Arguments For The Syrian Refugees

Saul’s article recognizes that the Syrian refugee crisis exists amidst citizen sponsorship, Aboriginal judgement, and disorder within EU countries’ immigrant policies. According to Saul, democracy in Canadian politics grants citizenship to immigrants without any obstacles. Canada’s immigration policies are transparent because they are balanced with civic participation. Saul thinks that multiculturalism is a forceful catalyst towards establishing equality and integrity for the refugees. In the first point, Saul does not agree that refugees should be privately sponsored and assisted by the government. In the second point, Saul indicates that Canada’s national identity is the product of the encounter between the Aboriginals and European settlers, which has resulted in citizenship. By entering the Inuit circle, immigrants can establish themselves as a strong unit not by having roots outside Canada, but by living with Canadian intellect. The immigrants should mold to nature because this is the way the Aboriginals have defined their understandings of life. As Sifton has noted, “the … government … made presentations … to potential immigrants, presenting beautiful images of the Rocky Mountains and thriving settled farmland” (475). In the last point, Saul comments on the European prejudices that are

As far as morals are concerned, humans have this undying need to help everyone, and the United States in particular has been thrusted into this role of the world’s “police,” and “savior,” but at what cost? Millions of refugees from Syria and Libya are pouring into neighboring countries seeking asylum. The only problem is that those countries’ economies, infrastructure, and resources cannot handle the influx of people, which is why the United States should help those countries out, financially, as to protect those refugees and protect those countries that don’t want the refugees to enter their borders.

On September of 2015, the image of 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi went viral. “The toddler’s lifeless body on a Turkish beach had reverberated across the globe” (Parkinson & George-Cosh, 2015). Aylan’s family had “fled the brutal civil war in their native Syria and only attempted the boat crossing after Canada denied their application of admission as refugees. The image led to an astonishing outpouring of support for Syrian refugees” (Hein & Niazi, 2016).

Destruction, violence, and chaos engulfs the lives of those in the Middle East, specifically in Syria. Since 2011 the country has been in disarray and consumed in a vicious civil war displacing millions of inhabitants of the region. Several countries have offered aid and asylum to these refugees, which raises the question: Should the United States (U.S.), a prominent world leader, allow Syrian refugees to seek asylum in their country? Several articles explore this question, including “Are Syrian Refugees Really a Security Risk? - Harvard Political Review”, “To Defeat ISIS, Know Thy Terrorist; Scorning Syrian refugees is doing ISIS a huge favor”, and “No vetting of Syrian "refugees" in Obama's "resettlement" invasion: the FBI says there is no way to vet incoming refugees and Senate and House chairmen blasted Obama for serious national security risks and economic costs of refugee policy”. The authors of the first and second article, Evan Bonsall and Kurt Eichenwald, argue that the refugees should be allowed asylum, while the author of the third article, William F. Jasper, argues against granting asylum. All of the authors employ complex rhetorical strategies including ethos, pathos, logos and other systems to explain their opinion and target their desired audiences.

Many U.S. citizens have no problem with Syrian refugees coming to America. According to both “Why America Could-and Should-Admit More Syrian Refugees.” and “Our Responsibility to Refugees”, The authors feel that The people of the United States are turning their backs on the refugees. In “Why America Could-and Should-Admit More Syrian Refugees.” the author says, “The United States has resettled over three million refugees, offering victims of persecution and conflict the opportunity to build a new life. Refugee resettlement is unequivocally safe. It would be wrong, both morally and politically, to curtail Syrian refugee resettlement, and why it is in fact both ethically imperative and politically expedient to instead expand U.S. commitment to refugee resettlement” (Long). This author sees nothing to fear from refugees. Furthermore, the writer of “Our Responsibility to Refugees” states, “The U.S. can do more and we must. Since 2011, more than 4.2 million Syrians have been displaced by war and violence, and fewer than 3,000 of them have resettled in the U.S. President Barack Obama has committed to resettling 10,000 Syrian refugees in the U.S. His administration needs to

Many people believe that the United States should not let Syrian refugees into the United States to escape war would damage the country’s safety and way of life, but the U.S. should allow them in because it provides these immigrants such as humanitarian aid, safer families, a well- rounded education, and a strengthened workforce. As the Syrian Civil War rages, ISIS bombs the Middle East, and Russia targets airstrikes, thousands of Syrian refugees flee their home and country with their lives. Children cannot go to school and parents are running out of money. They need aid, but in the war-torn cities there is little help that these people can find. Separated from their jobs, livelihood, and families, they can

The utterly diminished and persistently conflicted regime of Bashar Al-Assad has led to several forces, including numerous rebel groups, Kurdish forces, and even ISIL to occupy the war-torn country of Syria in a seemingly never-ending ruination. Most importantly however, it has also led to millions of Syrians becoming dislodged between the remnant regions with the deaths of roughly half a million citizens, according to the Syrian Centre for Policy Research, from a civil war that originated due to a series of protests and differentiating ideologies. The situation has lead for surviving Syrians, now properly known as refugees, to seek asylum in neighboring countries in Europe, but even including some countries as far as in the Western Hemisphere, particularly the United States.

There are 21.3 million refugees in the world, and with under-developed countries such as Lebanon and Turkey taking in millions of Syrian refugees, a well-developed country such as the US is clearly not doing their part.

The United States should continue take in Syrian refugees at a high rate because it is a humanitarian gesture for the people uprooted by war and crisis. The United States has been accepting refugees systematically since 1980, when the Refugee Act passed. The goal of the Refugee Act was to create a uniform procedure with which to provide these opportunities to refugees. Since early 2011, Syria’s civilians have been suffering from the effects of their country’s Civil War. The United States provides a safe haven for babies, kids, teens, and adults who are impacted by the war tragedy.

President Barack Obama has announced that the United States plans to take in 10,000 refugees. For many Americans, this is a number far too large, but others disagree. With millions of refugees leaving their home-country of Syria because of a civil war, many people wonder, is the U.S. helping as much with this dilemma as they can and should? Some countries have taken in so many migrants it’s caused a population spike, while others have done little or nothing at all. (Martinez) The United States has accepted only 1,500 Syrian refugees into its borders since civil war broke out four years ago (Edelman). When compared to the 4.1 million refugees that need our help, 1,500 is a pitiful number. Because this crisis is of such large proportions, the

Over 300,000 refugees are waiting at the borders of our country waiting to be accepted into our country. My question is why. Why would our great country want to weaken ourselves by letting illnesses and terrorism into our country, especially when they did not help us in the past? The United States should not accept refugees because of many reasons including terrorism, stealing jobs from U.S citizens and bringing sickness and unknown illnesses into our country. Hundreds and hundreds of terrorist attacks have occurred in our country the only blameable menace are us letting in refugees in. Thousands of refugees are working immediately, and illnesses are spreading to Americans in our country as soon as these refugees enter our country. Knowing all of these issues is it really worth letting them in?

Millions of refugees from Iraq and Syria have been forced to leave their home due to militarization and the increasing strength of the Islamic State (ISIS). As they escape the danger in their homeland, they are faced with yet another challenge of finding a country that can support them.

This isn’t a simple yes or no question. There are many factors that have to contribute to the decision about what is going to happen to these 11 million people who are struggling to find new homes and start over in a better place. Denying the refugees is essentially put their lives at risk. But at the same time, if we did welcome the Syrian refugees here, hoe could we afford this? I don't know of a fool-proof solution this problem, and I don't think anyone does yet. I do know that each side has pros and cons, both with consequences. I also know that this is a decision that could determine the fate of 10,000 people, and it needs to be considered

A refugee is defined as an individual who has been forced to leave their country due to political or religious reasons, or due to threat of war or violence. There were 19.5 million refugees worldwide at the end of 2014, 14.4 million under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), around 2.9 million more than in 2013. The other 5.1 million Palestinian refugees are registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). With the displacement of so many people, it is difficult to find countries willing to accept all the refugees. There are over 125 different countries that currently host refugees, and with this commitment comes the responsibility of ensuring these refugees have access to

Since 2011, Syria has been engaged in a Civil War with protestors against the government and members of the extremist group ISIS, and approximately 7.6 million people have been displaced from their homes (usnews.com 2015). As the conflict destroys more homes and livelihoods each year, an increasing number of civilians have been forced to leave Syria and try to find safety elsewhere. Already a contentious issue, the Syrian refugee crisis has awakened tensions, both economic and social as debate erupts over what to do with the refugees.In response to the crisis, while some countries like Germany have pledged to help the refugees, (New Statesman 2015 1) only 2,340 have been admitted. Clearly, more needs to be done in order to help the refugees. Although there are economic and population concerns to be considered, the humanitarian conflict that faces the refugees and solutions already available are reason enough for Europe to increase the numbers of Syrian refugees allowed in.