Syrian Refugee Crisis

[CrossCuT]

The extent to which refugee children have been conditioned by their environment is heartbreaking. We wanted permission to take this young girl’s photograph, so we asked if her mother was nearby. Her eyes filled with the most uncontrollable fear that I’ve ever seen in a child. ‘Why do you want my mother?’ she asked. Later, her parents told us how the family had crouched in the woods while soldiers ransacked their house in Syria. More recently they’d been chased through the woods by Turkish police. After we’d spent a few minutes talking with her parents, she returned to being a child and could not stop hugging us, and laughing, and saying ‘I love you so much.’ But I went to sleep that night remembering the terror on her face when we first asked to speak to her mother. 

(Lesvos, Greece)

 

[beatitude]

The majority of Syrian refugees aren't young men. 50.5% of the refugees are female. Men of working age constitute 21.8%; the number of working-age women is slightly higher than that. Children aged eleven years old and younger account for just under 40%. So it simply isn't true that the strongest are fleeing while the weakest remain behind. This is the data from the UN High Commissioner on Refugees. Worldwide they now make up almost a quarter of refugees receiving UNHCR support. Their numbers are staggering.

This is the most comprehensive and detailed data we have on refugee movements, but it seems that some people here are happy to accept Daily Mail coverage at face value despite its reputation for being creative with stats and its shadowy history on the coverage of refugee issues. In WW2 the Mail was the paper that most strenuously opposed the right of Jewish refugees to seek shelter in Britain, calling them aliens. At one time the paper was sympathetic to the British Union of Fascists and when I compare its coverage of the refugee crisis in WW2 with its coverage of the refugee crisis today it's difficult to see how its editorial line has changed all that much since. People here seem to be very quick to accept material they want to believe and will digest it uncritically regardless of the source or the accuracy.

The sad part about all of this, is that the majority seeking entry are 18-30 year old non-Syrian men. Not women with little babies or families.

The story of that beautiful little boy found dead on the beach, he was living in Turkey with his Mom, Dad & sibling. Dad saw this rush to Europe (all seeking to get to the best welfare state) as great cover for them to enter. Dad had a job, was getting money from his sister in Canada and ended up wiping out his entire family.

This is an invasion. 

 

Aylan al-Kurdi's family hoped to reach Canada to join his aunt there. They were very explicit that this was what they were trying to do. People whose families have been carved up by war want to reunite and if you have a close relative who has a home to give you in another country, why wouldn't you want to go? The Kurdi family had already fled twice, from Damascus to Kobane, and then into Turkey, where Aylan's father didn't have a stable life or income. The family is Kurdish, if that means anything to you. There are some reasons why Kurds would not want to stay in Turkey. They have been persecuted there for a long time, and as refugees, the Kurdi family faced a double layer of prejudice and limited legal rights. So they entrusted themselves (and everything they had) to a human trafficker.

You are lying about dead people who can no longer speak for themselves, people who have been through hell. Or maybe you don't mean to lie, but you didn't think it worthwhile to fact-check spiteful online tittle-tattle when it fits so neatly with what you want to believe about refugees, the belief that the slim possibility of welfare benefits (which are hardly princely) is enough to motivate them to face death. Attitudes like this, in which refugees are treated as opportunists wanting to cash in, are no different from the attitudes that motivate the traffickers, in which refugees are treated as the cashing-in opportunity. Both show a complete and callous disregard for human life. In the same way, people pounce on the idea that most refugees are young males on the basis of a handful of photos they've seen or the words of a political candidate half the world away. No need to look closer when the whole objective is to keep these people as far away as possible.

I have noticed that some people seem to actually relish this idea of 'invasion' and get positively and pruriently gleeful at the idea of some showdown between West and East, good and evil, Muslim and Christian, as though this is some exciting video game about the Crusades rather than people's lives. Other people who glorify war and fighting as the height of masculinity and bravery criticise young Syrian and Iraqi men for not being brave enough to enlist (in what?) but are not themselves brave enough to give a welcome to people who arrived unarmed and helpless. It's easy to sit on your computer in your comfortable home and imagine yourself the Christian hero of a beleaguered citadel, boldly facing off the invasion with each stroke of your keyboard. It's easy to decide that Syrians facing barrel bombs must be cowards because they are fleeing rather than defending themselves (with what? Their industrial-sized bomb-resistant umbrellas?). It's easy for you to imagine that in their place you would be out there fending off ISIS and Assad and everybody else who wants to kill you single-handedly with your umbrella. But you aren't in their place. We should be grateful that we aren't in a situation where we face death on the way to pick up supplies at an almost-empty grocery store rather than judging the people who are.

We should also remember that becoming a refugee takes bravery. I met two refugee women from Somalia last week, both survivors of torture. One of them described to me how she ran while having no idea where she would end up or if she would ever see her loved ones again, or even if they were all still alive. She said, "You don't run away from home unless home is a shark's mouth", and then she cried, because she misses home and she knows that home is never coming back. It's destroyed. Even if it's rebuilt in the future, it will not be what she knew as a child, as a young woman. Gone. And getting out of bed every day when you know that, setting yourself to learn a new language, facing hostility and suspicion from people who think that you're here for a life of luxury and ease, jumping every time you hear the phone ring just in case it's news to say a relative's alive/a relative's dead...that's pretty brave.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Weren't St. Joseph, Mary, and baby Jesus refugees? Would we tell Joseph to sack-up and go face Herod simply because Joseph was healthy and strong man who could fight?

@beatitude: I too have a friend who is a Somali refugee.  His journey is an amazing story and one I would never have had the heart or bravery to take.  He too misses his home, his country.  I count my self blessed for being able to know him and work with him.  He works harder than anyone I know.  He doesn't take the gifts my country has for granted, one of those being the ability to go to bed and know that you will not be woken up to the sound of an AK-47 going off, or worse the AK-47 going off because some crazy a-holes chose you to die today. 

[Anomaly]

The US has a goal of causing political unrest in places where there is value to our enterprises. But of course we cant just take land over we have to stir the pot and cause tension among the people themselves. When things get destabilized we will come in as the hero, and tell them we will help solve their problems if they sell us their oil for super cheap. 

I think you are being as hysterically stereotyping as Didicus.  The Syrian crisis is fueled more by Russia playing at geopolitics than US desiring oil.   That's not to say the US is not engaging Russia and China in the Geopolitical Game of Thrones.  Unilateral departure of the US does not necessarily allow the Middle East to solve Middle East problems without outside interference.   It only removes US influence in a complicated issue involving parties and countries far outside the region.  Debate and discuss the implications of that. 

 

However, that being said, the US should put more in the game to address the human toll.  We should be taking many more refugees here and aiding other countries to do so as well.  Sure we run the risk of some saboteurs that mean harm, but I think they would be counterbalanced by the substantial majority that are/would be grateful and appreciative of the adopted country/fellow citizens/expanded family of another culture.  

Painting all sides and parties in the worst negative stereotype actively destroys any sense of solidarity and awareness of shared community.   Even blood brothers will kill each other if they dwell on hate and division and allow the outside wolf to ravage to the family's flock.  Pointless to create/find and fight the wrong enemy. 

[Didacus]

Is there any way of being patriotic and wanting to hold our border that does not end up with being tagged as a racist?

Edited October 1, 2015 by Didacus
I wanted to edit my post

[CrossCuT]

My comment was more general and not necessarily referring to the Syrian specific issues.

Is there any way of being patriotic and wanting to hold our border that does not end up with being tagged as a racist?

Why does extreme possessiveness have to equal patriotism? Im gonna go out on a limb and say you can be the #1 American fanboy and still want to help others. 

[Didacus]

Wow! When did I say I didn't want to help them?

We simply disagree with the help to be given - but because I don't agree with your narrow ans short sighted opinion I am the worse and most vile thing possible. So nice to meet you...

[Anomaly]

Is there any way of being patriotic and wanting to hold our border that does not end up with being tagged as a racist?

Yes.  By making bringing in refugees safely the priority.  The US should have stated we want to work toward bringing in 100,000 Middle East refugees safely and work from there.   They won't dilute or diminish our culture.    Support churches and communities and persons that want to foster or sponsor families and groups.   Stop this "not in my backyard " mentality and replace it with a welcome to my neighborhood in the amesome USA.  it really is what we do well at.  (Though not perfectly).  

 

[Didacus]

And if we bring them here safely, shelter them, feed them but when their homeland is stable ask them to return to it: that would be evil?

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

And if we bring them here safely, shelter them, feed them but when their homeland is stable ask them to return to it: that would be evil?

I don't think that would be wrong or evil, provided their homeland is truly stable.  However, I think the refugees who want to stay should be given the chance to go through the legal process of becoming citizens while they're guests in our country.  

[Didacus]

I don't think that would be wrong or evil, provided their homeland is truly stable.  However, I think the refugees who want to stay should be given the chance to go through the legal process of becoming citizens while they're guests in our country.  

I have no objection to this approach whatsoever.  

But let me guess - I'm still white trash?   Right?

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

I have no objection to this approach whatsoever.  

But let me guess - I'm still white trash?   Right?

No, you are not white trash. I would never look at anyone as being trash. 

[Anomaly]

And if we bring them here safely, shelter them, feed them but when their homeland is stable ask them to return to it: that would be evil?

Yes it would be wicked.  They would be free to stay or go, just like people born here. 

I have no objection to this approach whatsoever.  

But let me guess - I'm still white trash?   Right?

my personal choice of pejorative wouldn't reference skin color.  That is irrelevant.   Why ask them to leave?  

[Didacus]

Yes it would be wicked.  They would be free to stay or go, just like people born here. 

my personal choice of pejorative wouldn't reference skin color.  That is irrelevant.   Why ask them to leave?  

So not white trash, just trash outright. I feel much better now - thanks. 

why ask tham to stay?   Or why force a nation to accept them as citizens? What moral obligation is there for this stance? If we do everything else but stop short of that?

Why would it be wicked to request the refugees to go through the legal process of immigration? Why would they, by moral grounds, be given a free pass? Why would the well being of current citizens be ignored and only those of the refugees be considered?

[beatitude]

Didacus, what is the point in even asking these questions? Refugees wanting to stay in their host countries go through the settlement/indefinite leave to remain process that applies in that country. Right now the issue is their basic safety, not their long-term choices. The specifics of international and domestic law on settlement and ILR aren't even relevant here, because return isn't going to be a viable option for a long time - talking about how you want to help by "making their country safe" is like the fire brigade turning up at a burning house and yelling, "We can't pull you out, but we want to help you by tackling the wider causes of house fires!" The questions you're asking and the way you word them really do suggest that you view the refugees as sinister potential interlopers who are trying to get special treatment as opposed to people in a really awful situation, particularly your assumption that the refugees' needs and choices clash with the wellbeing of citizens.