perspectives on the admission of more refugees into the US

perspectives on the admission of more refugees into the US

Introduction

Over the years, the United States has taken pride in being one of the most diverse nations in the globe. Part of this has been its relaxed policies on entry of refugees into the country, especially those seeking refuge from countries experiencing political turmoil. An excellent example of the USA’s willingness to allow refugees into the country is the 2016 increment of the annual admission quota to 110,000 set in place by then-President, Obama. The stand by current president Donald Trump, however, has sparked a broad debate on the validity of allowing more refugees into the country, given America is already the country that allows the most refugees into the country, at least per the 2016 statistics. This essay compares perspectives on the admission of more refugees into the US.

National security

Those against the admission of more refugees into the country argue that refugees from war-torn countries are a threat to National security. Proposers of this argument cite that most refugees hail from countries such as Iran, Iraq, and Syria, which are well known for harboring terrorist groups. Allowing refugees from these countries, therefore, offers a chance for such groups to enter the country under the guise of seeking refuge, which can result in the reoccurrence of terror attacks such as 9/11. To keep the country safer, those citing security reasons, therefore, propose that refugees from such countries should not be allowed into the country, and America’s first obligation should be to its people.

Individuals on the other side of the divide, however, disagree that refugees pose a security threat. These people argue that refugees are some of the most vulnerable and harmless human beings, mostly women and children fleeing persecution from their countries. Furthermore, critics of anti-refugee sentiments argue that the country is well equipped to monitor and screen refugees seeking entry into the country. In case this is not the case, they propose that the country should heighten its vigilance and clearance level, which will enable the country’s security to identify and deal with terrorists masquerading as innocent refugees (Powell, 64). They further argue that there is no evidence of a mass terrorist attacks that have been planned and orchestrated by refugees in the US over the years, a situation which is unlikely to change with the admission of more refugees.

Fiscal impact

Another reason provided by those opposed to the admission of refugees into the country is the high fiscal cost involved. Refugees enjoy more government benefits than they pay in taxes, thereby resulting in net fiscal cost. The net –fiscal result often result from policies that limit the economic involvement in key economic sectors coupled with few refugees that possess job skills (Powell 57). They are thus unable to cater for most of their daily wants, necessitating government interventions and burdening the country’s citizens whose contribution they consume. To remedy this, opponents of refugee admission advocate for stringent laws that minimize the entry of refugees into the country.

Those in support of refugee admission into the country, however, argue that refugees do not necessarily impact the fiscal cost as implied above, but rather the fiscal impact depends on factors such as the type of public goods consumed by refugees. For instance, the consumption of non-rival public goods by refugees such as defense and street lighting, additional taxpayers in the form of refugees reduce the tax cost without adversely affecting the quality of the good (Powell 53). In the case of a non-rival public good; therefore, refugees lower the tax burden and have a positive fiscal impact. For rival public goods such as housing, food, and health care, advocates of refugee admission recommend quicker integration and relaxation of laws that enable refugees to earn a living, thereby reducing their reliance on government welfare. Providing refugees with employment opportunities and allowing them to use their skills to make a living will ensure that they contribute their share fair of taxes according to those in support of refugee admission.

Livelihood

There is also the argument that refugees should not be allowed into the country as they threaten the livelihood of American citizens. According to this argument, refugees are often desperate and tend to work for wages lower than what the ordinary American citizen would deem acceptable. As a result, employees in various sectors may prefer refugees to American citizens in a bid to reduce production costs and reduce profits. Proposers of this theory, therefore, argue that if the issue of refugee admission is not looked into, refugees and other immigrants will take over employment in most sectors, leaving Americans with no jobs.

Those on the opposite side of the argument, however, argue that refugees do not pose a threat to American Jobs since they are monitored by refugee agencies, ensuring their terms of payment are equal to those of American citizens. Additionally, they argue that many refugees are hardworking and entrepreneurial who end up creating employment for the American citizens rather than competing for jobs. They cite examples such as Jan Kuon, a Ukranian immigrant who is also the founder of Whatsaap and Chamath Palihapitiya CEO of social capital and part-owner of the Golden state warriors. It is estimated that refugee entrepreneurs earn an aggregate income of approximately $4,600,000,000.Those in support of refugee admission, therefore, view them as a human resource that is needed to drive the US economy ((Grace et al. 43). Additionally, they will be able to repatriate part of the income to help those in their countries of origin, which reduces the need for foreign aid by the US in such countries.

American culture

Another argument against allowing refugees into the US is that they will corrupt the social and cultural fabric of America since they will adopt their original lifestyles in their new country of residence. This is negative, especially where the cultures are retrogressive. This theory is founded on the argument that refugees are hard to assimilate, especially because most of them come from countries that are loyal to their beliefs and practices. The institutions in danger, according to proponents of this theory, are the English language and the capitalistic principles that define America.

Those in support of refugees, however, refute the argument regarding cultural interference by the refugees. They argue that America is a melting pot of diverse cultures and ethnicities, and therefore no single term can be used to define the American culture. Those on this side of the divide also exude confidence in America’s institutions’ ability to withstand existential threat pointing out that they have endured previous waves of migration, most recently the influx of the Spanish-speaking population. They also argue that refugees form a tiny proportion of the total American population, and they are too fragmented to effect a substantial culture change. Studies further show that refugees tend to adjust to existing norms rather than change and that they are also likely to settle in countries that support their fundamental ideas and beliefs. Instead of adversely affecting the American culture, refugees add to the diversity that is American culture, according to those in support of their admission.

Conclusion

A comparison of the perspectives regarding admission of refugees into US broadened my viewpoint on the topic. First, I got to learn the social-political and economic impact of allowing refugees into the country. For instance, I learned that although we mostly consider refugees to be an economic burden, with good planning and proper policies, we can harness their potential to improve the American economy by allowing them to work and start businesses that employ and serve locals. I also discovered that refugees have a positive impact on the consumption of non-rival public goods. If not well managed, however, increased entry of refugees can result in an influx of cheap labor, which can threaten the livelihood of locals. On the social aspect, I learned that refugees hail from diverse regions, and their entry into the country serves to enrich the American culture rather than take away from it. My take, therefore, is that the government should allow a reasonable number of refugees into the country while also being proactive in embracing policies that lessen the negative impact of refugee immigration. This will serve both the interest of the refugees and the host nation.

Works Cited

Grace, Breanne L., et al. “The Right to Belong (If You Can Afford It): Market-based Restrictions on Social Citizenship in Refugee Resettlement.” Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 31, no. 1, 2017, pp. 42-62.

Powell, Benjamin. The Economics of Immigration: Market-Based Approaches, Social Science, and Public Policy. Oxford UP, USA, 2015,pp.50-79