What to do with Muslim Refugees?

 

Rohingya Refugees

Nicholas Kristof has a heart-rending column in the New York Times about the plight of refugees from Myanmar (formerly Burma). Rohingya Muslims are being persecuted by their government and rounded up into concentration camps. Thousands are fleeing by sea, but no government — including ours — is willing to take them in. Often, refugees are sent back to Myanmar to almost certain death. This week, even the Muslim country of Indonesia ordered two vessels carrying hundreds of Rohingya pushed back to sea.

The story is much the same in the Mediterranean as refugees from Libya and Syria desperately try to escape the fighting that is destroying their countries.

Refugees are rarely welcomed even in the best of circumstances and Muslims have made themselves especially unpopular.  What can and should be done for these people? What, if anything, should the United States do?

[Photo from Getty Images]

Published in Foreign Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 36 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    The temptation to be careless is ever present for a superpower, but it’s not wise.

    • #31
  2. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Robert McReynolds:

    James Of England:

    Robert McReynolds:Send ‘em back!!

    I’m not sure I follow. The US should encourage Indonesia to send them back?

    I was just going off of the title of the piece and not the details. In general, places such as Italy, should stop taking them in. That is what I was going on.

    I suspect that Italy isn’t having much of a problem with Burmese boat people. I think that this is emblematic of the problems that arise when you formulate your response on a sentence, rather than on even a few paragraphs of information.

    • #32
  3. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Freesmith:A recent article in the N Y Times argued that the U.S. should bring in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, half of whom would be Christian, and settle them in Detroit to re-vitalize that bankrupt city and infuse its current population with “immigrant energy.”

    Many people found the idea ridiculous.

    But I could go along with it – if it was done as a one-for-one even exchange of the current residents of Detroit.

    I’ve often felt that many long term welfare recipients would be better off (literally; I think it would be good for them, too) being shipped to some place where the cost of living was low, and they could do their makework with a very high degree of supervision. I don’t think that sending them to Syria would be a great plan (I mean, I would like it, because it would mean that we devoted a lot more effort to Syria, but I don’t think that it’s an objectively good idea).

    But sending much of Detroit to Nigeria, Bangladesh, or some other English speaking country that would benefit from more US accented labor seems like a useful move.

    • #33
  4. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    http://5pillarsuk.com/2015/05/21/gambia-offers-to-take-in-all-rohingyas-fleeing-persecution/

    Good news, I think.
    Hopefully we had something to do with it. Hopefully someone can let the world know that.

    • #34
  5. Carey J. Inactive
    Carey J.
    @CareyJ

    James Of England:

    Mike H:I’d wish we’d see them as human first rather than “Muslim” or “foreign.”

    Leaving them to die because they might vote for the wrong party or they might inconvenience someone else strikes me as inhumane.

    The government doesn’t need to give them aid, but I hope we wouldn’t stop them from saving themselves. And let anyone who might want to help them do so by not turning them away if they can get here.

    If they came to America and America let them in then, yes, America would have to provide them with aid. Helping them get set up would more than pay for itself, since leaving them totally without support would virtually guarantee that they became a criminal gang, and one that was essentially impossible to deport, such that we’d then be paying for their food, healthcare, education, and the other costs of jail.

    If they came to America and we let them in, we’d be stuck with supporting them for a generation, at least (more if Democrats have anything to say about it). This is a very good argument for not letting them in.

    • #35
  6. Carey J. Inactive
    Carey J.
    @CareyJ

    James Of England:http://5pillarsuk.com/2015/05/21/gambia-offers-to-take-in-all-rohingyas-fleeing-persecution/

    Good news, I think. Hopefully we had something to do with it. Hopefully someone can let the world know that.

    Why? Muslims are the most ungrateful group in the world. If you doubt that, visit Ground Zero. Muslims will suffer one hell of a lot before I consider that scale balanced.

    Religion of Peace, my rear end.

    • #36
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.