The fundamental question: resettlement or repatriation?

Last updated on: November 17, 2015 at 8:52 am by Jane the Actuary

The fundamental question: resettlement or repatriation? 2015-11-17T08:52:17-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

By Voice of America News: Henry Ridgwell on Turkish border, “Refugees Flee Aleppo; Hot, Barren Turkish Camps Await”. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

I harped on this back in September, for instance, in a pair of blog posts on September 3rd and September 5th, and, it seems to me, elsewhere, too. The fundamental question we have to ask ourselves, and policymakers have to ask, and world leaders, generally, and then answer, and then act on that answer:

Is the long-term plan for Syrian refugees resettlement or repatriation?

Have we abandoned Syria and Iraq to ISIS, and war and chaos, and, even with respect to rump Assad-run Syria, oppression? Do we accept that the millions of refugees in refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon, and elsewhere, will simply be unable to return to their home country? If so, then, yes, we need to resettle them, much as millions of refugees from Indochina were resettled, mostly in the U.S., in the two decades after the fall of Saigon. It’ll be costly, yes, but necessary. But know that once we do, we cement the status quo in those countries.

Or do we believe that within a reasonable length of time, ISIS will be defeated, Assad will be removed, and those countries will again be places to which the refugees can be repatriated, in the same way as Afghani refugees were repatriated after the Taliban were ousted? In that case, resettlement is a lousy idea, not only due to the upheaval it causes on the receiving countries, but because those countries will be left without an educated class to rebuild the country.

At the same time, if repatriation is the policy objective, we can’t just sit on our thumbs and wait passively for the situation to resolve itself, or imagine that it’s “somebody else’s job” to deal with it. Who, after all, are these somebodies? The Syrians themselves, even the young men of fighting age? I suppose we should be grateful that they’re just leaving, rather than joining up with ISIS, but it is nonetheless the case that they aren’t staying to fight. Other Arab countries? From what I understand, Jordan is doing what it can, and the Kurds, as well, though we aren’t willing to send over arms, for fear of upsetting the Turks who hold a lot of cards, as it’s in their power to expel Syrian refugees and send them northwards.

I’m revisiting this today because of two must-read articles that appeared yesterday:

In the National Review, Mark Krikorian writes, “Refugee Resettlement is Immoral.” What he means by that is this:

[T]he goal of refugee assistance is . . . to assist as many people as possible with the resources available. And resettling a relative handful of them here to help us bask in our own righteousness means we are sacrificing the much larger number who could have been helped with the same resources.

The difference in cost is enormous. The Center for Immigration Studies, which I head, recently calculated that it costs twelve times as much to resettle a refugee in the United States as it does to care for the same refugee in a neighboring country in the Middle East. The five-year cost to American taxpayers of resettling a single Middle Eastern refugee in the United States is conservatively estimated to be more than $64,000, compared with U.N. figures that indicate it costs about $5,300 to provide for that same refugee for five years in his native region. Each refugee we bring to the United States means that eleven others are not being helped with that money.

In other words, each refugee we bring to the United States means that eleven others are not being helped with that money. Faced with twelve drowning people, only a monster would send them a luxurious one-man boat rather than twelve life jackets. And yet, with the best of intentions, that is exactly what we are doing when we choose one lucky winner to resettle here.

This is very important to recognize; read the whole thing, as they say. And yet this presumes that the situation in Syria and ISIS-held territory, in general, will be resolved favorably (or, to put it more appropriately, that somone will resolve it) without these people living their entire lives in refugee camps.

At the same time, Reihan Salam writes, “Resettling Syrian Refugees: An Alternative; Economic opportunity closer to home is better than a struggle to integrate abroad,” in which he observes that integrating millions of Syrians and other refugees and migrants into the European community is a tall order, indeed. The social spending required to achieve their economic integration is enormous (especially in light of their, on average, low education levels, and the existing high levels of youth unemployment in Southern Europe), and their social/cultural integration is doubtful even so, especially given how un-integrated Muslims already living in Europe (Germany, France, Belgium, Sweden, etc.) still are.

Salam shares a new proposal:

There is an alternative to large-scale refugee resettlement in Europe, though it poses many practical challenges of its own. In “Help Refugees Help Themselves,” an essay in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Alexander Betts and Paul Collier offer a plan that would resettle Syrian refugees closer to home. While hundreds of thousands of Syrians have sought refuge in Europe, millions have instead made their way to Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey. Some have found themselves in refugee camps; others have settled in cities, where they work illegally and lead a marginal existence. Betts and Collier offer a more sustainable solution: Instead of herding refugees into camps where they are forced to subsist on aid, they call for the creation of special economic zones. Essentially, a consortium of countries, including all of the major Western economies, would create financial incentives and trade concessions to spur industrial development in these zones, which would employ refugees and, in some number, citizens of the host country. Betts and Collier note that the Jordanian government has already established a number of industrial zones, one of which, King Hussein Bin Talal Development Area in the eastern Mafraq Governorate, is just 10 miles away from the sprawling Zaatari refugee camp. With its current infrastructure, KHBTDA can accommodate as many as 100,000 workers, but it currently employs only 10,000. If KHBTDA were reinvented as a special economic zone for Syrian refugees, Betts and Collier report that it could employ every worker in the Zaatari camp and only reach half of its full capacity. With the help of the international community, KHBTDA could become a hub for labor-intensive manufacturing and other kinds of productive economic activity. Ultimately, skills learned and firms established in these new special economic zones could be brought back to Syria once peace is re-established there.

Which, I’ll remind readers, isn’t all that different from my half-baked suggestion last January to use al-Sisi’s intention to take Egypt in a moderate direction by funding it as a great center for refugee intake.

Is this resettlement or repatriation? It attempts to be somewhere in-between — a viable solution for a longer period of time than a tent in a refugee camp, in which refugees are able to support themselves and have a “real life” with jobs and education and homes and communities, but in places where the ties are maintained so that repatriation is ultimately possible, even if only as a long-term goal.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 15, 2015

Starbucks? They're pikers in the War on Christmas

Next Post

November 17, 2015 5 favorite things about Elizabeth of Hungary

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the Roman emperor when Jesus was born?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Tiberius Julius Caesar Nero Augustus