Jacob Prall
[email protected]

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, anti-immigration champions have new and powerful ammunition in their arsenal. Even the countries most open to taking in refugees, such as Germany and Sweden, are becoming hesitant.

Here in the United States, things are especially heating up at the state level. Anti-immigration sentiment has always been high in the United States, a byproduct of a massive immigrant population. Immigration today is a direr situation than at any other time in U.S. history, as 4 million refugees are living in Turkey alone. In response to this crisis, here’s a step-by-step proposal to anti-immigration supporters on how to start addressing this momentous migration.

Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan have borne the vast majority of refugees created by ISIS and the Syrian civil war. They’ve done so despite their own national defense worries — in Beirut, more than 40 were left dead in bombing attacks that occurred just after the Paris attacks. For the Paris attackers, it should be noted that none of the suspects have been identified as refugees as of yet. But the threat (whether real or imagined) of terrorist sneaking into a country among refugees is there. Step one should be assisting Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan in resettling the refugees they can take and supporting their efforts financially.

Step two is supporting countries that take in refugees while also being far outside the Middle East. Brazil, for example, is a country that should be lauded for its efforts to bring in refugees from the area. By using incentives for accepting refugees among nations open to the idea, the United States and Europe could successfully ease the massive buildup and provide better lives for the people currently living in refugee camps.

Step three is probably the biggest sticking point. It’s accepting refugees into the United States and Europe. Politically, this has never been a bigger challenge. Governors across the nation, including Iowa’s Terry Branstad, refuse to accept Syrian refugees. Of course, this doesn’t mean as much as it might seem. The federal government has authority in this situation, and it will decide whether refugees are taken in. States can make it far more difficult for refugees to have their information processed, increasing the time it would take to settle people and lowering the overall number.

The reality is that nearly all the refugees are fleeing terrorist organizations or governments fueled by terror. They aren’t terrorists. Immigration control is already extremely thorough to prevent such a thing from occurring. Should a system be created to handle the large quantities (relatively large — nothing compared to Syria’s neighbors) of refugees specifically, it stands to reason the system could operate at 100 percent efficiency.

Three simple steps and everything’s fixed? No, that would be ridiculous. Each step would be incredibly complicated in itself, and this proposal wouldn’t eliminate the problem. The ousting of Assad, the destruction of ISIS, these things should be the long- term strategies for a safer Syria and Iraq. But the refugee crisis will not resolve itself and if ISIS is to be defeated, the crisis has to be addressed. Instability drives people to extremism — the less stable the region, the more likely people will turn, in desperation, to extremist groups. Defeating ISIS starts by cutting its incoming classes through long-term strategies of economic stability and sustainability.