We begin today’s roundup with an editorial from Bloomberg criticizing those who would shut America’s doors to Syrian refugees:
Of all the reactions to Friday's terrorist attacks in Paris, some U.S. politicians' objections to resettling Syrian refugees may be the most irrational. President Barack Obama has pledged to let in 10,000 people fleeing the carnage in Syria, but governors of at least a dozen states now say they won't accept any. Presidential candidate Ted Cruz wants to admit only Christians. [...]
[T]he American system for harboring people fleeing war and repression is different from that of Europe, which is struggling with a flood of refugees turning up in boats on its shores. In the U.S., it's a careful, lengthy process that has always put domestic security first. Just as important, it's a manifestation of cherished ideals from a nation founded largely by people fleeing oppression. [...]
If the legal pipeline is closed, more refugees will turn to human-smuggling networks or succumb to Islamic State recruitment efforts. The best way to protect uprooted Syrians will be to end the war in Syria. In the meantime, refusing to help the refugees betrays American ideals, and can only increase the extremists' appeal.
The New York Times:
Confusing refugees with terrorists is morally unacceptable and, as a matter of strategy, misguided. Stemming the exodus of refugees from Syria must be an important part of any comprehensive plan to end the Syrian war. Building new barriers to keep them out with the absurd argument that Muslims are inherently dangerous could provide propaganda benefits to the Islamic State. The group, also known as ISIS, has drawn recruits around the globe by offering a cause and a home to Muslims who feel marginalized and scorned.
The Boston Globe:
While security concerns are reasonable in the wake of a terrorist attack, this knee-jerk reaction is not. Refugees entering the United States already undergo security checks so rigorous that they take an average of two years to complete, according to Eskinder Negash, senior vice president for the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. [...] “Refugees are probably the most vetted people to come to this country,” Negash said. [...]
The Morning Sentinel in Maine:
This is ridiculous.
If they had been pretending to be tourists instead of migrants, would we end tourism? If they had been hiding in cargo ships, would we stop world trade? No, and we should not abandon people in need just because we’re scared.
It would not only be inhumane, it’s impractical. Paris is a city of 2.2 million people, with 15 million international visitors each year. Only eight terrorists were involved in the Paris attack.
There is no way that a free country could develop a screening process so tight that eight individuals intent on mayhem couldn’t slip through. This war will not be won by Western democracies abandoning their values and turning themselves into prisons, which is what that level of control over free movement would require.
The Washington Post:
Accepting only Christians would damage the country’s reputation and betray the notion that Americans are bound by common allegiance to laws, not creeds. These impacts would far outweigh the meager security benefits such an approach would provide.
The Paris attacks have shaken up the discussion on Syria. But the moral calculus regarding refugees who have been driven from their homes, beaten, tortured, gassed and raped hasn’t changed. The humanitarian necessity is overwhelming. Half of all Syrians have been displaced, and more than a quarter-million people have died. There is no excuse to sit by.
The Baltimore Sun:
If the people of this nation learned anything from 9/11, surely it's the danger posed by an unthinking, emotional response to acts of terror. That's what can cause a nation to nearly scrap its constitution, ignore due process and lose its very identity; to invade countries on trumped up evidence of a threat; to torture suspects; and run off-shore prisons that would make a dictator proud and serve mostly to help terrorists recruit new members. That's what terrorists want — chest-thumping, outsized reactions to the danger they pose. They want democracies to act undemocratic, they want people to cower in fear, they want to draw others into their fight and unwittingly help destabilize the political structures they seek to topple. [...]
The 2016 presidential race is in full swing so we can expect candidates to spout some pretty foolish things in the days ahead. The hawks will have their say and so will the anti-immigrant crowd as well as those who wish to draw us into a religious war. But let us not forget that at its heart, what happened in Paris was a crime that needs to be investigated. Its perpetrators need to be caught and given a fair trial. That will take time, as will determining the proper response to an evolving ISIS and a changing political landscape. The only thing that's certain beyond the horror of what happened on Nov. 13 is the importance of not succumbing to our worst instincts, to not give in to the terrorists, to not simply lash out blindly and to take actions that will only make matters worse.
The Denver Post:
Life will never be risk free and terrorism is a possibility so long as radical Islam remains a potent force. But that reality doesn't mean this nation should discard its historic role as a friend to those fleeing persecution.
Lois Kazakoff at The San Franscisco Chronicle:
What would the Pilgrims, who fled religious persecution in Europe and found a new home in America, say about three governors declaring in quick succession Monday that Syrian refugees would not be allowed to settle in their states [...]
For his part, President Obama is staying the course on the administration plan to admit 10,000 refugees in 2016.
As he should. The refugees are themselves fleeing Islamic State. Denying victims of war a haven turns them into the enemy and, as President Obama said, “betrays our values.”