Syrian refugees

Despite Mr. Trump and other fear-promoters, 8,000 Syrian refugees have been resettled in 38 American states this year, in communities that are able to absorb refugees, and organised by nonprofit groups, faith-based communities, and volunteers. The figure is set to rise to 10,000 by the end of the year.

Michel Gabaudan, president of Refugees International, an advocacy organization based in Washington, said there are multiple checks that begin with the United Nation’s refugee agency. UNHCR identifies those who are most vulnerable which typically includes single mothers and children. The total of Syrians admitted to the U.S include 78 percent women and children.

The U.S. security checks are stringent, he said. “I would even dare to say that if you are running an organization that wants to harm this country, there are much easier ways to come to the U.S. than to come as a resettled refugee.” (NPR, August 2016)

Canada has taken 25,000 refugees, with no problems of terrorism. The 10,000 is a drop in the ocean compared with the total US population of over 300 million. What Britain has been doing is to take refugees from established refugee camps. This allows the authorities to monitor the activities and attitudes of potential resettlement candidates and to (hopefully) avoid those with sinister motives. Meanwhile, it is truly hard to object to the small number of refugees reaching the US, especially since they are mostly women and children. Some still manage to do so. Where is Christianity in all this?

One Comment

  1. I totally agree. We should all learn from the approach Canada has taken. The Canadians have taken in lots of refugees as you’ve pointed out. They’ve made sure the refugees are settled and integrated into their new homes. The response from the Canadian people has been heartwarming: more Canadians have offered to take in refugees than there are refugees available! Also, the cost of taking in the refugees has been borne mostly by private charities and individuals, not the government, reducing the cost to the taxpayer. Canada has also reduced the number of economic migrants coming in, so the total migration rate remains roughly the same.

    Much as I want to be generous towards the refugees, I accept that there are limits. In my opinion, Germany and Sweden have taken in far too many refugees. Their economies and societies are overwhelmed. Far right extremism is on the rise. The refugees haven’t been properly vetted, so they pose a security risk. Also, unlike Canada. refugees to Germany and Sweden have been mostly young men. I think people on the Left want to be a pro-refugee as possible, so they disregard any public concerns. What Canada has demonstrated, is that its possible to have a liberal and human refugee policy while keeping your own people happy. There isn’t a big right wing populist movement in Canada.

    This is my concern with Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party in the UK. I fear they want to follow the example of Germany and Sweden, rather than Canada. Because they are so left wing, they believe (at least in theory) in completely open borders. Not only would this be incredibly damaging to our economy and society, such as policy makes Labour rightly unelectable. And this rush to the extremes allows the Conservatives not to take in as many refugees as they should, knowing that public opinion is far closer to them than it is to Labour’s open borders position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.