Let's be sensible: We can accept refugees from Syria and be safe

The conversation has been ugly. And it's not just the politicians. The issue has divided families, neighbors and religious groups. It has laid bare the power of unfiltered social media, and the damage that can be done by untruths and viral misconceptions.

The issue of whether to accept Syrian refugees into the United States, and how to do that, gets to the heart of our identity as a nation founded and continually renewed by refugees.

How do we keep our status as the world's beacon of freedom while maintaining the security and safety that allow those freedoms to flourish?

In truth, we can have both, and should have both, but cannot when everyone is yelling. Both sides have valid points, but minds won't be easily changed when neither side is listening.

President Barack Obama rightly evokes the principles for which America stands, and defends his commitment to eventually resettle 10,000 Syrians. Yet he wrongly belittles the fears of people who are scared. The Islamic State has said repeatedly it wants to strike the United States for its role in the Middle East, most recently last week when it threatened New York City and Washington. It retaliated against France's military action in Syria with the attacks in Paris.

Those who want to slam the door shut are wrong to pretend there is no process for vetting refugees, and to imply that legal status is being thrown about like confetti to clamoring hordes. Statistics that are being cited are demonstrably false. Proposals calling for a religious litmus test for would-be refugees or a database to track all Muslims are dangerously undemocratic. And it's just heartless to argue that we should deny admission to even a 3-year-old orphan.

Vetting carefully done

The discussion we need to have must start with what we know about refugees from war-torn regions. Homeless and hungry, some are injured and most lack basic possessions. There is a vetting process for them and it's a pretty good one, with enough levels that it takes an average of 18 to 24 months for clearance. No Syrian who has come here has ever been charged with crimes of terrorism. Since 9/11, the system has been tweaked, but nothing will be foolproof. But that doesn't mean it can't get better. The Islamic State is a different kind of threat. Vetting should evolve as well.

Currently, U.S. authorities consider people certified as refugees and referred to them by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The U.S. process includes a medical evaluation, a security screening by multiple domestic and international agencies and a personal interview. Since the Syrian civil war began in 2011, fewer than 2,200 refugees have been accepted -- half of whom were children.

The Obama administration wants to accept 10,000 more Syrian refugees by next October -- not 250,000 claimed by GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, one of several excessive Republican numbers -- and those 10,000 are part of a total of 85,000 targeted for acceptance worldwide. Obama's goal is lower than the 30,000 Syrian refugees French President François Hollande plans to take in over the next two years, a commitment made after the attacks in Paris.

And there could be more refugees soon. The controversy over vetting has temporarily overtaken the debate over Middle East civil wars and lawlessness that have produced more than 4 million refugees from Syria alone. Now we hear talk of more American bombing and of U.S. troops again being sent to wage war, despite the lessons of history: that different ethnicities and various factions of Islam have been at war forever and have little motive to stop; that the U.S. intervention via the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath destabilized the region and made possible the rise of ISIS; that our attempts at nation-building almost always fail; and that we have paid a heavy price in lives and money for our involvement.

Find sensible approach

Let's be smarter and less strident about the refugees, so we can continue to provide the safe haven this country always has offered while protecting our own security. Legislation passed Thursday by the House of Representatives would toughen screening and slow the vetting to a crawl, if not stop it outright, by requiring that the FBI director, the secretary of Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence each certify that every applicant from Syria and Iraq poses no threat to national security. The bill passed easily with almost 50 votes from Democrats, despite Obama's threat to veto it.

There was a better road to follow. The president could have expressed his objections to the House bill but promised to work with the Senate to address them. For example, instead of three separate certifications, those agencies could form one working group with one common certification to provide greater oversight without choking the process.

Instead, emotion has eclipsed reason. But compromise still is possible. Calmer conversation after the Thanksgiving recess could give the Senate time to craft a sensible approach. Both sides must seek that -- for an American public conflicted by its need for safety and its urge to help innocent Syrians victimized by the very terror we now seek to keep at bay.