ABC-7 Xtra: Syrian Refugees

>>> live where news comes first, this is “abc-7 xtra. >>> good evening, i’m maria garcia, welcome to “abc-7 xtra. tonight, we’re discussing the syrian refugee crisis. this week, lawmakers passed a bill that would pretty much block the refugees from coming into the u.s. this weekend, we’re learning two of the paris attackers made it to france through greece, following the path of syrian refugees. many americans saying it’s irresponsible to potentially endanger people here by accepting refugees, but many others say there is a robust screening process to ensure no refugees with terroristic ties make it to the states. joing us tonight, dr. josiah heyman the director of the center for interamerican and border studies at utep. and victor manjarrez, jr., associate director for national center for border security and immigration at utep. you can e-mail us your comments and questions now to abc7xtra@kvia.com. you can also reach us at 915-496-1775. or tweet me @mariagabc7, use the hashtag #abc7xtra. before we get started, let’s take a look a closer look at the issue. >> ayeda sati didn’t come to the united states as a refugee. she left syria and immigrated to roanoke, virginia, to be with her family 14 years ago. now, she fears what will happen to the millions of people fleeing the violence in syria. >> what they will do? where they will go? >> the mayor of her city moved to block assistance to syrian refugees, citing in his statement the use of japanese internment camps in world war ii. >> the yeas are 289, and the nays are 137. the bill is passed. >> citing security concerns, house republicans, with the support of 47 democrats, passed a bill which would effectively block syrian and iraqi refugees from entering the united states. a new bloomberg poll suggests more than half of americans do not want the u.s. to accept syrian refugees. president barack obama has promised to veto the house bill, should it reach him. democratic leadership hopes to block it in the senate. >> don’t worry. it won’t get passed. >> for refugees already living in the u.s., it can be a struggle. dana el kurd, a graduate student at the university of texas, volunteers her time tutoring iraqi and syrian refugee students at anderson high school. >> i don’t think a lot of their peers know where they are coming from, so they’re calling them things like is, and these people are escaping is, and it’s very difficult for them. >> i’m andrew spencer reporting. >> joining us now, dr. josiah heyman, the director, center for interamerican and border studies at utep. and victor manjarrez, jr., associate director for national center for border security and immigration at utep. thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> before we get into questions, just so that our viewers are aware, can you summarize your position on the issue? >> well, the country’s always faced immigration type issues and the question has always been who’s coming into our country and what are their backgrounds? what’s elevated by this position now is the people are coming from countries that we really don’t know what their background is in the war torn places. so really my concern is, you know, let’s put this in a pause and slow it down and see who’s actually entering our country. >> doctor, what’s your position on this? >> well, it’s the right thing to do to bring in refugees, legitimate refugees, and it’s the safe thing to do. the procedures provide plenty of protection for the united states. the united states system which has a long period of background checks will provide safety to the public and it plays into the hands of isis to deny refugees because it says look, you know, this is how our enemies are, our enemies are cruel and heartless and they hate us. we don’t want to play into the hands of isis. we want to do the right thing. >> i want to ask you, you touched on the process a little bit, the united nations high commissioner for refugees initially chooses which refugees to refer to the united states. once they’re referred to the united states after the u.n. does its own check, the national counterterrorism center, the fbi’s terrorism screening center, the department of homeland security, the department of state and the department of defense all screen the potential refugees and fewer than 1% of the global refugee population actually passes the initial screening. that’s not enough of a process for you? >> no. i don’t believe so. in fact, when each of those agencies that you cited will also tell you that the process isn’t foolproof but they do suggest — [ inaudible ] the numbers, does it have the potential to overwhelm the capacity to effectively investigate and do the checks? >> i want to ask you about that. the fbi director did voice some concern about the effectiveness of vetting. >> they did say that it will not be possible to have a foolproof system. it’s also not positive to not be struck by lightning. this is one of the strongest systems possible. it’s not rellistic — realistic for terrorists to travel through the u.s. system where people are screened for 18 months through multiple agencies, biometrics. the truth of the matter is that the attackers in paris were home grown domestic terrorists within europe. and we are not being realistic to focus on syrian refugees who are fleeing exactly these sorts of groups. instead, we need to be focused on the real danger, which is to focus on home grown terrorists. and so those are people who are moving around with much less control, they have much greater access to weapons, arms sales are wide open. public events are wide open. and home grown terrorists just like in paris and just as in london prior to that, home grown terrorists are the real risk. >> if syria is in a civil war, what local governments there realistically can the u.s. vet information about these refugees with if syria is in such chaos? >> one of the interesting things about these very authoritarian countries like syria is that they produce enormous amounts of background, enormous amounts of spying and documentation on their citizens and the reasons there have been failures in europe is because they have an asylum situation where many hundreds of thousands of people are flooding in on boats to overwhelm countries, greece, which is bankrupt, and is overwhelmed. the united states is talking about a process taking 18 to 24 months before people even get here that involves 10,000 people being vetted multiple times by the most effective and powerful country in the world. and i have faith in the u.s.’s ability to vet refugees. i’m actually much more concerned about access to guns, about soft targets and about home grown terrorists in the united states and around the world. >> okay i want to ask you about that. the doctor mentioned how in europe there’s so many refugees arriving by boat, flooding many european countries, especially through greece. in the united states we have the luxury of being able to screen syrians before they arrive. europe simply cannot. syrians arrive in boats, by foot, in numbers too great for european authorities to vet thoroughly. u.s. vetting by contrast would have likely flagged the fake syrian passports of one of the paris attackers. so there’s concerns that it’s just — it’s apples and oranges, it’s just not a fair comparison to say, you know, because they went through that route in europe, we should not accept refugees. >> and it’s not a case of not accepting quite honestly. it’s a question of when. and what process they actually go through. we’ve had a long history of accepting refugees. and that’s not going to change nor should it change. i think it’s being suggested since — let’s take a pause to ensure that our process — [ inaudible ] >> the real question is how many people are going to die during this pause? how many children will wash up on shores? how many women with children will suffer and will die? because the population that the u.s. admits as refugees particularly from that region of the world is almost entirely women and children. adult men have made up less than 2% of the people admitted as refugees from southwest asia. and we are talking about people who are tremendously vulnerable to suffering and death. and how long are we going to accept that suffering and death while we are on a pause? >> do you want to respond to that? >> you know, it’s very dramatic but we’re not the only country that’s asking to take this pause. for example, canada recently has, they accepted 50,000 refugees. the prime minister was elected on that platform. let’s take a pause to ensure that their process, whatever that process may be is — >> but the house bill requires the three very high level government officials personally, personally ensure that each individual refugee poses no security threat. i mean, that’s — a lot of people have called that political theater. it’s just not realistic. that’s too drastic. would you agree with that? >> could it be drastic? absolutely. but asking your leadership from departments that are responsible for some kind of insurance and if there’s a hesitation, it’s actually a cause for concern. >> you know, you mentioned the depth of these very vulnerable populations. but there’s also a moral and ethical question about, you know, weighing in essence the value of life and that’s you know, how do you with a clear conscience allow refugees or one refugee that could potentially lead to the death of 200 americans in an attack? it’s a very difficult ethical question. >> i would reply to that by saying the refugee process is about people who are not going to cause the deaths of 200 americans. i would ask people to be thoughtful and consider what actually happened in paris. we were all very, very shocked by these horrific pictures that we saw on television and we immediately jumped to the thought that this was caused by refugees, people fleeing from is. but, in fact, the people who did those terrible things in europe were home grown terrorists from france and belgium. and this is now the major risk. what we understand about world security, protecting those 200 americans, involves trying to do very fine-grained intelligence to identify the highest risk, home grown terrorists. these are people who move around with french and belgian passports who can come to the united states on a visa waiver program, who are inside the united states already. most of the people who have been arrested with isis connections inside the united states as shown by fordham university have been americans with american passports. that is actually the risk. so i would like to say to people, i would like to say to them to focus on home grown terrorism. >> the obama administration saying the system is already set up in a way that puts emphasis on admitting the most vulnerable syrians, particularly survivors of violence and torture, those with severe medical conditions and particularly women and children in a manner that’s consistent with our national security. does that not give you any comfort, that the obama administration is saying look, we’re already looking for the most vulnerable, for the people who we know and whom we can prove are actually victims of is? >> it does give me some comfort on that, those are the focus on that. but i go back to our history where we’ve had issues, our compassion to handle certain groups are overwhelmed pretty quick and we’ve had them in the last several decades repeatedly. i wonder, though, if this is a time where we can overwhelm our capacity to do those background investigations. >> we go back into our history and the single most obvious precedent in our history is denying people who are flying the nazis in europe refuge. many hundreds of thousands of people probably died because the united states denied refuge and other countries denied refuge to jews and other people fleeing the nazis of europe. the reason we have a world refugee system is because of the absolute horror of denying refuge. >> this isn’t a case of denying refuge. it is not that black and white. i think what this legislation is asking let’s ensure that we have processes in place to ensure that we are doing what we need to be doing. the world is not the same as it was before. it’s a very dangerous place that we now live in with people who want to do great harm to us from long distances. what many have asked is to ensure that the process that we have is in a place and a position that we do do that thorough job. >> so let’s be effective and realistic in how we assess that danger. the evidence now is that the danger is not in refugees coming through the refugee system, that’s the least likely way for terrorists to travel. the danger is in people who have passports inside the western countries, such as people who are u.s. citizens. that’s the danger. the danger is the ability to acquire assault weapons in countries like the united states. really, we should be assessing the danger. that’s what we should be focusing on. >> i want to make sure we get to the phone lines. we have lesley. what’s your comment or your question? >> what’s the difference between mexico and central american refugees and syrian refugees? no one seems to want to answer that question. thank you. >> thank you very much. so lesley saying what’s the difference between mexican and central american refugees. last summer we saw an influx of central american, especially unaccompanied children. do you want to answer the question here? >> i think that there are people also coming from mexico and coming from central america who have similar claims to being refugees or getting asylum. those people arrive at the border and request asylum. if we want to keep the country safe, one of the things we can do is spend money on immigration courts and have a more efficient, rapid and effective asylum system. the refugee system is much, much better organized and follows much more scrutiny than the asylum system. >> would you agree with the investment in immigration courts? >> absolutely, and i think we’re still reeling from the immigration, that would be a very wise investment. >> let’s go to enrique in the lower valley. what’s your comment or question? >> my comment is on the immigrant situation. we have 11 million undocumented people in limbo. we have two texas governors spending millions to keep them out and ready to deport those 11 million. now, we want to allow syrian refugees in the tens of thousands? so who stays and who goes? and where is mexico in all of this mess? >> thank you very much. very interesting question. 11 million undocumented immigrants here in the united states. he’s saying you know, who stays and who goes? we have people here who are in limbo but we want to accept syrian refugees? >> that’s the policy question that we’ve been trying to answer now for quite some time. i’ve been a big proponent in the past of comprehensive immigration reform actually helps secure our nation. so it would be nice to see our country get to that point where we’re able to do that and what i would refer to as kind of cleaning the clutter of what’s out there in terms of activity. >> right. we have to take a commercial break. when we come back, we’re going to take more of your e-mails and your phone calls. we’re getting quite a bit of them when we come back. because of that awards show today we started a little late so we’re going to go a little later tonight. you’re watching “abc-7 xtra, you can call us at (916)496-1775, e-mail us at abc7xtra@kvia.com or tweet me at @mariagabc7. we’ll be rig >>> welcome back, everyone. let’s go to your tweets now. ryan b. saying that screening system in quotations didn’t work for the boston bombers. they were both refugees, hashtag #abc7xtra. actually, their father was somebody who sought asylum. >> they grew up in the united states. they were a classic example of home grown terrorism. so what was a failure of intelligence to track them as people who were developing these plots once they were in the united states. they didn’t come in. they came in as small children. >> so they were not refugees. their father was seeking asylum and another attempt from the right to disguise xenophobia as security concerns. refugees have to get through a lot of scrutiny. listen up saying, as unfortunate as the situation is in syria, the usa needs to make sure it’s safe before allowing others we are unsure of. and then the argument against refugees is predicated on multiple law enforcement agencies being inept. that’s not consistent with facts. and then also listen up saying home grown terrorism is a threat in and of itself without adding to the inability to exclude the refugees’ possible intents. let’s go to our phone lines. we have manny from central. what’s your comment or question? >> good evening, gentlemen. i had a quick comment. i think it’s unamerican to close the borders and not let any refugees in because that’s what this country is all about. i think it raises red flags that 75% of the refugees are men. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> almost none of the refugees coming in are men. the vast majority of people who are coming in as refugees from syria are women and children. that’s actually one of the main criteria for refugee admissions are vulnerable populations which includes women and children. >> so where are people getting this idea that 75% are men? >> people see enormous numbers of people flowing from syria through turkey to greece and eastern europe and that includes just, everybody. and they see those television images. this is a great example of something where we have to learn to step back and go beyond a few pictures on television. it’s ironic, we’re having i would say a very intelligent and important news discussion show on television because it helps us get past some of those scary images, like in paris, where the people marching through eastern europe. the u.s. refugee program is really not that kind of risk and it’s not comparable to that. i think it’s also very, very important to take notice of the moral guidance that we have. the u.s. conference of catholic bishops and the national association of evangelicals, two groups that are very, very different, catholic bishops and the evangelicals both immediately and strongly called for us to support the syrian refugee program. >> i want to get to an e-mail from randy, one of our loyal viewers here on “abc-7 xtra. he says regardless of how politically incorrect those on the liberal left argue to the contrary, the common cause and the very essence of what those who are willing to die for and the very essence i’m sorry of what those who are willing to die for in order to wage a war of terror on the western world is islam. it is the common thread. for you and your panelist to not forget that islam is not only a belief, it is a form of government. it is absolutely contrary to the foundation of our form of government, set down in jefferson’s declaration of independence. islam does not embrace life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i know this part of the world. we’re going to talk about the discussion that this has raised about islam when we come back. so stay with us. one we’ll be right back. >>> welcome back to “abc- xtra.” we’re talking about the syrian refugee crisis. we got an e-mail from randy, expressing concern about radical islam. you know, we see this rhetoric really come to the surface after terrorist attacks. what are your thoughts as a border security expert on the kind of talk we’re hearing about islam right now. >> it is typical of what i’ve seen in government service where there would be an incident and you see the comments and the desires — extremely right and extremely left. this is very typical. i think as suggested by one of the callers or one of the things that you read there is take a step back and really in both directions. and say not everyone is like this but let’s ensure our process is the safest for us, in place that would benefit not only the country but the people that seek refugee status. and so again, it’s common on that and i would ask people to step back and look at things, take a deep breath. >> okay. doctor, i want to ask you about this. there’s a lot of literature out there, a lot of news articles, muslims saying it’s hypocritical to ask every muslim to denounce the radical acts of terrorists. just like you wouldn’t ask christians to denounce the kind of christianity practiced by — >> white supremacists. >> right. but also, though, isn’t it — isn’t this an opportunity for the muslim world to step up — >> and i really think that it is. i think that we are working together with the mainstream and the nonviolent and the progressive forces in the muslim community to demonstrate paths forward. this is one of the ways to decrease the radicalization of terrorists. i think this is actually a very small gesture really morally it should be a much bigger gesture but admit the syrian refugees into the united states because it’s something that defies the worldview of isis. the worldview of isis is that the entire world is against muslims. the entire world hates muslims. and that’s their principal recruiting tool so showing that we are able to make a differentiation between the vast majority of muslims and isis, showing that we can demonstrate humanity around the world, that’s our best recruiting tool against the radicalization tool. >> tim is saying why are these people being considered for asylum and being given so many benefits when there are american citizens who still are homeless, hungry and jobless? shouldn’t our government be more concerned with our own citizens? >> we can do it both. there’s no reason why we can’t give housing to the homeless. there’s no reason why everybody couldn’t have healthcare. we should be able to do those things and it should be said that when refugees first arrive, they’re given support basically by voluntary organizations. the government arranges for them to be placed with voluntary organizations. >> mostly faith based nonprofits. >> usually, faith based nonprofits. over time, refugees actually work at a higher percentage than the native born u.s. citizens. refugees’ incomes rise to typical. they pay taxes. their educational levels are oftentimes fairly high as populations that get out of the difficult situations. so over time, they become important and valuable contributors to the united states. cofounder of google was a refugee from russia. but i want to say that we don’t have to have an either or situations. u.s. citizens do deserve those things. so do the refugees. >> mr. man,jarrez you were referring to the straining of resources and you were mostly referring to resources required for screening. but is this something that you were also referring to? >> well, it’s more the enforcement resources, to be able to double down on the investigative aspects of the screening of refugees that are coming in. one of the things in our discussion that i want to make clear is our country has done a good job in accepting refugees. [ inaudible ] we have to ensure we don’t let our guard down and that’s what’s being asked by the vast majority of the american people is let’s make sure we have this right because we’re not going to get a second chance. >> let’s go to denise. what’s your comment or question? >> i’m just observing the back log of checking out all refugees who move to america and there’s going to be them having to go through this process. however, it is a known fact that people are coming across the mexican borders. how do we know who is coming in through the borders from any angle? >> i think that’s a good reason for having comprehensive immigration reform. i think that there’s significantly greater security risk for populations that we don’t know who they are. the refugee process is the least likely way for terrorists and for that matter for criminals to move into the country. we certainly should be more concerned with the other paths and if we have immigration reform, people get identification. if we have identification access, then we have a much better way of knowing who is in the country. >> you worked along the border for many, many years. you worked with the border security experts. you know, last year there were false reports that isis was spotted near the u.s.-mexico border. that was debunked. what do you say to this caller that we don’t know who’s coming across the mexican border and there could be terrorists coming from the mexican border? >> that is the risk of any border. we look at not only our southern border and northern border and that’s the challenge with immigration border security is knowing who’s entering the country and who’s leaving the country? that’s the challenge being faced day and win day out. what i can tell you is those efforts have dramatically increased in terms of there’s a better situational awareness of who’s entering the country, not only at the port of entry and between the ports of entry, we’ve done a very good job as a country extending our borders out. we used to rely simply on having the mentality of here’s the line and that’s what we’re defending. i think our intelligence capabilities has been greater on that. but any process like that, there is risk. and the question becomes how much risk are we willing to take on? >> i’m in agreement. i actually think that at this point, the risk has shifted from being a situation outside the country to a very tiny number of home grown radicals across the whole spectrum of many different causes and i think that those — that tiny number of home grown radicals is problem. the problem is precisely that the tiny number of people can do very terrible things. >> yes, all right. >> and so i think our borders are much, much better than when i first started studying and when he first started working on this. >> thank you so much for joining us. they’re telling me to wrap. we’re out of time. thank you, always so insightful, thank you for coming in. thank you, always appreciate you coming in and thank you for joing us here on “abc-7 xtra. we hope you found this informative and insightful and we’ll