Saturday, December 5, 2015

The Refugee Vetting Process and Syrian Refugees: Addressing Questions Raised by the Homeland Security Committee Hearings

I want to talk about the root cause of the fear related to the vetting process and why some prominent politicians are espousing the idea that they do not welcome Syrians.  This year, the House of Representatives’ Homeland Security Committee held a number of hearings that included discussions of Syrian refugees.  Some of what came out of these hearings has instigated much of the concern about their resettlement.  I watched three of these hearings in their entirety and tried to come up with a brief overview of what was discussed.  However, I did not want to lose/bore readers at the beginning of this post, so I have included the overview of these hearings in my post below entitled: “Notes on House Committee on Homeland Security Hearings.”  If you have the time, I encourage you to take a look at these notes to get a sense of exactly what was said in the hearings. 

February 2015: “Countering Violent Islamist Extremism: The Urgent Threat of Foreign Fighters and Homegrown Terror”
June 2015: “Admitting Syrian Refugees: The Intelligence Void and the Emerging Homeland Security Threat”
October 2015: “Worldwide Threats and Homeland Security Challenges”

In this post, I would like to respond to some of the questions I believe actually stemmed from those hearings.  I will also offer some thoughts on HR 4038, or the “SAFE Act”, a bill that was recently passed in the House of Representatives to introduce a more stringent approval process for Syrian and Iraqi refugees.

INITIAL THOUGHTS
After listening to some of the testimony from these hearings, I can see a legitimate basis for the concerns surrounding Syrian refugees.  The panel of experts answered the questions logically, and, admittedly, probably in much the same way as I would if I were in their position and in their field.  I actually think the testimony was very informative on specific aspects of our security situation.  Given the very realistic concern about violent Islamic extremism, I think a conversation around the vetting procedure for Syrian refugees was and is warranted.

However, it is also important to remember that these hearings did not necessarily provide a complete picture of the resettlement process.  Indeed, there was a lot that was not said.  We have to keep in mind that these hearings were held with a specific intent, for a specific audience, and only addressed specific questions. 

Unfortunately, the way that this has been picked up in the media recently has led to an incomplete picture of the resettlement process, and has given rise to a host of misconceptions about Syrian refugees.  The attacks in Paris served to incite fear and hysteria around this issue even more, and to propel this conversation that started earlier in the year to the forefront of the nation’s attention.  We need to find a way to partner the very legitimate aspects of the concern with a holistic and informed picture of the refugee situation and the resettlement process.   It is only natural to question the vetting process, given the information that was presented and the situation in Syria.  However, I hope I can also show that there is much more to this conversation that should be considered.

 
RESPONSE

Is there truly a “lack of information” concerning Syrian refugees?

In a sense, yes, definitely.  But this is true for many refugee populations, not just Syrians… especially if we look at it primarily from a Western perspective in relation to the amount of information that is gathered and available on individuals in the U.S.

Obviously, a failed state, or even a poverty-laced country, will not have excessive records available on individual citizens to hand out to foreign intelligence agencies.  In many cases, we would not trust information from these governments anyway.  This is not necessarily anything new when it comes to refugees.  Anyone who has traveled abroad to countries with poverty and/or conflict can easily understand that “background checks” for refugees would happen much differently than for someone living in the Western world.  I can tell you that in Africa, many people do not know their own birth dates, do not spell their own names consistently, and certainly do not have a physical address.  You cannot simply run their name through a system to get their social security number, list of previous names, list of previous addresses, and criminal history.  Many nations do not have the luxury of having the technology or information gathering ability that would allow for the creation of databases as we have here in the U.S.  So, in a way, it is a given that that information will not be available in the way or in the quantities that we would expect in the Western world. 

That is exactly where the numerous layers of the vetting process come into play and why they exist. The first organization to vet a refugee is the UNHCR.  They decide whether a refugee’s story is plausible, and determine whether an individual can be officially designated as a “refugee”.  Further security checks are conducted by the refugee’s “host country” after the refugee is registered.  When the U.S. receives a referred case, they then begin to use all available resources in the intelligence community, the host country, and other local resources to gather information on the individual.  Obviously, the name is run through numerous intelligence databases, as I detailed in my previous post entitled “An Initial Response to the Syrian Refugee Question“.  If the refugee applicant has never been arrested and has never been tied to any kind of criminal or terrorist activity, then clearly he or she will not turn up in any of the databases.  Family members are often included in these checks as a family member with ties to terrorism would raise suspicion about that applicant.  If nothing surfaces, it will logically be assumed at that point that the individual has no known ties to terrorism. 

An intelligence check cannot turn up something – like extremist ideology – that may have never been voiced or acted upon.  This is true whether we are talking about Rwanda, Syria, or the United States.  Background checks in the U.S. work the same way.  Some people can pass a background check in the U.S. to purchase a gun, and then later use that gun to conduct a mass shooting at a school or public place.  If an individual has never taken any action to suggest an extremist ideology that he may harbor inside, or if he has never been caught committing a crime, then we would never be able to predict his potential for future violent actions no matter how many background checks we run.  How do we make absolutely sure that someone is 100% safe?  It’s easy.  We can’t.  Not with refugees.  Not with anyone.  Including Americans.  But the vetting process is not entirely reliant on background checks and databases. 

The system in place to vet refugees does include a specific element to weed out those with inconsistent stories and possible radical ideologies: an in-person interview with a trained Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agent in the country where the refugee resides.  For us laymen, it might be difficult to tell whether someone is lying or not.  However, the DHS agents who conduct refugee interviews are specifically trained in this art.  They know exactly what questions to ask, in what sequence, and in what manner in order to uncover any possible fallacies.   In addition, a refugee has to tell their story over and over and over again to numerous parties (including DHS) and at various different stages in the resettlement approval process.  And each time, their story is checked for inconsistencies.  Most people never expect to become refugees, and thus do not typically have detailed knowledge of the resettlement process prior to finding themselves in it.  They do not know in advance that their story will require so much repetition or that they will be asked for “evidence” to determine its veracity.  If they were to give a false story in the beginning, it is highly unlikely that they would be able to stick to the story and corroborate throughout the numerous steps of the process (over the course of several years, no less). 

We do have intelligence capabilities in the Middle East, though admittedly not as much as we would like in Syria specifically.  We were spoiled with Iraqi refugees in the sense that we had a presence in Iraq long before we began admitting Iraqis under the refugee program.  Our considerable involvement in Iraq meant that we had a much larger pool of information available to us on individuals within that population, especially those who were already working with the U.S or coalition forces.  Syria presents a stark contrast in the sense that we have not had a physical presence there.  Thus we lack the luxury of intelligence availability that we enjoyed in Iraq.  This is largely where the argument about the “lack” of information comes from.  It’s not that we have none at all.  It’s that we have less. 

How much less is “less”?  Well, that’s what is at the heart of this discussion.  Both sides are looking at this in relative terms.  Conservatives cannot seem to understand that less does not equate to none.  Liberals would like to portray the vetting system as a magic terrorist-proof net.  In truth, us regular folk will probably never really know the hard truth here as much of that information may not yet be quantifiable, and will likely remain behind closed doors in classified settings anyhow. 

I am not without my own reservations, but I continue to strongly support the resettlement of Syrian refugees.   My experience abroad, my understanding of the refugee process, and my experiences with refugees themselves here in the U.S. leads me to this conclusion more so than any arguments I hear from what have been largely uninformed and inaccurate reports in the media and elsewhere.  For those of us who work in the refugee resettlement field, many aspects of this conversation are not new or surprising to us.  We have always understood the challenges, procedures, and – yes – the risks of bringing refugees into the U.S. – whether they be black or white, rich or poor, Christian or Muslim.  In addition, I truly believe that the last thing the panel of expert witnesses who testified before the house committee want right now is a refugee terrorist to attack this country.  They had every opportunity to renounce their faith in the refugee program and to suggest that we cancel all Syrian refugee arrivals.  Instead, they consistently indicated that the system in place was a good one.

Refugees have always come from conflict zones or areas where few records are available.  The vetting system was developed and enhanced specifically with these types of “unfamiliar” and “under-documented” populations in mind.  At some point, we have to trust the system to do its job.  Is it perfect?  No.  Will it ever be “perfect” and “risk-free”?  Of course not.  But I do think that we can take comfort in the fact that – short of canceling all visitation or immigration to this country – everything is being done to ensure that a terrorist does not come to the U.S. as part of the refugee program.   


How do we know whether the vetting process is actually working?

In regards to Syrians specifically, here are some points to consider:
  • Few Syrian refugees have been accepted to the U.S. since the start of the conflict in 2011 exactly because the vetting process is so intense and protracted.  The United States has “lagged far behind several European countries in its refugee aid efforts, largely due to the time-consuming screening procedure to block Islamist militants and criminals from entering the United States under the guise of being legitimate refugees”.  (Washington Post, September 2015) 
  • “The vetting process has culled the vast majority of potential Syrian refugees out.  The White House confirmed that of the 23,092 Syrian refugees who have been referred to the United States for potential relocation, only 7,014 of them reached the interview process.  Of that 7,014, only 2,034 have been resettled.  Syrian refugees have less than a 1 in 10 chance of being accepted into the U.S. refugee program.”(International Rescue Committee)
  • The Syrian crisis is currently the most visible world conflict that has created an unimaginable number of refugees.  To provide some perspective, before the Syrian crisis became so protracted, the largest displaced refugee population in the world was the nearly 1.1 million Somalis who had fled their country.  Somalia has been a failed state in conflict for over 20 years.  In comparison, the Syrian crisis started in 2011 and has now produced over 4 million refugees.  Resettlement cases are often prioritized based on the severity of the situation and the vulnerability of a population.  Syrians have quickly risen to the top of the priority list given the danger of their situation and the sheer numbers of refugees overwhelming neighboring countries.  But the relatively few number of Syrians resettled in the U.S. at this point – despite the extreme nature of the situation – is an indicator of the caution with which they are vetted and admitted.
In regards to refugees in general, I mentioned something to this regard in my first post:
Since 9/11, the U.S. has resettled around 745,000 refugees, including refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Somalia.  None have ever carried out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.  However, there have been three cases that I am aware of, regarding individuals who acted to support or attempted to support terrorist organizations outside the United States.  (I had to amend this as my previous post only mentioned two cases.)    In 2009, two Iraqi men who entered the US through the refugee program were connected to acts of terrorism that had occurred previously in Iraq.  They were both arrested and imprisoned.  In 2010, a Somali man attempted to send money to al-Shabab, a terrorist organization that operates in Somalia.  He was also arrested and imprisoned.  That is three individuals out of 745,000, or about .0004%, that I am aware of thus far.  (I am still researching to see if there are other cases out there.) 
It also bears worth repeating that refugees are the most highly screened immigrants to enter our country.  The chances of a terrorist entering our country illegally through the Southern border or coming on a passport or visa are much more likely.  A terrorist attempting to come through the refugee program would be subject to significantly more scrutiny, would have to wait a longer period of time, and would not even be guaranteed resettlement in the U.S. as opposed to another country.


Why are politicians saying that our vetting process is not good enough?

Refugee resettlement was not even an issue on most politicians’ radar until recently.  The refugee program is not really a top priority for anyone in government, unless you happen to work for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) or maybe the State Department.  ORR is only a small part of the Department of Health and Human Services.  It is purposely underfunded and very low-key.  The refugee program garners little attention until there is some sort of crisis.  Most politicians are keen on the main issues: social security, defense, government spending, healthcare, taxes, etc.   But not necessarily refugee resettlement.

Think of it this way: Are you concerned about taxes?  Most of us would say “yes”.  Do you know the state income tax rate for the state of Idaho?  Most of us would say “no” because, as residents of other states, the income tax rate in Idaho is not of concern to us.  In the same way, most politicians in Washington may have a necessary interest in the larger issues of immigration or anti-terrorism, but the refugee program is not of specific concern or particular interest.  Thus their knowledge might be limited.  The need to have extensive knowledge or to form an opinion on refugee resettlement was probably not necessary… until recently.

In the wake of the Paris attacks, many politicians came out with a response on the very same day or the day after the attacks occurred.  And those responses contained inaccurate information, such as the belief that the U.S. was planning to accept over 200,000 Middle Eastern refugees in the next year (when in fact only 10,000 Syrians will be accepted out of a total of 34,000 refugees from all of the Near East and South Asia region – as stated in reports that had been available since October 1, 2015).  A lot of what was said echoed an undercurrent of popular opinion in certain political circles, rather than a reflection of thorough research.  These men and women are highly influential.  It is unfortunate that their misinformed comments served to incite further fear and misrepresentation of the issue.  Unfortunately, I think that a haste to respond led these politicians to take a stance that was not fully informed.  

Even in the congressional hearings (which were prior to the Paris attacks), representatives were espousing ideas based on inaccurate information.  Again, some were under the incorrect impression that 200,000 Syrians were coming to the United States.  Others claimed that they had heard that most Syrian refugees coming in were military-age males (also untrue).  And, in the beginning, many operated under the assumption that the refugee vetting process was something haphazard and ineffective, when in fact it is a very detailed and organized process.  Though those impressions have hopefully been rectified now, it does not erase the fact that what was said at these hearings – specifically by representatives who were asking the questions – were the inspiration behind much of this anti-refugee rhetoric that is now surfacing.  And many of the misconceptions that were initially being passed around on media and in social circles, was the very same misinformation stated by some of the representatives in these hearings.  People likely “ran” with the information that they heard before it was properly addressed and corrected.  Including politicians on the campaign trail.

To be fair, as I mentioned above, there is a legitimate gray area here in terms of how much available information is “enough” for the vetting process to be “safe”.  Not surprisingly, the right is very conservative in their interpretation while the left is liberal in theirs.  Unfortunately, both sides have also introduced other agendas into this equation that have served to confuse the primary issue at hand.  That’s just politics.

A final, important thought: There is, of course, a big election coming up next year.  Political posturing and pandering are all part of this campaign game.  The positions taken on the Syrian refugee issue are not exempted from being part of this game, on either side of the aisle. 


HR 4038 or SAFE Act

On Nov 18, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would introduce the need for additional high level approvals specifically for Syrian and Iraqi refugees.  The bill does not, however, require any additional vetting procedures or security checks in the refugee’s country of residence, other than what is already in place.  (Probably because not much can be added to the already stringent process.)  Rather it requires that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Director of the FBI, and the Director of National Intelligence personally sign off on every Iraqi or Syrian refugee admitted to the U.S.  In addition, the Secretary of DHS would be required to submit a report every month to twelve different congressional committees that outlines how many of these refugees were accepted or denied.  What this serves to do is to create extra red tape, which will lead to an incredible backlog of Syrian and Iraqi refugees, effectively halting their resettlement. 

I agree with the statement released by World Relief, a Christian resettlement agency, which states that the legislation is a pretext for preventing Syrian and Iraqi (primarily Muslim) refugees from entering the United States.  Read the statement from World Relief here: http://worldreliefresponds.com/update-on-refugee-legislation-and-3-ways-to-give-hope/.

The way that I read this bill, it would apply to all Iraqis, including those who served with or supported U.S. forces in Iraq.  It would also be a grievous error to exclude these individuals from resettlement since many of them become targets as a result of their service to our military and intelligence personnel in Iraq.

If the senate were to introduce and pass a similar bill, then it is possible that this could eventually become law. 


FINAL THOUGHTS
The threat from ISIS is palpable at this point and it mandates that we check all of our naiveté at the door.  We must ensure the sanctity and sovereignty of our nation, even while pursuing humanitarian endeavors.  But we also have reason to believe that our nation’s security and intelligence organizations are doing their due diligence to ensure the safety of the American people, and they have not indicated the unanimous need for a halt to the resettlement of Syrian refugees. 

What I absolutely do not agree with is the scapegoating of the Syrian refugee population for acts of terrorism that have not yet happened and the demonizing of the refugee program in general.  The root cause of our fear is terrorism.  Not refugees. 


We fear the potential of terrorist acts and violence in our homeland.  Refugees have already experienced the reality of this extremism and violence.  They are fleeing from it.  Let’s not confuse the two.


at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Up Against a Wall

Lately, discussions surrounding the proposed border wall seem to be a “lose-lose” scenario for all sides involved.   I suppose this really ...