Welcome more Syrians to the U.S.

There will be blood. Former U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said earlier this month that Americans “should accept the inevitability” that a terrorist attack will take place on U.S. soil. The United States — despite boasting the most sophisticated intelligence agencies and the best prepared and funded federal, state and local law enforcement organizations in the world — is powerless to stop a deeply committed terrorist. We will be hit — and hit hard. Despite this grim reality, we have been dangerously distracted from our focus on true security vulnerabilities by the debate over providing a haven to Syrian refugees.

With more than 5 million Syrian refugees forming part of the greatest humanitarian crisis since World War II, the crucial question for this administration — and especially for the next — and indeed all Americans is whether the United States should commit to resettling more Syrians here.

I spent my entire public service career with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. I worried night and day about how terrorists might exploit troubling weaknesses and gaps in our immigration system to carry out a terrorist attack here. One thing that my colleagues and I did not need to spend much time agonizing about, however, was the overseas refugee processing program.

That is because applicants applying from overseas to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program are subject to the most rigorous vetting and highest levels of security checks of anyone hoping to enter our country.

It is difficult — but not impossible — to check the backgrounds of individuals fleeing war and terrorism. Refugees are rigorously vetted through a multistage process involving, initially, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and several U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These checks take time: Refugees must wait anywhere from 18 to 24 months to enter the United States.

Moreover, refugees from Syria undergo an additional layer of screening called the Syria Enhanced Review process. In addition to deep background investigations, including leveraging intelligence and security officers on the ground in the region as well as querying databases shared by our trusted allies, each applicant is interviewed by highly skilled and very experienced officers with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Refugee Corps. All of this takes place outside the United States.

The United States has welcomed millions of refugees, including hundreds of thousands of Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa. To be sure, imperfections exist within the homeland security framework. There are many ways for terrorists to enter the United States. However, the refugee route is a dauntingly difficult avenue.

Last month, the United States celebrated its annual goal of resettling slightly more than 10,000 Syrian refugees in the country — more than 70 percent of them children under 12 and women. That is a significant increase over the fewer than 2,000 refugees admitted in the first four years of the Syrian war. The United States is likely to admit 10,000 more Syrians this year.

But should the United States — in its unrivaled leadership role — accept more? Other countries have resettled many more Syrian refugees: Turkey is now home to some 2.7 million. Lebanon and Jordan have accepted a combined total of nearly 2 million. Germany has admitted more than 500,000. Canada has taken in more than 35,000.

Terrorists and their organizations are sophisticated and savvy: We must keep our guard up. If the United States decides to accept a higher number of refugees from Syria, then it should, in addition to the vetting process, leverage all available tools, including technology, to develop an even more rigorous screening procedure.