Gov. Greg Abbott is just one of over 30 governors to denounce opening their state to Syrian refugees | Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
For this week’s Focus Friday, we discuss the Syrian refugee crisis and Gov. Greg Abbott’s decision to attempt to deny Syrians from settling in Texas as refugees.
What is your first reaction to this decision?
Opinion columnist Caroline Cao: Upon reading the governor’s letter to President Obama, the first thing that flipped in my brain was “mass racial profiling.” This is Abbott’s passive aggressive way of saying “We should treat all Syrians as terrorists.” Bear in mind that the Syrian death toll was 4,200 in October alone. Refugee families are trying to escape horrific violence, and the last thing they need is a place to close the door on their suffering, or worse, get accused of causing suffering. It’s victim blaming. It’s declaring, “They don’t matter.” If we keep slamming these doors shut, there’s one less option of safety and sanctuary.
Opinion columnist Krishna Narra: I was initially irritated, but considering that Texas has a great reputation on taking the conservative stance, I wasn’t really surprised at all. Anti-Islamic sentiments seem to have always been particularly strong, even before the recent terrorist attacks, so it’s only natural that the governor would feel even more strongly about it. But above all, I am worried about the innocent refugees who make it here and are bound to face a great amount of persecution for the faults committed by those who poorly represent their religion. Even though I disagree with the governor’s stance, I also believe that there is a potential risk. But turning our backs on these people who need help is morally wrong.
Opinion columnist Samuel Pichowsky: My immediate reaction to Abbott’s policies is outrage. I do not believe it is a good policy nor a safe policy. I believe it puts Texas in even more danger and it puts the lives of innocent refugees in danger. Terrorists will use this kind of propaganda for recruitment. This is not a policy out of strength but out of fear and xenophobia. How is it the governor, a Christian, believes it is right to refuse asylum to those who need it, especially when it is so close to the holidays in which we celebrate the birth of our savior? How do we turn our backs on those seeking the very freedoms they were denied in their home country? I do not believe this policy represents the best of Texas nor the United States.
Should the governor be able to make this decision?
CC: No. The United States Refugee Act of 1980 stipulates in Title I that “Congress declares that it is the historic policy of the United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands.” So Abbott’s shunning of Syrian refugees ignores the urgency of the matter. The Title II: Admission of Refugee section notes that refugees are defined as people fearing persecution in their own country. Being that Syrian refugees are victims of persecution, I don’t see refugees as synonymous with “terrorist threats.”
KN: Even though I disagree with the governor, I do believe that this should be decided by the governor, as he is more directly responsible for what happens in the state. If he feels that his people are unsafe when others enter, it is his decision. This decision may be ridiculous, but nonetheless, if he’s in charge of our state, he ought to have the final say. Also, considering our governor’s personal sentiment, I don’t know how safe or welcome Syrian refugees would feel in a state as conservative as Texas.
SP: The governor should not be able to make this decision. The Refugee Act of 1980 delegates the power of refugee resettlement to the federal government and the president of the United States. I do believe this policy is illegal. To outright declare that no Syrian refugee will be admitted in Texas is a complete violation of federal law. Abbott should and probably does know better, seeing how he accuses everyone except himself of violating the Constitution and federal law.
-The Cougar opinion desk
Caroline, it’s interesting that “mass racial profiling” was a knee-jerk “first thing that flipped in [your] brain” – so I am curious, what race is Islam?
Dr Ben Carson was accused, by some, of bigotry when he suggested, before the Paris attacks, that Syria’s neighbors take the refugees where we send aid and assistance.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/ben-carson-syrian-refugees-immigration-terrorism/
This came two weeks before UNHRC, Helen Clark, director of the United Nations Development Programme recommended the same thing.
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/presscenter/speeches/2015/09/25/helen-clark-speech-at-the-high-level-side-event-hosted-by-g20-turkish-presidency-g20-s-contribution-to-implementation-of-the-sdgs-.html
Krishna, I am also curious, because you don’t sound like a conservative – so it bewilders me that you consider yourself an authority on what a conservative stance is? Aren’t you then just presenting a bit of a straw-man argument on conservatives?
You don’t hear conservatives bashing Hindi, Buddhist or any other belief system – and who is more supportive of Jews than conservatives?
Forgive me if I am wrong, but it appears that you may not speak Arabic and Farsi or read the Qur’an and plied tafsir (exegetical science). My big question is, are you any more of an authority on Islam as you are on conservatives?
If you are, have you considered that maybe conservatives aren’t so much anti-Islam as Islam is anti-Kufr (disbeliever) or anti-Mushrik (Christian and Jew)?
The stakes are very high and we cannot afford to be ignorant.
My knee-jerk response is “lets take only those in danger of genocide from ISIS” this would include about 200,000 Assyrian Christians from Mosul, another 100,000 Yazidi from the Sinjar region of Iraq and another 100,000 Maronite Christians from Syria.
Half a million of these people, in danger of genocide is generous. The Muslim Sunna of ISIS and the Shi’a of Assad, Hezbollah and Iran are the crux of this fight.
IS wants a contiguous region of influence from Nigeria to the Balkans and Iran wants a contiguous region of influence to the Mediterranean… that places Syria smack in the center.
The Muslim refugees could chill in Turkey and protected zones of Syria until the ISIS/Hezbollah/IRGC fight is at least tenable. Like it or not, we will have to use boots on the ground, when the fighting is over, to resolve this.
Will one pair of those “boots on the ground” be filled by you? Or do you plan to be one of those chicken hawks who has no compunction about sending someone else’s kid to do their fighting?
I’ve already served as a Marine during the Lebanese Civil War and re-entered the military after September 11, 2001.
I served two tours of duty in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.
The reason for going wasn’t oil – it was because Saddam was an insufferable tyrant with the blood of two million people on his hands.
I was hoping to resolve Iraq so my kids (or someone else’s kids) wouldn’t have to fight later on.
Why shouldn’t our governor be able to do whatever necessary to protect the citizens of his state? I feel bad for the refugees I do, but can we take in these refugees without opening ourselves up to people coming over to do nothing but harm the citizens of this great nation? If we could know for sure that ALL refugees we brought in were looking for a better life and didn’t hate Americans and what they believe in, I would say let’s do it, but guess what, we don’t know for sure do we?
Why not? Federal law. And considering that Texas has all the guns in the world and thousands of “good guys with guns” just raring to fight “bad guys” I’d say we’re safe. Abbott’s decision was the ugliest kind of right wing, racist politics as well as being immoral and gutless. We don’t have to worry about being defeated by Daesh. We already surrendered.
Except Islam is not a race, nor is Syrian.
What seems to be conveniently forgotten when a particular state refuses to follow a so-called federal law is that the States created the federal government and it is answerable to the States, not vice versa. Also anything contravening the Constitutional limits imposed by the States on the federal government is not valid. Now if you want to spout federal law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
(b) Conditions for granting asylum
(1) In general
(A) Eligibility
The Secretary of Homeland Security or
the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for
asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by
the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this
section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General
determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.
(B) Burden of proof
(i) In general
The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.
To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such
section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or
will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
(ii) Sustaining burden
The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact
that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to
specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a
refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the applicant’s
burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with
other evidence of record. Where the trier of fact determines that the
applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible
testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not
have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.
(iii) Credibility determination
Considering the totality of the
circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a
credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of
the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s
or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or
witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not
under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements
were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the
consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including
the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any
inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether
an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the
applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor. There is no presumption
of credibility, however, if no adverse credibility determination is
explicitly made, the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable
presumption of credibility on appeal.