danger,” referring to Friday’s deadly attacks in Paris.

In a statement from Georgia’s governor, Republican Nathan Deal, he said Georgia will not accept Syrian refugees “until the federal government and Congress conducts a thorough review of current screening procedures and background checks.”

The history of the U.S. refugee program demonstrates that the lengthy and extensive vetting that all refugees must undergo is an effective deterrent for terrorists. Since 1980, the U.S. has invited in millions of refugees, including hundreds of thousands from the Middle East. Not one has committed an act of terrorism in the U.S. Traditional law enforcement and security screening processes have a proven record of handling the threat from refugees.

According to ISIS, Syrian Muslim refugees are traitors to the radical Islamic cause. “It is correct for Muslims to leave the lands of the infidel for the lands of Islam, but not vice versa,” one ISIS video said in September. Here are several other examples of similar condemnation from this year.

Callous disregard for the fate of refugees–our potential allies in the war against ISIS–will drive them back into the hands of the person they are fleeing: Bashar al-Assad, the hated Syrian dictator. This will lead some refugees to see ISIS as their only remaining ally and safeguard against Assad.

The Boston bombers were not refugees. They came over as the very young children of an asylee, which is a completely different vetting process.

Conversely, what we should not do is believe that simply taking refugees is a solution to the problem.

Refugee programs are an emergency measure to protect those “persecuted or have a credible fear of persecution based on their religion, race, political beliefs, or membership in a social group.”

They are not a substitute for a policy that deals with the source of instability. Part of the great dissatisfaction with the Obama administration is the general belief that it has no plan on how to deal with the root causes of the conflict.

What  is required for the US national leaders isThe to take a deep breath and start acting responsibly. It is important that the U.S. system remain different from the open door Europe is extending to the current surge of migrants and refugees. The U.S. can and should improve the refugee vetting process by undertaking the appropriate risk assessments and consulting with Congress on the strategies for managing those risks.

The administration ought be moving in partnership with Congress and governors about meeting both humanitarian and national security responsibilities.The US policy makers must take cognizance of the fact that US’s exceptionalism is positively sealed in its unity of cultural and communal diversity.

Conclusion

Regrettably, it is a missed opportunity that anti-refugee sentiment and polarizing immigration politics in both the European Union and the United States will make it extremely difficult to enact what amounts to the best available response, both morally and financially, to Syria’s war and its resulting refugee crisis. Concerns about the purported national-security threat posed by refugees make little sense in the absence of evidence that refugees have ever presented such a threat on a large scale. Most importantly, an open-door resettlement policy would save thousands of lives and improve the life prospects of millions more.

The declared goals of Western intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq have included the freedom and well-being of the people in those countries. Sadly, military campaigns by the United States and U.S.-led coalitions in such places have failed to provide any such thing.

An open-door policy would finally provide concrete benefits to these people, and represent a morally superior alternative to forcing refugees to remain in dangerous camps or sending them back to deadly conflict zones. Moreover, though resettlement would cost real money, it would likely cost far less than deeper military intervention and would pale in comparison to the price that the United States has already paid for its failed Middle East occupations.Both the US and Europe must also positively learn from the Aussies’ approach.

The Australian government estimates that its plan to permanently resettle 12,000 Syrians will cost roughly $15,000 per refugee per year over four years—a figure that’s remarkably similar to the $15,700 per refugee that the United States spent to bring in 70,000 refugees in 2014. Extrapolating from these numbers yields a very rough estimated cost of about $60 billion per year to resettle 4 million refugees. In the most simplistic scenario, if the 30 countries that have already promised to take in at least some Syrians split the burden evenly, each country would be responsible for 133,000 refugees at a very reasonable price of $2 billion a year.