Untangling the Immigration Debate

Untangling the Immigration Debate

A hundred and seventy-four refugees from Syria arrived in Indiana, during the past fiscal year, as part of President Obama’s stated goal of admitting ten thousand Syrians who had been displaced by civil war. There were organizations in Indiana ready to help them, including a nonprofit state-supported group called Exodus. But the state itself was less hospitable: the governor publicly declared the refugees a security risk, and announced that Indiana would refuse to reimburse Exodus for any costs incurred on the Syrians’ behalf. Exodus sued, and the case was argued before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals last month, by which point it had acquired additional political significance: the defendant, Governor Mike Pence, was also the Republican nominee for Vice-President.

During oral arguments, the state’s lawyer was subjected to withering questions from the judges, who wondered whether barring Syrians was an efficient anti-terrorism strategy. (The state cited James Comey, the director of the F.B.I., who had acknowledged that his agency faced a particular “challenge” in checking the backgrounds of Syrian refugees.) One judge asked, “Are Syrians the only Muslims Indiana fears?”

Read Full Article »
Comment
Show commentsHide Comments

Related Articles