The locks left in the chain links of Paris’s iconic Pont des Arts bridge have long been contentious–they were seen as an eyesore, a tourist trap, and a threat to the structural integrity of the bridge, as the weight of hundreds upon hundreds of metal locks weighed down the balustrades. Romantics see the love locks as a symbol of commitment, but locals see them as a form of littering. The city began removing the locks en masse last year but the “love lock trend” still exists across Paris and has spread to practically every major city with an attractive set of bridges. Yet as of this month, the Parisian locks will take on a new identity–they are being bundled together and auctioned for charity, specifically to raise money for refugees living in Paris.

The auction is slated for the spring of 2017 and Bruno Julliard, first deputy mayor of Paris, expects to raise approximately 100,000 euros for the refugee community–but there have been no specific plans released for which organizations will receive the profits. Nor has there been a clear outline of what specifically the money would go toward. Refugees are in need of shelter, food, medical care and supplies, legal representation, job training and placement–which of these efforts will be prioritized when the love lock funds roll in?

Julliard has essentially two options before him: donate a massive sum to a single organization, or donate multiple small amounts to the various charities working to secure housing and employment for the thousands of refugees living in Paris. The general statement Julliard released made a vague reference toward funding “organizations” (plural not singular) working to support refugees in Paris but gave no information about whether that means local, neighborhood organizations or larger, international charities. If several different organizations are going to receive funding, then orchestrating the auction becomes a much more challenging task. What if those bidding on the locks only want to give to certain charities that are benefitting from the funds and not others?

While several small donations to multiple causes can help with immediate issues like purchasing supplies, there is an economic argument that a one-time large donation to a single organization will be more impactful in the long run. However, the true efficacy of the donation has more to do with how the organization spends it money than the sum itself. The websites Givewell and CharityNavigator  only exist because we have seen charities mishandle funds time and again, making us wary of where we donate our money.

At the moment, the sale of the love locks may read as a feel-good publicity stunt but if the auction truly does raise the money that Julliard expects, the funds will become an object of public debate, with every non-profit that even tangentially works with refugees looking for a grant and every anti-refugee National Front supporter arguing that the funds should be spent elsewhere. Unless there is a clear plan of which charity the money is going to and how it will be spent when it gets there, the love lock auction will be, at best, a shallow gesture that does not effectively help Paris’s refugees.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Auctioning the Love Locks: The Challenges of Charity appeared first on Law Street.

When a 22-year-old Syrian man at a train station in Leipzig, Germany posted a message on a social media site asking for a place to crash, two fellow Syrian refugees scooped him up and brought him to a third friend’s apartment. The man, Jaber Albakr, was on the lam after police raided his apartment, suspecting him of plotting a terrorist attack.

As Albakr slept on Sunday night, the three Syrian friends, realizing that he was the fugitive who had evaded the police, tied him up with electrical cords, and alerted the authorities. They arrested him Monday morning, and now, the three Syrians who tied him up are being hailed as “heroes.”

Anti-migrant sentiment has gripped Germany like it has the rest of Europe. Political groups running on nationalist, insular, platforms have sprung up from London to Leipzig. But on Tuesday, after three Syrian asylum seekers thwarted a fellow Syrian immigrant (who was granted asylum as one of the 890,000 migrants allowed into Germany last year), it was those least trusted by some Germans who perhaps saved the lives of many.

Leipzig is the largest city in the eastern state of Saxony, the base of a prominent anti-immigrant group, Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West (PEGIDA). Messages from groups like PEGIDA were overshadowed on Tuesday by the heroism of Syrian refugees. Leipzig Mayor Burkhard Jung called what the Syrians did a “very courageous act.” In the German newspaper Bild, one of the Syrian saviors voiced his appreciation for Germany: “I am so grateful to Germany for taking us in. We could not allow him to do something to Germans.”

The identities of the Syrian friends have not been released by authorities. Investigators in the case said Albakr seemed to be targeting a Berlin airport. They found over three pounds of explosives in his home, as well as evidence of ties to the Islamic State.

Franz Josef Wagner, a columnist for Bild, heralded the Syrians’ actions in an op-ed published on Tuesday. He began his piece with “Dear Heroes” and noted that they may come from a different culture, “But beyond language and tradition, you know what good and bad are. That makes you friends.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Syrian Refugees Deemed ‘Heroes’ After Thwarting Leipzig Terror Suspect appeared first on Law Street.

Early this week, hundreds of migrants in Greece–many of whom made perilous journeys on inflatable rafts to make it there–were placed onto ferries to be sent back to where they came from. This is the result of a new deal between the European Union and Turkey to help ease the undeterred flow of migrants into Europe, which began its implementation on Monday. The deal stipulates that un-vetted refugees who landed in Greece will be sent back to Turkey, and in exchange, a vetted refugee in Turkey can be brought to Europe to be resettled. This “one-for-one” trade sounds like a  simple enough solution for stopping an uncontrolled flow of refugees into Greece, but the endless logistical, ethical, and political issues that have arisen with it are making it a problematic solution to a complex problem.

While the State Department called the deal an “important step,” it has been criticized by many human rights organizations and aid groups who allege that Turkey is not a safe place for these migrants to return to. Amnesty International believes that there are “fatal flaws” in the deal, alleging that Turkish authorities have been forcefully sending hundreds of refugees back to war-torn Syria. The deal also doesn’t offer protections to non-Syrian migrants, who were also being deported under the deal.

Protesters dive into sea as ferry carrying #migrants prepares to leave #Lesbos returning them to turkey pic.twitter.com/q1Gz608HAG

— Sophie Long (@S0Long) April 8, 2016

The deal is facing a variety of challenges so far: BBC reports that arrivals into Turkey have already been delayed, and 3,000 migrants still sit in centers awaiting deportation (which could take weeks at minimum). Tensions have also been high in Greece, where “irregular migrants” who have arrived since March 20 (the date the deal was put into effect) have been put into holding centers that have been described as “prison-like.” Early Friday, protests broke out on the island of Chios between hundreds of migrants who had broken out of their centers and residents of the island. 

To add to that, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has been adding to fears that Turkey is undependable, reportedly threatening to not support the refugees if the EU did not live up to its end of the deal (which consisted of promised cash and EU membership to Turkey).

Main refugee camp on #Lesbos. Minutes earlier aggressive Greek police chased me away and deleted my photos. pic.twitter.com/WQ02iZBlBH

— Nick Squires (@NickSquires1) April 4, 2016

These are only a few of the many issues facing this deal, and it’s only gotten started. It’s hard to definitively say whether this is a step forward or a step back. While the EU clearly needs to confront the problem of an unchecked flow of refugees entering Europe, it also must be careful not to compromise the human rights of these groups, many of whom have already lived through horrific atrocities. This agreement clearly has problematic elements that make it difficult to ensure these rights; however, it remains to be seen how the deal will affect the situation of the refugees in the long-term.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Why Hundreds of Refugees are Being Shuffled Around Europe appeared first on Law Street.

On November 18, 2015, the House voted 289-137 in favor of the the newly proposed “American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act,” or “SAFE Act,” with a larger than expected number of Democrats (47) joining the Republicans in passing the legislation. The major issue it seeks to address is national security in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks and the Syrian refugee crisis that has been plaguing Europe for the last few months.

The act itself calls for a more in-depth screening process for “covered aliens,” granting the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) the power to “take all actions necessary” in order to ensure a squeaky clean security clearance prior to admission as a refugee. What this means for the general population and the citizens of the United States is nothing more than a little security blanket we can drag around made out of taxpayer dollars. What this means for Syrian and Iraqi refugees, a group that already endures the most stringent admission into the United States lasting from 18-24 months, is more time in hell as we idly stand by bureaucratic red tape and paperwork that, statistically speaking, is not likely to affect us. Particularly insulting to this irrational and illogical spread of institutionalized fear and propaganda is that the Paris terrorists that have thus been identified are of French and Belgian nationalities. So naturally, Syrian refugees bear the weight of consequence.

Image courtesy Of [Dominic Chavez/World Bank via Flickr]

What most catches the eye in the “SAFE” Act is the use of “covered alien,” which is defined as “any alien applying for admission to the United States as a refugee who A) is a national or resident of Iraq or Syria; B) has no nationality and whose last habitual residence was Iraq or Syria; or C) has been present in Iraq or Syria at any time on or after March 1, 2011.” While the ironic use of “covered alien” is unmistakable, the inclusion of Iraqi refugees in a discussion about national security pertaining to the admission of Syrian refugees into the United States is questionable.

American interests in Iraq have been evident long before President George W. Bush invaded the country on March 19, 2003. Following that date, the United States embarked on the longest invasion since the Vietnam War, costing an upward of $815.8 billion, claiming the lives of 149,053 civilians, as well as 4,637 military members, a majority of whom were United States soldiers, and resulting in a large migration of Iraqi people to find peace and refuge. While there is no question that many innocent Iraqi people were displaced during the invasion of Iraq for which U.S. decision-makers are responsible and have an obligation to, it appears that policy and lawmakers are, in part, trying to circumvent that obligation by lumping Iraqi refugees into a national security issue that has only been applied to Syrian refugees in an effort to cut some weight off of dues owed.

Iraqi refugees, who are not at the forefront of discussion in the Syrian refugee crisis, have now not only been displaced as a collateral consequence to the U.S. invasion, but are being further unjustly treated through cunning deceit by the hands of the very people that displaced them from their homes.

What is the political agenda here? United States citizens need to recognize the misguided policy-making taking place. The Syrian and Iraqi people are individuals trying desperately to survive. These are human beings that the United States has the capability to keep alive and an obligation to do so. Refugees are not the enemy and should not be treated as such, particularly through sloppy policy. While the focus stays on the “covered aliens,” citizens needs to be prudent and work to uncover policy truths.

While it is imprudent to say with certainty what is in store for the “SAFE” Act, speculation can be made on the basis of what has occurred. It remains unclear whether the Senate will indulge in any legislative discourse or action pertaining to the act, but if the bill were to pass Congress, President Obama has made clear that he would use his veto power to stop the act from becoming law. The problem with President Obama’s pledge is that the House only needs 290 votes, only one more than the last time it voted on the act, to override the president’s veto (with the Senate’s help too, of course). Only one thing is certain–this could lead to a power showdown between Congress and the Commander-in-Chief.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “Covered Alien?”: House Votes for the SAFE Act appeared first on Law Street.

It’s true–the Syrian refugee crisis is a tough situation to handle. There are a lot of questions, few answers, and overall there’s a lot of work that needs to be done. But there have also been some truly horrifying responses from Republicans on the issue (and a Democrat as well), from state level politicians, to governors, to current presidential contenders. Check out the top five most terrifying Republican responses to the Syrian refugee crisis below:

Senator Ted Cruz: Let’s Only Allow in Christian Refugees, No Muslims

Somewhat uniquely, Ted Cruz does say that he would let refugees in, but only if they are Christian. He backs up this startling show of intolerance by saying that it’s only Christians who are being persecuted by ISIS and in Syria.

Christians are being persecuted by ISIS, there’s no doubt about that. But so are Shiite Muslims, and so are Yazidis, and so are a whole bunch of other people. In fact, pretty much anyone who doesn’t agree with ISIS is being persecuted–and that includes a whole bunch of Muslims as well. There are a lot of other things wrong with Cruz’s plan when it comes to Syrian refugees as–including the fact that he’s used completely incorrect facts about the demographics of refugees in Europe–but blatantly mischaracterizing the situation in Syria is probably the worst.

Senator David Vitter: Using Lies About a Missing Refugee for Cheap Political Points

David Vitter, who is currently running for governor of Louisiana (and losing) is now using total fear-mongering to attempt to get a bump in the polls. This week, the Louisiana Republican Party sent out an email and in support of Vitter, slamming Obama’s approach to dealing with the refugees, which Vitter tweeted about as well. The message was also posted on the LA GOP’s website. It read:

Just yesterday, David Vitter had to notify the Obama Administration that a Syrian refugee who had been living in Baton Rouge has gone missing. What kind of accountability is that? There is an unmonitored Syrian refugee who is walking around freely, and no one knows where he is.

Republicans also claimed that the refugee was “heading to Washington D.C.” Let’s just set the disgustingly xenophobic language aside, if only because it’s a common thread running through all of these examples, and point out that the Syrian refugee wasn’t actually ever “missing” or “unmonitored.” The Louisiana police knew exactly where the refugee was–he was moving to DC because his family lived there and had to fill out many, many forms in order to be able to do so, including filing paperwork with the federal government. Fantastic job, David Vitter.

Donald Trump: Creating a Muslim Registry

While this one is only tangentially related–Trump actually calls for a complete refusal of Syrian refugees–it’s been worked into the overall debate enough I had to include it. Donald Trump, a man who is leading some Republican polls, said that he would support the creation of a registry with which to keep track of our nation’s Muslims. Although there’s been some arguments over what exactly he did mean–in one of the most damning clips he at one point appears to think he’s talking about border security–he didn’t flat out deny the proposal when asked a question about it, and that’s scary in and of itself. He was given the opportunity to clear up any confusion (if there was any) when asked how a registry of America’s Muslims would be different than the registration of Jews under Nazi Germany. But as the New York Times pointed out:

Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, ‘You tell me,’ until he stopped responding to the question.

Here’s the full clip, if you want to watch for yourself:     Bonus points: Trump has also said that we have no choice but to close certain mosques earlier this week.

Ben Carson Compares Refugees to Dogs

   Ben Carson compared some refugees to “rabid dogs.” Do I even have to explain why this is offensive? Carson’s point–that we need good screening–is fine, but was there really a need to compare refugees to “mad dogs?” Not only is that dehumanizing, it implies that the refugees are diseased and have no autonomy over their own actions. But, what else can we expect from the man whose campaign is so messy that it actually misplaced New England earlier this week?

.@RealBenCarson‘s campaign redraws its map of the U.S. https://t.co/rGCSZDhG8c via @GregJKrieg pic.twitter.com/qCPzydrZCC — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) November 18, 2015

A Whole Bunch of People Suggesting Internment Camps

This is a fun one, because I get to highlight stupidity from multiple different people! Let’s start this with a history lesson: remember that time during World War II when we rounded up a bunch of Japanese-Americans and put them in internment camps? And if you paid attention in middle school, remember how we now view that a massive human rights failure and total usurpation of their Constitutional rights? Remember how in 1988 the Civil Liberties Act was signed, compensating those Japanese-Americans who were held in internment camps and offering a formal apology? Here’s what Ronald Reagan (the president who so rightfully signed that bill) said:

The legislation that I am about to sign provides for a restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese-Americans of the 120,000 who were relocated or detained. Yet no payment can make up for those lost years. So, what is most important in this bill has less to do with property than with honor. For here we admit a wrong; here we reaffirm our commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law.

Now, some people want to create similar camps for the Syrian refugees.

Let’s actually start with a Democrat–after all, ignorance and stupidity is certainly bipartisan: Roanoke Mayor David Bowers. After Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe said that Virginia is open to refugees, Bowers called for all local government agencies to stop assisting refugees. He stated:

I’m reminded that President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt compelled to sequester Japanese foreign nationals after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and it appears that the threat of harm to America from Isis now is just as real and serious as that from our enemies then.

So Bowers apparently missed history class. Who else?

State Senator Elaine Morgan of Rhode Island made a similar suggestion, saying that if we have to take refugees in: “we should set up refugee camp to keep them segregated from our populous.”

Great! Any more?

Sure–there’s also Tennessee GOP Caucus Chairman Glen Casada who suggested using the National Guard to round up any refugees allowed in Tennessee and sending them back to the ICE Detention Centers.

Great work all around–I’m super proud to be an American today.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Five Most Horrifying Republican Responses to the Syrian Refugee Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

The fallout from the Paris attacks is continuing to stir up some pretty strong opinions from both liberals and conservatives over the Syrian migrant crisis as it relates to U.S. borders. Even as President Obama has already committed to take in 10,000 refugees, more than half of state governors are reportedly opposed to allowing Syrian refugees to enter their states.

There’s only one problem–it’s not up to them.

The U.S stance on immigration ultimately falls to the federal government to regulate, therefore regardless of whether or not your state’s governor opposes it, they have no say over allowing or barring them. They can, however, make the process more difficult.

As a result President Obama launched into a long-winded Twitter rant Wednesday afternoon to remind the American public (and maybe a few elected officials) why the U.S. has morally decided to provide refuge to Syrian evacuees.

Protecting the American people is my top priority. With our 65 global partners, we’re leading the campaign to degrade and destroy ISIL.

— President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

We also win this fight with our values. America can ensure our own security while welcoming refugees desperately seeking safety from ISIL. — President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

We will provide refuge to at least 10,000 refugees fleeing violence in Syria over the next year after they pass the highest security checks.

— President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

We also win this fight with our values. America can ensure our own security while welcoming refugees desperately seeking safety from ISIL. — President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

Here, our focus is giving safe haven to the most vulnerable Syrians – women, children, and survivors of torture.

— President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

Welcoming the world’s vulnerable who seek the safety of America is not new to us. We’ve safely welcomed 3 million refugees since 1975. — President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

Slamming the door in the face of refugees would betray our deepest values. That’s not who we are. And it’s not what we’re going to do.

— President Obama (@POTUS) November 18, 2015

And he’s not the only one arguing today in support of the Syrian Refugees. Google used a clever fortunetelling search engine to draw attention to the issue, by forcing users to “take a moment to think of [the refugees’] future.”

What’s the #FutureofPolitics? We asked @Google Fortune Telling. Check it out: https://t.co/nBd1QhnHtP pic.twitter.com/4y7jI7iZVg — InstituteOfPolitics (@HarvardIOP) November 18, 2015

While the current administration has made its stance on immigration pretty clear, the polarizing topic will most likely continue to dominant the rhetoric of current candidates seeking the prestigious office.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Launches Into Twitter Rant Over Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

Here we are, in the aftermath of a global tragedy, letting fear divide us. This statement could apply to any number of historical events in the history of the United States, going back as far as World War II and the internment of thousands of Japanese-American people.

It is not the mid-1900s, but yet again we find ourselves the victims of fear. Rather than fighting the source of our terror, we are fighting each other. Rather than helping the helpless, we are scapegoating them, judging them based on their appearance, their homeland, and their religion. For that reason, ISIS has already succeeded in a country it has yet to directly attack.

It is entirely hypocritical of the United States to deny assistance to a group of people who are fleeing not only an organization we have vowed to take down, but also an area that we as a country have helped to unhinge. Some of the unrest in the Middle East is directly related to American involvement in that region over the past decade, and to say otherwise is fallacy. We are fighting a “war on terror” and in fact, records show that residents of Middle Eastern countries, and more specifically Muslims, are the group most affected by terrorism.

But what do we do when the terrorists are claiming the same religion as their victims? That is simple: ISIS and all its associated monikers are not true representations of Islam, and we should not judge the millions of people who practice Islam by ISIS’ actions. It calls itself the “Islamic State,” but the only word that should be associated with its members is “terrorists.” Arguments that Islam as a religion actually promotes such terrorism are not based in fact, but rather false stereotypes that have circulated for years. Just watch Professor Reza Aslan skillfully defend Islam in this interview with CNN last year, which has resurfaced since the Paris attacks:

Blatant facts are usually not enough to curb the rising panic of American Islamophobia, though, especially when a Syrian passport was allegedly found near one of the Paris suicide bombers. The facts and origins of this passport are hazy, and it calls into question not only the motives behind the suicide bomber carrying such a passport, but also the security of European countries, not America.

Why would a jihadist who expressly rejects all notions of modern citizenship take his passport on a suicide mission? So it gets found.

— Charlie Winter (@charliewinter) November 15, 2015

ISIS has blatantly stated that its goals are to fan Islamophobia throughout the West, proving to itself and to Muslim people that the West is a land of corruption and ISIS holds the key to eternal happiness. On his website, Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow Aaron Zelin has collected ISIS videos explaining its motivations. Their latest video is entitled “Would You Exchange What Is Better for What Is Less?” and warns Muslims against fleeing to Christian lands where they will be persecuted. Zelin explains along with the video:

The reality is, The Islamic State (IS) loathes that individuals are fleeing Syria for Europe. It undermines IS’ message that its self-styled Caliphate is a refuge, because if it was, individuals would actually go there in droves since it’s so close instead of 100,000s of people risking their lives through arduous journeys that could lead to death en route to Europe.

And we are falling right into ISIS’ trap.

Since the Obama administration has announced that the United States still plans on accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees, something we have been planning to do for months, several governors have written statements that they will not allow refugees access to their state. However, according to the Refugee Act of 1980, they don’t have the power to do so. The federal government will still resettle hundreds of refugees in each state, regardless of what these governors say. The federal government cannot, however, dictate the welcome these refugees will receive, and since so many Americans are giving into the fear of ISIS-incited Islamophobia, that welcome–or lack-thereof–could be terrifying in itself.

And it isn’t just American citizens who are letting fear dictate their actions. Politicians are joining in the frenzy as well. Sen. Rand Paul even went so far as to introduce a bill that would immediately halt refugee visas.

Cecillia Wang of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement on Monday:

Making policy based on this fear mongering is wrong for two reasons. It is factually wrong for blaming refugees for the very terror they are fleeing, and it is legally wrong because it violates our laws and the values on which our country was founded.

Those values are written plainly on the Statue of Liberty. We say “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.” But as John F. Kennedy sardonically wrote in his 1958 book “A Nation of Immigrants,” America has taken to adding: “as long as they come from Northern Europe, are not too tired or too poor or slightly ill, never stole a loaf of bread, never joined any questionable organization, and can document their activities for the past two years.”

We should be outraged that those words are as true today as they were in 1958. Yet our outrage is currently misdirected at refugees, rather than at the terror they are seeking refuge from. What adds to the irony is the argument coming from conservatives and conservative leadership that we should take care of the homeless, especially the homeless veterans, on U.S. soil before offering to help foreigners. The reality is that the past seven bills introduced in Congress that would have assisted those homeless vets were blocked by Republicans.

Which brings me back to this: American people and politicians are fighting each other rather than facing the problem as one unified force. We are giving into the fear that has historically produced some of the ugliest eras in our country’s history. In this pivotal moment, we must prove ISIS wrong. We must not persecute or blame the refugees, but lead the charge against the enemy we share.

We must remember that united we stand, and divided we fall.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post By Reacting to Fear, We Let ISIS Win appeared first on Law Street.

Over half of the nation’s governors have said that they will not accept Syrian refugees if they are brought into the United States. The 27 different governors have mostly cited security concerns as the primary reason for being opposed to refugees being brought into their states. A state by state map of where governors stand on accepting Syrian refugees is below:

These proclamations about resettling Syrian refugees in the U.S. come as a reaction to a few different issues. The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris were allegedly propagated by at least one man who came into Europe by pretending to be a Syrian refugee. He entered Greece using a fake passport that identified him as Syrian. Additionally, President Obama recently stated that his plan still calls for the United States to absorb 10,000 Syrian refugees. It’s a combination of these two factors that seem to be motivating the backlash from governors.

How governors have been making their refusal known varies. Some, like Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia have issued executive orders to that effect. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, on the other hand, sent a letter to President Obama outlining his intention to turn away Syrian refugees. Regardless of what state governors say, however, it’s not technically within their purview whether or not the U.S. should accept refugees–it’s a federal responsibility. However, states can keep their resources from being used by the federal government, which seems like it would be the most likely way that refugees are hampered from being resettled into various states.

The controversy over whether or not to accept Syrian refugees hasn’t just been limited to state governors. It’s been commented upon by the many, many presidential contenders as well, and unsurprisingly is split across party lines. Democrats, for the most part, have supported allowing refugees in. For example Senator Bernie Sanders urged that the U.S. not turn its back on refugees fleeing oppression and civil war in Syria. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted her support for taking in refugees as well during last Saturday’s Democratic debate, the night after the attacks in Paris.

In contrast, many of the Republican contenders have spoken out against taking in any of the refugees. Dr. Ben Carson has not only said that the U.S. shouldn’t take in Syrian refugees, but also urged Congress to “extinguish” resettlement programs altogether. Another Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has questioned whether the refugees will be a “Trojan horse” in America, and has suggested buying land in Syria for them to go to. How they would be protected in that “swatch of land” is unclear. Senator Ted Cruz has said that we should accept only Christian refugees. Governor Jeb Bush broke from the rest of his Republican counterparts, saying that we should let in refugees but screen them intensely.

This problem isn’t going away anytime soon–the situation is worsening in Syria. Whether or not the U.S. decides to accept Syrian refugees looks to be a point of significant argument moving forward in the national conversation, as well as in the primary elections.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More than Half of U.S. Governors Want to Turn Away Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.