This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

House Democrats who voted on Thursday in favor of additional restrictions on refugees from Syria and Iraq applying for entry to the United States were met with constituents’ wrath on social media, with many commenters rejecting the notion that added barriers were necessary to national security.

The Democrats were reproached for joining Republicans to give the legislation a veto-proof majority. The bill, called the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act (Safe), would have to win a similarly large majority in the Senate to become law, which was considered unlikely.



“I am terribly disappointed in this vote,” wrote one self-identified constituent on Delaware Democrat John Carney’s Facebook page. “By voting against admitting Syrian refugees, the House of Representatives has legitimated the fear that ISIS aims on spreading. This vote is rooted in baseless fear and a lack of compassion for those most deeply hurt by ISIS.”



“I’m disappointed that you’re caving to fear,” a self-identified constituent wrote to Minnesota Democrat Rick Nolan. “Were the existing checks inadequate? Regretting my vote.”



Though Democrat Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts did not post on social media about his vote, he was still criticized on Facebook.



“The process in place to assess refugees was already adequate,” wrote one voter. “You’re playing into fears and into the agenda of ISIS by voting for this bill. I’m ashamed that a Democrat from my state of Massachusetts would have gone along with this anti-refugee Republican legislation.”



In advance of the vote, senior Democrats in the House presented colleagues polling data showing that lawmakers who didn’t support tighter restrictions would be in the sharp minority, the Huffington Post reported.



Despite the warning, only 25% of Democrats in the House supported the legislation. The 47 Democrats who voted in favor of restricting refugees came from congressional districts scattered across the country, from blue states and red states, from cities and rural areas. Only 17 of them face competitive re-election races next year, in the judgment of the Cook Political Report.

Many Democrats who voted for the bill issued similar statements explaining their thinking. After last week’s Paris attacks, they said, more security was better.



President Barack Obama has said he would veto the bill, which requires all refugee cases from Syria and Iraq to be subject to an FBI background check in addition to Homeland Security Department checks.



It was unclear how much more difficult the new legislation would make the process for admitting refugees. Applicants already face daunting hurdles to admission, including in-person interviews with homeland security officials and background checks by multiple agencies, in a process that typically takes 18-24 months. The details of the checks are secret.



To date, the United States has admitted 2,034 Syrian refugees for resettlement, according to figures supplied to Congress. An estimated 4 million people have been forced out of Syria in four-and-a-half years of conflict.

Only one Democratic House member who faces a competitive re-election race next years, Elizabeth Esty of Connecticut, voted against the Safe Act.



“Not admitting refugees after an extensive and lengthy review process flies in the face of our country’s moral leadership and prevents our nation from protecting vulnerable victims of the same kind of terror that struck the streets of Paris and Beirut,” Esty said in a statement.



Below is a list of the 47 Democrats who voted for the Safe Act, and links to statements they have released when available.

