In the days following the attacks in Paris, the issue of refugees fleeing from ISIS has been debated vigorously on a national stage. More than half of the nation's governors have stated their unwillingness to accept refugees in their states (despite their lack of authority to dictate immigration policy); the House of Representatives voted yesterday to impose stricter screening procedures on Syrian refugees seeking resettlement. Terrorist attacks are often inflection points; the reactions to such attacks reveal much about the countries forced to respond. Today, we as a nation are faced with a choice: We can respond with either compassion or fear. We must resist the temptation of the latter.

It is easy, in the wake of the terror wrought on Paris, to react from a place of irrational fear and prevent refugees from entering the country under any circumstances. Unfortunately, closing ranks against those fleeing the Islamic State—the same organization that the United States is fighting against—does nothing except generate resentment against the US. If the Western world is unwilling to take in Syrian refugees, IS can then shape the narrative by claiming to be the only option available. Clearly, this outcome is not preferable. Instead, we ought to act with compassion; we must acknowledge that these refugees are fleeing from those who would threaten and attack us.

Unfortunately, inflammatory reactions to the crisis are politically effective. It is much simpler to support a ban against refugees than to understand the realities of a complex situation. The current process of screening a potential refugee already takes nearly two years; of the nearly 750,000 refugees admitted to the United States since 9/11, not one has been arrested on domestic terror charges; only two have been arrested for aiding al-Qaeda at home. Those advocating for keeping refugees out of the country base their arguments on mistaken ideas about the characteristics of refugees or Islam in general—the terrorists who attacked Paris are not representative of all Muslims.

Of course, this is not a call to waive the screening process; it is undoubtedly important to retain the screening measures that we currently have in place. Some governors have voiced a desire to postpone the accepting of refugees pending a review of federal security procedures and clearances. Given President Obama’s push to resettle an increased number of Syrian refugees (ten thousand over the next year, compared to 2,159 in the past four years), ensuring that the process is secure and effective is vital. However, the bill passed by the House, which requires each Syrian and Iraqi applicant to be cleared by the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the director of national intelligence, is a step too far, imposing requirements that are entirely unreasonable.

Moreover, we are deeply disappointed in the Republican candidates who have advocated for denying entry to Muslims. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush’s response has been especially perplexing, as he has turned back on his initial broad support in a capitulation to the pressures of partisan politics. It is important to note that this xenophobic behavior is not just limited to the Republican Party; Democrats too have contemplated a “pause” on resettlement, and voted for the House bill.

The next few weeks will determine how the United States responds to this crisis. The United States has always represented a better life for those fleeing persecution. In light of the conflict in Syria, we hope that our nation again fulfills that promise.