The crisis of Syrian migrants is one of the hottest potatoes in the media bucket today throughout the world. We wonder and worry about this particular phenomenon–what could be the outcome of this exodus? What forced these civilians to roam so far? Is there anything we can do for them? How should we handle the situation?
The war in Syria originated from the protest against the dictatorial Assad regime in the form of civil war. With the introduction of the Islamic State, however, a newfound religious conflict has continued to push many civilians to flee their homelands. Based on the logic of distance decay in the study of immigration, many immigrants choose to flee to the safest havens that are closest to their borders, based on the cost and affordability. Today, what we see on the news is the opposite of that; we see refugees seeking shelter in Europe, as far north as Scandinavia, putting that theory to the test. So why not seek help from their neighboring nations?
The reports revealed that most countries in the Middle East are saturated from the overwhelming number of refugees to take in more. While there are several factors and facets involved in calculating just how many refugees a country can take in, the biggest one is money. According to CNN Money report, Lebanon, one of the neighboring countries to Syria, spends 4.5 billion dollars annually to manage their refugee population of 1.43 million. Other countries expressed similar economic restraints in helping Syrian refugees. It is not that they are less sympathetic to the hardships of refugees, but rather the financial burdens are preventing them from contributing further to the effort. After all, it is a pretty heavy burden to take on a bunch of freeloaders with no trade skills, right?
In contrast to the popular belief that the majority of immigrants and asylum seekers are of limited education seeking job opportunities, most Syrian migrants today are from the middle class. Immigrating long distances generally involves people with considerable wealth who can afford the cost of travel. The International Business Times said, “Recent figures from the U.N. and other aid organizations, however, have shown that the majority of people arriving in Europe often come from upper middle class, well-educated backgrounds.” This hints at another set of troubles to the future of Syria, in that it is experiencing a severe case of brain drain, or the emigration of highly trained or intelligent people from a country. The major trouble of this trend is that it will increase the time it takes to repair a broken country, dragging down the rate of recovery and development. There also will be fewer people left to mitigate the worsening conditions from the atrocities committed at home, and be able to some day to return to a sense of normalcy, or a place without violence and death that can one day be called home by these people.
Now it is quite clear that the refugee crisis of Syria is a serious issue that requires help from many others around the globe, since they can’t solve it on their own. But there seems to be a lot of concerns over what impact this flight would bring upon other nations. Some worry that the further introduction of culturally distant Muslim populations could cause cultural instability and unrest. Europe is suffering from the negativity of immigration as the diversification of populations bring misunderstandings and social confusion–they worry about the increasing nationalism of Muslims that develop into terrorisms like the incident at Charlie Hebdo. Xenophobia is an unfortunately common, knee-jerk state of mind in response to the introduction of two cultures unfamiliar to one another, but it should not be used as a justification to reject those who are in need of help.
The fact that the majority of Syrian refugees are professionally trained and educated may prove to be a positive asset. They could contribute to the saturated economy over the continent with their potential for success, despite the serious issues surrounding immigration. There will be many costs to the management of refugees, but harmony will never come unless we fight for it. I think it is less beneficial to the whole to predetermine the possibilities of a better future based entirely on the past without at least giving it an honest try.
The Syrian exodus, in my opinion, is a natural phenomenon we have seen repeated before in history. European Jews escaped to America from Hitler and his holocaust, and Asian immigrants left their homelands to yield affluence in America, during the 19th century. Relatively speaking, it is difficult to ascertain just who exactly is a ‘native’ to any one land or geographical area. Many of us are the immigrants, and would have been considerably strange and dangerous to the already existing culture of the land. Yet, we all prevailed to achieve a remarkable record of moving forward together that we can be proud of despite all the challenge sand hardships we all endured and still encounter to this day. And, I believe we can achieve another victory in the same manner, this time with the refugees of Syria.
Should we give up the climb of the mountain of life, and not get the opportunity to see the sunset over everything we have succeeded over? Mankind has lived through a history of endless persecutions, fights, and struggles. Today is another page of the history book that is constantly being written; by looking forward instead of backward, we can continue the track of progress.
Do you agree with Hae Rin’s views on the current refugee crisis in Syria and elsewhere? Please send all comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
