The refugee crisis caused by the Syrian civil war has sparked global debate. While accepting refugees is seen as a humanitarian responsibility, there are concerns about intercultural conflicts, religious issues, competition for resources, and the potential for ISIL to infiltrate undercover. Accepting refugees can negatively impact the safety and well-being of its own citizens, and a balance must be struck between a country’s ethical responsibilities and protecting its own citizens.
In Syria, the suffering brought on by dictatorship long ago exploded into civil war. To make matters worse, the country has become a primary target of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), causing great turmoil inside and outside the country. This has resulted in many Syrians becoming refugees, and there is a growing debate about whether neighboring countries, and indeed the world, have an obligation to take them in. Many people around the world sympathize with the plight of refugees and are in favor of accepting refugees in their own and other countries. However, these emotional judgments shouldn’t be the sole determinant of whether to accept refugees.
First, let’s take a quick look at the problems that can arise from accepting refugees. The Syrian refugee crisis is a unique situation that is being discussed globally, not just in neighboring countries. This is especially true for multicultural countries. Many countries are already accepting small numbers of immigrants, but the problems they create in multicultural societies are still not solved. There are not only cultural differences, such as food, sexuality, and etiquette, but also deep conflicts due to differences in ideology and religion. Without addressing these issues, accepting refugees based on mere sympathy and compassion will only exacerbate the problem. There is also a risk that the chaos caused by hosting refugees will not only be internal to Syria, but will spread around the world.
In this regard, one of the specificities of Syrian refugees is their religion. Most Syrian refugees are Muslim, and Muslims have a history of causing trouble in many countries, both within and outside of their own. The possibility of extremist groups like ISIL infiltrating other countries disguised as Syrian refugees cannot be ignored, as the Quran, the Islamic holy book, is interpreted to justify violence and killing of infidels. In fact, ISIL members posing as Syrian refugees carried out attacks in Paris, killing more than 100 people. This alone illustrates how accepting refugees out of human compassion can have devastating consequences.
Second, the state cannot take the lead in resettling refugees. In situations where refugees are unable to resettle on their own, or where the public is unable to do so, their uncontrolled migration must be controlled. The problems that arise from the fact that refugees are foreigners rather than nationals are not simply cultural differences. Human beings need basic necessities, and refugees want to migrate because they want to solve these problems along with security. However, resources are finite, and a large influx of refugees will put a lot of pressure on the welfare systems and public goods that are already in place. This could lead to encroachment on the assets enjoyed by their own citizens, making it problematic to allow refugees in on emotional grounds.
Of course, these arguments can be refuted. It can be argued that the problems that arise in a multicultural society need to be addressed at the national level, and that harmony can be achieved if we try to address them at the individual level as well. However, this is not the case when a small number of immigrants are adjusting. Such efforts cannot be enforced in the context of a simultaneous influx of millions of refugees and would be overwhelming.
The argument that religious differences and ideological conflicts among Syrian refugees could lead to problems like terrorism can also be partially refuted. It could be argued that refugees don’t have much power, and that the Paris attacks were carried out by ISIL, not refugees. However, this is not solved by increasing the censorship that separates refugees from ISIL. They are all Muslim, and their physical characteristics are very similar. If some refugees are rejected due to censorship, the contradiction of sacrificing the human rights of refugees for the safety of their own citizens may arise. This would be highly contrary to the humanistic perspective, and in the end, the only answer may be to withhold acceptance of refugees.
Finally, it could be argued that refugees could solve the problem by becoming producers rather than consumers of resources. However, in a modern society, the process of producing resources requires competition. Even if refugees became producers, it is unlikely that the structure of society would change drastically, especially in Europe, where millions of refugees are unable to find work.
Proponents of refugee resettlement argue for it from a humanistic and globalization perspective, stressing the ethical responsibility of states to take in refugees. However, this can pose a significant threat to the safety of their own citizens and to the structure and productivity of the country. The most important duty of a state is to protect its citizens and maintain their quality of life. Therefore, the world’s obligation to the Syrian refugee crisis is not to accept refugees, but to help Syria solve its internal problems. A better solution would be to motivate refugees to overcome their own problems and give them the opportunity to find a new life in their homeland.
