Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Can We Do About the Refugee Crisis?
Annika Hernroth-Rothstein’s post about the fate of Aylan Kurdi, the Syrian toddler whose lifeless body washed up on a beach in Bodrum, Turkey, gave rise to many passionate comments about Europe’s refugee crisis. Understandably so.
I would prefer the term “the crisis of Middle East State failure,” but on this thread, I’d like to step back from discussions of nomenclature, the exact nature of the crisis, and who is to blame for it. There’s more than enough blame to go around. I don’t mean to say that assigning blame for it isn’t important: to fix a problem, we must understand how it came to be a problem; likewise, we must understand the cause of a problem if we’re to ensure it doesn’t happen again. So yes, we must assign blame. But we can assign it at leisure. The immediate problem needs immediate solutions, for without them, many more children will die.
On the podcast yesterday, I said something to the effect of, “There’s no solution,” or “There’s no easy solution.” I regret saying that. That a problem is hard does not mean it’s insoluble. To say that nothing can be done is obviously absurd. I only meant that I had not yet thought of a good solution.
I wanted to open this thread to put the collective intelligence, creativity, practical experience, and morality of Ricochet to work on this problem. I’d like people to come up with ideas, even if they might be silly — and I’d like to ask that no idea, however outlandish, be shouted down or mocked. Let’s just entertain any idea that comes to anyone’s mind to see if a part of it is good or might be bettered.
Among the principles I’d like us to use:
1) Half the refugee population are children. Keep that in mind.
2) We can grumble endlessly that other countries should be responsible for them; that they aren’t doing enough; that none of this should be our responsibility. I would argue that the latter point isn’t true: We’re been a significant actor in the region since the Second World War, and thus do share some of the responsibility for its condition now; but more importantly, we have limited power to change the policies of other countries; whereas we, the United States, are a sovereign nation that has the full power to change our own policies.
Finally, let’s acknowledge the countries who have done far more to shelter refugees than we have and far more than could reasonably be expected — Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. Even if they have not solved the problem, and even if, in the case of Turkey, they have also contributed to causing it. There is much blame to go around. There is also much praise to go around. But none of that needs to go around on this thread: Let’s just figure out how we could save lives.
3) Even if an idea results in saving only one life, to have and implement an idea that saves a life is more than many of us will achieve in our lifetimes, and thus a good idea.
4) An idea that saves “a few people” is infinitely better than one that saves none. There is no reason to reject an idea because it isn’t “a comprehensive solution.” A “comprehensive solution” might not exist. Or it might: If you’ve got an idea for one, bring it on.
5) Let’s say the obvious: Most Americans would unhesitatingly say, “Let’s admit every one of those refugees.” We are a vast and rich country. We are anything but a cruel or an ungenerous people. But we are concerned that admitting millions of refugees from a culture very different from ours will further strain our own social order, which we sense to be unusually fragile right now. We’re concerned that we have lost the genius we once had for assimilating refugees. We are concerned that we no longer know how to integrate immigrants and make of them patriotic, productive Americans. We are concerned they will be a drain on our already-strained public finances. We are concerned, given the region from which they come and the fact that many of them are Muslims, that among these refugees may be terrorists or people whose religious beliefs are incompatible with the political principles we most hold dear.
6) None of these concerns are frivolous. No one who expresses them should be shouted down as a heartless bigot. These are risks that must be taken seriously: We can’t accept a very large number of refugees absent a full awareness that these are the risks we’d face, and a good, workable plan to minimize the risks.
7) Let’s also begin by saying something else that’s perhaps less obvious, but very true: In the past, America has admitted massive numbers of refugees, even from very different cultures, and has exhibited a historically unprecedented genius for integrating them. My grandparents were part of the wave of Jewish refugees that came to America fleeing the Nazis. As Zeynep Tufekci pointed out on her Twitter feed, This is what was said in America, at the time, about people like my grandparents:
But America did prove capable of integrating wave upon wave of Jewish refugees, most of whose children became fully American within one generation, and most of whose descendants are, like me, more loyal to America precisely because we understand that America was the country that opened its doors to us and saved our lives; it was the country that gave us opportunities to thrive that few people in all of human history had ever enjoyed. We were the flotsom of humanity — that’s what the hashtag #KiyiyaVuranInsanlik means — but Americans made us Americans, fully equal citizens, just like them.
I was born in Stanford hospital in 1968, the best place and time in all of history for a Jewish girl to be born, and when I think how America embraced me — do you know that I literally never heard an anti-Semitic comment until I was 16? Not once? And never heard another until my early 30s? — I do, truly, regret that I have but one life to give to my country. If America could do this to wave upon wave of Jewish, Scots, Scots-Irish, German, Irish, Italian, Chinese, and Vietnamese refugees — and it did — it shows that it is theoretically possible to this, so long as we remain committed to the ideal that permitted this to happen: e pluribus unum.
There are more refugees today than at any time since WWII. The few global agencies that aid them have paltry budgets, and a long history of creating squalid refugee camps that breed despair, fail to teach the skills or values required to succeed in modern economies, and incubate radicalism.
So what ideas might work?
A comment on Annika’s thread jumped out at me:
Douglas: Anyone clamoring to bring these people in should have to open their own homes to them. THAT would be humanitarian.
While I think Douglas meant this to be sarcastic, he’s absolutely right. Douglas, would you be willing? I certainly would. I owe it to the generation who took in my family; and even if I didn’t, what better use could I make of my home? It would be cramped, but I could take in a family of three. I don’t know if the French government would let me, but I can ask.
What if we could start a program to match refugees with families willing to sponsor them for, say, ten years, to take responsibility for them, to guarantee that they will not be a burden on the state, to educate their children, to teach them English, to teach them about America and the responsibility of citizenship, to help them train to do useful jobs, and keep careful watch on them to be sure they don’t slip through the cracks?
I think many Americans would be willing, don’t you?
A private initiative like this, launched in cooperation with State and the INS — what are the obstacles? Could it be done? Is it a good idea? How could we make it work?
What other ideas come to mind?
Published in General
Not sure I can fit this all in a comment, but the solution to the migrant crisis is war. Bloody, horrible, terrible war. The swifter and more intense in the short run, the better in the long run.
We can’t solve the problem by imposing western democracy on a society that has no tradition of it. What we can do is pick a side, and thru the supply of weapons and other support allow them to win the war. Will they be good people? No, not by our standards. Will they put an enlightened western style democracy in place? No. By helping the side we choose to win, can we end the endless civil war and maybe have some influence in whatever post-war regime we supported? Possibly.
There is no good answer here, and war as a solution seems counter-intuitive, but having one side win will put an end to the refugee crisis, or at least lessen it substantially. Imposing order on the chaos is the solution to the problem and only war has the ability to do that.
We had war, and a not-bad result (long term option to remain in Iraq and keep the entire region under control – and possibly even spread freedom from there).
We walked.
The refugees are reaping what Obama and his allies sowed.
So, lets say we get this batch of refugees all split up into groups and settled in various western countries (with or without the cultural upheaval that would being). That solves only the problem of the day. What about the next country that falls apart? And the next?
Nope, the solution has to be that they all go back to their own country to re-settle peacefully in their own homes.
That means the Syrian crisis and the ISIS problem have to be solved.
The alternative is the end of “Western” civilization since eventually and ultimately the West will be overwhelmed.
This is not necessarily a war of demographics. If we value our own civilization and require immigrants to value it as we do, then everyone on earth is a potential Westerner.
While I haven’t, obviously, met every refugee in the world nor been to every refugee camp, I think I’ve met enough and been to enough to feel pretty confident in my judgment that refugee camps should never be more than a temporary, emergency solution. Sounds like you agree, perhaps based on similar experiences. Absolutely, volunteering at these camps — especially if you have medical skills or other skills useful to a traumatized population — is a good thing to do, but the longer they’re in these camps, the less chance they have of functioning once they get out of them, especially if they’re kids, who are missing the chance to go to school. The fear is that this next generation of Syrians will be completely illiterate, and unable, even if the war ever ends, to rebuild a modern society.
But for people who want to volunteer, kmtanner is right, there’s much of use that can be done. The UN bureaucracy is maddening (I wrote about it here and I’m told nothing’s changed since then, but if you can make your peace with it — I couldn’t — you can do a bit more good than harm.)
It absolutely is a war of demographics. it is all about the numbers. Immigration levels are set based on the presumed numbers that can be absorbed (reprogrammed?) into a culture without causing too much change or too much harm.
If everyone who wants to come to the West right now gets to come then there is no way that the existing “western” culture can survive the shock. The culture would be changed into something else.
The only solution to this tragedy is a military solution. Everyone of these jihadist savages need to be crushed under the fire and steel of America’s military and sent straight to the fires of hell. Unconditional and unrestrained warfare until every jihadist savage is dead. Then we can help the refuges go home and rebuild their lives.
My mistake, he was primarily referring to Lebanon in terms of the demographic changes, and was in fact the strain on resources he was referring to in Jordan.
Which is one reason why, instead of importing people, I am suggesting that we export American ideals. Hence the ideas of Cities of Refuge, building little Hong Kongs worldwide, as beacons of what makes us great. As and when people decide to embrace our ideals, then they are welcome in those Cities.
You know I am your brothers in arms and support this unconditionally. My only reservation in starting such a campaign is that how do we know when we have finished off the jihadist savages?
I’m a little torn here:
In terms of what we should do, my first preference would be to invade, knock-out ISIS, and then arrange for elections ratifying local protection from the United States and its allies for a set period of time (say, 10 years) in exchange for some guarantees of behavior.
Unfortunately, that ain’t happening in the next year.
Baring that, I’d be amenable to a small scale trial of the sponsorship program Claire proposes.
A jihadist is just a person with a different ideology. We can either attack them, or, if we follow Sun Tzu, we attack their strategy.
Provide an alternative – the carrot of freedom, twinned with the stick of power.
The very same Bad Guys today can be Good Guys tomorrow.
Look: our own Blue Cities have a similar problem: millions of people who are hopeless and helpless. We need to convert them to Americanism as well. The refugees at least seem to have a desire to better themselves so in a way, we could more easily build little Hong Kongs overseas than we could reform Baltimore.
I largely agree with Tom Meyer’s motives. Just because I have a unified answer doesn’t mean the arguments are simple.
I think the success rate of changing Jihadists into peace loving citizens would be pretty low. They are religious fanatics. That ideology if not going to change.
iWe, I have rarely disagreed with you more. Your bad guys to good guys missionary program is akin to trying to deport all the illegals.
You kill bad guys, and let the survivors and onlookers make their own risk decisions.
I realize you are not likely to concur. Fair enough.
Tom, with all due I think you are missing the point of the comments on the thread. We are dealing with a cult driven culture that is not suited to any form of democratic process. It slavishly lumbers from one tyrant to the next.
Self governance and individual liberty is rooted in Judaeo Christian virtue and values. We can’t force it on someone anymore than you can covert someone by the sword.
Their cult is not based on free choice or tolerance it is based on force, terror, and death. We have (had?) a shining city on the hill for them, a beacon of hope. What do they do with it? Come here, build mosques, preach hate, urinate on our culture, and kill their children as routine punishment.
The irony is that U.S. military bases used to serve the purpose you intend. It was amazing to see the free enterprise that cropped up around bases in S. Korea and the Philippines. Sure, many of these businesses would be unsavory, but many offered good and services that might not have tolerated, never mind offered, in the rest of the country.
Obama walked, but Bush 43 gave him the out. He was keen to claim credit for peace and an exit strategy. Obama used the Bush withdrawal schedule and open negotiations for a permanent presence as an excuse to bail.
I’m not smart enough to know how to solve this problem, but I’ll say this: I’ve got more than enough room in my home for a family of Syrian refugees. And I’d be happy to have them.
We are not far apart.
When people choose to be bad, you kill them.
But people CHANGE. And when they think being bad is a losing proposition, they often See the Light.
People are bad, in part, because being good right now in Syria is a death sentence.
Good point. If we could have made it stand (and allowed to expand as people come in), we would have been good to go.
Yes – and no.
These Jihadists were not always who they are now. Environment counts for a lot. People can become radicalized, or assimilated.
I am not sure that is the case. The focus of their atrocities and sophistication of their methods may have changed, but conversion by the sword and genocide have always been part of the plan.
Not entirely so. Some do. Many, however, happily assimilate.
I want the Cities of Refuge for those who want to be American – but whom we do not want to import here. Let them all settle on a Greek Island or any other chosen City of Refuge. Give it an administration and Code of Conduct (and a limited Bill of Rights), and basically maximize economic liberties there to let people build.
iWe, I do like your idea about some Greek islands in exchange for some debt forgiveness. I think it will also serve as a very interesting cultural experiment and demonstration.
If we have a group of Muslim refugees set up their ideal civilization on lush Mediterranean islands surrounded by quasi-democratic governments do those displaced folks set up elected governments, honor tolerance, education, equal protection, education for both genders, etc.? Or do they devolve to illiteracy and savagery?
We are in a war of ideas. We have to win that war – and use all the weapons available. Those weapons include sticks (bullets), and carrots, for those who want to choose the Good Path.
Agree, but please don’t be shocked or hurt when your carrot is smashed.
We do not allow them to define that civilization or the rules. The City of Refuge has specific rules, and it is NOT democracy. PLEASE read the story.
Glenn Beck has started raising money – a million dollars so far and goal is ten million, to help house people and he has been doing it via airshow and Facebook – to get people here – he said he realizes not everyone is equipped to house people, but churches are willing to help, donating helps, praying helps, networking – and yes, getting government out of the way:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/24/beck-says-his-audience-has-raised-1-million-for-religious-persecution-victims-in-the-middle-east/
He said he received an envelope with eight cents in it – he is keeping those eight cents on his desk because that is all the person had left at the end of the month – like the widow’s mite:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/09/01/more-unspeakable-horrors-from-isis/
I half-agree in the sense that I think we tend to undervalue how important culture is in this respect.
I half-disagree in that I don’t think Islam is quite as broken as that (which isn’t to say it doesn’t suffer from serious problems). As iWe says, cultures can change.
Also, my point was that this should be semi-voluntary and conditional. If people want US support, they 1) need to express it clearly and 2) be obligated to follow rules we set.