Last month, the Australian Government refused the entry of a “relatively minimal” number of asylum seekers over security concerns.

An exact number has been hard to ascertain given tight restrictions on press freedom, and tighter controls around information available to the public–a crushing reality in Australia. Once heralded as a leader in freedom of the press, the right-wing Liberal/National government has forced laws into effect to restrict press freedom.

Further, this refusal to grant asylum to an unknown number of asylum seekers fleeing war-torn Syria and Northern Iraq feeds the victim-blaming rhetoric about the so-called threat posed by asylum seekers fleeing the Middle East. The massive influx of refugees into Europe from the Middle East has led to tension and sensitivity within many countries. Conservative and anti-immigrant political parties have continued to spread a vile and inaccurate rhetoric about the so-called threat posed by ‘western’ nations from asylum seekers stemming from the Middle East.

The rhetoric is not only racist and completely immoral; it is also incredibly incorrect.

Accepting refugees into a country is not a security risk. However, appeasing to certain types of citizens who feel unsettled by an influx of humanitarian refugees destroys community-to-community relations, exploits political votes (as seen with the rise of Donald Trump in the United States), and creates division and ultimately violence within societies that are accepting of refugees.

Refugees fleeing from Syria are not doing so to wreak havoc and commit acts of terror, they are escaping an internal conflict of over six years that has utterly destroyed their nation. In fact, they are less likely to have committed acts of terror, but rather have been the victims of terrorism themselves. According to Anne Speckhard,

“There are only a small number of cases of refugees admitted into the U.S. who have been arrested on terrorism charges—the actual data shows that this is a rare phenomenon.”

Alex Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute states that:

“of the 859,629 refugees admitted from 2001 onwards, only three have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks on targets outside of the United States, and none was successfully carried out.  That is one terrorism-planning conviction for every 286,543 refugees that have been admitted.  To put that in perspective, about 1 in every 22,541 Americans committed murder in 2014.”

To date, no refugee admitted to Australia has been charged with committing a terrorist offence.

These statistics also reflect the difficulties in gaining asylum in these nations. Entering the United States as a refugee, for example, requires abundant security and invasive personal background checks. For Syrians, the vetting process and security checks take about three years to complete, given heightened apprehensions over security. The United States government pays close attention to Syrian refugees especially, conducting face-to-face interviews as well as serious fact-checking of their personal stories alongside confidential records and ‘independently-gathered public information’. This is to ensure that no one entering the United States could be coming with the intention to commit acts of terror.

Alex Nowrasteh further claims that:

“The terrorist threat from Syrian refugees in the United States is hyperbolically over-exaggerated and we have very little to fear from them because the refugee vetting system is so thorough”.

The idea is that individuals who wish to commit acts of terror will not wait years to be screened, vetted and resettled in the United States, especially when there are easier pathways into a country. Why would someone with the intent of committing a terrorist offence go through the lengthy processes to be registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); wait in a refugee camp in often squalid conditions; be vigorously screened by immigration and security officials in the United States and Australia (whom also have access to sophisticated intelligence-gathering and vetting means); then wait longer to enter and further wait a period of time to be settled, in order to carry out a terrorist attack?

The logic behind the anti-immigration ‘movement’ is dumbfounding and incorrect. Refugees do not pose a threat to the security of the United States or Australia. Rather, they can contribute to society and an economy in a meaningful way. The rhetoric of refugees as a security implication is a tired and old political point designed to create fear, disunity and division within society.