by Jessica Roberston
Against the backdrop of the 71st Session of the UN General Assembly and the first U.S. presidential debate, the Syrian refugee crisis remains potentially the most catastrophic global crisis of today. Comparing the Syrian refugee crisis to outpouring Vietnamese refugees during the 1970s or to those fleeing the Holocaust, globally, the number of Syrian refugees is actually higher than any other group in history. According to data obtained from local Syrian groups, Human Rights Watch contends that “as of October 2015, the conflict’s death toll topped 250,000 people, including more than 100,000 civilians. About 7.6 million people are internally displaced, with 4.2 million refugees in neighboring countries.” While many officials on Capitol Hill and numerous members of human rights NGOs assert that the United States “could do much more” in granting the asylum claims of Syrian refugees, the right fears Islamic terrorism, a narrative heralded by figures such as Donald Trump. Riddled with complexity, U.S. politicians’ rhetoric in describing the Syrian civil war has polarized the issue: What is our moral obligation to accept additional refugees from Syria? To analyze opposing views, it is important to unpack the origin of the animosity some Americans hold toward Islam, as well as the opinions and statistics that challenge these tensions. For the purpose of this article, I define political labels, such as “Republican” and “liberal,” as their polarized extremes; however, I acknowledge that there is a wide spectrum of political perspectives complicated by human rights and national security issues.
Many conservatives believe that the United States ought not accept more Syrian refugees because this heightens the country’s risk of letting in terrorists. This sentiment is fueled by post 9/11 antagonism toward the Middle East as a region, even though reports link the hijackers to Saudi Arabia, not Syria. The misrepresentation of the Middle East and the United States’ role in the region stems from the false homogenization of Middle Eastern ethnicities, nationalities, and religions purported by neoconservative actors. In a similar vein, Donald Trump Jr. recently received media attention for a twitter post that inaccurately compared a bowl of skittles to Syrian refugees, echoing the idea that granting asylum to Syrian refugees increases the risk of a terrorist attack. The “othering” and frankly xenophobic discourse that conservative news outlets and social media paints a grim picture for the fate of Syrian refugees in the United States. Luckily, other news sources illustrate a more holistic picture.
On the other side of this argument, liberals claim that the conservative position captures a “misplaced fear of terrorism.” Some see the belief that the majority of Syrian refugees are male adults and suggest that they are potentially more dangerous or threatening than women or children. In reality, a recent report by UNICEF shows that nearly half of all refugees are children. Additionally, 50 percent of the Syrian refugee population is female. While the discourse that pairs refugee asylum with increased terrorist threat is certainly jarring, it is not rooted in statistical evidence.
Putting ethical duty on the backburner for a moment, compare U.S. involvement in the crisis to that of EU countries. The U.S. is not living up to the “American Exceptionalism” that comprises the foundation of this country. Historically the United States has led the charge in advocating for human rights action on the global stage; however, this is not the case with the Syrian refugee crisis. The United States has struggled to admit 10,000 refugees compared to the 2.5 million admitted in Turkey and the roughly 40,000 in Germany, an EU member state, according to Amnesty International. Clearly, the United States isn’t living up to its exceptionalism.
Amidst conversation on this topic, it is easy to lose the narratives of individual Syrians whose lives are at stake in this conflict. According to a press release, “A United Nations report last year noted that, because there are fewer safe places in Syria with each passing day, even everyday decisions like whether to go out to buy bread can take on life-or-death significance.” Secretary of State John Kerry recently met with a group of Syrian civilians to hear their concerns about the ceasefire violations. Many expressed their disapproval of the United States’ role in the region and questioned the legal restrictions on U.S. military intervention. Resolution to this conflict will not be achieved without policy makers, politicians, and military generals, but the voices of the people who live this war on a daily basis and their experiences must be considered and prioritized.
The aforementioned press release comes from two U.S. Senators, Senator Durbin and Senator Klobuchar, calling on President Obama to fulfill his promise to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. They claim, “Refugees are victims, not perpetrators, of terrorism. Categorically refusing to take them only feeds the narrative of ISIS that there is a war between Islam and the West, that Muslims are not welcome in the United States and Europe, and that the ISIS caliphate is their true home.” It is important to acknowledge the severe partisanship in granting Syrian refugees asylum in the U.S. and to try to understand each side of the argument. At the end of the day, many of us are not in the position to make the calls on these decisions. We are, though, in the position to educate ourselves on this issue, to understand our governments’ decisions , and the actions of our leaders. It is my hope that whatever opinion the reader arrives at is an informed one.
Jessica Robertson is a junior at UC Berkeley majoring in Development Studies.
