n the past week, 30 governors from both parties have decided they will not accept Syrian refugees. Legally, it’s unclear if this is possible because governors are not responsible for immigration policy, and this has been further muddled by Congress’ passing of a bill further slowing the bureaucratic process of admitting refugees. The act of voicing this anti-immigrant rhetoric feeds into the hands of Daesh and lets it have power.
Terrorists seek to alter our way of life. While some politicians think this means imposing Sharia, it can be done in more subtle, successful ways. The attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, changed air travel security completely.
These precautions were supposed to make us safer, but the fact remains that 9/11 made us change the way we lead our lives. Similarly, by altering our refugee policy, we are compliant in Daesh’s aims to make Syrian people unsafe. If Daesh is to establish a caliphate, they need people to rule over and terrorize.
By refusing to take refugees, our politicians are reinforcing stereotypes and promoting the fact that Syrians are "other" or "different." This type of discrimination is inherently un-American. The refugees are fleeing from terrorists. The vast majority of those terrorized by Daesh are people in Syria, and most of the deaths they cause do not occur in big attacks like those in Paris, but rather in everyday occurrences that are not given as much media attention.
Not allowing Syrian refugees compromises American ideals, giving Daesh what it wants: the power to both influence the U.S. and keep people within their territory. If no one else takes them, then they will be forced to live under Daesh’s control. It’s often forgotten that most of the people being terrorized are Muslims in Iraq and Syria. Rejecting refugees gives Daesh more leverage and power than it deserves.
Some politicians have suggested separating the refugees out into camps, but ostracizing certain ethnicities has always been a morally dubious approach.
The best example of this is the Japanese internment camps following Pearl Harbor, which the mayor of Roanoke has cited as a viable way of assessing the danger of a group. In reality, this just fuels hatred and discrimination — while in turn doing little to protect the American people — because Japanese-Americans were and remain Americans, too. The same is true for Muslims. Despite what some may believe, it is possible to be both American and Muslim. American principles are not incompatible with the religion.
It’s often overlooked that in order for refugees to come to the U.S., there is a strict screening process. While there were troubles in the past with refugee-screening processes, the director of the FBI has since acknowledged the process has improved. To completely reject them because the screening process is fallible is assuming all Muslims seek to inflict terror.
Islam is a major religion, which means it has incredible diversity just like Christianity does. Most Christians would loathe being associated with Westboro Baptist Church, which is best known for picketing soldier’s funerals with homophobic signs.
Underlying all of the rejections of Syrian refugees by American governors has been the assumption that all Muslims are somehow responsible for Daesh, but this standard is never applied to Christians. Still, it is not the duty of Muslims to denounce Daesh; to do so would be to legitimize it and say extremism is the norm. Rejecting refugees because of their country of origin or religion legitimizes Islamophobia.
Perpetuating falsehoods about Muslims doesn’t just harm potential refugees, it also harms Americans. Worst of all, it harms American values.
Nicole Dan is a UF political science sophomore. Her column appears on Mondays.
