By Emily Benson
When traveling on an airplane, emergency instructions are clear: put on your oxygen mask before helping the people around you. You have to ensure you are stable before assisting others. Historically, Americans have clung to a similar philosophy. George Washington, knowing that the United States was not internally strong enough to support military campaigns with foreign states, insisted on neutrality in international affairs during his presidency. In the early years of America’s birth, the nation needed to focus on building internal institutions, infrastructure, and businesses and forgo international intervention.
Today, the picture of American strength is quite different. In a world dominated by American leadership, it is safe to say that the United States is strong enough to stand on its own and give assistance to other nations during crises. We have powerful examples of American global leadership – its role in the UN Security Council, in the Iran Nuclear Deal, during intervention in Kosovo in the 1990s, during major natural disasters, and against major extremist organizations around the world. In spite of our strength though, the recent refugee crisis in Syria appears to be highlighting sentiments of xenophobia and, at times, selfishness.
The citizens of the United States are ready, willing, and able to welcome refugees into our country. In the 1980s, the United States Congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980 and subsequently accepted over 200,000 refugees. 200,000 additional people who needed a place to live. 200,000 additional people who were searching for work. Bringing in that vast number of new residents could not have been an easy transition for the United States. But policymakers still prioritized asylum seekers, regardless. Why did we dedicate the effort to help people who were not even citizens? Why isn’t the United States providing asylum to the same extent today?
Looking around the country, citizens demonstrate the natural human inclination to help and serve others. Amidst natural disasters and infrastructure collapse, we send in the Red Cross and the National Guard to clean up. When faced with mass shootings, citizens band together and hold mass church services for victims of fatal incidnets. When faced with massive adversity, and terrorist attacks in 2001, communities come together in unity.
With such a strong drive toward service, the United States government and citizens should be open and willing to welcome Syrian refugees. Right now, the US Government has promised to accept a mere 10,000 refugees from Syria. It is not enough to make broad, political proclamations that become captivating sound bites on major media outlets. It is not enough to merely empathize with families who are fighting for survival. It is unacceptable for any nation to step aside and allow this tragedy to continue. There has to be more. We must give those individuals the opportunity to achieve greatness.
Currently, while there are certainly anti-immigrant sentiments rising in EU member-states, our European allies are far more open to the asylum seekers and migrants. Their proximity to the crisis certainly places more of a burden on these governments; however, our distance from Syria does not absolve us of responsibility.
While it is certainly challenging to fathom the plight of the Syrian refugees from our position thousands of miles away under the auspices of American Democracy, principles that guide our republic should implore us to accept additional asylum-seekers. American economic and political strength augments the government and population’s capacity to accept thousands of families and individuals facing the perils of political upheaval. If United States is well equipped to serve the displaced persons, why not jump in? It is time to stop pondering what we should do. The answer is clear and simple: help families survive.
Emily Benson is an Assistant Online Editor for the SIR Journal and a student at Utah State University.
