A week after calling for a “pause” in the nation’s resettlement of Syrian refugees, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott said Wednesday that he now supports the program.
“I have personally satisfied my concerns about the process and I am comfortable with continuing with the process,” he said. “I think it is safe and well-run and we should continue.”
Like fellow Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Lisman and more than 30 governors across the country, Scott questioned the security of the program after the November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, allegedly perpetrated by members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
But as WPTZ’s Stewart Ledbetter first reported Tuesday, Scott had a change of heart after taking part in a U.S. Department of State conference call last Friday and meeting with Vermont Department of Public Safety officials Tuesday in Waterbury. The meeting included DPS Commissioner Keith Flynn and Deputy Commissioner Joe Flynn.
“I learned a lot from [DPS officials] about where some of the security risks really are,” he said, pointing to student visas and the Canadian border as areas of concern. “I came away being much more comfortable than I was and having a better understanding of what that process is. I’ve also reached out to the [Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program], hoping to meet with them as well.”
Though Scott said he no longer believes the resettlement of Syrian refugees should be put on hold, he insisted Wednesday that his position had not changed. Rather, he argued, he had obtained new information that satisfied reasonable concerns.
“From my standpoint, my position hasn’t changed. I’ve said we should pause until we can verify the process and ensure it’s safe. And that’s what I’m doing,” he said. “To dismiss the fears of many and to dismiss the questions about the safety concerns brought by many — to say, ‘Trust me’ — I don’t think that’s good enough.”
Since disclosing his position to Vermont Public Radio last week, Scott has been the focus of intense criticism from Democratic gubernatorial candidate Matt Dunne and the Vermont Democratic Party. Scott pushed back against those comments Wednesday.
“I feel that both sides have been trying to incite this fear and anger among everyone. Just throwing more gas on the fire isn’t going to solve the problem,” he said. “I think real leadership isn’t about inciting fear and anger. It’s about trying to educate people and communicate with people and give them faith and trust in the system. The people who are using it on both sides for political purposes and partisan purposes — it’s just disappointing.”
But according to Vermont Democratic Party executive director Conor Casey, Scott has it backward.
“You know what? There’s only one side that’s been fear-mongering throughout the refugee debate — and that’s those who cite security concerns about Syrian refugees, which I think did a lot of damage,” he said.
“We’re certainly happy that [Scott] has evolved on the issue. However, it’s taken him a little bit of time to come around,” Casey continued. “We feel like that should have been a judgment call he could have made immediately.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Short summary:
Phil Scott thought he could score some quick points by repeating national Republican talking points, without first bothering to do any research on the program he was criticizing.
Faced with political pushback, he did what he should have done in the first place – sought out more information before staking out a public position – and now retreats to the sane stance on the issue.
In the process, he alienates everyone.
The angry xenophobic Republican base will be angry for his reversal, call him a “RINO” and back Lisman in the primary.
And the Democratic and swing voters who Scott needs to attract in order to win a general election in a Presidential year in a state like Vermont will look at his cheap political opportunism and remember that he really is a Republican after all.
So now does this mean that Phil Scott will give his annual salary for the nxt so many years to support these refugees? you know for school, for food, for clothing, for medial health, etc. oh wait, hes a two faced conservative as we can see now, so he is made of money, he can afford these things,,,,,,,,, where its all we can do to survive being seniors,,, with no other pension, but i know that our property taxes will be uppped, our school tax will be upped, our city tax most likely will be raised, the state sales tax will be raised, so now it looks to me like our own government is the true or real enemy of the people. and its nto just the liberals that are the enemy now. Scott proved this, Vermont is one screwed up mess of a state.
@ Terjeanderson
Nice partisan fantasy you just created out of whole cloth about Scott. Hope it makes you feel good.
As opposed to Dunne, who actually DID use the refugee crisis for craven political advantage.
Phil Scott has just discovered polls. In the Peoples Republic of Vermont, supporting the refugees gets votes.
Vermonters paying attention thought a $100 million deficit was a huge problem. With each refugee costing $25-40K to bring in, wait til the entitlements kick in.
Is this a good moral cause? Absolutely. A sound financial move without any planning? No way! And, this post doesn’t raise the spector of importing terrorists or the ‘vetting’ process.
The information that was so important was at Phil Scott’s (and everyone else’s) fingertips. In lieu of immediately accessing this readily available data Mr. Scott opted to add his voice to the chorus of national fear mongers. Doing so provides us with a rare glimpse of the inner thoughts of this very conservative politician who tries hard to withhold his inner beliefs in a very blue state.
Yet more partisan drivel from Stannard. If Scott’s so conservative, then I guess so are several Democratic members of the state senate who all openly supported Scott over his Democratic rival in the last Lt. Governors election. Scott is probably no more “conservative” than Howard Dean was when he was Governor.