“When was the last time you heard new accounts of a boatload American refugees arrive on the shores of another country?” – Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio, before finally kicking the bucket of his untenable presidential campaign last March, was not always as consistent with his stance on immigration as his fellow Republican contenders Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Earlier in his campaign, back in 2015, the Florida senator had fought for and against the Obama administration’s push for a more lenient immigration policy in the United States. The son of Cuban immigrants, it seems apparent as to why Rubio initially favored Obama’s policy towards making America a land of freedom and opportunity for all. This opinion, however, immediately went south once Europe had been hit by one of the worst attacks of the century.

Since last September, the new flock attracting to Obama’s open-door policy has been Syrian refugees. Syria, a country ripped apart by civil war since March 2011, is still in dire shape after more than five years of hostilities between the rebelling “Free Syrian Army” and the government of President Bashar al-Assad. In 2016, fewer than seven million civilians are internally displaced throughout Syria; the rest of the population has scattered by the thousands either to neighboring Middle Eastern countries, such as Iraq and Turkey, or to the more appealing European continent. Many of these escapees from the war in Syria believed their journey would be the start of a new, promising life; Europe, on the other hand, feared that such a massive influx of foreigners may be an invitation to chaos. On the night of November 13, 2015, this fear was confirmed as the French capital of Paris fell victim to the deadliest attack in its history since the Second World War, with 130 reported dead and hundreds of others wounded. After Paris, there was nowhere to hide from the fact that the micro-management of Syrian immigration had escalated into a full-fledged “refugee crisis.” However, at the same time, all Syrians and other Muslim groups who had fled the harsh political climate of the Middle East became prime targets for discrimination as suspects of radical Islamic terrorism, a broad allegation that quickly made its way across the Atlantic into the United States.

Last week I talked about the current issue of “Islamophobia” in America and the negative impact it has had on relations between Americans and Muslims living peaceably in the United States. In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, Americans had all the more reason to fear and discriminate everyone and everything associated with Islam. What’s more, with Obama’s recent proposal for 10,000 Syrian refugees to be brought in U.S. borders, many Americans grew paranoid that their own national security may be at risk. The Islamic extremists who bloodied the streets of Paris, all of whom were either born or had lived in Europe for a while and were loyal to ISIS, gave Americans the frightful impression that their borders may be just as vulnerable as those in Greece and Germany and France. As more refugees were fleeing the Middle East into the open arms of Europe and more violent acts of terror were being committed on the grounds of Europe (more recently, in the Belgian capital of Brussels), suspicions began to arise that the radical jihadists involved may be sneaking their way into the West by following the refugees like wolves among sheep. The lack of sufficient profiling in European countries has made it easier for terrorists to move under the radar of the border patrols. Still, despite tough resistance from Congress and state governments across the nation, the Obama administration has not budged to rethink its plan to import so many Syrian refugees at a time when radical Islam was becoming increasingly potent. As of late November 2015, 31 U.S. states fought back by closing their doors to all refugees; the rest have either sided with Obama’s proposal or are undecided. Thus, with Americans divided on the issue of choosing between racial equality and national defense, and with the refugee crisis exacerbating the Islamophobia epidemic, the United States is caught fighting on multiple fronts against itself while the forces of ISIS continue to step on the toes of the free world.

So what needs to be done? While America should not give in to the widespread fear of Muslims already living within her borders, there is no reason for her to not be cautious. The mistakes that were made in Europe must become lessons for the United States. As I emphasized in last week’s article, not all Muslims represent the twisted interpretations of Islam that radical extremists are using to attack and slaughter the “Western infidels.” Nevertheless, as the war in Syria is still raging without any indication of peace and more refugees are being produced, better precautionary measures need to be taken by the United States so to prevent a disaster similar to or worse than what happened in Paris. If refugees are to be allowed on American soil, profiling must continue to be used in force in order to distinguish Muslim from terrorist. America can no longer afford to let its guard down like Europe has already done. Until a better offense is used against ISIS in the Middle East, the United States must look to the defense of its territory, and more importantly, its people.

Back in the days of Ancient Rome, a philosopher known as Marcus Tullius Cicero once said, “In times of war, the law falls silent.” Cicero’s words speak volumes even today in the year 2016 when we look at America’s ongoing battle with radical Islamic terrorism. Despite being fought thousands of miles away, Syria’s war is also America’s war. While the Syrian Civil War continues to push the country’s citizens west towards European shores, potential agents of ISIS will continue to treat the refugee crisis as extra fuel to the fire of their anti-Western jihad. In the United States, the acts of terrorism inflicted on Europe have only widened the gap of discrimination between Americans and Muslims. Nevertheless, given the current state of war existing with ISIS, the United States must abandon equality for the protection of the nation as a whole—at least until some progress is made to stabilize the refugee population in Europe, resolve the conflict in Syria, and/or bring ISIS to heel. Controlling the influx of Syrian immigrants, for the time being, appears to be the only rational option for the United States if the end to the means is preventing future Islamic terrorist attacks on its home soil. Perhaps, through an improved system of profiling and better security on the borders, America can maintain a strong national defense as well as a stable relationship with its Muslim population.

To the regular American citizen, this refugee crisis may not seem at all relevant to their everyday lives. The reality of the situation, however, is that the events unfolding in Syria and Europe have everything to do with the lives of each citizen here in the United States. As Americans, we have the responsibility of electing leaders necessary for resolving problems elsewhere in the world that may sooner or later threaten the national interests of the United States. Today in 2016, with the general election in November fast approaching, the unanswered Syrian question is a priority that each running candidate must be prepared to confront in the event that one of them—Republican or Democrat—becomes the next president and commander-in-chief at the helm of the free world.