The American Refugee Crisis

The American policy of Marshall Aid sparked both huge appraisal and significant opposition, and to this day it is debated whether it was purely a policy of self-interest and an imposition of America’s political and economic views on a weak and vulnerable Europe, or alternatively one of the greatest acts of altruism and generosity in modern history. It was enormously successful, ‘It was the most unambiguously and triumphantly successful of all America’s post-war policies’ , and helped to create a foundation on which Europe could become an economic power. While there were benefits to America which may have been interpreted as attempts to increase American power and inflamed opposition to the Marshall Plan, the administering of economic aid

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.

Weber’s second solution is “Restoring the Balance.” Weber explains that the United States continues “dissuading potential competitors from challenging the United States, its allies and partners.” In other words “More American power is always better.” George Kennan brought this problem to the world’s attention in the 1940’s, when he suggested a European country rise to restrain the

First and foremost, a great deal of Europe’s success would not have happened without its initial aid from the United States. After helping destroy so much of the continent, the U.S. pumped billions and billions of dollars back into the European economy through The Marshall Plan. It was named after Secretary of State George C. Marshall, who said “The world of suffering people looks to us for leadership. Their thoughts, however, are not concentrated alone on this problem. They have more immediate and terribly pressing concerns where the mouthful of food will come from, where they will find shelter tonight, and where they will find warmth. Along with the great problem of maintaining the peace we must solve the

Should america let refugees in the us. I think that refugees should not be allowed in the usa and they should be kicked out of the us because nearly 44% of america are non english speakers that used to be18% so non english speakers are slowly over powering us americans and they will soon kick us out of our country we should kick them out and keep them out for america's sake.

In the beginning, there were perhaps as many as 4,000 Kickapoo. However, by 1660 almost all the Algonquin peoples were living as refugees in mixed villages in Wisconsin. Intermarriage and mixed populations made exact calculations impossible. A federal Indian agent during 1825 believed there were 2,200 Kickapoo, but he acknowledged that only 600 of them were actually on the Missouri reserve. 200 were still in Illinois, and at least 1,400 more were dispersed between Missouri and Mexico. In 1852 there were 600 living in Kansas, but 300 then departed for Mexico soon afterwards, followed in 1862 by 100 more. The approximately 800 Kickapoo who returned from Mexico, starting in 1873, were sent to live in Oklahoma. Oklahoma and Mexican Kickapoo have

The dilemma regarding the American refugee policy and America’s stance on refugees at this point in time is a challenging topic for many to discuss. Not only is this controversy affecting Americans, it is also hurting refugees in desperate need of our help. America needs to start handling the emerging refugee crisis by first working to remove the stereotype associated with refugees, then the U.S. needs to assess which refugee countries should (if any) actually be banned, and after accomplishing those-- America needs to work to help the countries in need by letting refugees in, and working to help the refugees live happily in their country of origin.

Since World War II, America has often been considered and called upon to serve as the world’s policeman. But is it a role we have performed effectively – and perhaps more importantly, is it one that we should continue to play? With opinion polls showing the American people’s overwhelming reluctance to serve a military role in foreign countries, it is time to consider whether the title of “world’s policeman” is one we should keep. Studying American interventions in the world since WWII offer some lessons and insights into both America’s desire – and ability – to police the world, and leads to the unavoidable conclusion that we are the only nation capable of preventing the all-too common atrocities, genocides and acts of aggression that destabilize continents and create untold human suffering.

Marshall proposed the extension of massive economic assistance to the devastated nations of Europe, saying that the policy of the United States was not directed “against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the existence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.”

It is apparent that the age in which we live, given how advanced technology is today, allows for easier and faster communication than what has ever been available for humans. Growing up in an age of advanced technology has exposed us to the conditions and state of unity in other countries. Given this, it is profoundly ironic that Congress, an organized body, would have such difficulty in passing laws based on refugees throughout the nearly eight year tenure of Barack Obama. The continuous debates in Congress over the residence of refugees reveals that America, the country that once was the very definition of unity, is now

The refugee crisis is a hotly debated and controversial topic all over the globe relevant to today. The rising number of refugees arriving in the European Union has significantly increased throughout the past few years. The controversy comes from not the refugees themselves, but from where they are emigrating from. Coming from extremely hostile and dangerous countries operated by the Islamic State militants, there is a sense of hysteria from the opposing side saying that there are risks that need to be factored in when accepting such a large amount of people from places where there are high concentrations of terrorism into their home countries. On the other side of the argument, the advocates for refugees are proclaiming that as humans we have moral obligations to give the quintessential helping hand to humans whenever one is in need, regardless of their situation or circumstances. Through social activism these proponents are seeking to

The difficult conclusion must be that neither burden-sharing nor diplomacy will end this crisis, that migrants will continue to come in very substantial numbers, and Europe will continue to blunder along, torn between concern about their suffering and fears about a future different from the one we had until now imagined. overcrowded refugee centers and local authorities and police stretched to their

In addition to the issue of national security, another factor that accounts for the controversy on the refugee crisis is the perplexing relationship between economic stability and the basic standards of humanity. Many Europeans are living under precarious conditions and thus, they lack the time and money to spare. Consequently, many Europeans think of Muslim migrants less as refugees but as “competitors with similar levels of prospects” (“Eastern Europe's Crisis of Compassion”). The concern over economic instability is also plays a role in the Turkish accession to the European Union (EU). Many Europeans are anxious about Turks immigrating to Europe in search of jobs when the unemployment rate in Europe is already so high. Moreover, Europeans

As shown above, refugees have very good reason for fleeing, but that doesn’t fully answer the question of why countries such as the United States of America should help them. There are many moral reasons why first world countries such as the United States of America who can handle accepting and supporting these refugees should do so. The first and most important reason why is imply that by doing so, the United States of America would be saving the refugees lives. In Syria there is a high chance that they will die, and it is also likely that they will die on the grueling trip away from Syria. Being accepted into first world countries like the United States of America is likely one of the only things that can save them. Some will argue that this

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.