Stacie Blake is the Director of Government and Community Relations for the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. She has been recognized by the Vermont Legislature with a Joint Resolution of Appreciation for her work with refugees and immigrants across the state.
How does the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) attempt to smooth the transition for refugees arriving to the United States?
To ease the transition, we work really hard to set realistic expectations. We also let people know upfront that everything we do might not be enough, but we will do our best. People will have to get over their own fears and try some new things by themselves. To try to walk in and apply for a job even if we are not there to help and to explain, to try to practice English, to get on the bus, and come to the office by yourself are all examples.
Setting expectations is one way; working with the community is the other because most of our programs have strong volunteer support. I received an email yesterday about an Afghan family in North Carolina. The volunteers picked them up and took them to a harvest festival that had cider, games, face painting, and a bounce house. The volunteers wrote to me that the family had so much fun and even the parents had their faces painted. It was really great, but something like that — being in the community and totally forgetting all of your problems — is something we won’t be able to do. That extra kind of activity is why volunteer help is so important.
Does USCRI do anything differently than other similar organizations?
All of the entities that have similar programs have the same contract, so there are requirements we all have to meet. The USCRI invests a lot in our staff training, and we make a point to hire folks who share a culture with the refugee coming in…Nearly all of our staff is bilingual because we’re very diligent about using interpreters. We would never ask a child to interpret for their family. I can’t say that we do things differently, because I wouldn’t want to say something dismissive about our colleagues. But I do feel really good about the quality we can provide.
Especially in the wake of the Syrian Civil War, several critics have worried that refugees could be affiliated with terrorist organizations and argued that they need to be thoroughly evaluated before coming to the United States. What’s your response to this?
First, I think there has been a conflation of Islam and terrorism, which is very detrimental when it comes to talking about refugees. There are refugees from all faith groups fleeing persecution, which is really important for people to understand. I support the vetting process for refugees, although I wish they could make it move a little quicker. What we know is that other pathways to enter the United States are easier and much faster if someone wanted to do us harm. Entering as a refugee would be such a crazy choice because it takes such a long time and you would meanwhile be living in terrible conditions. The other thing we know is that since the [refugee] program started in the 80s, we actually do not have one example of someone who passed the vetting process and then did anything to cause harm under the heading of terrorism. Thus it’s so unfortunate that that’s the label that’s getting put on Muslims in particular, who simply want to get into a refugee program.
Is there any way to create a more positive image of refugees in order to show that most, if not all, refugees are not actually a part of terrorist organizations?
To speak about Syrians in particular, I get several calls every day from different media outlets. What they want is to speak to a Syrian family to try to build a narrative of a Syrian family. My colleagues and I try to accommodate those requests, but when a family first arrives — especially when they are the first ones of the new group — it’s really overwhelming. It would be irresponsible of me to put them in front of a reporter until I know that they feel comfortable and that they can decide how much of their story to share or not, especially since they still may have people who are not in a safe situation and need to be really careful on how much to disclose. But I think once more Syrians can tell, then people will start to get different sides.
Do you believe that it is more beneficial to improve a country’s situation so that refugees may return home or is it better for refugees to relocate?
Everyone I have ever met who came as a refugee has said that they would have preferred to stay home. Once you have been displaced for a long time and come here and are able to make a new life, then people might not say, “I want to go back home,” because they have already adjusted and lost so much to this new reality. The short answer is yes, everyone wants to go home. But that’s just not a choice right now.
Whose responsibility are refugees? Is it the government of the country that they are living in, international organizations, or world powers like the United States and Germany who have the resources to take them in?
In a recent meeting, one woman made this argument that if the United States has 20 percent of the world’s resources then it should be responsible for 20 percent of the refugees. She was essentially making the argument that wealthier nations should do more. We also have the United Nations for a reason and [refugees] is one part of that…We also see neighbors of Syria taking extreme measures to protect people. This does raise the question of “who’s responsible?” The surrounding countries are doing everything they can, but the situation has also become overwhelming for them. This is when organizations like the USCRI and other countries in Europe are called in to do more. But I think what we are seeing play out is that when something goes wrong, the people in the country move to a different place within the country before they then spill out into neighboring countries looking for protection.