By Rachel Brock
The recent Paris attacks have derailed the global quarrel about the Syrian refugee crisis. The discussion no longer focuses on who should pay the economic or logistical prices of admitting the refugees, but on the possibility of jihadists sneaking into foreign countries—read: the United States—disguised as displaced Syrians. On November 19, the House passed a bipartisan-supported bill to halt the admission of Syrian refugees into the US until they undergo a stricter vetting process. G.O.P candidates and other politicians are guilty of fear-mongering the public about accepting Syrian refugees. Some are pushing to allow only Christian refugees, who are viewed as less “dangerous” than Muslim refugees, while others claim that potential for disguised jihadists to enter the United States is so high that we can’t accept “even 3-year-old [Syrian] orphans”.
While admitting Syrian migrants may increase the chance that a jihadist may travel to the United States, proposed increases in vetting suggest that the United States’ current security system needs to be improved. There is no way to measure whether these security improvements, when compared to the “increased threat” of jihadists entering the United States, will result in a greater or less security threat. Policymakers cannot therefore credibly use this argument to justify closing our borders to Syrian refugees. Regardless of where one falls politically on this issue, a common fault links all discussion: we forget that Syrian refugees are humans.
This critical fact is too often ignored in the media and policy. Countries bicker about who is responsible for taking care of the refugees. But the fact remains that over 4.1 million Syrians have been forced from their homes over the last four and a half years. These people have real and tangible needs. Migrants, like all people, require food, shelter, and security in order to survive. Policymakers have been too busy focusing on the macro implications of admitting Syrian refugees, such as the strain on institutions and potential ramifications for different party factions, and fail to see that Syrian refugees lack these basic provisions.
The recent events in Paris have distorted our collective view towards Syrian refugees and misguided our policy prescriptions. Fearful of future terrorist attacks, the United States has proposed to seal its borders to the most vulnerable members of the world community on the grounds that a future terrorist attack could happen. Republican candidate Ted Cruz summarized this view: "It would be the height of foolishness to bring in tens of thousands of people including jihadists that are coming here to murder innocent Americans." Yet it is illogical to formulate policy based on hypothetical future situations rather than to address the current and real situation. Millions of Syrians have fled unthinkable violence, terrorism, and death, only to be rejected by other countries. What does that say about the rest of the world?
The United States, as a global superpower, enjoys incredible economic prosperity, influence, and security vis-à-vis other countries. Its robust institutions have been designed to protect its people and allow them to prosper. We pride ourselves on our foundations of tolerance, innovation, and the distinctively American idea that anything is possible in the United States if one works hard enough. We are (arguably) in a better position than the rest of the world to admit and take care of Syrian refugees exactly because our structures and institutions can handle large changes.
To put things in perspective: Turkey, who shares a common border with Syria, has absorbed nearly 2 million refugees and is clearly in over its head. Jordan has provided shelter to nearly 630,000 displaced Syrians. Iraq has accepted 250,000 refugees despite its lack of a clear government or meaningful infrastructure. Iraq is also a geographic stronghold for the Islamic State: not exactly the ideal place to seek refuge. The United States and several countries in Western Europe are, in contrast, infinitely more capable to handle the influx of refugees than these overburdened neighboring countries. Yet massive public outcry erupted when President Obama increased the number of Syrian refugees for U.S. resettlement to 10,000.
Logically, it makes sense for the United States and Western Europe to absorb the vast majority of Syrian refugees. These countries have the most capable institutions and financial flexibility to respond to this crisis. Yes, the burden does fall disproportionately on these countries, whereas lesser-developed countries in Eastern Europe, for example will not pay the costs of taking care of the refugees while reaping the benefits of improved stability in the larger region. But by focusing on the inherent unfairness of this free rider problem discounts the reality of the situation. Millions of migrants are seeking shelter from persecution and violence, and their needs must be addressed. In short, countries must look past their theoretical ideals in order to address the concrete problems of this humanitarian crisis.
The Syrian refugee crisis must be addressed in order to prevent massive loss of life. Western Europe and the United States in particular are the most adept players to respond to the situation and are therefore rationally the ones who must bear the brunt of refugee admittance. A moral analysis of the Syrian refugee crisis leads to the same conclusion: as humans, we have a moral obligation to take care of each other. In the face of persecution and massive flight, the United States must morally open its borders and accept those escaping horrible living conditions.
In both moral and rational scenarios, we reach the conclusion that the United States is obligated to accept Syrian refugees, even though this could hypothetically increase the risk of jihadists sneaking into the United States to conduct terrorist attacks. We as the United States like to believe we act on moral principles. Those who call to close our borders to Syrian refugees ignore both moral and rational arguments. By refusing to address the pressing issue, we leave the situation to those countries least able to handle the refugee crisis. Morally, by refusing to admit Syrian refugees, we deny humans the right to freedom from persecution and value their lives below our concerns for hypothetical situations and economics.
The global community has been rightfully shaken by the Islamic State’s attacks on Paris. But we must not let this incident color our judgment and ignore the larger pressing problem of the Syrian refugee crisis. We cannot let fear dictate our policy choices and lead us to deny basic rights to our fellow human beings.
Rachel Brock is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in International Relations and minoring in French.
