Here Are the American Leaders Standing Against the Fear of Syrian Refugees

Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama, and several governors push back against the rising tide of anti-refugee sentiment.

Syrian refugees arrive at the Greek island of Lesbos on October 1, 2015.AP Photo/Muhammed Muheisen

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Since the terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday, more than half of America’s governors have issued statements saying they would bar Syrian refugees from entering their states—despite having no legal authority to do so and disregarding the nation’s strict vetting process for refugees. The statements come amid a rising tide of fear and anti-refugee sentiment among the American public: More than half of Americans polled by Bloomberg said the United States should not continue with plans to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees, while a survey from NBC News published late Wednesday contained similar results. But at least a few American political leaders are pushing back.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf

Early Monday morning, Wolf sent a letter to lawmakers in Pennsylvania in response to Republicans calling on him to not accept Syrian refugees. He wrote, “We must not forget that those fleeing Syria—and other places in crisis—are families, elderly, and orphaned children seeking to escape a daily life that includes the same horrific violence that occurred in Paris…Our commonwealth can be a safe haven for refugees.”

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton
On Monday, Dayton called statements from his fellow governors who want to bar Syrian refugees “ludicrous”:

“I think it’s showmanship on the part of the governors…I want to protect the people of Minnesota every bit as much those governors want to protect the people of their states. To stand up there with swagger, and say ‘I’m going to prevent the wrong people from entering my state’ to me is just ludicrous.”

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown
Brown took to Twitter on Tuesday to say that Oregon will “open the doors to opportunity” for displaced people.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren
In a 12-minute address on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Warren of Massachusetts gave an impassioned critique of efforts to reject asylum seekers: “We are not a nation that delivers children back into the hands of ISIS murderers.” She added, “It is easy to proclaim that we are tough and brave and good-hearted when threats feel far away—but when those threats loom large and close by, our actions will strip away our tough talk and reveal who we really are.”

President Barack Obama
In a dig against Republican politicians, and particularly against New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie—who said he opposes US resettlement of Syrian refugees, even three-year-old orphans—Obama said on Tuesday, “Apparently they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America. At first, they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of three-year-old orphans. That doesn’t seem so tough to me.”

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee
Inslee, in an interview with NPR on Wednesday, stated that he would not be joining the growing list of governors opposing refugees. Referencing Japanese internment camps, he noted:

“I live on Bainbridge Island, this little island just west of Seattle. And it was the first place where we succumbed to fear, in 1941 after Pearl Harbor…And we locked up Washington and American citizens, and we sent them to camps for years while their sons fought in the Army in Italy and were decorated fighting for democracy…We regret that. We regret that we succumbed to fear. We regret that we lost moorage for who we were as a country. We shouldn’t do that right now.”

Other political leaders voicing support for refugees include Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, Congressman Seth Moultan, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, and California Gov. Jerry Brown.

This article has been updated.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate