More than 4 million Syrians have fled their country to get away from its civil war. An even larger number has been displaced within Syria.
America has been generous in providing aid to meet immediate needs in this crisis, contributing more than twice as much money toward this cause as any other individual nation. But given the scale of the crisis and this nation’s humane principles and history, we can and should do more.
Recognizing this, President Obama announced Thursday that the U.S. would take in as many as 10,000 Syrian refugees. But he is not thinking nearly big enough. With some innovation and bipartisan co-operation, Obama and Congress could double or quadruple that number without creating a new political battle over the hot-button issue of immigration.
The United States issues 55,000 visas each year through its Diversity Immigrant Visa program. This program exists solely to bring in people from countries that do not normally send many immigrants to America. The program’s merits, or lack of them, are irrelevant here; the important thing is that those people applying for it do not face dislocation and death the way Syrians do at this moment. What’s more, a substantial number of applicants come from countries that are right now slamming their doors in the faces of Syria’s refugees.
Congress could save tens of thousands of Syrian lives by simply changing a few visa allotments for fiscal 2016. Lawmakers could reduce the number of diversity visas and correspondingly increase the number spaces for refugees displaced by Syria’s civil war.
This proposal, or one like it, could get a strong if not unanimous buy-in from both political parties. It would be a temporary change to meet a real crisis, and it would not affect immigration levels at all. Those opposed could be asked simply whether they got into public life to score cheap political victories, or to make the world a better place.
Such a plan should obviously retain the requirement that refugees be carefully vetted, lest war criminals, terrorists or opportunistic economic migrants be admitted along with real refugees. It should also include a preference for Syrian families with young children, the very people most vulnerable in Syria today and also the least likely to pose a terrorist or criminal threat in the United States.
In separate legislation, because it is sure to be more controversial, Congress should also consider a moratorium on immigration and student visas and a cutoff of foreign aid for nearby Arab and Muslim countries that have refused to accept even a few thousand fleeing Syrians that they could easily accommodate. That includes Saudi Arabia (which has even forbidden the adoption of Syrian orphans), United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain. These five prosperous nations are all places where Syrians could resettle without even having to learn a new language.
On this same list of shame is Iran, the largest Shia-majority Islamic nation. It has taken in no refugees to date, even though Shiites are among those suffering most from the Islamic State’s atrocities in Syria.
There are surely many other constructive ideas that could win bipartisan support. The State Department could, for example, be working to establish a legal avenue for Americans citizens to foster or adopt Syrian war orphans, which is something many would do if international law permitted.
But so far, the State Department’s thinking on this crisis has been far too narrow.
Fourteen years ago today, Americans learned, many for the first time, what it is like to live in true fear. Millions of Syrians have been experiencing nearly four years of Sept. 11’s. Obama and congressional Republicans need to start thinking big and finding ways to work together on this crisis.
This article appears in the Sept. 14 edition of the Washington Examiner magazine.
