Despite Obama’s commitment to bring in 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year, I believe that the United States should not take them in until increased security measures are put in place.

I know that my disapproval with Obama’s decision to take in refugees may make me sound “anti-American” or “prejudice” against Syrians, but my reasoning comes with the security of the United States in mind.

First of all, there is no possible way to verify the identity and credibility of Syrian refugees since the United States does not have access to Syria’s records because they don’t have any. Because of this circumstance, we won’t know if the Syrian refugees will pose a threat to the United States and its citizens. Increased security measures are necessary for these refugees not because they are a majority Muslim population, but because ISIS has a heavy influence over the area. With ISIS propaganda inundating Syrians due to their powerful control over the area, we don’t know what type of terroristic influences they have been exposed to. ISIS has had an extremely powerful influence globally, so the influence over direct areas of control such as Syria must be even greater. This should motivate the United States to promote increased security measures since we don’t have records to ensure that all refugees entering don’t have any affiliations with the terror group.

Furthermore, a Syrian refugee has been linked to the terrorist attacks in Paris that took 129 lives. This shows to prove that ISIS’s influence over the area has affected some of the refugees. Although what happened in Paris may not happen in the United States, it should not serve as a rationale to allow Syrian refugees in without knowing their background. I’m not trying to generalize Syrians and assume they all might be associated to the terrorist group, but ISIS has been known to convert people so we need to make sure refugees coming in do not want to cause any harm.

There are currently 31 states refusing to accept Syrian refugees despite their lack of power to do so. Our national government has the sole authority to accept refugees and dictate what states they are to be transferred to. However, states opposing the foreigners have powers to complicate the process.

“There is some soft power being exerted by the states here even if there’s not hard legal ground for the state to stand on,” Pratheepan Gulasekaram, an associate professor of law at Santa Clara University said. “If this becomes a trend, I think it sets an extremely dangerous precedent.”

States have the power to block funding to programs that serve refugees and help them learn to assimilate into American society and culture. These programs include but are not limited to English language classes, government-funded services, and job training programs. Most governors are opposing the idea of refugees entering the country because they believe that some, not all, refugees pose a legitimate security threat because not all of them want to be “honest law-abiding citizens.”

Despite President Obama’s promise to induce the “most rigorous [screening] process conceivable,” most governors and the general public in opposition do not have enough trust that he will pull through with his promise. I honestly can’t blame them for having such a mindset. Obama has had failed promises on major legistlature such as his promise that the Healthcare.gov website would work smoothly when it launched. Because of the lack of trust, some states have taken action. Texas has already tried suing the federal government for forcing them to take in refugees, and Georgia has refused to process refugee food stamp applications. If the United States wants to create a smooth process transferring refugees and actually take its role as being a representative government, it should hear the states’ concerns out.

Even if the refugees do come in, can the United States ensure they will have a better life here? The government obviously doesn’t care about the states’ security concerns and that inevitably causes a hostile environment to those moving into the states of opposition. The number of homeless people, some of whom are veterans who risked their own lives for the safety of the country, is growing, and the United States isn’t making it a priority to help them. If we, as a country, can’t even help our own people, how do we expect to help others? I feel like we just accept these refugees because we feel as if we have a moral obligation to do so. However, it is also a moral obligation to ensure them that they will live comfortably here. They already have had it hard so why allow them come and make it hard for them again?

Overall, I’m not in opposition to accepting the refugees forever- I understand there are people who just want to have better lives away from the Islamic State. I just think the federal government needs to take in consideration that some refugees may serve as potential security threats,and until there it is a guaranteed that screening will be rigorous enough to sort out the threats, the opposing states will make it hard for the refugees. That defeats the purpose of them coming here. We shouldn’t be pressured into doing something just because we consider it a “moral obligation,” but as long as our current national leaders hold authority we have no power to stop the refugees from flooding in whether or not they pose a threat.