The Issues Regarding Refugees

[Teallaura]

This is NOT a flame thread - play nice or go play in your own sandbox, thanks. This means you - yes, you - you know who you are!

Lightheartedness aside, no flaming, no exceptions, yours truly included.


Syria, Palestine, half of Africa, - those are some of the refugee crises I can recall in my lifetime. Some would argue for Mexico and South America on economic grounds and I think you can make a valid case for that definition, but it's outside the scope of this discussion. Here I want to examine some of the issues that surround refugees fleeing violence, physical persecution, and disaster - those in danger of life and limb. I want to talk to the grown ups of whatever age - so if you can talk like you have a brain, welcome - otherwise, The Padded Room is just down the hall. Leave the snarkiness and the 'you're of XYZ political persuasion therefore you're a moron' at the door - thanks.

We will assume that legitimate refugees should be helped (seems ridiculously obvious to me) and that there are indeed groups that will take advantage of refugee exodus' for ulterior purposes (equally obvious to me). My assumption is that the latter group is always the smaller of the two and usually extremely small - I'd prefer we not get bogged down in that one so if you have an issue with it, back it up with numbers. I likewise assume the rights of nation-states to control there borders - whether or not we agree with those specific controls (I'm looking at you, Spart. ) and here again, let's not get bogged down into whether or not all borders everywhere should be open - they aren't and it's not a realistic scenario anytime soon.

So, in order of how they occur to me at present:

1) Is it legitimate to screen incoming refugees for undesirables (here defined as having ulterior intent) even if it slows the flow? I would argue yes, but that it should be made as efficient as possible to have as little effect on the flow of refugees to safety as possible. It is not acceptable to put the citizen population at risk in order to protect non-citizens. At risk being defined as real and foreseeable and significant (I realize that needs more definition) - not 'ack, they might trample the grass'. So yes, the potential of terrorists or criminal organizations to tagalong is a legitimate concern but not necessarily grounds to shut a border entirely (screening is a reasonable alternative). A nation-state has an obligation to protect its citizens - and human beings have a moral obligation to take care of those in need. Both should be done without sacrificing one for the other.

2) Is it legitimate to consider the cost when deciding how to aid refugees? This one really seems like a 'duh, of course' to me but I've seen one person argue the opposite. To be fair, that person was arguing that helping people outweighed cost and I concur to a point. But if we consider cost we can help MORE people - hence the 'duh'. Spending billions in unnecessary transportation necessarily limits the number of people that can be accommodated - and leaves some behind. Transporting thousands of people hundreds of miles may well be necessary - but the further the transport, the less the necessity. And no, I'm not suggesting dump them on neighboring nation-states that can't handle them - but it's not all or nothing in that regard - I'll come back to this later.

3) Should we as nation-states assist all refugees? (Remember the definition, please) My answer is a qualified yes. The US, sure, it's not that big of a FP budget bite - we can do something in virtually all cases (we don't have to be the lead in all cases or the only funding source - hi, Europe! Australia! Japan! Et al...) but Zimbabwe probably isn't going to be able to cope without a heck of a lot of assistance - and maybe not even with assistance. If they can't then it does neither them nor the refugees any good to force the matter - find a Plan B and quick. If they won't, well, that's a different story and yeah, we should bring pressure to bear - a lot of it.

4) Do Western Nations / First World Nations (Hi Japan, Korea!) have an obligation to bring refugees into their borders? Here my answer is a qualified no - if they are neighbors, yes - it's stupid to ship Mexican refugees to France (might be fun for the late night show hosts but seriously stupid) but shipping thousands or hundreds of thousands of people halfway around the planet is an insanely stupid waste of resources (here I am speaking strictly of the refugee crisis period - not eventual emigration which is a different, related issue). The point is to get them to safety - and that includes providing what they will need for the duration (food, water, hygiene, shelter, clothing, supplies, etc). Spending recklessly to transport depletes the funds for the supplying portion of the mission - it should be the last, not the first, recourse.

Yes, that list includes a place - but assisting the neighboring nation-states is in most (not all) cases far more cost effective - helps more people - than transporting a handful to a First World Nation or Nations.

5) Do Western Nations / First World Nations have an obligation to consider refugees that cannot be returned home for emigration? Yes - that doesn't mean any nation-state has to take them all or that they cannot use reasonable screening but if there is no long term solution that let's these folks go home then yes, they should be able to get in line to come make their new homes with us - legally. NO, there shouldn't be any ridiculous barriers and yes, they should have to pass reasonable criteria (with some mitigation for the fact that refugees tend not to have a lot of documentation).

6) Is it legitimate for other nation-states to divide refugee populations in order to accommodate them? Yes, but use some sense. Don't divide families unless necessary, and then never immediate families. But dumping hundreds or thousands of people into an area that has never supported so many is unconscionable. Yeah, NYC could take a couple hundred thousand from Ontario without noticing it much (okay, they might notice) but Japan couldn't - it doesn't have that much habitable land let alone hockey (okay, they'd definitely notice!). Seriously, the US's capacity is much greater than Japan's so if we were relocating Koreans, Japan might be closer but it hasn't the carrying capacity - assuming the rest of the planet was on vacation and they were the only two choices, Japan has to send some to the US - there isn't a viable alternative. The same principle applies to neighboring nation-states - it's senseless to force a nation that hasn't the capacity to do what it can't. Hurts both populations - hence it's a bad plan.

I suppose that will do for a start - that, and I need to sleep tonight!


I did mention no flaming, right?

[Cow Poke]

Just for the record - I don't believe I voiced a strong opposition to refugees in general, just a challenge to those who were assuring us they were "completely vetted".

We have a strong Syrian community in Houston, and I know that they would realize they were risking their own reputation when they "vetted" friends and family coming from Syria. That would be one of the ways I would feel comfortable (or less apprehensive) than just receiving a "wave" of refugees.

[Catholicity]

I won't and don't flame, ever! Tease yes, flame no.
You bring up some valid points, and I'll try really hard to address them from my point of view.

So, in order of how they occur to me at present:

1) Is it legitimate to screen incoming refugees for undesirables (here defined as having ulterior intent) even if it slows the flow? I would argue yes, but that it should be made as efficient as possible to have as little effect on the flow of refugees to safety as possible. It is not acceptable to put the citizen population at risk in order to protect non-citizens. At risk being defined as real and foreseeable and significant (I realize that needs more definition) - not 'ack, they might trample the grass'. So yes, the potential of terrorists or criminal organizations to tagalong is a legitimate concern but not necessarily grounds to shut a border entirely (screening is a reasonable alternative). A nation-state has an obligation to protect its citizens - and human beings have a moral obligation to take care of those in need. Both should be done without sacrificing one for the other.

I agree here. I'm very angry at the apparent what I believe to be racism of the conservative party, and feel betrayed by my typical political affiliations of the past. I do not believe in living in fear and because our country was built on immigration, refugees, and those looking for a better life, I am just sickened and disheartened as to how far we've gotten away from these values. And I agree that both should be and realistically they can be done without sacrificing one for the other to a certain extent.

2) Is it legitimate to consider the cost when deciding how to aid refugees? This one really seems like a 'duh, of course' to me but I've seen one person argue the opposite. To be fair, that person was arguing that helping people outweighed cost and I concur to a point. But if we consider cost we can help MORE people - hence the 'duh'. Spending billions in unnecessary transportation necessarily limits the number of people that can be accommodated - and leaves some behind. Transporting thousands of people hundreds of miles may well be necessary - but the further the transport, the less the necessity. And no, I'm not suggesting dump them on neighboring nation-states that can't handle them - but it's not all or nothing in that regard - I'll come back to this later.

Good point, I doubt the capability of congress with its all or nothing to consider the cost. But I agree that if its considered we can- and should do the most we ought to.

3) Should we as nation-states assist all refugees? (Remember the definition, please) My answer is a qualified yes. The US, sure, it's not that big of a FP budget bite - we can do something in virtually all cases (we don't have to be the lead in all cases or the only funding source - hi, Europe! Australia! Japan! Et al...) but Zimbabwe probably isn't going to be able to cope without a heck of a lot of assistance - and maybe not even with assistance. If they can't then it does neither them nor the refugees any good to force the matter - find a Plan B and quick. If they won't, well, that's a different story and yeah, we should bring pressure to bear - a lot of it.

yes that would be ideal, no question

4) Do Western Nations / First World Nations (Hi Japan, Korea!) have an obligation to bring refugees into their borders? Here my answer is a qualified no - if they are neighbors, yes - it's stupid to ship Mexican refugees to France (might be fun for the late night show hosts but seriously stupid) but shipping thousands or hundreds of thousands of people halfway around the planet is an insanely stupid waste of resources (here I am speaking strictly of the refugee crisis period - not eventual emigration which is a different, related issue). The point is to get them to safety - and that includes providing what they will need for the duration (food, water, hygiene, shelter, clothing, supplies, etc). Spending recklessly to transport depletes the funds for the supplying portion of the mission - it should be the last, not the first, recourse.

you're right we are not, I sure wish people were smarter about this, and I am thankful that there are private charities who send assistance. As Christians we are certainly obligated to help those in need as we are called.

Yes, that list includes a place - but assisting the neighboring nation-states is in most (not all) cases far more cost effective - helps more people - than transporting a handful to a First World Nation or Nations.

Can we guarantee that's how they use the money?

5) Do Western Nations / First World Nations have an obligation to consider refugees that cannot be returned home for emigration? Yes - that doesn't mean any nation-state has to take them all or that they cannot use reasonable screening but if there is no long term solution that let's these folks go home then yes, they should be able to get in line to come make their new homes with us - legally. NO, there shouldn't be any ridiculous barriers and yes, they should have to pass reasonable criteria (with some mitigation for the fact that refugees tend not to have a lot of documentation).

For starters we should be able to train our security not to act like TSA agents.... but yes generally I agree

6) Is it legitimate for other nation-states to divide refugee populations in order to accommodate them? Yes, but use some sense. Don't divide families unless necessary, and then never immediate families. But dumping hundreds or thousands of people into an area that has never supported so many is unconscionable. Yeah, NYC could take a couple hundred thousand from Ontario without noticing it much (okay, they might notice) but Japan couldn't - it doesn't have that much habitable land let alone hockey (okay, they'd definitely notice!). Seriously, the US's capacity is much greater than Japan's so if we were relocating Koreans, Japan might be closer but it hasn't the carrying capacity - assuming the rest of the planet was on vacation and they were the only two choices, Japan has to send some to the US - there isn't a viable alternative. The same principle applies to neighboring nation-states - it's senseless to force a nation that hasn't the capacity to do what it can't. Hurts both populations - hence it's a bad plan.

Can I double Amen this last one?

[Adam]

And I still say, "Only accept Christians (and Yazidis if unplaceable in the Middle East) from Syria."

[Teallaura]

Can we guarantee that's how they use the money?

Nothing's perfect but yes - funds should come with accountability strings and probably rewards for meeting those goals (sorry to say but it's more likely to be effective than the threat of sanctions).

I think we could go further and develop a kind of 'consignment' plan - allow the sponsor nation to take over the refugee area as a limited embassy. For the crisis period the area would effectively be sovereign territory of the sponsor nation just as an embassy is. That places the financial burden on the sponsor (it could be divided to some degree) and leaves some logistics to the host with defense a shared responsibility - obviously specifics need to be worked out long before the crisis arises. Offer an incentive for nations to enter such treaties ahead of time and major penalties for pulling out when they are actually needed. It also places more pressure on sponsors to get the thing settled faster.

[Cerebrum123]

[theophilus]

And I still say, "Only accept Christians (and Yazidis if unplaceable in the Middle East) from Syria."

Have you considered the possibility that Muslims from Syria might be open to the gospel because of their experiences with Muslim terrorists? In fact, God might be sending them to us so they can hear the gospel. I was going to post a link to this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...o-Christianity but I see you have already read it.

[Adam]

Inconsequential.

[RumTumTugger]

Inconsequential.

Oh? what about the Great commission Adam?

[Carrikature]

Here I want to examine some of the issues that surround refugees fleeing violence, physical persecution, and disaster - those in danger of life and limb.

From a sovereignty perspective, there's very little room for stating that any nation-state has any obligations regarding members of other nation-states. We couldn't, and shouldn't, overlook infringement of sovereignty. No nation-state can demand that we take on their fleeing citizens, nor can we demand that any other nation-state take on refugees.

From a government perspective, one of the first and foremost concerns is security and welfare of its citizens. We might argue over what that means, but a system that can't keep its people safe will quickly be replaced by one that can. In this light, the government must be careful about who it lets into its borders for whatever reason. That includes student visas, refugees, immigrants, work visas, etc. A big way to do that is screening. There's of course a balance in terms of how that screening is done and who it focuses on, but screening would seem to be a pretty basic aspect of citizen protection. Ultimately, we want a 'my people come first' attitude in our government. We don't form a government to take care of people who aren't a part of it. We form it to take care of the people within it.

Further, the government has to consider what is happening with any person that moves here. Each additional person is an additional burden in some respect, even if you look solely at infrastructure usage. We want people to come in with a path and a plan. We want you to be seeking education here, or have a job, or at least have a family that can support you. None of these are things we would reasonably expect a refugee to have. They're pure burden, and that doesn't even take into consideration a cost to bring them here.

As people, we have varying levels of empathy with those we recognize as also being people. The US likes to use 'person' as a descriptor, and in this case I find it fairly apt. We're all human, and no one would deny that any given refugee is also a human, but that doesn't mean we see them as people. That empathy for people generally means we'll want to help people we see in need. Refugees are no exception. More, most of us exist in a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people' even when that's less explicitly stated. We want our government to be acting in humane ways, and that means extending aid to foreign countries, refugees, endangered species, and whatever else. We also want the aid extended to be used properly. We would find it counter-productive to extend aid by splitting up families, for example. We don't want to just throw money away, either.

So all of that to setup my view on what's going on. Now to answer specific questions.

1) Is it legitimate to screen incoming refugees for undesirables (here defined as having ulterior intent) even if it slows the flow? I would argue yes, but that it should be made as efficient as possible to have as little effect on the flow of refugees to safety as possible. It is not acceptable to put the citizen population at risk in order to protect non-citizens. At risk being defined as real and foreseeable and significant (I realize that needs more definition) - not 'ack, they might trample the grass'. So yes, the potential of terrorists or criminal organizations to tagalong is a legitimate concern but not necessarily grounds to shut a border entirely (screening is a reasonable alternative). A nation-state has an obligation to protect its citizens - and human beings have a moral obligation to take care of those in need. Both should be done without sacrificing one for the other.

I don't grant a moral obligation of humans to take care of those in need, but in this case I don't think it matters. We could replace "have a moral obligation" with "have an inherent desire" and get more or less the same outcome. I think you've otherwise got this one right.

2) Is it legitimate to consider the cost when deciding how to aid refugees? This one really seems like a 'duh, of course' to me but I've seen one person argue the opposite. To be fair, that person was arguing that helping people outweighed cost and I concur to a point. But if we consider cost we can help MORE people - hence the 'duh'. Spending billions in unnecessary transportation necessarily limits the number of people that can be accommodated - and leaves some behind. Transporting thousands of people hundreds of miles may well be necessary - but the further the transport, the less the necessity. And no, I'm not suggesting dump them on neighboring nation-states that can't handle them - but it's not all or nothing in that regard - I'll come back to this later.

I think it is legitimate to consider cost. Relative geographical proximity is going to play a big part in determining cost, but it's not as if a plane ticket is all that expensive in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure if you intended 'billions' to be hyperbole. I honestly would question why the transportation cost is so high if that's what the number really looks like. Further, if that really is the number, I would hope there are much better solutions (even if that means paying another country to help take care of them).

3) Should we as nation-states assist all refugees? (Remember the definition, please) My answer is a qualified yes. The US, sure, it's not that big of a FP budget bite - we can do something in virtually all cases (we don't have to be the lead in all cases or the only funding source - hi, Europe! Australia! Japan! Et al...) but Zimbabwe probably isn't going to be able to cope without a heck of a lot of assistance - and maybe not even with assistance. If they can't then it does neither them nor the refugees any good to force the matter - find a Plan B and quick. If they won't, well, that's a different story and yeah, we should bring pressure to bear - a lot of it.

As nation-states? No. Nation-states don't have any sort of obligation in that regard. While it's true that larger nation-states have the ability to pressure others into certain desired actions, I think this is a strategy that needs to be used with extreme caution. The US is in the habit of doing this a lot, and I don't think it should be. It's one thing to offer to assist with funding to support refugees. It's another to pressure nation-states to do it themselves.

4) Do Western Nations / First World Nations (Hi Japan, Korea!) have an obligation to bring refugees into their borders? Here my answer is a qualified no - if they are neighbors, yes - it's stupid to ship Mexican refugees to France (might be fun for the late night show hosts but seriously stupid) but shipping thousands or hundreds of thousands of people halfway around the planet is an insanely stupid waste of resources (here I am speaking strictly of the refugee crisis period - not eventual emigration which is a different, related issue). The point is to get them to safety - and that includes providing what they will need for the duration (food, water, hygiene, shelter, clothing, supplies, etc). Spending recklessly to transport depletes the funds for the supplying portion of the mission - it should be the last, not the first, recourse.

Yes, that list includes a place - but assisting the neighboring nation-states is in most (not all) cases far more cost effective - helps more people - than transporting a handful to a First World Nation or Nations.

My answer to this question is 'definitely not'. Again, there's no source of obligation for the nation-state to act in any way regarding non-citizens (even if I granted a moral obligation). I don't think geographical proximity affects this one bit. It's perfectly reasonable to offer assistance to other nation-states willing to take on refugees. It's not reasonable to insist they have an obligation to do so.

5) Do Western Nations / First World Nations have an obligation to consider refugees that cannot be returned home for emigration? Yes - that doesn't mean any nation-state has to take them all or that they cannot use reasonable screening but if there is no long term solution that let's these folks go home then yes, they should be able to get in line to come make their new homes with us - legally. NO, there shouldn't be any ridiculous barriers and yes, they should have to pass reasonable criteria (with some mitigation for the fact that refugees tend not to have a lot of documentation).

This question also gets a 'definitely not' because you specifically asked about obligation. That said, if we're going to take in refugees, I don't see any particular reason to only accept those that will return home at a future date. Frankly, the likelihood of refugees in general returning home is probably pretty small. We're talking about crises that might be resolved over the course of years, not days or months. Meanwhile, those refugees are busy assimilating into normal life wherever they've found sanctuary. It only makes sense to set them up with a path to legal citizenship. We'd be doing this if they weren't refugees anyway.

6) Is it legitimate for other nation-states to divide refugee populations in order to accommodate them? Yes, but use some sense. Don't divide families unless necessary, and then never immediate families. But dumping hundreds or thousands of people into an area that has never supported so many is unconscionable. Yeah, NYC could take a couple hundred thousand from Ontario without noticing it much (okay, they might notice) but Japan couldn't - it doesn't have that much habitable land let alone hockey (okay, they'd definitely notice!). Seriously, the US's capacity is much greater than Japan's so if we were relocating Koreans, Japan might be closer but it hasn't the carrying capacity - assuming the rest of the planet was on vacation and they were the only two choices, Japan has to send some to the US - there isn't a viable alternative. The same principle applies to neighboring nation-states - it's senseless to force a nation that hasn't the capacity to do what it can't. Hurts both populations - hence it's a bad plan.

I think you've got this one right. No part of accepting refugees necessarily implies taking in the entire refugee population.

[Chillanodon]

Have you considered the possibility that Muslims from Syria might be open to the gospel because of their experiences with Muslim terrorists? In fact, God might be sending them to us so they can hear the gospel. I was going to post a link to this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...o-Christianity but I see you have already read it.

Always a possibility, but until Europe is Christian territory again, not exactly practicable reliably. There are Christians in Syria who do speak the language and understand the culture of the migrants far better than the Europeans do, and a full-scale warlike invasion is generally terrible territory for traditional Christian witness outside of interactions among your fellow men.

[Cow Poke]

So, ISIS has got its evil eye on the Refugee program....

[Teallaura]

Carry, I haven't forgotten - just busy as heck. I will get back to you!


CP, I would like to keep this thread about the issues rather than the specific situations.

[Chillanodon]

'Culture fit' is the watchword for bringing in refugees. The US generally did quite well for itself when it pulled in, say, the intelligent bourgeoise fleeing from Communist countries, or the first wave of Persian immigrants fleeing Khameni, or the first wave of Cuban immigrants fleeing Castro. These people tended to be properly grateful and properly recognizing of their refugee status, and tended to make the best immigrants.

But rapidly diminishing returns and rank opportunism sets in quickly and violently when you start saying "all poor tired wretched people from everywhere." Everywhere around the world, the general tendency is for crime and criminal behavior to cause poverty and civil strife, not the other way around. And charity most firmly begins at home-the United States has no obligations to bring in refugees when it can't police its own cities or defend its own culture/ethos/laws among its own poor beyond the promotion of the simplest consumerism. Adding immigrants/refugees/asylees beyond this point is foolhardy at best and self-destructive at worst, for both the refugees and the Americans, usually poorer, who have to compete with them for jobs, living space, and public services.

If you don't speak the language or are not willing to speak the language, then your first refugee destination should be a country that speaks your language. 1,000,000 "Syrians" are not coming to Europe because Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Morocco, Qatar, UAE, and Yemen are too far away to flee to or too difficult to speak the language in.

[demi-conservative]

It is good for Israel to have a wall but we should not have our own wall because that would be racist. Also, a wall would never work!!!