Governors are worried about wrong refugees

Think about those with EU passports

Two dozen governors rejecting the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states was an understandable reaction to the news that at least one of the Paris attackers evidently inserted himself in the refugee stream that entered Europe through Greece.

Aside from the dubious constitutionality of what the governors propose, which conflicts with the exclusive federal jurisdiction over immigration policy, is the fact that potential attackers of the United States are already comfortably situated in Europe and are either holding passports that can get them through U. S. border checks or soon will.

Once asylum seekers in European Union countries achieve citizenship, they are eligible to secure a coveted passport from an EU member country, which exempts the holder from the requirement to obtain a visa. But even if we were to impose such a visa requirement, an EU passport would still be a surer ticket to legal entry into the USA than one from any other region of the world. This questions whether our imposition of stringent new controls on EU citizens would cause a serious deterioration of our trans- Atlantic relationships.

Paradoxically, a Syrian from a refugee camp in Lebanon or Jordan would be a less risky admission to the U. S. than a holder of a European passport from a country that has admitted tens of thousands of asylum seekers with little or no screening.

It is possible, in theory, to screen the 10,000 refugees that President Obama has proposed welcoming. It is time consuming, and immigrant advocates have complained about the prolonged wait. But a thorough vetting once completed would make a Syrian among the safest candidates for admission to this country.

By way of contrast, it is not really possible, even with the best technology, to vet the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have flocked and continue to flock to the countries of Western Europe.

There is a hidden assumption in the arguments of both the governors and the Republican presidential hopefuls that the 10,000 Syrians Obama wants to allow here are all Muslims. That is almost certainly not the case. Some of the earliest refugees were Christians or members of minority sects.

Furthermore, Syria is probably the most secular of the Muslim countries in the Middle East. And even if the majority are Muslim, the application of a religious test brings up bitter memories of the World War II immigration quotas that limited the admission of Jews suffering from Nazi persecution. The rejection by the United States of those fugitive Jews was, for many of them, tantamount to a death sentence.

If we face danger from a future terrorist attack on our country, it is likely to come not from the suburbs of Beirut but from the suburbs of Brussels.