This blog post examines the balance we must consider between the humanitarian responsibility of accepting Syrian refugees and the safety of our own citizens and the economic burden.
Long ago, the suffering brought by dictatorship in Syria erupted into civil war. To make matters worse, the country became a primary target for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), causing significant turmoil both internally and externally. This has forced many Syrians to become refugees, sparking growing debate over whether neighboring countries, and indeed the entire world, have an obligation to accept them. Many people worldwide empathize with the refugees’ plight and express a positive stance on accepting them in their own countries and elsewhere. However, decisions on refugee acceptance should not be based solely on such emotional judgments.
First, let’s briefly examine the potential problems that could arise from accepting refugees. The Syrian refugee crisis is an unprecedented situation being discussed not only in neighboring countries but globally. Particularly, the challenges faced by multicultural nations may come to the forefront. Many countries already accept small numbers of immigrants, yet the problems arising from multicultural societies remain unresolved. Deep conflicts exist not only due to cultural differences—such as differences in food culture, gender culture, and etiquette—but also due to differences in ideology and religion. Accepting refugees based solely on sympathy and compassion without resolving these issues will only make the problems more severe. The chaos caused by accepting refugees risks spreading globally, not just remaining a Syrian internal problem.
In this context, one unique aspect of Syrian refugees is the religious dimension. Most Syrian refugees are Muslim, and Muslims have historically caused various problems both within and outside many countries. This stems from interpretations of the Quran, Islam’s holy scripture, that justify violence and killing against non-Muslims. Furthermore, the possibility that extremist groups like ISIL could infiltrate other countries disguised as Syrian refugees cannot be ignored. Indeed, there was an incident in Paris where ISIL operatives disguised as Syrian refugees carried out a terrorist attack, resulting in over 100 casualties. Even this single case demonstrates how accepting refugees based solely on humanitarian compassion can lead to horrific consequences.
Second, the state cannot proactively resolve refugees’ social integration issues. In a situation where refugees cannot resolve these issues themselves, nor can citizens step in to resolve them, their indiscriminate migration must be controlled. The problems arising because refugees are non-citizens are not simply due to cultural differences. People require basic necessities like food, clothing, and shelter. Refugees seek migration primarily to resolve these needs alongside security concerns. However, resources are finite. A large influx of refugees would increase the burden on welfare systems and public goods previously used by existing citizens. This could infringe upon assets enjoyed by citizens, making it problematic to permit refugee acceptance based solely on emotional appeals.
Of course, these arguments can be countered. One could argue that problems arising in a multicultural society require national-level solutions, and that if individuals also strive to resolve issues, harmonious coexistence is possible. However, this differs from the adaptation process of a small number of immigrants. When millions of refugees arrive simultaneously, such efforts cannot be enforced, and the burden of such efforts would be overwhelming.
Furthermore, the claim that religious differences and ideological conflicts among Syrian refugees could lead to problems like terrorism can also be partially countered. It can be argued that refugees do not hold significant power, and the Paris terrorist attacks were carried out by ISIL, not refugees. However, strengthening screening to distinguish refugees from ISIL members does not solve this issue. They are all Muslims, and their external characteristics are highly similar. If screening leads to rejecting some refugees, it could create the contradiction of sacrificing refugee rights for the safety of citizens. This could result in an outcome significantly at odds with humanistic principles, potentially making suspending refugee acceptance the only solution.
Finally, one might argue that refugees can solve the problem by becoming producers rather than consumers of resources. However, in modern society, competition is also necessary in the process of producing resources. Even if refugees become producers, the likelihood of society’s structure changing drastically is minimal. This is particularly evident in Europe, where millions of refugees struggle to find employment.
Those advocating for refugee acceptance emphasize a nation’s ethical responsibility from humanistic and globalized perspectives. However, this could pose significant threats to the safety of citizens, the nation’s structure, and its productive capacity. A nation’s foremost duty is to protect its citizens and maintain their quality of life. Therefore, the obligation of nations worldwide regarding the Syrian refugee crisis is not to accept refugees, but to help resolve the internal problems within Syria. Motivating refugees to overcome their problems themselves and providing them with opportunities to find new lives in their homeland would be the more appropriate solution.
