By a vote of 289–137, the House overwhelmingly passed the American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act of 2015, a bill seeking to halt the resettlement of Syrian and Iraqi refugees in the United States until federal authorities could prove that they aren’t security threats. Forty-seven Democrats joined the majority of Republicans to pass the bill. According to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), the bill is just the first in a series of votes on Syrian refugees.
President Obama previously stated that the United States would admit thousands more Syrian refugees in the 2016 fiscal year. But the bill — expedited to the House floor on the heels of the deadly attacks in Paris and Beirut — would put the admission of Syrian refugees to a grinding halt.
The American SAFE Act would require numerous federal agencies to affirm to Congress that admitted refugees aren’t security threats; that the FBI would certify background checks; and to conduct an audit of admitted refugees by the Office of the Inspector General.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters on Thursday that the measure wouldn’t clear the Senate. And the White House has threatened to veto the bill, with President Obama stating that the bill “would introduce unnecessary and impractical requirements that would unacceptably hamper our efforts to assist some of the most vulnerable people in the world, many of whom are victims of terrorism, and would undermine our partners in the Middle East and Europe in addressing the Syrian refugee crisis.”
Many U.S. lawmakers have expressed knee-jerk reactions, with more than half of the country’s governors objecting to the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states — even though they cannot legally stop them. One Virginia mayor has even gone so far as to cite the internment of Japanese-Americans as an example of how America responded well to national security threats.
But however much the hysteria has occurred in the United States, French President Francois Hollande has defended his decision to honor a commitment to accept at least 30,000 refugees over the next two years, in spite of the deadly attacks on civilian targets in his country.
Many advocates have denounced the passage of the bill. Karin Johanson, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)’s Washington Legislative Office, said that the bill “discriminates against refugees based on their national origin, nationality, and religion. Supporters of this bill want us to turn our backs on refugees who are seeking safe harbor from the very terrorism we all abhor.” “Refugees are already more thoroughly vetted and screened than any other visitor to the United States,” Melanie Nezer, Vice President for Policy & Advocacy at HIAS, said, noting that the bill would have negative repercussions if it’s allowed to pass into law. HIAS operates a U.S. resettlement agency with a processing presence in Europe. “This bill threatens a very successful, highly secure humanitarian program, and I am deeply disappointed that the House chose to overlook that fact when passing this bill.”
Though U.S. lawmakers may oppose the arrival of terrorists posing as refugees, they already undergo one of the most stringent refugee policies in the world. Syrian refugees are vetted using the government program known as Controlled Application Review and Resolution Process, or CARRP, in which applicants from “high-risk” countries including Muslim-majority places, will have their information compared among agencies like Interpol and the Treasury Department. Of the more than 2,100 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States since the terror attack in September 2001, “not a single one has been arrested or deported on terrorism-related grounds.”
Refugees from other countries are vetted thoroughly as well. As a Bosnian-American pointed out to ThinkProgress, her refugee application journey took at least four years of waiting while she was displaced.