We know that the future of the region depends on educated young people. But the evidence is that children are being forced into child labour – and girls into early marriage – and, the longer children are out of school, the less likely they are ever to return to complete their education. And we know also that it is the absence of educational opportunities in the region that is one of the most important factors in family decisions to embark on the dangerous voyages to Europe.

Currently, humanitarian aid – which focuses on food, shelter and healthcare – offers little for education in emergencies, even when refugees have been in camps or displaced for years on end. And, sadly, at the moment, development aid is not geared to emergencies or to conflict zones. In both cases – humanitarian and development aid – the private sector role has never been formalised 

It’s a shame as well as a missed opportunity that anti-refugee sentiment and polarizing immigration politics in both the European Union and the United States will make it extremely difficult to enact what amounts to the best available response, both morally and financially, to Syria’s war and its resulting refugee crisis. Concerns about the purported national-security threat posed by refugees make little sense in the absence of evidence that refugees have ever presented such a threat on a large scale. In fact, an open-door policy is likely to make Americans, and those in other Western countries, safer over the longer term by challenging the perception, so susceptible to exploitation by extremists, that the United States and its allies care very little about the people of the Middle East. By dialing back on military action while opening its doors to refugees, the United States would demonstrate that Arab lives matter, while providing a powerful counterweight to the narrative put forth by ISIS.

Most importantly, an open-door resettlement policy would save thousands of lives and improve the life prospects of millions more. The declared goals of Western intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq have included the freedom and well-being of the people in those countries. Sadly, military campaigns by the United States and U.S.-led coalitions in such places have failed to provide any such thing. An open-door policy would finally provide concrete benefits to these people, and represent a morally superior alternative to forcing refugees to remain in dangerous camps or sending them back to deadly conflict zones.

Even if such an effort were practical, partial solutions like this are likely to lock civilians into refugee camps to the detriment of both the refugees and the United States. In such camps, refugees often suffer serious health risks, predation from their neighbors, economic difficulties stemming from prolonged unemployment, and mental-health strain related to all of the above. Moreover, many refugee camps have also become sources of radicalization and political violence. In short, such camps produce terrible results.

The Refugee Act of 1980 lays out the way in which refugees are to be handled. The law declares that refugee resettlement is managed by the federal government, not the states. The federal government does consult with state refugee coordinators. However, the purpose of that consultation is to ensure the refugees are settled in cities with enough jobs, housing and social services.

World Vision says, “12 million Syrians have fled their homes because of conflict…four million are refugees.” Over half of the refugees are children. These children have needed to put their lives on hold because escaping the civil war is the most important thing right now. Millions don’t go to school. Many have witnessed terrible acts or are at risk of being exposed, leaving many families that have lost loved ones or orphans. These are children who have had to grow up too fast because of the situation they are placed in with little to no basic resources such as food, water, and clothing. Over 700,000 refugees put their lives in jeopardy by trying to reach Europe with more than 3,200 dying trying to reach there.

The governors claimed it would be all but impossible to identify terrorists hidden among the refugees. Furthermore, they said, it would be particularly risky to admit the refugees so soon after the recent deadly attacks in Paris. The attacks in Paris were carried out by the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS. It left 129 people dead and hundreds wounded. None of the suspects in the Paris attacks has been identified as a Syrian refugee. Nonetheless, the attacks have hardened opposition to accepting Syrian refugees.

America’s safety is at risk. We are afraid of another act of terrorism against our country. Our people’s safety comes first, they argue, and they aren’t willing to put them at risk for the refugees. CNBC says that the United States currently has about 2,200 Syrian refugees living in the country and that the screening process takes 18-24 months “with the process continuing for many years to come.” The resettlement would have cost millions of dollars on top of our already piling debt. When our country already has a high poverty percentage, the Republican governors argue we don’t need to spend this money.