November 17, 2015 | By Sara McElmurry

The Midwest Can't Afford to Close Its Doors to Refugees

Refugees and migrants arrive aboard the passenger ferry Blue Star Patmos from the island of Lesbos at the port of Piraeus, near Athens, Greece. REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis

Yesterday Governor Bruce Rauner added Illinois to a growing list of states—including Midwestern neighbors Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin—that have said they will temporarily stop accepting Syrian refugees in the wake of last week’s attacks in Paris and Beirut.

States can’t technically block approved refugees, but that point is moot in the big picture. Instead, the fear and rhetoric driving these state-level announcements raises larger, more important humanitarian issues, with significant implications for local economies and national security.

The threat of terrorism is real—the attacks in Paris have claimed an estimated 129 lives, with another 43 victims in Beirut.

But refugees aren’t the source of violence.

Instead, turning away refugees actually turns away would-be allies in the fight against terrorism, driving them back towards the very forces they are fleeing. It also compromises an important source of human capital in the economically and demographically stagnant Midwest, where cities like Chicago, Dayton, Detroit, Minneapolis, and St. Louis had previously called on President Obama to expand the cap on the number of Syrian refugees. Mayors of these cities—many the economic anchors of states now calling for bans—cited the “economic, social, and cultural” contributions of refugees. And it wasn’t long ago that Michigan Governor Rick Synder said he was considering welcoming more Syrian refugees to the state, calling it “part of being a good Michigander.”

The United States has long understood the importance of resettling refugees, and has a long history of successfully doing so, even in times of conflict. Over the past 30 years, our government has resettled some three million refugees, including 207,000 Vietnamese and 125,000 Cubans in 1980 alone. Since 2001, only two refugees have been accused of terrorist-related activities—incidents related to the war in Iraq that posed no immediate threat to the United States.

Most recently, the United States has safely opened its doors to Syrians. Since October 2011, we’ve taken in over 2,100 Syrian refugees without incident. Of these, just 94 have been resettled in Illinois, hardly justifying a block—even a temporary one—on resettling more.

Refugees are subject to the highest levels of scrutiny and background checks of any group admitted to the United States. In fact, the full vetting process—which includes health checks, biometric identity verification, biographical and background screenings, and in-person interviews—can take an average of two years to complete. Screenings are conducted via coordination amongst multiple security agencies, including the FBI, State Department, DHS, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the Department of Defense.

Also worth noting is that any refugee who has arrived in the United States for resettlement has been fully vetted by the United Nations in its own separate, detailed process.

Pre-Paris, public opinion reflected an understanding that refugees pose minimal threat to the United States. The 2014 Chicago Council Survey recorded a 20-year low in perceived threat from refugees and immigrants last spring, down 33 points from a high of 72 percent in 1994. (To be fair, the 2015 survey registered a slight uptick in concern, but overall levels remain low.)

Post-Paris, the challenge facing the Obama administration is to ensure that escalating anti-refugee rhetoric doesn’t compromise what is currently a safe and sound refugee resettlement system.

It also can’t let calls for a “temporary” stop to refugee resettlement devolve into a permanent block on this important source of humanitarian relief—and of human capital, especially in the Midwest.

About

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization that provides insight – and influences the public discourse – on critical global issues. We convene leading global voices and conduct independent research to bring clarity and offer solutions to challenges and opportunities across the globe. The Council is committed to engaging the public and raising global awareness of issues that transcend borders and transform how people, business, and governments engage the world.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion in blog posts are the sole responsibility of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Council.

Archive

| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads – The World That Awaits

The next president of the United States faces a world on edge, and America confronts a more complex and less controllable world than at any time in history. Dealing with these challenges will require a refocused grand strategy, one that better aligns America's capabilities with its interests and prioritizes what is truly important.



| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week’s Reads – The Rise of Populism

The rise of populism is one of the most important global developments in recent memory. This week’s reads explore some of the reasons why populists are gaining more prominence and what this means for America and the world.


Election 2016: What Do You Think America's Role in the World Should Be?

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is engaging the public and thought leaders in dialogue critical to the 2016 presidential election. In part two of our “Election 2016: America in the World” video series, find out what the public thinks America's role in the world should be.


One More Question with Rosana Schaack

Rosana Schaack, founder and executive director of the NGO Touching Humanity in Need of Kindness (THINK), spoke at the Council on September 22. She sat down with us one-on-one to talk about what drives her work. 


Election 2016 and the Politics of Trade

With the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal unlikely to pass Congress and both candidates calling for it to be renegotiated, what is happening with the politics of trade this year? Iain Whitaker breaks down Council programs and polling to find out.


Public Opinion and Foreign Policy in an Unusual Election Year

Core supporters of Donald Trump are most opposed to immigrants and least likely to support free trade, but Americans overall favor continued immigration and support globalization, according to the 2016 Chicago Council Survey. Council senior fellow Dina Smeltz breaks down the report findings in a new video.





One More Question with Jonathan Tepperman

Foreign Affairs magazine managing editor Jonathan Tepperman visited the Council on September 27 to discuss foreign policy lessons for the next president. He sat down with us one-on-one to describe the biggest foreign policy issue challenge on the horizon.


| By Ivo H. Daalder

Video: What is Populism?

In advance of our October 24 conference on populism, Council President Ivo H. Daalder addresses the question of what populism is and why it is becoming such a growing force around the world.



One More Question with Argentine Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra

Argentine Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra discussed progress toward gender equality around the world with a Council audience last month. We sat down one-on-one with her to inquire what question she hoped the audience would ask. Find out what she said.


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week’s Reads – After Trump

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Donald Trump will not be the next president of the United States. This week’s reads provide some insight into what happens when a nation turns inward and offer a picture of what America may be avoiding by rejecting the politics of Trump.