In this blog post, we examine the balance we must strike between our humanitarian responsibility to take in Syrian refugees and the safety of our own citizens, as well as the economic burden this entails.
Long ago, the suffering caused by dictatorship in Syria erupted into civil war. To make matters worse, the country became a primary target of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), leading to significant chaos both within and outside the nation. As a result, many Syrians have become refugees, and controversy is growing over whether neighboring countries—and indeed the entire world—have an obligation to accept them. Many people around the world empathize with the plight of refugees and take a positive stance toward accepting refugees, both in their own countries and abroad. However, decisions regarding refugee acceptance should not be based solely on such emotional judgments.
First, let’s briefly examine the potential issues that could arise from accepting refugees. The Syrian refugee crisis is an unprecedented situation being discussed not only in neighboring countries but globally. In particular, the challenges faced by multicultural societies may come to the forefront. Many countries are already accepting a small number 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, sexual mores, and etiquette—but also due to differences in ideology and religion. If refugees are accepted solely on the basis of sympathy and compassion without resolving these issues, the problems will become even more severe. There is also a risk that the chaos caused by accepting refugees will spread globally rather than remaining confined to Syria.
In this regard, one of the unique aspects of Syrian refugees is the religious issue. Most Syrian refugees are Muslims, and there have been instances in the past where Muslims have caused various problems both within and outside many countries. This is because the Quran, the Islamic holy book, is interpreted as justifying violence and murder against non-believers. Furthermore, the possibility that extremist groups like ISIL could infiltrate other countries by disguising themselves as Syrian refugees cannot be ignored. In fact, there was an incident in Paris where an ISIL member disguised as a Syrian refugee carried out a terrorist attack, resulting in over 100 casualties. Even looking at this single example, it is clear how accepting refugees out of humanitarian compassion can lead to devastating consequences.
Second, the state cannot take the lead in resolving the issue of refugees’ social integration. In a situation where neither the refugees themselves nor the general public can resolve the issue, their indiscriminate migration must be controlled. The problems arising from the fact that refugees are foreign nationals, not citizens of the host country, do not stem solely from cultural differences. People require basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter, and the reason refugees seek to migrate is precisely to resolve these issues alongside security concerns. However, resources are limited, and a massive influx of refugees would place a heavy burden on the welfare systems and public goods previously utilized by existing citizens. This could lead to an encroachment on the assets enjoyed by citizens, and permitting the acceptance of refugees based solely on emotional appeals could become problematic.
Of course, these arguments can be countered. One could argue that problems arising in a multicultural society require efforts to resolve them at the national level, and that if individuals also strive to resolve them, people can live in harmony. However, this is different from the process by which a small number of immigrants adapt. In a situation where millions of refugees arrive simultaneously, such efforts cannot be enforced, and they would also impose an excessive burden.
Furthermore, the argument that religious differences and ideological conflicts among Syrian refugees could lead to problems such as terrorism can also be partially refuted. One could argue that refugees do not hold significant power, and that the Paris terrorist attacks were carried out by ISIS, not by refugees. However, this issue cannot be resolved simply by strengthening screening processes to distinguish between refugees and ISIS members. This is because they are all Muslims, and their physical characteristics are very similar. If some refugees are rejected through screening, a contradiction may arise where the human rights of refugees are sacrificed for the safety of citizens. This could result in a situation that greatly contradicts humanistic principles, and ultimately, suspending the acceptance of refugees might become 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 necessary even in the process of producing resources. Even if refugees become producers, there is little chance that the structure of society will change drastically. This is particularly evident in Europe, where millions of refugees are unable to find jobs.
Those in favor of accepting refugees emphasize the ethical responsibility of the state from a humanistic and globalist perspective. However, this could pose a significant threat to the safety of citizens, the structure of the state, and its productive capacity. A nation’s most important duty is to protect its own citizens and maintain their quality of life. Therefore, the obligation of nations around the world regarding the Syrian refugee crisis is not to accept refugees, but to help resolve the internal problems within Syria. A more appropriate solution would be to motivate refugees to overcome their problems on their own and provide them with opportunities to build new lives in their homeland.
