Refugees
The world faces a crisis. At the end of 2014, there were 19.5 million refugees on Earth, most of whom were displaced by the devastating civil war currently raging in Syria. As the world struggles to resolve the crisis, it is becoming increasingly imperative that we understand what is at stake, even before we think about the implications. One such imperative understanding is the difference between the two often fallaciously interchanged terms "refugee" and "migrant."
The difference is stated perhaps most eloquently by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR):
There is debate, however, on how the world ought to respond to the current crisis. Countries neighboring Syria, such as Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, and Lebanon have taken in millions of refugees. In Jordan alone, there were at least 2,233,938 refugees as of June 2015, according to the UNHCR. In contrast, the United States has a population of 267,222 refugees.
Some refugees, desperate to escape from their homes, have resorted to being smuggled across the Mediterranean Sea to Europe. The results have been disastrous. Smuggling boats often fail to meet maritime safety standards, and the global refugee crisis achieved worldwide notoriety in early 2015, when hundreds of refugees—these are families, people like you and me—had their lives abruptly cut short when their ships sank on the perilous voyage across the Mediterranean. Perhaps the most sobering moment for the world came when the lifeless body of three-year-old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi washed up on a beach in Turkey, his "ship" (really just a rubber, inflatable boat designed for 8 people, yet holding 16) having capsized:
The acrimonious debate revolves around whether and how the rest of the world should help out too. In the United States, liberal Americans use stories like Alan Kurdi's tragedy to argue that we, as human beings, have a moral responsibility to provide humanitarian aid to refugees. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have already stated their willingness to welcome additional refugees into the United States.
The difference is stated perhaps most eloquently by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR):
- Refugees are persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution. The situation in their own nation is so incredibly dangerous that they must leave their country in search of safety that may be provided by other countries or organizations. These are people for whom denial of asylum has potentially deadly consequences.
- Migrants are people who choose to move, not because of armed conflict or other threat of persecution or death, but because they wish to improve their lives by seeking more opportunities for work, education, and income in other nations. Unlike refugees, migrants can return home safely if they ever wished to do so.
Under longstanding international law—specifically the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the corollary 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees—all refugees have rights guaranteed to them that nations cannot violate, the most fundamental of which is the right to be protected from forcible return to their home country:
No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.In other words, once a refugee enters a country through any means, that country is legally obligated to provide hospitality to the refugee under international law.
—Article 33(1), 1951 Refugee Convention
There is debate, however, on how the world ought to respond to the current crisis. Countries neighboring Syria, such as Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, and Lebanon have taken in millions of refugees. In Jordan alone, there were at least 2,233,938 refugees as of June 2015, according to the UNHCR. In contrast, the United States has a population of 267,222 refugees.
Some refugees, desperate to escape from their homes, have resorted to being smuggled across the Mediterranean Sea to Europe. The results have been disastrous. Smuggling boats often fail to meet maritime safety standards, and the global refugee crisis achieved worldwide notoriety in early 2015, when hundreds of refugees—these are families, people like you and me—had their lives abruptly cut short when their ships sank on the perilous voyage across the Mediterranean. Perhaps the most sobering moment for the world came when the lifeless body of three-year-old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi washed up on a beach in Turkey, his "ship" (really just a rubber, inflatable boat designed for 8 people, yet holding 16) having capsized:
 |
| Alan Kurdi, three-year-old Syrian refugee, washed up on a beach in Turkey after drowning in the Mediterranean Sea. |
Conservative Americans disagree. Among their chief concerns is security. In Europe, investigations concluded that at least one of the perpetrators of the November 2015 Paris attacks entered Europe claiming to be a Syrian refugee. (France has since continued their commitment to accept 30,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years.) During the New Year's Eve celebrations just before the start of 2016, a massive wave of sexual assaults were reported all throughout Germany. The perpetrators were alleged to have "Arab or North African appearance," inspiring backlash against Germany's role in aiding the Syrian refugees. (Germany had promised to accept 800,000 refugees.) It isn't hard to imagine why some might be a little worried. Currently, it takes 18 to 24 months for a refugee to sustain background checks and be awarded asylum in the United States. If we choose to lax the background check process in exchange for faster processing times, national security must inherently decrease, and it is more likely an enemy might slip through the cracks. Republican presidential candidates have already stated their reservations against allowing additional refugees to enter the US.
Refugee supporters accentuate the direness of a refugee's situation. As persons fleeing from life-threatening conflicts at home, refugees simply do not have the kind of time to wait 18 to 24 months for a background check. Supporters point out that refugees are more likely to adopt the extremist viewpoints of organizations like ISIL if countries like the United States aren't willing to welcome them.
Refugee opponents point out the struggling economies of countries such as Greece, which is suffering from a government-debt crisis. If the world forces them to prioritize humanitarian aid over their own national interests, economies might collapse—a situation no one benefits from. On the other hand, supporters argue that refugees can be long-term investments. In countries such as Germany, the blue-collar workforce is declining, creating an economic skills gap. According to both the Icelandic Ministry of Social Affairs and the UNHCR, as refugees integrate themselves with the workforce of host nations, they tend to fill blue-collar jobs that locals might not want. NPR reports that one German town sees the acceptance of refugees a "path to revival."
The debate goes on. Let us not forget, however, the distinction between "refugee" and "migrant." Liberals and conservatives tend to agree on what a refugee is, and the responsibilities to refugees nations must honor under international law. As we move forward, let us recognize that both sides of the table have legitimate concerns (some of which I didn't have the time to write about in this post), and let us hope that a solution may be found that satisfies the interests of all involved. In my view, developed nations like the United States can and should take in additional refugees, but it requires intense collaboration between the policymakers that can authorize these actions and the executive departments that keep us safe. The goal is to make the refugee vetting process more efficient, not less thorough. These people need us, and in an increasingly globalized world, yes, it is our responsibility to help them.