In the aftermath of the devastating terrorist attacks in France and Beirut, the United States refugee resettlement program has come under intense scrutiny. The national dialogue surrounding resettlement has grown increasingly polarized, especially after President Barack Obama’s decision in September to admit an additional 10,000 Syrian refugees. With the 2016 gubernatorial elections in Vermont fast approaching, politicians on both sides of the aisle have weighed in.
Governor Peter Shumlin (D), who has already declared he will not be running for reelection, has expressed his support for accepting Syrian refugees into Vermont.
“You’ve got to stand up for what’s right,” Shumlin said. “I believe the right thing to do is for Vermont to say, to folks fleeing torture and terror, we are a welcoming state.”
Governor Shumlin has been very active on Twitter in his support. In November, he posted videos and pictures of his meetings with refugees from a variety of countries. Vermont has a long histroy of refugee resettlement. Since 1989, Vermont has resettled over 6,000 refugees primarily from Bosnia, Bhutan, Nepal, Burundi, Congo, Rwanda, Somalia and Sudan.
“Two days before Thanksgiving, I’m thankful for refugees who have come to Vermont,” read one tweet.
Ultimately, Shumlin claimed that those who hoped to stop refugee resettlement were espousing values antithetical to what it means to be American.
“When people are dying,” said Shumlin in an interview with NPR, “when people’s lives are being threatened, when they’re getting in little rafts to escape wherever they were ... we don’t become the country that says, ‘We’re closing the borders. We don’t trust you, and we’re not going to let you in.’”
Although Shumlin’s support has drawn the ire of some Vermonters, individual states do not have the legal authority to block refugee resettlement. According to the Refugee Act of 1980, the authority over refugee resettlement rests at the federal level. In 2012, the Supreme Court took up a similar case regarding immigration from Mexico, and ruled that individual states do not have the right to enforce unique immigration laws.
Historically, Vermont has allowed roughly 350 refugees a year to resettle, using a screening process that takes 1,000 days.
Other candidates in the 2016 Vermont Gubernatorial election have been less receptive. Two Republican candidates, Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott and former Wall Street banker Bruce Lisman, have called for resettlement efforts to cease.
“I think it’s incumbent upon us to [cease resettlement efforts],” said Scott, “until such time as the federal government can prove it is meeting its national security obligations; making sure that there is a rigorous process, to make sure that it’s just those peace loving Syrians, and others, that want to come into our states.”
Bruce Lisman, a fellow Republican candidate expressed a similar sentiment.
“It’s very tempting to see these pictures and videos and say we’ve got to do something,” said Lisman. He urged that the state “take a step back” and consider the security ramifications of allowing Syrians to resettle in Vermont.
Sue Minter, one of two Democratic candidates for Governor, supported Shumlin’s call to welcome Syrian refugees.
“Keep Vermont compassionate and open,” read one of Minter’s tweets. “Thank you Governor Shumlin and Representative Peter Welch for votes opposing intolerance and standing up for refugees.”
Matt Dunne, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate, agreed. “I have to say that when I heard Phil Scott’s position on it, I was extremely disappointed.”
“I would have hoped that Phil would be someone who would not just fall in line with the right-wing Republicans in Congress,” Dunne continued.
After facing this intense criticism, Scott toned back his statement – if only slightly.
“When asked what I would do, I probably should have gone a little further to explain that I don’t understand the situation and I certainly don’t feel like we can pause or stop the refugee program in its entirety,” he said. “But I do honestly feel the highest obligation of any government is to ensure the safety and security of every citizen.”
Currently, the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program (VRRP) serves as the only resettlement program in Vermont. No Syrian refugees have yet been resettled, but the VRRP expects to bring Syrian refugees to Vermont within the next year.
In fact, lost amongst the polemics of the debate are the specifics of the resettlement process itself, and the attendant screening procedures. For Syrian refugees, officials say screening procedures are among the most stringent in the world.
First, refugees are screened by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The process includes in-depth refugee interviews, reference checks in their country of origin and biological screenings. Only a small percentage of these refugees are viable to be resettled overseas, including survivors of torture, victims of sexual violence and targets of political persecution.
If a refugee passes this stage and is referred to the United States, they undergo a strict process performed in coordination with the State Department, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. Fingerprints are collected, backstories checked for accuracy and VISAs scrutinized. Of the applicants, approximately half will pass this two-year test.
Supporters of resettlement in Vermont believe that these layers of security are strong and that terrorists would not bother to infiltrate such a secure system.
“No terrorist will wait four or five years in poor circumstances to come into the United States,” said Achraf Alamatouri, an English teacher who left Syria in 2011 and currently works with the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program.
Amila Merdzanovic, speaking on behalf of the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program with WPTZ News, said that “Americans, Vermonters, need to trust the system because the system works.”
Nationally, these voices are in the minority. Thirty governors, of both parties, have called for the United States to cease the resettlement of refugees until security concerns can be addressed. In the Northeast, this includes governor Charlie Baker (R) of Massachusetts, Paul LePage (R) of Maine and Maggie Hassan (D) of New Hampshire. Notably, Governor Hassan was the first Democratic governor to call for resettlement to cease.
Rhetoric has also varied, with some governors more adamant than others. Idaho Governor Butch Otter said that he would use “any legal means available” to block Syrian refugees from resettling there.
The issue has also been addressed by most presidential candidates. In an interview with Fox News, Ted Cruz (R) declared that “those who are fleeing persecution should be resettled in the Middle East, in majority Muslim countries. Now on the other hand, Christians who are being targeted for persecution, for genocide, who are being beheaded or cruxified, we should be providing safe haven to them.”
Jeb Bush expressed a similar sentiment: “There are a lot of Christians in Syria that have no place now. They’ll be either executed or imprisoned, either by Assad or by ISIS. I think we should focus our efforts, as it relates to the refugees, to the Christians who are being slaughtered.”
Perhaps the most impassioned plea to resettle refugees came from Senator Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont. In an open letter published last week, he called for his fellow Vermonters to reexamine their “knee-jerk” reactions to the refugee crisis.
“Intolerance has no place in this great and good country,” read the letter. “Accepting refugees is a part of our history, our culture, of who we are, and it can be done safely with the proper screening procedures. This week, we give thanks for our freedom and for the American tradition of serving as a beacon of hope to those who are persecuted and in need of refuge. It would be a cruel irony if a terrorist attack in France caused us to abandon the American values embodied in France’s gift to America, the Statue of Liberty.”
Vermonters React to Syrian Resettlement
Comments
