northwordnews
  • Archives
    • Northwordnews archives
  • Local Restaurants
  • Community Directory
  • Advertise on Northwordnews
  • About
  • Archives
EDITORIAL

OUR REP'S DISAPPOINTING PANDERING TO PANIC, PREJUDICE, AND PARANOIA

November 23, 2015 -- Our U.S. Representative Steve Israel’s support for the recent bill  passed by the House of Representatives purportedly to strengthen the screening process for Syrian refugees, victims of terrorism themselves, was an ignoble nod to the xenophobic anti-Muslim outcry that has arisen in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks of November 13.

The legislation requires, on top of the already rigorous nine step 18-24 month-long screening process in place, three officials - the FBI Director, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Director of National Intelligence - to “certify” that each of the potentially 10,000 refugees granted entry does not pose a threat to the country.The legislation does not increase the rigor of the vetting - it only creates a political risk for signing off on certification thus incentivizing the rejection of the asylum seeker’s application and adding a layer that will likely grind the asylum process to a halt - the Republican majority’s  intent.

​Casting his vote shortly after he had provided polling data to members of his caucus reflecting the public’s immediate emotional reaction to the horrific attacks of November 13, it does not appear that Mr. Israel, who serves as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, actually supports the bill on its merits but rather has made a political calculation based on the belief it would be risky to vote “no,” lest he and other Democrats be perceived as “soft on terrorism”  come election day a year from now. While the bill’s supporters seem for the moment unlikely to muster the two-thirds majority in the Senate required to survive a White House veto (although that is not certain and it does have such a majority in the House),  the reasoning may be that no harm will ultimately be done as far as public policy is concerned.

​Damage has, however, already been done and it is far greater than bad policy. Mr. Israel, and his 46 Democratic colleagues who found his presentation persuasive, have helped to validate the xenophobic anti-“other” response that too often accompanies fear and panic.  It is a tacit endorsement of the decision of 31 governors to declare their states’ off limits to refugees (even though they know they have no authority to do so), and lends credibility to the outrageous statements and misinformation uttered by politicians and that are rampant on social media, and in some “mainstream” news sources.   

Fortunately, there are some models of political courage out there.  Take Washington State Governor Jay Inslee for instance, who, like Mr. Israel, is up for re-election next November, but unlike Mr. Israel, followed his conscience. Refusing to follow the false lead of the 31 governors, Mr. Inslee wrote an op-ed piece published in the New York Times last Friday explaining why he has chosen to forgo the easy opportunity to make political hay out of other people’s misery. “The American character is being tested,” Mr. Inslee writes, “I have always believed that the United States is a place of refuge for those escaping persecution, starvation or other horrors that thankfully most in America will never experience.”  (Click here for op-ed).   Mr. Inslee could have taken a path similar to Mr. Israel’s or could have done the safe thing and just stayed quiet.  Instead, the Washington Governor decided to lead, publicly justifying his politically risky position from a platform that reaches tens of millions.

Mr. Israel on the other hand, presented with an opportunity to lead when his House colleagues and his nation need it most, has chosen to follow those who have cynically demagogued a tragedy and an important moral issue - one for which we cannot help but draw lessons from past failings of American moral leadership including the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and this country’s decision to send refugees from Germany back to Europe in 1939, as well as from examples of moral heroism such as those who opened their arms to Vietnamese and Cuban refugees when they arrived on our shores during the late 1970s.  


Mr. Israel is a far better representative of this district than his recent actions with regard to the Syrian refugee crisis indicate, and he knows it . . . and on an issue such as this, we his constituents deserve better than an easy, self-serving, politically calculated vote that panders to panic, prejudice and paranoia.
(T. Madden and C. Elorriaga)
The Screening Process for Refugee Entry Into the United States
source - Department of Homeland Security and Whitehouse.gov

  1. Many refugee applicants identify themselves to the U.N. Refugee Agency, UNHCR.   UNHCR then:
    • ​​Collects identifying documents
    • Performs initial assessment
      • Collects biodata: name, address, birthday, place of birth, etc.
      • Collects biometrics: iris scans (for Syrians, and other refugee populations in the Middle East)
    • Interviews applicants to confirm refugee status and the need for resettlement
      • Initial information checked again
    • Only applicants who are strong candidates for resettlement move forward (less than 1% of global refugee population).
  2. Applicants are received by a federally-funded Refugee Support Center (RSC):​​
    • Collects identifying documents
    • Creates an applicant file
    • Compiles information to conduct biographic security checks
  3. Biographic security checks start with enhanced interagency security checks
    Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States.
    • ​​U.S. security agencies screen the candidate, including:
      • National Counterterrorism Center/Intelligence Community
      • FBI
      • Department of Homeland Security
      • State Department
    • The screening looks for indicators, like:
      • Information that the individual is a security risk
      • Connections to known bad actors
      • Outstanding warrants/immigration or criminal violations
    • DHS conducts an enhanced review of Syrian cases, which may be referred to USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate for review. Research that is used by the interviewing officer informs lines of question related to the applicant’s eligibility and credibility.
  4. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/USCIS interview:
    • Interviews are conducted by USCIS Officers specially trained for interviews​​
    • Fingerprints are collected and submitted (biometric check)
    • Re-interviews can be conducted if fingerprint results or new information raises questions. If new biographic information is identified by USCIS at an interview, additional security checks on the information are conducted. USCIS may place a case on hold to do additional research or investigation. Otherwise, the process continues.
  5. Biometric security checks:
    • Applicant’s fingerprints are taken by U.S. government employees
      • Fingerprints are screened against the FBI’s biometric database.
      • Fingerprints are screened against the DHS biometric database, containing watch-list information and previous immigration encounters in the U.S. and overseas.
      • Fingerprints are screened against the U.S. Department of Defense biometric database, which includes fingerprint records captured in Iraq and other locations.
    • If not already halted, this is the end point for cases with security concerns. Otherwise, the process continues.
  6. Medical check:
    • The need for medical screening is determined​​
    • This is the end point for cases denied due to medical reasons. Refugees may be provided medical treatment for communicable diseases such as tuberculosis.
  7. Cultural orientation and assignment to domestic resettlement locations:
    • ​​Applicants complete cultural orientation classes.
    • An assessment is made by a U.S.-based non-governmental organization to determine the best resettlement location for the candidate(s). Considerations include:
      • Family; candidates with family in a certain area may be placed in that area.
      • Health; a candidate with asthma may be matched to certain regions.
    • A location is chosen.
  8. Travel:
    • ​​International Organization for Migration books travel
    • Prior to entry in the United States, applicants are subject to:
      • Screening from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s National Targeting Center-Passenger
      • The Transportation Security Administration’s Secure Flight Program
    • This is the end point for some applicants. Applicants who have no flags continue the process.
  9. U.S. Arrival:
    • ​​All refugees are required to apply for a green card within a year of their arrival to the United States, which triggers:
      • Another set of security procedures with the U.S. government.
      • Refugees are woven into the rich fabric of American society!
​​Recurrent vetting: Throughout this process, pending applications continue to be checked against terrorist databases, to ensure new, relevant terrorism information has not come to light. If a match is found, that case is paused for further review. Applicants who continue to have no flags continue the process. If there is doubt about whether an applicant poses a security risk, they will not be admitted.
Copyright 2014, Northwordnews.com, Sea Cliff, New York.  All rights reserved
Picture